# Classical????



## hawk (Oct 1, 2007)

Please help me understand, what makes classical music classical music????

I have listened to Ho Down (Copeland?), and Gully Wags Cakewalk (Debussy?) numerous times and today heard Rhapsody in Blue. I just do not understand what makes these pieces classical.  

It has to be more than the fact they are played by an orchestra! 
Though my question is rooted in my confusion/dislike of the above pieces is there a broad definition of what constitutes music in the classical genre?


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

Eek-- that's scary & I dunno if I want to to touch that! LOL 

However, as far as Copland, Gershwin and the Debussy piece go, classical composers have always borrowed from folk melodies or rhythms, incorporating them into their music or adopting them in new ways (Beethoven & Dvorak come to mind immediately).

What makes those three pieces "classical" has a lot to do with HOW those musical elements are incorporated into a larger whole (Rhapsody in Blue *incorporates* a lot of jazz, whereas Mood Indigo by Ellington *is* in fact jazz). 

Classical music (in *general*) is not improvised-- it is notated, whereas in say folk, jazz, and rock, etc. there is a tendency toward more improvisation (it is not necessary to read musical notation). Of course, it could be countered that improvisation has been a part of the classical tradition (harpsichord accompaniment in baroque music was improvised as well as cadenzas in piano concertos and the like). 

Funny though, I'm not all that fond of those three pieces myself (though I do like jazz). 

But then again, classical music has incorporated synthesisers too (John Adams, Steve Reich) and Takemitsu wrote sort of modern day gagaku music, using traditional Japanese instruments. I think there is quite a lot of wiggle room. 

This should make for an interesting discussion!


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

it's music with longer thoughts than folk or pop music.

'classical' technically just comes from the 'classical' period (1750-1825, sort of).
it has often been expressed within the language of certain form that deal with tonal relationships, and sometimes the quest of making something work that doesn't look like it would work.

if you don't care for it, i suspect you should alter the way you listen to it. consider what you are listening for; the orchestration, harmony, rhythm, melody, emotion?

dj


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

For me, "Classical" means an uncluttered, elegant form in architecture, and in music it means some structural development from Baroque composition. By no means must it necessarily be played by an orchestra: a solo guitar or piano, for instance, is capable of a full classical performance.
It's not for less educated folks such as myself to debate the point at which classical becomes Romantic or ceases to be Classical altogether, but I really cannot see what is literally classical about any of the 20th century innovations, some of which strike me as not even being music. Maybe some things get the label in the interests of marketing.
Sticking to a time period seems to lead to difficulties, but in general I'd just add that the impulse behind classical composition is the construction of beauty by means of the forms available in the late 18th century.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Interesting discussion ... my music dictionary defines Classical as: 
"Of or relating to European music during the latter half of the 18th and the early 19th centuries." Now, that dictionary is probably close to 30 years old and things have changed alot since then. 

Possibly we are confusing "Classic music" (or music that is classic like the Copeland piece mentioned above) with "Classical music" ? I see those two as having very different meanings.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

yes, I suppose that the "classical music" you meant is really western classical music, because there are also indian, east asian, and other "classical music" out there... 

In my opinion, it has something to do with instrumental music, be it piano, guitar, violins, horns... much of modern music is play with more "modern" instruments, which don't really focus that much on timbre, but rather on loudness. My personal definition of classical music is quite simple, it has too have some degree of sophistication; for instance, written by composers who are experts at what they are doing, people who have been musicians all their lives, and care more about the "sound"; it also has to be something that can only be appreciate in a quiet setting, again, more focus on the "Music" and less focus on the extra-musical; it must follow certain rules, for instance, much of the western classical music are tonal, and follow a set of rules; even for the atonal stuff in the 20th century, they still follow a set of rules, more or less; classical music is quite academic, in other words, it's not something that a couple of high schoolers can get together and become an professional ensemble without much training, it takes years of practice to perfect the playing, and takes even longer to master the art of composition.


----------



## BuddhaBandit (Dec 31, 2007)

My two cents...

"Western Art Music" (i.e. "classical" music, not necessarily from the Classical Period) uses music to make a statement about music. It is the same as literature- intertwined themes, motifs, symbols, etc. except using notes and melodies instead of words and sentences. It is carefully constructed by the composer so that every element relates to the piece's theme.

Again, it may mean different things to different people.

As for the three pieces mentioned above, I personally love the Cakewalk and Rhapsody in Blue, but am not a big fan of the Hoedown.


----------



## Morigan (Oct 16, 2006)

Krummhorn said:


> Interesting discussion ... my music dictionary defines Classical as:
> "Of or relating to European music during the latter half of the 18th and the early 19th centuries." Now, that dictionary is probably close to 30 years old and things have changed alot since then.
> 
> Possibly we are confusing "Classic music" (or music that is classic like the Copeland piece mentioned above) with "Classical music" ? I see those two as having very different meanings.


Your definition refers to the Classical period of what is commonly called Classical music, that being the period between Baroque and Romantic.

The period is generally considered to span from the 1750's (birth of Mozart) to the death of Beethoven (1827).

Of course, some consider Beethoven to be the first Romantic, while some will say he was the last Classicist.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Classical music has two simple definitions in my opinion.

1) Music written by established composers, roughly between the years 1750 and 1820. This has it's own particular style which is reflective of the values that were widespread at this time.

2) All music that is not considered to be accosiated with popular culture.

I know I'm going to get a telling off by someone for the second (and my favourite) definition, but I am ready for, and open to, just criticism!


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Back to the topic at hand....

I agree with Edward Elgar to an extent on his second definition. Yes, there is a lot of "trashy" music that is not popular, and yes there is some that is (I admit that to be a subjective statement). However, I understand what you are implying through that and I agree 100%-- not everyone will.

My understanding of _classical_ has been that it refers to the roots of much of the western music we know today. For instance, the classics in literature refers to works by Hemingway, Steinbeck, Poe, London, Dickens-- just to name a few-- who have made a profound influence on many modern writers, some "popular" and some not so "popular." The same could almost be said of "classical" music-- which has had an influence (though many would deny it) on a lot of the popular music such as rock and heavy metal (yes, I said heavy metal).

Anyway, that is how Ive always understood it.


----------



## BuddhaBandit (Dec 31, 2007)

But, Elgar and Rondo, Definition 2 gets a little shaky in the Baroque/Classical periods. To judge whether something is or isn't associated with popular culture, you have to examine the popular culture at the time. Western Art ("Classical") Music (WAM) was clearly associated with the popular culture of the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries. A good example is the music of Handel: this is clearly a specimen of WAM, but was also hugely popular at the time (the first performance of his Royal Fireworks Music created a three-hour traffic jam in London). As Rondo said, not everyone will agree, but I do think that Elgar's second definition does not quite hold up.

Again, just my humble two cents...


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Can I modify the second definition please?

All music that is not considered to be accosiated with today's popular culture.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Edward Elgar said:


> All music that is not considered to be accosiated with today's popular culture.


That's exactly how I interpreted it. Classical music was popular at one point, but the times they are a-changin'.


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2008)

I think we would all agree when the word classical music is used it refers to the whole, and not the various periods within it also tends to mean Western Classical, to me it means, structured, orderly, though out, following certain perimeters that have been set down, sonata form and Program and others that are evolving. What makes a Symphony or a St Qt? to me it is structure.
This is an old question that has even been raised on this forum in the past and is always good for an interesting discussion.


----------



## hawk (Oct 1, 2007)

With not enough knowledge to enter into a discussion about what classical music _is_
I will assume based on your reples that the above pieces (Cakewalk, Hoedown) are "classical" works because of the musical structure they adhere to, the degree of academic/intellectual/musical ability by both the composer and the musicians. Am I close?
I find this interesting. These pieces sound as if they were made for a television show (no disrespect intended) they seem to lack depth especially emotional depth...
Beethovens 6th, Moazrts Clarinet concerto, Tchaikovskys Serenade, Haydns Clock, these all ellicit many different emotions in me (many other works do too). 
When I listen to music it is on a visceral level as I do not have the education needed to do so intellectually.
Like everything else I guess it boils down to personal preference...we each like what we like.



> All music that is not considered to be accosiated with today's popular culture


Would you elaborate a little more about this please. There are so many music's not associated with todays popular culture that do not seem to fit the definitions of classical music.
BTW my questions and (more importantly) your answers are and have been extremely valuable in helping learn more about this music. I really love it and with knowledge comes an increased ability to understand and appreciate it. Thank you all!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2008)

I can sympathise with your view of Copelands music as being something other than Classical, but in this case perhaps it is more a question of style [of composing] he had a popular style and, I think, based on American culture he combined, jazz, pop and theatre in what I would call a free style "others may define it much better" but remember other composers also wrote for the theatre, Films etc, personally I have always wondered why Gershwin was listed as a classical composer, check some of the works by Prokofiev and Shostakovich and you will find the same kind of music, a friend of mine once said classical should be renamed as Serious Music??


----------



## bartleby (Feb 16, 2008)

*OK, so what is "Classical Music"?*

I've taken the liberty of borrowing this question from an earlier thread about whether film soundtracks are classical music to see whether a thread more particulaly focused on this question might invite some interesting remarks.

Here's my first stab at it, which I throw out just to see whether it will get the ball rolling:

Music (let's put aside the vexing question of what is "music") is Classical Music if it bears some significant relationship to that historical stream of music that we call "Classical Music," i.e., the stream of music in which flows the music of Bach. Among the significant relationships that can bring music within the stream of Classical Music are: (1) the creator's use--either as model, inspiration, or foil--of forms, styles, paradigms, and traditiions within that stream; or (2) the creator's intent that listeners hear the music in the context of the historical stream of Classical Music.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Related thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/2591-classical.html


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2008)

That's a pretty good start, I must say, though I think that talking about forms might be a bit too restrictive, given all the things that happened to music in the twentieth century.

I've been thinking about this recently, too. And what I've come up with is an analogy, or perhaps a parallel. In the world of fiction and poetry, there's a word for the stuff that intends to be important or significant or pleasurable beyond just a superficial, temporary jolt: and that word is literature.

Music has no word for "literature," except "classical." Unfortunately, "classical" comes with a lot more baggage than "literature" does (though lit's pretty weighted, too). But that's about all we've got, attempts to replace "classical" with "serious" or "art" being doomed. Classical as a term seems pretentious enough as it is, but serious and art are even MORE pretentious.

I don't mind pretentious, personally, but there it is. So "classical" is a close as we have to a fairly neutral, fairly descriptive term that covers everything from Ockeghem to Christian Marclay, and beyond, in the same way as "literature" covers everything from Gilgamesh to Oulipo, and beyond.

Many artistic disciplines have terms to distinguish Art from other things. Art and illustration, poetry and verse, classical and popular. I'd say it's more an attitude about the work, on the part of the creator as well as the auditor, than it is an alignment with _a_ tradition, though I think you and I are pretty close in our thinking about your point number two. Merzbow is very different from Gregorian chant, but much closer to that than to Justin Timberlake.

As far as identifying a particular sound, though, or even a particular manner of presentation (as some will maintain, distinguishing "classical" by its being written down), I don't think that that's what "classical" does. Most people outside the classical world will think "Bach, Mozart, Beethoven" when they hear the word. Not much we can do about that. Some people inside the classical world will not want to include electroacoustic or live electronics or other twentieth century things like indeterminacy or even minimalism. But going by what I experience when I listen, I would say that those things are all "classical," because the creators all share an attitude about the work, that they're doing something important, something to be reckoned with, philosophically, artistically, morally. That while very enjoyable and entertaining and exciting, classical music is more than just merely entertainment. (I think that the importance, the seriousness (in the sense of "thorough-going" not "long-faced"!), makes classical music--and literature, and art, more entertaining than the stuff made just to entertain. But that could just be me. )


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Surely THIS gives a decent enough explanation of what constitutes western classical music. I haven't seen anything on this thread, or on the earlier related thread, that adds anything useful.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

*Threads merged*



opus67 said:


> Related thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/2591-classical.html


Sr. Moderator note:
Thank you, opus67 

The new thread "_Ok, so what is Classical_" has been merged into this one, as there is no need for having two forum discussions on the same topic. 

Kh


----------

