# How Do We Define "Classical"



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I brought this issue up on another classical music site relative to the "non-classical" music we were listening to. Among my collection of music I have folk songs arranged by Vaughan-Williams, compositions by Chopin, Brahms, Beethoven, Bartok, etc... inspired by... or based upon folk music and dances. I have medieval music that in many ways might be defined as "folk music". And then I have music such as Balinese Gamelan, Indian Ragas, Japanese Shakuhachi, etc... Do we define these as "classical"? If so... what makes them different from Celtic Music or the other folk musics of Europe or traditional Bluegrass... or even Jazz, pre-corporate Rock, Gospel, Blues... or Some Guy's beloved techno-"noise"? What make Satie or Gerschwin "classical" and not Ellington? And if Ellington IS "classical", why not Elvis or Frank Sinatra?

This should lead to some interesting discussion... if not debate.:lol2:


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Classical is composed by individuals. It does not change. It is considered art and a higher form of expression than pure entertainment.

Folk music can composed by more than one person. It can change, be played in different arrangements. It's purpose is entertainment and cultural identity.

Short answer: Classical = Art, Other music = entertainment.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

This was discussed milion times before.

Anyway:

I would define classical music as spine of European musical culture. Classical music is not music from 100, 200, 300 years ago, it's music that evolved from tradition, tradition that begins with early music (renaissance, baroque) and hopefully will continue as long as people (or world, I can imagine classical music continued by mosquitoes, chinchillas or rabbits) will exist. 

So what makes classical music classical is coming straight from tradition which adopted all the best things about European music - instruments, kinds of ensambles, musical forms and structures, philosophies and aesthetics. 

The spine grow into new moss all the time (what a metaphor, gentlemen!), so it's often difficult (or impossible) to tell if the new thing belongs to classical music or not while it sprouts. Maybe it's sad, maybe it's unjust, but we can tell it for sure after generation passes away. 

In Ravel's and Debussy's times people were not certain if they are classical composers. Now we can tell it for sure. It depends on whether new thing will became part of this long-bearded tradition or not, if the classical genre will absorb, accept and digest it.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

But I am entertained by Beethoven, and I see a GWAR performance as art... 

Formerly, I'd see anything that cannot be classified as anything else as 'Classical'. If it does not fit in:


Jazz
Ragtime
Folk
Avante Garde
Rock & Roll
Blues
Swing
Anything else

...then it was Classical.

Now, I don't know necessarily that music can be lumped into definite classifications, period. When symphonies can be composed with electronic trance influence, or concertos composed with jazz influence, or rock concerts performed with full orchestras, where do we draw the line? I could take a rock song & arrange it into a chamber music or orchestral setting. Is it still rock?

I sometimes read people on this message board define 'film music' as a genre, yet film music can be beautifully orchestrated, or it can be rock & roll, jazz, swing, electronic, or any mixture of the above.

Sometimes I wonder if there's some sort of human instinct to lump everything into solid categories (music, race, clouds, etc.) and if that instinct is a boon or a bane...


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2010)

I know how beloved St's strawmen are, but how he even found the straw to make up "Some Guy's beloved techno-'noise'" is beyond me. 

It's true that some of the music I listen to is referred to descriptively (i.e., not derogatorily) as "noise." 

But none of the music I listen to could by any stretch be called "techno." Just not something I like at all. Might as well have said "Some Guy's beloved country-western 'avant garde'".

Otherwise, this discussion will generate quite a lot of heat, I'm sure, just what we need in these cold summer months, but very little light. And any light will be quickly extinguished, I'm sure. But let's just see....

First of all, especially for those who have this vision of the slow and steady progression of "classical music" from ancient times, when was the term "classical music" first coined? (Extra credit: where was in coined? and, since this board is conducted mostly in English, when did the term get to England?)

Second, for those who inevitably bring up the "Classical Era" in conversations of this sort, what were Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven called by their contemporaries?

Third, which kinds of music that we call "classical" today were not considered classical when the term was first coined?

And fourth, for those who are only interested in what the word means (can be made to mean) today, what is the cost, intellectually and philosophically, of retrofitting various musics written before the term was coined to be "classical"?

Otomo Yoshihide has very little in common with Josquin de Prez, but more with him than with Justin Timberlake. I wonder, however, if anyone but a record producer or a music store would have any real need to have a category which covers both Otomo and Josquin but excludes Justin. A need beyond having heated arguments, that is.

For real heat, I would think the "good" and "bad" categories would be much more productive!!


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

some guy said:


> For real heat, I would think the "good" and "bad" categories would be much more productive!!




Short answer: Anything that features Will Smith a.k.a The Fresh Prince = good music
Anything that doesn't feature Will Smith = bad music.



> But none of the music I listen to could by any stretch be called "techno


You love the hardcore Belgian techno scene.

Check it out:




Now what's the difference between eRikm and that?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

It's really a spectrum, but we have to try to categorize in order to communicate.

For me classical music may have certain attributes that do not necessarily define it, but the more of these attributes it has, the closer to classical a piece is on the spectrum. For instance:

1. It is often (but certainly not always) played with piano, bowed strings, and a few other acoustic instruments. I hasten to add that I get angry at people who hear a violin and assume it must be classical however. Likewise synthesizer does not equate to pop. These are merely vague rules of thumb.

2. A strong beat may be slightly less important in classical than in other genres, hence drums (or percussive-like sounds if the piece is electronic) are used as accents rather than as the backbone of a piece.

3. Overall form or structure may be more important in classical and also the clever manipulation of form and structure whereas other genres may have simpler structures to quickly get the idea across.

4. It is more often a direct descendant of the Western music tradition begun with Gregorian chants or maybe even descended from the Greek and Roman traditions.

5. It is often more than 100 years old - or if it is less than 100 years old it is not aiming for mass market appeal.

etc, etc. I'm sure you can think of a number of other attributes. So the more of these attributes present the more firmly on the side of classical I would categorize a piece. The dividing line is often arbitrary even in my own collection, where I put Keith Emerson's Piano Concerto into my classical lists, but Emerson, Lake and Palmer are not. Wendy Carlos gets ranked among the classical composers but Vangelis does not, though both have made fine electronic soundtracks.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I agree to all said so far. It really is about style.

The opposite of "classical" I would call "popular," because it doesn't have the same lasting impression on many generations the way "classical" does. Sure, there is "classic pop," that is, popular music that becomes classic, but then that would be differentiated from classical music by its style.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> Classical is composed by individuals. It does not change. It is considered art and a higher form of expression than pure entertainment.
> 
> Folk music can composed by more than one person. It can change, be played in different arrangements. It's purpose is entertainment and cultural identity.
> 
> Short answer: Classical = Art, Other music = entertainment.


What about Brahms and Schumann's collaborations? You'd be hard-pressed to call that folk music.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2010)

Argus said:


> You love the hardcore Belgian techno scene.
> 
> Check it out:
> 
> ...


You can't be serious. How much eRikm have you heard? (Do you really find any of his stuff even remotely like that Belgian techno???)


----------



## Grosse Fugue (Mar 3, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I agree to all said so far. It really is about style.
> 
> The opposite of "classical" I would call "popular," because it doesn't have the same lasting impression on many generations the way "classical" does. Sure, there is "classic pop," that is, popular music that becomes classic, but then that would be differentiated from classical music by its style.


 Remember that classical used to be "popular" Peasants would hum the arias of Puccini. To me the style of music discussed here is Western music (but not always by western artists or composers)that is in a certain tradition. We can draw a line with developments in Baroque taken into "classical" and beyond, with further developments and reactions along the way.

Also I would say to a certain extent classical is whatever it is understood that a person means when they say classical. Usage decided meaning I would say.

There are classical traditions in other cultures but when most people, even outside the West, say 'classical' they mean Bach and Beethoven and the rest of them. We are getting into a very technical area. For the most part we all know what is meant by the statement,"Bellini was a classical composer who is now decomposing."

I can't believe I made that joke on a classical music forum


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Short answer: Classical = Art, Other music = entertainment

From what I have gleaned, a great deal of what we define as "classical music" was intended primarily as entertainment. But by being entertainment we do not exclude the possibility of something also being art. Shakespeare, by all accounts, was quite entertaining... and popular enough as an entertainer to retire quite wealthy. _The Magic Flute_ is eminently entertaining... does that make it lesser art?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I would define classical music as spine of European musical culture.

So Indian music, Japanese music, Gamelan, etc... are not "classical music"... perhaps mere "ethnic music"? And those composers who break from the European tradition? Wouldn't that include Schoenberg, Berg, Cage, Glass, Murail, etc... as well as Ellington... perhaps in some ways more than Ellington? So we must wait to see what the European tradition... if such survives... accepts of the music of the last 100 years? But then again... isn't something like American Bluegrass deeply rooted in music from the British Isles... or are we suggesting that only some of the European tradition counts as "classical"? So how do we clearly define that?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

For real heat, I would think the "good" and "bad" categories would be much more productive!!

But hasn't Argus and others (I hesitate to say yourself) suggested that there is no "good" nor "bad" ("but thinking makes it so"?)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I agree to all said so far. It really is about style.

The opposite of "classical" I would call "popular," because it doesn't have the same lasting impression on many generations the way "classical" does. Sure, there is "classic pop," that is, popular music that becomes classic, but then that would be differentiated from classical music by its style.

How do you define that "style". There is a world of difference between Perotin, Mozart, Wagner, Schoenberg, Gerschwin, Penderecki, Philip Glass, and Osvaldo Golijov. If we suggest that we can only define something as "classical" music if it survives... (How long exactly? Elvis, Duke Ellington and hank Williams still resonate with an audience that is probably quite a bit larger than the audience for Gesualdo or Monteverdi)... are you then suggesting that Philip Glass, John Cage, Penderecki, Ligeti, etc... do not qualify as "classical" composers?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Within my own discipline of visual art we have an equivalent term, "fine art" which is generally understood to mean painting, sculpture, architecture... art as ART... not commercial art, applied art, decorative arts, illustration, etc... And yet... there are all of these overlaps. Daumier's and Toulouse-Latrec's, and Goya's and William Blake's "illustrations" are clearly "fine art". Matisse's magnificently decorative paintings are certainly "fine art". There are endless examples of ceramics, metalry, and other applied art that are unquestionably works of "fine art". Even R. Crumb is recognized by no less an eminent art critic as Robert Hughes as "fine art"... the Bosh and Breughel of our time. So I wonder how we draw the line in music.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

some guy said:


> You can't be serious. How much eRikm have you heard? (Do you really find any of his stuff even remotely like that Belgian techno???)


If I use my attribute list strictly this would probably be classical. The "beat" is not the backbone of this piece. In fact most people would be hard pressed to find the rhythm at all. Also it certainly has very little mass market appeal. Hence this moves it more toward what I would call the classical end of the spectrum. However if I should wake up one day and find it had mysteriously appeared in my collection, I would still put it in a non-classical category, perhaps experimental electronica, for the purposes of compiling random playlists. If I'm wanting to hear some "classical," this may not be what I have in mind, though I might very much want to hear it when I'm in the mood for something experimental, as I often am.

It's a tough call, but at the end of the day it probably doesn't matter that much what we call it. I think we are moving into an exciting time for the arts when the boundaries blur and the horizons have opened up to infinite possibilities. It makes cataloging difficult, but I embrace the challenge.


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

I think most people who study music professionally call the complex, non-vernacular musics of India and Indonesia "classical" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_classical_music, or heck, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_art_music_traditions).

I agree with the general sentiment that this is a matter of taste and (inevitably) somewhat perfunctory definitions. An alternative way of thinking about the issue is to consider classical/art music as a way of listening rather than a category for pieces to be included some musics of supposed cultural cachet at the exclusion of others. In this case, classical is the act of dedicating attention to matters of construction, style, meaning, etc. Which is to say, I suppose, that Beethoven's Grosse Fuge isn't "classical" when it's being listened to as background music for a dinner party, while Eminem is classical when someone takes his lyrics, vocal inflections, choices of samples seriously.

Then again, I'm also of the more straightforward mind that classical = music in the tradition of literate musicians of Europe, along with their attendant institutions (sources of training, patronage, performance, preservation, and criticism). I think the "literate" part is something a lot of people might still agree with. This does not rule out spontaneity, of course (with the rich tradition of improvisation blah blah), but the scales are tipped in favor of music that was planned ahead of time. And things get fuzzy when electronics are introduced, naturally.

...Or, classical music is music played by classical musicians in classical venues for classically-inclined listeners

...Or, classical music is what Stamitz wrote.


----------



## munirao2001 (Mar 2, 2009)

I am posting the relevant part of my article 'Karnatic Music, Tradition and Enlightenment', which appears in the article section, as given below:

"The music is only of three categories-Good, Bad and Ugly. The need for identity and clear under standing resulted in the classification of folk, light and classical. Except by choice and intention, music in general, consists of all the three classifications, in different measure and intensity. Purpose of music and the three bench marks for excellence are:
1)	Pandita ranjakatvam – Pleasing the learned.
2)	Pamara ranjakatvam – Pleasing the lay listener/rasika.
3)	Pandita-Pamara ranjakatvam – Pleasing both the learned and lay listener/rasika
The third category is the ideal and the test of quality in music. The listening, appreciation and support vastly varies for the kind of music-classical, light and folk. Appreciation and support to classical form of music is restricted and not popular, when compared with other forms of music.

The classical music has evolved from the creative thinking of the highest order, to improvise and attain perfection, to give the ultimate, intellectual satisfaction, from the tribal-folk-devotional (temple/church/worship) music. Theory and practices of classical music knowledge was created by the great masters for the learning, practicing, achieving excellence and giving opportunity to enrich the knowledge through the practitioner’s own creative out put. The performer’s offer of music of immense values, strictly adhering to the science and art of classical music, delivers total intellectual and emotional satisfaction to the listeners/rasikas.

In the Indian music context, there are Nibidha-restrictive, bound by the theory and grammar and Anibidha- not bound by the theory and grammar – tribal, folk, devotional and light ( sugama, lalitha, gamaka, vachanas, abhangs, keertans, gazals, film, etc) musical forms are anibidha. They have the unfretted freedom to imagine, create construct and offer music, which is having novelty, striking rhythm, raw emotions, sensual, easily appealing and pleasing, without or with the knowledge and practice of theory and grammar, unrestricted. With the freedom and no restrictions, compositions have been created with clever and cheerful play and medley on the note(s), ragas (melody) and talas (rhythm), in the anibidha music. In this vast body of knowledge and compositions in anibidha Indian Music, one can find the compositions having the distinct quality of jumping, shifting and keeping the base of the classical music on the ragas, talas and pitches. This anibidha Indian music has many common features of World-tribal, folk, worship, and devotional music. The authors and composers of Indian classical music, developed the nibidha classical music, with clear rules and do’s and don’ts (can and can not) and gave music parts, where the creativity is synonymous with the character of total understanding, deep appreciation, unalloyed joy, love, dedication and commitment to bring out the classical excellence of the original creator, uncompromisingly, with their flame burning 
-2-
and with the passion of the original creative moments, in all its splendor and masterly compositions, every time. They have also created music parts, where the full scope of the performer’s own creative treatment and improvisations can be offered, with imagination and performing disability only, as limitations. The nibidha Indian classical music,( may be even, world classical music) by intent, choice, design and construction, avoided the unrestricted and unscientific musical forms to give distinct, clear, repeatable, reproducible, identifiable, ennobling and music with highest goals and values.

The nibidha Indian classical music should be correctly understood, as inclusive, not exclusive. We should not arrive at quick and uninformed conclusions that they are not yet fully developed, fully capable, fully accommodative, abhor innovations and needs updating! Thus, classical Indian music-both Hindustani and Karnatic-may appear to be highly conditioned to those who have not correctly and totally understood the theory and practices, but it is evolved to offer highest intellectual, ultimate satisfaction and bliss, with total freedom to enrich the knowledge."

What is written about Indian Classical Music, is equally applicable to Other Classical Music Systems also.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> So Indian music, Japanese music, Gamelan, etc... are not "classical music"... perhaps mere "ethnic music"? And those composers who break from the European tradition? Wouldn't that include Schoenberg, Berg, Cage, Glass, Murail, etc... as well as Ellington... perhaps in some ways more than Ellington? So we must wait to see what the European tradition... if such survives... accepts of the music of the last 100 years?


Schoenberg and Berg didn't totally break from tradition, not more than Bach, Ludwig Van or Wagner did. They contributed to it with their inventions, that's all. Cage and Glass - well, it is fresh thing. I'm not sure about this matter, but I'm afraid that minimalism and stuff will probably become shameful stain on history of classical music.



> But then again... isn't something like American Bluegrass deeply rooted in music from the British Isles... or are we suggesting that only some of the European tradition counts as "classical"? So how do we clearly define that?


What I meant was *universal* European tradition, tradition that all (or most of) European nations contributed to. It is tradition liberated from folk and ethnic music.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

some guy said:


> You can't be serious. How much eRikm have you heard? (Do you really find any of his stuff even remotely like that Belgian techno???)


Errr, no. I guess you didn't detect the tone of my post or understood the use of smileys.

I'll be less subtle next time. I would have thought the first half of my post would have hinted that I wasn't taking this thread seriously. Or do you agree with my Will Smith premise.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Schoenberg and Berg didn't totally break from tradition, not more than Bach, Ludwig Van or Wagner did.

Tonality is a common element of all the classical composers. The break away from tonality is a far larger break than anything by Beethoven and Wagner... let alone Bach, who is not a great innovator but a master at taking existing forms to their penultimate, unheard of levels. In a sense, Schoenberg's break from the tradition is just as great as that of Picasso and ultimately abstract painting. There is a reason that the merits of Schoenberg are still the subject of heated debate 100 years after the fact... not Beethoven, not Wagner... not Stravinsky or Bartok even.

Cage and Glass - well, it is fresh thing. I'm not sure about this matter...

Then how can you be sure about Ellington, Miles Davis, or Elvis?

I'm afraid that minimalism and stuff will probably become shameful stain on history of classical music.

And there are those who are just as certain that Schoenberg, Berg... even Bartok and Stravinsky are already no less than a shameful stain on the history of "classical music". Personally, I quite like a great deal of Minimalist works... and other bits of contemporary music. So who decides what is or is not to be included as part of the tradition? If time is a key element... exactly how long are we talking? Was Mozart not part of this tradition until a good 50 or 100 years after his death?

What I meant was *universal* European tradition, tradition that all (or most of) European nations contributed to. It is tradition liberated from folk and ethnic music. 

What "universal" tradition? And how do you define "classical" music as that which is liberated from folk and ethnic traditions when these various traditions continually inform and inspire the music of "classical" composers?

It would seem to me that one key element of what is commonly referred to as "classical" music is that it has been recorded... transmitted to others... even future listeners... through the means of a written score. Of course this means that improvisation is lost... an element not lacking in the original performances of Baroque and other "classical" music. It also leaves us with the question about music of other traditions such as Indian... or Jazz in which improvisation is a key element. With the advent of recording technologies, it has become possible to record and transmit improvised performances. How, for example, do we justify the notion that Ravel and Gerschwin and Kurt Weill could draw heavily upon elements of Jazz... or Cage, Reich, Takemitsu and others could draw upon traditions of various Asian, Indian, and Middle Eastern musics... and yet these musics are defined as existing outside of the confines of serious "classical music"?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Purpose of music and the three bench marks for excellence are:
1) Pandita ranjakatvam - Pleasing the learned.
2) Pamara ranjakatvam - Pleasing the lay listener/rasika.
3) Pandita-Pamara ranjakatvam - Pleasing both the learned and lay listener/rasika

But as we see here, there are learned listeners who find some Jazz, some Pop, some Bluegrass, some Heavy Metal to be pleasing... while few among the lay listeners would garner any pleasure from Ligeti, Cage, Xenakis, etc... That would seemingly suggest that Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, and the Beatles musical achievements might just be greater (Pandita-Pamara ramjakatyam) than that of such "classical" composers as Cage and Xenakis.


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

A bit off topic, but since it's being discussed...



Aramis said:


> Schoenberg and Berg didn't totally break from tradition, not more than Bach, Ludwig Van or Wagner did. They contributed to it with their inventions, that's all.


A bit of an overstatement ("that's all") but I generally agree that the 2nd Viennese School was equal parts evolutionary as revolutionary. Certainly the members (_especially_ AS) thought of themselves, and measured themselves, as strongly in the tradition of the 3 B's+RW. This goes even so far as their believing they were direct inheritors of their legacy and that their innovations were _necessary_ and _inevitable_ products of the trends inherent in art music, especially towards the end of the 19th century. Despite the huge aural gulf between, say, _Verklarte Nacht_ and the _5 Little Piano Pieces_, the road to German atonality does seem quite clear in retrospect, with ample precedents at the turn of the century even in less trailblazing composers like Zemlinsky or Schreker. I like to think of the atonalists as Romantics to the nth degree. And focusing on the harmonic differences in the 2nd Viennese risks downplaying the sometimes quite conservative nature of their formal and orchestrational technique (even when it is deeply self conscious and/or satirical).



Aramis said:


> Cage and Glass - well, it is fresh thing. I'm not sure about this matter, but I'm afraid that minimalism and stuff will probably become shameful stain on history of classical music.


Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion about the value of the minimal repertoire, but it's a well established style (going on 50 years now) that is included in all music history textbooks in the same (ideally) value-neutral way that other once controversial styles are. Inclusion, of course, is a value judgment in itself, but minimalism fits too perfectly into narratives of 20th century music history that I can't imagine it going anywhere. Also, Cage is not generally considered a minimalist, despite his sometimes spare (sonically and conceptually) compositions. Minimalism *is* classical music, but for many, it also is popular, accessible, and crossover-ready music. I don't see a contradiction there.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Tonality is a common element of all the classical composers. The break away from tonality is a far larger break than anything by Beethoven and Wagner... let alone Bach, who is not a great innovator but a master at taking existing forms to their penultimate, unheard of levels. In a sense, Schoenberg's break from the tradition is just as great as that of Picasso and ultimately abstract painting. There is a reason that the merits of Schoenberg are still the subject of heated debate 100 years after the fact... not Beethoven, not Wagner... not Stravinsky or Bartok even.


Tonality was common element of all classical composers. Pre-Schoenberg composers gradually walked aways from it - his music is the final step.



> What "universal" tradition? And how do you define "classical" music as that which is liberated from folk and ethnic traditions when these various traditions continually inform and inspire the music of "classical" composers?


Yes, folk and ethnic traditions had impact on classical music, but so did jazz - does it mean that classical music depends on percentage of jazz in it? What I'm saying is that universal European tradition began when local folk traditions resolved universal ways (eg. early forms, like madrigal, chorale); folk influences that later occurred were like water or ice in alcohol drinks - whiskey was invented as one of alternatives for drinking water, you can dilute it with it, but pure water has little to do with alcoholic drinks.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2010)

Argus said:


> Or do you agree with my Will Smith premise.


Indeed I do!!!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I brought this issue up on another classical music site relative to the "non-classical" music we were listening to. Among my collection of music I have folk songs arranged by Vaughan-Williams, compositions by Chopin, Brahms, Beethoven, Bartok, etc... inspired by... or based upon folk music and dances. I have medieval music that in many ways might be defined as "folk music". And then I have music such as Balinese Gamelan, Indian Ragas, Japanese Shakuhachi, etc... Do we define these as "classical"? If so... what makes them different from Celtic Music or the other folk musics of Europe or traditional Bluegrass... or even Jazz, pre-corporate Rock, Gospel, Blues... or Some Guy's beloved techno-"noise"? What make Satie or Gerschwin "classical" and not Ellington? And if Ellington IS "classical", why not Elvis or Frank Sinatra?
> 
> This should lead to some interesting discussion... if not debate.:lol2:


I think I might try to answer this question based on "empirical evidence"; that is, based on the observable characteristics of the genre that many of us here would normally describe as "classical music".

I think it somes down to two criterias,

(1) It has lasting value, usually because it depicts the human condition that transcends both time and culture (think a Japanese layperson in 2010 enjoying a Bach church catanta, even though he/she may not speak Baroque German nor believe in the same God as Bach did).

(2) It has some artistic value that those studying it will recognise that it's not just another routine piece that posterity may want to forget. This is the point why many scholars are rediscovering the marvels of a forgotten composer/work, say a forgotten Vivaldi opera not performed for three centuries. Often, this is linked directly to the point above.

Is music by _The Beatles_ classical music? I think it may well be, if folks in a hundred years time still find it as relevant as it did back when such music was first performed.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

(1) It has lasting value, usually because it depicts the human condition that transcends both time and culture (think a Japanese layperson in 2010 enjoying a Bach church catanta, even though he/she may not speak Baroque German nor believe in the same God as Bach did).

(2) It has some artistic value that those studying it will recognise that it's not just another routine piece that posterity may want to forget. This is the point why many scholars are rediscovering the marvels of a forgotten composer/work, say a forgotten Vivaldi opera not performed for three centuries. Often, this is linked directly to the point above.

Is music by The Beatles classical music? I think it may well be, if folks in a hundred years time still find it as relevant as it did back when such music was first performed.

This largely mirrors my own thinking. Of course the criteria of "lasting value" makes it impossible to offer a more objective opinion of contemporary music... but in some ways this is where I was coming from. I don't question the merits of Penderecki or Ligeti or Glass (I quite like much of what I have heard of each)... but I don't accept the notion that Penderecki or Ligeti or Xenakis or Cage clearly represent the classical music of today... to the exclusion of Hovhaness, or Ned Rorem or Daniel Catan... let alone Ellington, Miles Davis, or the Beatles... just as I question the acceptance of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart to the exclusion of the contributions of Chinese, Japanese, Indian (etc...) composers/musicians. Perhaps I'm coming around to what I believe was Some Guy's suggestion that we avoid all labels and simply call it *music*.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> This largely mirrors my own thinking. Of course the criteria of "lasting value" makes it impossible to offer a more objective opinion of contemporary music... but in some ways this is where I was coming from. I don't question the merits of Penderecki or Ligeti or Glass (I quite like much of what I have heard of each)... but I don't accept the notion that Penderecki or Ligeti or Xenakis or Cage clearly represent the classical music of today... to the exclusion of Hovhaness, or Ned Rorem or Daniel Catan... let alone Ellington, Miles Davis, or the Beatles... just as I question the acceptance of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart to the exclusion of the contributions of Chinese, Japanese, Indian (etc...) composers/musicians. Perhaps I'm coming around to what I believe was Some Guy's suggestion that we avoid all labels and simply call it *music*.


Excellent. To judge whether a newly composed piece is today's classical music or not, is indeed difficult. Sometimes, we can be fairly sure that a piece is very unlikely to be so, such as that helicopter string quartet garbage, whose composer I don't recall. Future generations may well forget Mozart, but given the evidence thus far for over two centuries, and that if we think the two criterias I wrote above seem reasonable, then we would plausibly say today that it is extremely unlikely Mozart will ever be forgotten; that it is classical music today, and also for as long as man have ears to listen to sounds.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Of course the criteria of "lasting value" makes it impossible to offer a more objective opinion of contemporary music...


Only if one has been thoroughly seduced by the glamour of antiquity, the thrill of thinking that this piece that thrills you today was written hundreds of years ago, in a time very different from today.

That is a very seductive notion, but it needn't totally obscure other realities. One of those being that for any individual listener, _any_ piece can achieve "lasting value" just by satisfying over repeated listenings. And, if you think about it, that's how each individual experiences the value of Beethoven's _Eroica_ or Bach's _Mass in B minor,_ by listening to them over and over again with undiminished (and often increased) pleasure.

Does anyone enjoy a piece simply on the say-so of the people who used to live here? Do you really just blindly believe these now deceased people's judgments on their own, without testing them with your own ears? And, in the end, the only valid experience of anything is with your own senses and your own mind. Sure, you may find confirmation of your experiences in like-minded people, but the experiences of others are no substitute for having experiences of your own.

I'm not saying a collective judgment is bad. It's just what it is and not something else. And it seems so often in conversations of this sort, that it's presented as something else than what it is, a guide or a confirmation.* I've listened to Bach's _Mass in B minor_ dozens of times. That's how _I_ know it has lasting value. I've listened to Otomo Yoshihide's _Turntable Solo _dozens of times. That's how I know that it _too_ has lasting value. You not only don't have to wait for the judgment of posterity, you simply cannot. You'll be dead by then.

You're alive now. Enjoy music now.

*It may also be a judgment of you. If you cannot appreciate Bach's _Mass in B minor,_ though all these people have appreciated it for centuries, there may be something awry with your listening apparatus. Similarly, if you cannot appreciate Otomo Yoshihide's Turntable Solo, even though you now know of at least one person who has heard it and appreciated it, there may be something awry with and et cetera. But as long as you don't substitute your individual experiences for "objective reality," if there is such a thing, or for accurate and trustworthy descriptions/judgments of the pieces themselves, then your blind (deaf) spots are innocuous. I have not been able to test the collective judgment that Chopin's music is great on my own ears. Other people over the years, have found that his music is great. That's how collective judgments are formed. I can't test it for myself with my own ears, which means I simply don't have anything to say, aside from what I just said, about Chopin's music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I just think that classical is basically notated music (using the bars & staves, etc) whereas much of the other music has more improvisation. Of course, there's also improvisation in classical (eg. cadenzas are sometimes that way), but more often than not, classical is "set in stone," it is more or less immutable, whereas other styles can change more over time. No matter who is performing say a Beethoven piano sonata, whether it was Beethoven himself or someone from today, they are all basically playing the same notes (but obviously with their own individual interpretation). Miles Davis was very critical of this aspect of classical, he said that it's mechanical and soulless, but that didn't stop him from arranging classical works like Rodrigo's _Concerto de Aranjuez_. Is his version of that work classical, the same as say guitarist John Williams? There are some similarities, but many, many more differences, I think. The same way that Peter Breiner's arrangements of Beatles songs into Baroque concertos for string orchestra are more classical than pop or rock, the parts for each player are written down on the page & they can't change much when they perform those works. But don't let "sound" deceive you! I have an album from the gitanes/universal "Jazz in Paris" series - Kenny Clarke Sextet plays Andre Hodeir, done in 1956. It sounds, tastes and smells like jazz, and played by jazz musicians, but it's not jazz! Hodeir meticulously scored EVERYTHING, from Clarke's solos to those of the other musicians. So no matter how improvisatory that great album sounds, I would say it's more classical than actual jazz. In the same way, some of the stuff that the Kronos Quartet have done is more jazz than classical, no matter what the medium. But I don't compare the relative "value" of any of these, I think that Art Tatum, George Shearing or Thelonius Monk were just as great as say Gilels, Horowitz or Ashkenazy. It's all good, no matter if it's classical, rock, folk or jazz, etc...


----------



## munirao2001 (Mar 2, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio
Pleasing both the learned and lay listener is considered the best. 
If music, with excellence can only satisfy the learned, music becomes elitist and need not become popular. The quality of music with excellence has the intrinsic ability to deliver satisfaction even to the lay listener. It stimulates and motivates the lay listener to learn music for better appreciation of its true, high values and maximization of satisfaction, if not deriving total satisfaction.
If music, with excellence can only satisfy the lay listener and does not satisfy the learned, the quality of such music, even if it becomes popular, mostly has temporal values and can not be time tested and ever lasting.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Andre said:


> Miles Davis was very critical of this aspect of classical, he said that it's mechanical and soulless, but that didn't stop him from arranging classical works like Rodrigo's _Concerto de Aranjuez_.


--what Miles referred to as "that robot ****." LOL His collaborations with Gil Evans are wonderful (as is much of his work).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Andre said:


> Miles Davis was very critical of this aspect of classical, he said that it's mechanical and soulless, but that didn't stop him from arranging classical works like Rodrigo's _Concerto de Aranjuez_.


To an extent, Davis was right. Remember the point I made a little while ago about improvisation? Musicians and composers from the past were great improvisors. Numerous compositions and motifs were born out of improvisation. The art of improvisation is now pretty much non-existent amongst classical musicians, or at least to the extent that folks probably used to do, during say Mozart's time.

How many classical performers here would genuinely improvise a candenza?

Take a moment to view these fascinating clips. Three consecutive parts, just over 20 minutes in all:-


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Very broadly and with many grey areas I would take classical to mean following in a 'written' tradition whereas pop, folk, jazz are primarily from an aural and oral tradition.

The term classical when applied to Literature (Greece and Rome) Art (the Renaissance) and Music (that era that actually only covers the period from roughly Haydn through Beethoven) means.....

Those works and periods to which future generations begin to look back on as a model or reference point.

Before the 'classical' period in music, people were generally listening to contemporary composers but 
the generations of composers that followed began to look back to Mozart and Beethoven as models and later they re-discovered Bach etc.

The zenith of 'classical' music has been held to be, by generations of composers and critics the works of Haydn Mozart and Beethoven.
When Mozart 'discovered' Bach the latter's music had a great influence on him. But the genral public had to have Mendelssohn to champion of Bach before his work started to be performed again.

Brahms, used Beethoven as a model. Tchaikowsky- Mozart,

If a composer sees himself in a particular _lineage_ then that is how he will define himself.

Some composers straddle two traditions, Ellington, Gershwin for eg.

I believe that a composer must have studied and absorbed and mastered the techniques of the works of whatever lineage he/she belongs to.

Ligeti is in the 'classical' lineage for example


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Semantics,semantics,semantics. There are those who prefer to call classical music "art music", but unfortunately, this is a term loaded with baggage,and can lead people to assume that what we call classical music is "arty" and pretentious.
Yes, sometimes the traditional music of India and other non-western countries is called "classical", but I suppose that classical music,or western classical,is still a useful term for the kind of formalized music which had its origin in Europe centuries ago.
Miles Davis was unfortunately guilty of judging western classical music by the standards of Jazz.
He failed to realize that while the notes are basically unchanging, there is still an enormous amount of interpretive leeway available to performers in the western classical tradition.
You could compare this to the plays of Shakespeare or other great playwrights; actors all speak the same words in the lines, but there are an infinite variety of ways that they can inflect the lines for meaning, plus the use of gesture and facial expression.
It's the sdame with the music of Mozart,Beethoven,Bach,Brahms and other composers.
Aniother difference between classical and popular music is that classical music is not meant for casual entertainment, although composers such as Haydn and Mozart wrote much music that was meant merely to create a pleasant diversion for aristocrats while dining.
Classical music requires active listening and close attention to understand. You don't listen to Beethoven's late quartets the way you listen to Madonna or Britney Spears.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Yes, Harpsichord, I know that there are a number of current classical musicians keeping the tradition of playing improvised cadenzas alive and well. Like Robert Levin, and Lynn Harrell as well. But maybe in some ways, I am a traditionalist (you'd probably be surprised at this). When it comes to concertos where the composer did not write in a cadenza (eg. in Haydn's _Cello Concertos_), I think it's fine for a performer to play his/her own one. This may be improvised or not. But I don't like it when the composer has already written a cadenza or authorised one (like the Brahms/Joachim partnership) and then a contemporary performer disregards that and plays his/her own cadenza. I'm ok with this, as long as the cadenza "fits in" to the general tone of the piece. I was at an Australian Chamber Orchestra concert last year, and pianist Dejan Lazic played his own cadenzas in the Beethoven _Piano Concerto No. 4_, instead of Beethoven's own cadenzas. I felt that Lazic's cadenza was too loud and sounded more like Brahms than Beethoven. So in that case, I would have preferred him not to do that, but simply play what's already there. I said to my friend afterwards, if Beethoven's own cadenza was good enough for Rudolf Serkin, it should have been good enough for Lazic (?).

But basically, I think the meaning of "improvisation" is misunderstood by many people. We might see an elaborate improvised cadenza played by someone like Levin in concert which lasts for say 5 minutes, but do we see the years of study, hours of practice, and also actual composing that he definitely would do to be able to do it live (or on a recording?). It's the same with jazz or rock, these musicians only "learn" to play big improvised solos after years of dedication to their art. So I think that in a sense there is no true "improvisation," even in a Cage or Lutoslawski piece, some things are left to chance, but many (more?) others are not...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Another difference between classical and popular music is that classical music is not meant for casual entertainment...

I'm not certain that other musical forms are any more or less intended as "entertainment". Certainly a vast amount of "classical" music was composed for specific occasions: masses, requiems, oratorios, ballets to celebrate a wedding here or a visit from some foreign dignitary there. The opera, the ballet, etc... all seem to have been composed with the intention of entertaining an audience. Because a work is "entertaining" is no reason to suggest the work is shallow... or may not hold deeper "meaning" or values. The same may be said of the best of jazz or any popular musical form.

You don't listen to Beethoven's late quartets the way you listen to Madonna or Britney Spears.

But is the comparison fair? You are comparing an unquestionably profound body of music... one of the towering achievements of "classical" music with what almost no one would suggest is an example of pop music at its finest. Surely there are classical composers that one might listen to as little more than wallpaper... and there are works of popular music that greatly reward repeated hearings and contemplation.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Yes, I remember hearing Dionne Warwick talking about how complex some of Burt Bacharach's songs really are, in terms of rhythmic changes especially. I agree that not all popular music is cheap or shallow, just as not all classical music is deep or profound...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

superhorn said:


> .
> Aniother difference between classical and popular music is that classical music is not meant for casual entertainment, although composers such as Haydn and Mozart wrote much music that was meant merely to create a pleasant diversion for aristocrats while dining.


True about what many classical composers did with many published music they wrote. There were many pieces published as opus sets; musically delighful pieces for non-virtuosic musicians of their time. Regardless, these pieces have still become classical music of today, simply because they are works of art that transcend both time and culture, even though these pieces were originally for casual entertainment/dinner music/_Tafelmusik_.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Andre said:


> Yes, I remember hearing Dionne Warwick talking about how complex some of Burt Bacharach's songs really are, in terms of rhythmic changes especially. I agree that not all popular music is cheap or shallow, just as not all classical music is deep or profound...


The song 'Alfie' is a case in point. Inventive and beautiful right to the end.






Very rough sound but the best version.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> True about what many classical composers did with many published music they wrote. There were many pieces published as opus sets; musically delighful pieces for non-virtuosic musicians of their time. Regardless, these pieces have still become classical music of today, simply because they are works of art that transcend both time and culture, even though these pieces were originally for casual entertainment/dinner music/_Tafelmusik_.


Yes, I remember reading that Brahms didn't give his _Hungarian Dances_ (origninally for violin & piano, I believe?) opus numbers, because he didn't consider them to be as significant as his other works. Funny how audiences have disagreed, and cherished these pieces ever since. Like more "serious" classical works, these dances were highly influential on other composers, including Dvorak, who followed suit with two (I think?) sets of _Slavonic Dances_. & many people know what Brahms said after hearing his friend Johann Strauss II's _Beautiful Blue Danube_ waltz - he said he wished he had composed it himself! So if something is lighter, it doesn't mean it's less harder to compose (or of lesser value) than the most profound symphony, opera or oratorio...


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

I had a thought about this earlier today.

It seems that popular music is performance-centric, meaning you really have to have the specific recording on audio media or see the specific performer perform it (live, recorded, etc.) to actually observe the work. Once a work moves past that, and can be performed by any capable and appropriately skilled musician(s) and enjoyed, recognized, etc., it moves into the realm of 'Classical'.

For example, if you hear a rock & roll song, it was probably one specific recording of the song. That same recording may have found its way into a movie, or into a DJ set, or whatever, but it's still the same recording, performed by the original musician. If it were a different recording, such as a live recording, it was probably still performed by the original musician(s).

In contrast, if you hear George Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue', it might be any number of orchestras, under the direction of any number of conductors, or it might be any number of pianists, including George Gershwin himself. All can be fully enjoyed by the listener without any specific performer(s) being present (provided the performance is not terrible, of course).

So what if 'Classical' can be defined as music not requiring a specific performer or performers to be present, or a specific recording or recordings to be played, to be enjoyed? That's not to say that certain Classical performances can't stand out above the rest - that means that a work doesn't require a specific performer or performance to be enjoyed...

Non-Classical: Performance-centric
Classical: Music-centric

Food for thought!


----------



## Grosse Fugue (Mar 3, 2010)

dmg said:


> I had a thought about this earlier today.
> 
> It seems that popular music is performance-centric, meaning you really have to have the specific recording on audio media or see the specific performer perform it (live, recorded, etc.) to actually observe the work. Once a work moves past that, and can be performed by any capable and appropriately skilled musician(s) and enjoyed, recognized, etc., it moves into the realm of 'Classical'.
> 
> ...


What about cover songs or tribute bands?


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

dmg said:


> Non-Classical: Performance-centric
> Classical: Music-centric
> 
> Food for thought!


Just to play devil's advocate: There are bands that do covers of songs, and sometimes they become quite popular in their own right, distinct from the original recording. Examples: Joe Cocker's rendition of "A Little Help from My Friends," Aretha Franklin's cover of "Eleanor Rigby," Johnny Cash's versions of-- well, a lot of things, but namely Nine Inch nails' "Hurt" (better than the original IMO), "How Can You Mend a Broken Heart" (I don't even know who did this song first: the Bee Gees or Al Green?), Patti Smith's cover of Van Morrison's "Gloria," Madonna's cover of "American Pie," etc. There are numerous other instances.

By and large, there is a strong identification of a song with a very particular performer, but there are some notable exceptions and its not uncommon for bands to do covers. And many singer soloists don't even write their own material, but are written by teams of songwriters that have never even met the performer (they don't even know who or if anyone will perform them).

I just wanted to bring in that aspect to consider.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

I actually thought of that - so if covers of the Beatles songs are played for decades after all of their deaths, and the deaths of everyone around when they were, would we call that Classical?


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

dmg said:


> I actually thought of that - so if covers of the Beatles songs are played for decades after all of their deaths, and the deaths of everyone around when they were, would we call that Classical?


Yeah, but usually when a cover of a rock song is done, it sounds quite different from the original. Some extreme examples: Aretha Franklin's "Eleanor Rigby" is almost unrecognisable from the original-- quite good-- more in the style of an uptempo spiritual; Madonna's cover of "American Pie" is, if I recall, all electronic. Johnny Cash's cover of Rusty Cage is radically different from Soundgarden's original). Even less extreme examples usually have some notable differences from the originals. Rock covers have more in common with jazz standards in that regard, where a song is re-done in a totally new way (change the tempo or meter, substituting chords, different instrumentation-- this is far more than the equivalent of a transcription).


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Classical music has a written 'text', a score which exists in it's own right whether it is ever performed or not. Like a play.
In popular music (because it has no score except an after the fact simplified song book chart) the text is really the original performance.

Whether a piece of music is rearranged, recorded, or performed by someone else is neither here or there surely.

What is interesting is where Musicals/ Show tunes lay in relation to classical or pop.
What is The Threepenny Opera, West Side Story, anything by Sondheim? They have scores, are played by orchestras yet Weill and Bernstein excepted, the composers are not considered classical.

Maybe the whole question is a red herring, impossible to define. (?)


----------



## Grosse Fugue (Mar 3, 2010)

Would you consider this drinking song by Henry Purcell, classical?





If not why?If so why?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Grosse Fugue said:


> Would you consider this drinking song by Henry Purcell, classical?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An excellent question.

I think the only possible answer is that, of _itself_ it is not any more/less classical than Elton John, Burt Bacharach or Schubert who all 'set' words of others.

However because of Purcell's other work you'd have to class him as a 'classical' composer.

Artistic labels of any sort are always vague and imprecise.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Classical music has a written 'text', a score which exists in it's own right whether it is ever performed or not. Like a play.

But what was the purpose of that "text"? It seems that it's primary _raison d'etre_ was to record the music... preserve it... and make it available for others. This would seem to be the prime reason for electronic recording technologies as well. Now what of music composed prior to the development of musical notation? Is there a clear line drawn between the work of the court composer prior to written music and immediately thereafter? And what of the improvised works of "classical" composers? Are you suggesting that what Beethoven improvised before an audience was not "classical"?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Improvisation is interesting subject of this whole thing. I once stated somewhere in this forum that Keith Jarrett sounds to me like classical music more than jazz, then our fellow member Bach (R.I.P) stated that it's certainly jazz because it's all improvised. Only this, because I remember no other argument cencerning Jarret's music that would prove that it is jazz. And yet you always have this almost cliche argument: but Chopin, Liszt, Paganini, they all improvised, sometimes even by most of their concert time. Was this jazz? :<


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Classical music has a written 'text', a score which exists in it's own right whether it is ever performed or not. Like a play.
> 
> But what was the purpose of that "text"? It seems that it's primary _raison d'etre_ was to record the music... preserve it... and make it available for others. This would seem to be the prime reason for electronic recording technologies as well. Now what of music composed prior to the development of musical notation? Is there a clear line drawn between the work of the court composer prior to written music and immediately thereafter? And what of the improvised works of "classical" composers? Are you suggesting that what Beethoven improvised before an audience was not "classical"?


Unfortunately nothing is ever straight forward and labels are sometimes convenient but most often very unsatisfactory.
I would say that a written score is like a play. It is a set of directions for performers. A recording _is_ a performance.
We can only guess what music may have sounded like before written notation.
When Beethoven improvised he was, if you like, talking off the top of his head.
He may have thrown up some amazing things and come up with some great ideas. This is not the same process as setting out to compose a sonata. Perhaps a fantasia would come close to having an improvisatory character. But nothing that he would give an Opus number to, would have been anything else but worked and reworked.

There is no completely satisfactory definition for _Classica_l or for that matter _Jazz_ or even_ Art._

It is more a question of how the composer sees him/herself or more particularly sees a given piece of their music. Bernstein for example has written what could be considered classical works but I doubt if anyone considers 'On The Town' a classical work.
Actually it is _classic_ Broadway!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

When Beethoven improvised he was, if you like, talking off the top of his head. He may have thrown up some amazing things and come up with some great ideas. This is not the same process as setting out to compose a sonata.

It isn't? Does the composer always begin with the clear idea that he or she is writing a piano sonata or a symphony? That is not the idea I get from what I know of music.

Perhaps a fantasia would come close to having an improvisatory character. But nothing that he would give an Opus number to, would have been anything else but worked and reworked.

This is perhaps true of Beethoven, who notoriously labored over his compositions... but what of Mozart? What of Bach working at the speed of lightning to complete the required weekly cantatas? And are we assuming that approaching a work of art spontaneously inherently results in something lesser than the labored over work? Might we not recognize that Van Gogh's rapidly executed paintings... or those of the Chinese and Japanese Zen painters are approached in a spontaneous manner that is not unlike some forms of jazz (and I use the word "some" here because it should be recognized that not all jazz was improvised). How great is the gap between Erik Satie and Gerschwin... or Lennie Tristano?

I initially raised this question for the very reason that the term "classical" carries a certain connotation of aesthetic superiority... not unlike "classic literature". Historically, certain examples of folk or popular music have been absorbed with time into the canon of what is defined as "classical music". As recording technology has broken down the barrier that prevented the musician who could not read music from recording/preserving/transmitting his or her creations, I am led to wonder what among the music of today will survive... will essentially become part of the canon of "classical" music, and I somewhat doubt that many of the more esoteric and experimental forms of Modernism are any more likely to survive than certain examples of what is dismissed by many as merely "popular music".


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> When Beethoven improvised he was, if you like, talking off the top of his head. He may have thrown up some amazing things and come up with some great ideas. This is not the same process as setting out to compose a sonata.
> 
> It isn't? Does the composer always begin with the clear idea that he or she is writing a piano sonata or a symphony? That is not the idea I get from what I know of music.


No it isn't. And yes if the composer has no clear idea what they are setting out to do then they are heading for trouble. The composer may have sketches and fragments of ideas and then later decide to incorporate them into compositions but that is different.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Perhaps a fantasia would come close to having an improvisatory character. But nothing that he would give an Opus number to, would have been anything else but worked and reworked.
> 
> This is perhaps true of Beethoven, who notoriously labored over his compositions... but what of Mozart? What of Bach working at the speed of lightning to complete the required weekly cantatas? And are we assuming that approaching a work of art spontaneously inherently results in something lesser than the labored over work?


Mozart was writing at a time when much of the language and form of a composition was a 'given'. His particular genius was the ease with which he could produce examples of unsurpassed beauty and balance seemingly as "the sow pees". However he was pouring these into a predefined 'mould'. Sonata forms, rondo, variations. etc and probably the most elemental and simple universally harmonic 'language'. You can bet that the contrapuntal passages in the Jupiter symphony required plenty of 'working out'.
Nothing wrong with being spontaneous. But how about a novelist or playwright inventing a story for an audience off the cuff. It may be great but if the said writer intends to publish it as a novel or play it is going to need work.
Beethoven wrestled with his compositions because he was breaking or hugely expanding the moulds he inherited from his predecessors.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Historically, certain examples of folk or popular music have been absorbed with time into the canon of what is defined as "classical music". As recording technology has broken down the barrier that prevented the musician who could not read music from recording/preserving/transmitting his or her creations, I am led to wonder what among the music of today will survive... will essentially become part of the canon of "classical" music, and I somewhat doubt that many of the more esoteric and experimental forms of Modernism are any more likely to survive than certain examples of what is dismissed by many as merely "popular music".


Popular/folk/jazz music have their own own trajectory. There will be recordings looked upon as classics in the future but they are not in the 'classical' cannon.

The thing about Jazz in relation to these posts is this:

Great Jazz is about the _performance _not the text. The text, a popular song of the day for example- John Coltrane playing 'Favourite Things', is a springboard and a harmonic template for the soloist to improvise over. 
The nearest equivalent I can think of the cadenza in a classical concerto. Once upon a time ( Mozart's) the soloist, if it wasn't the composer, could 'take a solo' over what started off as just a cadence-two chords. Later the section became expanded and composers more and more wrote their own cadenzas fearing that the soloist may go too far 'off message'. The cadenza is most often the flashiest but compositionally the least interesting part of the concerto.

Jazz is only as good as it's soloists. Beethoven's piano works - for example- exist in the text and if they are played well or badly they are great works.

Another analogy is the Baroque da capo aria where on the repeat of the first section the singer was free to elaborate, show off, improvise and decorate the written melody. Again, that section is not the significant part of the song though it may have pleased the audience ( if the singer was very good).


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

In the beginning God created music to divided human being ....;P

-----

Actually to me it is more simple. There are two definitions of 'classical' to me, first is everything that composed in Europe during these period :
1. Renaissance
2. Baroque 
3. Classical
4. Romantic
I excluded Medieval music and think I will put them under folk music (don't worry this can change later).

In this music I bet that on paper we still can distinquised Mozart's to Chinese folk music, base on structure, complexity, scale and music theory. I also think the music still very different from the Beatles, or Jazz. But for European folk music perhaps there is similarity but still 'classical' music will be more complex in music theory than folk music.

Then the second definition of 'classical' is only refered to 'classical' tradition. This is where I think everything composed after 20th century. In this time the music alone already too diversed, on paper or on ear to extreme case, we can't differed whether it is 'classical' as in first category or something else. Think about : 4'33", Tan Dun's Paper Concerto or anything by Xenakis (bloody hell!).

In this category the term 'classical' attached to the music mainly for refering that they followed the tradition set by the first category. Example, Tan Dun still utilized orchestra and violin to accomodate his bizzare music, rather than using synthesizer. The music alone is hard to categorize already. There is also many world music that sound like classical, but because they did not use the setup the 'classical' guys using ,they are not put under 'classical'.


----------



## janne (Apr 13, 2010)

*The differences between classical music and popular music.*

I think most of us would agree that classical music and popular music are two very separate things. However, it seems to very hard to put words on the differences. Can they be explained ?

I know this topic has been discussed by people for years but i could not find a suitable thread on this forum, so lets see if this thread can develop into something interesting.
I also know that this topic keeps popping up in a lot of other threads so it seems to be of interest to many users.

Since I'm the thread-starter I would like you to follow a few rules (make your own thread if you don't respect this). 
Do not post one-liners in this thread, please.
Do not use words such as "better", "worse" or "greater" as explanations, please.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Any good?

http://www.talkclassical.com/9467-how-do-we-define.html


----------



## janne (Apr 13, 2010)

Opal said:


> Any good?
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/9467-how-do-we-define.html


Yes, I think so.
This thread can be deleted.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Yes, classical and popular music are certainly very different.
Pop music consists for the most part of short songs sung by pop singers and stars.
But much of classical music is purely instrumental, although vocal music is a very important part of classical. 
Classical works are often much longer and more complex, and require careful listening to understand. The harmonies tend to be much more complex,as well as the rhythms, and for example,a symphony is not just a medley of tunes, but an extended work in which themes undergo complex metamorphoses in the course of several movements. 
Pop singers sometimes use orchestras, but many classical works use much larger orchestras and feature a wider variety of instruments. 
Classical music is not meant just for casual entertainment on the whole, although some classical composers of the 18th century,such as Mozart and Haydn, wrote simple tuneful music designed to make dining a more pleasant experience for wealthy aristocratic patrons. 
There is a much wider variety of genres in classical music. There is orchestral music(symphonies,concertos,tone poems etc,), chamber music, string quartets,trios, etc,diesigned for small ensembles of varying combinations of instruments, music for solo piano,
choral works,such as oratorios and cantatas, lieder,or songs based on poetry for voice and piano, opera,etc.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Classical is about music manuscripts that are intended to be interpreted over and over again by one generation after the other. An interpretation can be great but is never definitive. Popular music - especially popular music from the rock era is primarily about the performer or 'the one definitive recording.' In other words, in fifty years there will still be recordings made of the Jupiter symphony who though somewhat different will be just as valid as those made today or fifty years ago, whereas if fifty years from now people still want to listen to Dark Side of the Moon they will still be listening to the album Pink Floyd made in 1973 since any new version would almost inevitably be inferior.


----------



## janne (Apr 13, 2010)

I can only try to make a definition by contrasting classical music with popular music and folk music. And this is of course my subjective view.
By this definition Johan Strauss' waltzes, for example, falls outside the classical domain. I would describe them as dance music.

Popular music and folk music are created for entertainment.
It is music that you are supposed to move your body to by dancing, headbanging or clapping your hands.
It is not important to know who the composer is, but important to know who performs it.
It can have a high degree of emotional content.
It has a low degree of intellectual content (simple form-structure).
It has a low degree of information content.
It is music that demands very little from the listener.


Classical music is often created fot entertainment, but not only.
You are not really supposed to move your body to it. It uses dances but they are stylized.
It is very important to know who the composer is, and aslo important to know who performs it.
It often has a high degree of emotional content.
It has a high degree of intellectual content.
It has a high degree of information content.
It is music that demands a lot more from the listener.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

In my opinion, the fundamental difference between classical and popular music is that one has to be formally educated and trained in order to create classical music, while the same thing is not required for creating popular music.

Of course, formally educated composers can create pop music (and quite often they do), but people without music education can't create classical music.

Musical education is only needed for CREATING classical music (composing and performing) and not for enjoying and understanding it.

I think that the terms classical and popular are very misleading because:

a) classical music can be very popular (Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Fur Elise, 5th Symphony, Nessun Dorma etc...)

b) popular music can become "classical" in sense that it earns enduring and important place in global culture and remains popular very long time after it's composed (O Sole Mio, Funniculi Funicula, Strangers in the Night, My way, New York, New York, Over The Rainbow, Nel Blu Dipinto Di Blu (Volare), Singing in the Rain, Yesterday, Blowing in the Wind, Knocking on the Heaven's Door, Respect, Good Vibrations, What A Wonderful World, We Are The Champions, You're the one that I want, ...) I'd say that any song that is instantly recognizable and extremely popular 50 years after its creation, becomes "classical", no matter what is the genre to which it belongs.

I could compare popular music with Naive art. Even though naive artists aren't formally educated in art, sometimes they can create great pieces of art.

I would also say that it's wrong to say that classical music is always "serious" and popular always "for entertainment", even though it IS most often, but NOT always the case.

Classical music can also be very entertaining (even when it is serious) and it isn't always serious.

Popular music can sometimes be very serious too, even if it is not written in the form of classical music.
Also, it can have serious lyrical content, even if it is accompanied with easily accessible music.
Examples of serious songs that belong to popular music:

Belfast Child (Simple Minds), Se bastasse una canzone (Eros Ramazzoti), One (U2), Another Brick in the Wall (Pink Floyd), ...

When we are discussing popular music vs. classical music, people too often equate popular music with "pop" in sense of Brittney Spears pop - which is of course wrong, because popular music contains extremely huge variety of genres and subgenres such as:

Jazz
Blues
Soul
Gospel
R&B (traditional)
R&B modern
Pop (traditional)
Pop (modern)
Rock & Roll (traditional)
Rock
Metal
Rap / Hip hop
Country
Electronic music
Industrial music

and many others. Of course, those are just main genres. Inside each of them there are many subgenres. Popular music is constantly evolving, and I must say, nowadays it is more vital and more diverse than classical music.

Just see this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_music_genres

Aren't you amazed with the size and level of organization of this list?

And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rock_genres

Enormous lists aren't they???

Who will now say that popular music doesn't have extremely huge variety of genres?

I am not talking about quality of these genres, I'm just talking about the number.

Also, people forget that "popular" in popular music doesn't have any meaning at all.
Not all popular music is actually popular.
Lady Gaga is extremely popular, but there are many, many great musicians in popular music that are not popular at all.

There is popular classical music, and unpopular popular music. Yes this is oxymoron (unpopular popular) but there is no better way to define it.

Many genres of electronic and industrial music are very unpopular, as well as some genres of metal and modern jazz.

Also, some classical music is very commercial (for example some Mozart's and Haydn's pieces that they composed FOR MONEY and with the sole purpose of pleasing and entertaining their patrons). Not all classical music is sincere artistic expression.

At the same time, there are many popular music albums which are actually very noncommercial and which indeed ARE SINCERE ARTISTIC EXPRESSION, because they were not made with the sole purpose of earning money. Sometimes these albums become popular because audiences find a way to appreciate them, and sometimes they remain in obscurity.

- - - - - -

Having said all of that, I will add that there is a lot of truth in stereotypes about popular and classical music, and in general I prefer classical and I find that greatest achievements in classical music are simply far above anything that popular music ever achieved, but by their very nature stereotypes are gross simplification and, as I have demonstrated, there are many striking exceptions which prove that not all classical music is serious and deep and unentertaining,
nor is all popular music always shallow and just for entertainment.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Definite differences between classical and popular music are:

1. for creating classical music formal musical education is required while for popular it is not
2. classical music is usually more complex and more focused on absolute music (expressing ideas through music alone and developing musical ideas) while in popular music lyrics are often as important as music or even more important (but this not always the case - many types of electronic dance music are completely without lyrics), and musical ideas aren't much developed - more often they are just repeated and very slightly modified in each repetition.

Apart from these two, all the other differences are very relative, and there are many exceptions. They would include:

3. popular is *usually * (not always) more focused on profit and commercial aspects (popularity) and classical is also *usually * (not always) more focused on sincere artistic expression

4. classical is focused on score, popular is focused on recording - those popular songs that transcend recording and that are covered by extremely many artists without one "definitive" version, approach the realm of classical.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Pop Music makes the money.

Classical Music loses/wastes the money for season schedules.

 Truth.


----------



## le_sacre (Dec 6, 2009)

i'm really wrestling with this question! every definition i've heard so far seems to have far too many exceptions. you could say it has to do with complex harmony, but then what about chaconnes/passacaglias and minimalism? as for structure, there are some incredibly simple classical pieces and richly complex non-classical electronic, industrial, or alternative rock works. you could say it has to do with intellectual intent, but then what about purely romantic art songs, and numerous classical works that are a bit on the trite side? you could say it's the way the audience is meant to appreciate it, but then what about how splendid it is to have classical background music in cafes and at events? neither is it any question of technical skill or instrumentation. and the musical world is replete with self-taught classical composers as well as professionally trained and educated popular musicians and songwriters; people start writing music in imitation of what they hear.

perhaps, on a theoretical level, there really is no way to describe a sharp boundary between classical and non-classical; but on a practical level, it's usually easy to categorize even modern music into one or the other--or to be more precise actually, to say whether a piece is classical or not (some modern music is clearly acceptable as classical and also fits into other contemporary popular genres). i just don't know how to accurately and precisely describe how it is you can tell, which in nerdy terms may mean that it's a multidimensional function of fuzzy weighted variables.

in my itunes library, i made smart playlists that i call "classical" and "non-classical," but they're only defined by which genres to include ("classical" includes medieval/renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic, impressionist, and modern, while "non-classical" includes everything else), but then the real difficulty is in deciding when to apply the genre "modern" to something instead of (or in additon to), e.g., folk, jazz, alternative, ambient, electronic, etc.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Admin note:



Opal said:


> Any good?
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/9467-how-do-we-define.html





janne said:


> Yes, I think so.
> This thread can be deleted.


As there has been a good amount of conversation since janne's request to delete the "Differences ..." thread, we have chosen instead to merge the new and the old together instead, and retained the thread title of the eldest thread. The posts are automatically merged into the pre-existing thread in date/time order.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2010)

le_sacre said:


> every definition i've heard so far seems to have far too many exceptions.


I think you've nailed it.

The categories are largely twentieth century marketing labels anyway, so it's no surprise. It may seem like a cop-out, but I'm thinking more and more that maybe "good" and "bad" are the only categories we need.

Next question, do we need categories?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It may seem like a cop-out, but I'm thinking more and more that maybe "good" and "bad" are the only categories we need.

I quite agree... but then again, I'll assume there is plenty to disagree about when it comes to just what qualifies as "good" or "bad".


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> It may seem like a cop-out, but I'm thinking more and more that maybe "good" and "bad" are the only categories we need.
> 
> I quite agree... but then again, I'll assume there is plenty to disagree about when it comes to just what qualifies as "good" or "bad".


Boy howdy!!


----------

