# How is Classical music different from other genres?



## Bartfromthenetherlands (Sep 29, 2016)

Is there really something that makes classical above everything else?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Different? yes. Above? no. YMMV.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Bartfromthenetherlands said:


> Is there really something that makes classical above everything else?


what do you mean by ¨"everything else"?


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

One very big difference is that an attention span of more than 3-5 minutes is required-- a rare commodity in contemporary culture.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

Bartfromthenetherlands said:


> Is there really something that makes classical above everything else?


Absolutely not. And in my opinion it's elitist perceptions of Classical Music as being better than other styles of music that has contributed to its waning popularity.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I think that one difference could be the great care in the development of themes.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I really don't see anything elitist about believing one genre of art is superior to others. Lots of people are going to say it's just different. Sure it's different, just like the real Olympics is different from the special Olympics but it's also other things besides different.

Now of course, saying it is above everything else is quite the statement and I wouldn't quite go there but I certainly feel that classical music is better musically than many other (excluding jazz?) genres of music.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

Classical music is more technically advanced than many other genres, especially all those belonging to the class of contemporary popular music. Because of that it may require more effort from a listener to fully appreciate it. Listening to classical (or art) music encompasses exploring periods, genres, styles, instruments, individual composers and performers. As someone mentioned above, it also requires attention and time investment that are often hard to come by in the modern age. In that, I would say, it is a gratifying endeavour, but one that cannot be seen from the position of superiority.

I've been listening to classical music on and off for a couple of years. There are periods when I get 'fed up' with it and go back to my origins of rock and metal music. I've also had some experience with jazz. I would never say that these genres are in any way inferior to classical music, they just cater to different needs that I (and others) may have at different times. In fact, I made an acquaintance with many incredibly smart people who do listent to a wide variety of music and who at the same time are not particularly fond of classical music. There's beauty, and simplicity, and complexity in many genres within and outside of classical music, especially if one digs deep enough.

I reserve the right, though, to absolutely despise the most popular disco, rap, hip-hop and pop music ('the MTV mix'), but I don't really need classical to feel that way.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

The music that we now call "classical" stands the test of time but not other genres. Time or history proves the value of such music to humanity. The longer a piece survives through time will give listeners many different perspectives of how history judged that piece. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Given your first post: Let's not confuse "superior" with "different".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Classical music might not be superior to other genres of music, but certainly those who enjoy classical music are superior to those whose preferences lie elsewhere. This can easily be demonstrated, or even proven with near-mathematical precision.

Trust me on this!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Classical music does not require any special skills in liking it. You don't have to be some intellectual genius.

The genius is in the composing, just as it is in all other music genres.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Classical music might not be superior to other genres of music, but certainly those who enjoy classical music are superior to those whose preferences lie elsewhere. This can easily be demonstrated, or even proven with near-mathematical precision.
> 
> Trust me on this!


OP is banned so I doubt he's ever sees this.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bart! What have they done to you? Oh Bart! Bart!


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

I don't know about better, but classical music is definitely different. Generally you can't dance to it, stomp your feet with it, sway your hips to it, or get a steady beat out of it. It's much more cerebral, yet also emotional but in a different way. I'm guessing that's why it doesn't appeal to the masses. It takes some effort to like it and appreciate it, in my opinion. But the end result is much more satisfying and worth the effort.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

It's often blatantly religious. Sometimes that happens outside of music for church, like Johnny Cash Bob Dylan, or Elvis, or Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah," but classical music really wins for that.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In classical music, performers seldom bite the heads off small mammals in concert. No wonder it's so unpopular!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Klassik über alles... 

The way I see it, classical music is indeed superior to everything else in terms of sheer _beauty_. The reception of non-classical music is often dependent on other, extra-musical factors: how pretty the vocalist is, or how impressive a show the band puts on, or how popular a certain artist already is, or whether the music represents some kind of subculture. Classical music does not really need all these trappings, it is accepted on musical merits only. You can have a man standing around singing some 19th century lyrics about rivers, flowers and millers' daughters - and it will take your breath away for the only reason that it sounds so beautiful. Even in opera, which is more visual than other classical genres, the same is true. The soprano may be old and fat, or you may have to sit in hard wooden seats four hours long, like they do in Bayreuth. But what really matters is the amount of sheer sonic delight. To me classical music represents beauty and the human ability to create beautiful things in its purest, most distilled form - especially since much of instrumental music is purely abstract, not connected to any extra-musical ideas at all.

I guess, an even more appropriate slogan would be "Schönheit über alles" - Beauty above all


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Quality, my dear Watson, Quality!!!


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Bartfromthenetherlands said:


> Is there really something that makes classical above everything else?


sure there is and this being the *test by time* classical has endured as an elite art.

you can't go wrong when you're in elite club.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> Different? yes. Above? no. YMMV.


so you equalize classical with pop? so having money or no money is same to you?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

The problem with these kinds of discussions, which we've had before, is that no one asks the essential clarifying questions: Better for what purpose? Superior at doing what? When one gets specific, the answers are easier. Is classical music better at capturing the long term tensions and conflicts of inner life in purely musical terms, that is, without words? Is it better at revealing the contrapuntal potential and potential for variation and transformation of instrumental musical themes? Is it better at exploiting subtle tonal tensions in creating large-scale musical forms? Is it better at systematically unifying the musical efforts of one hundred players at the same time so that every element of the performance is centrally controlled? Since most other kinds of music don't share these specific goals, the answer in each case tends to be yes. 

Is classical music better at creating a context in which the roles of performer and composer are blended in spontaneous improvisation? No. Jazz, Indian classical music, and progressive rock, among others styles, are vastly superior at this. Is it better for social dancing? At expressing teenage angst? You get the idea.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Better for what purpose?


better for perfecting man's nature.



EdwardBast said:


> Superior at doing what?


superior at building further our civilisation.


----------



## Bevo (Feb 22, 2015)

Well Classical music covers a very large landscape. I'm not saying that people who listen to it are superior, but I do believe it takes a lot more talent to write! There are a lot of things I believe that makes modern popular music inferior. For example, simply look at instrumentation. Do you think modern pop or country songwriters would be able score a piece for strings, brass, percussion, and winds? What about form? Do you think they would be able to perfect sonata form? For a lot of the artists out there nowadays, the only form they know of is Verse and Chorus, and the only modulation they know of is to raise the key a half or whole step. What about counterpoint and voice-leading? Also, the harmony is very simple now days. Mostly I, IV, and V chords over, and over, and over (maybe a ii every now and then). Are there exceptions? Sure, there always are (look at the Beatles), but I personally do feel that Classical music is superior compared to most music now days. Composers just aren't trained or taught like they used to be. The biggest exception to all of this, I would say, would be Jazz. There is some complex stuff there!!! Just my two cents, sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## sloth (Jul 12, 2013)

Classical music is not a genre in my opinion. What most people call "classical music" is actually too diverse to be included in one single genre (for example, would you consider a XVI cent. ground in the same league as, say, Richard Strauss?).
"Classical" sounds like a 20 century label created in order to distinguish serious music from the commercial stuff. Nowadays it's meaningless. we live in a post-modern era where every historical period is legitimate and in some way contemporary. 
So what? do categories really help us defining what's worth listening? I listen to everything out of curiosity. then all I can say is what I like and what I don't.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Here's something new:

"This study gives clear neuronal evidence supporting the view that artistic music is of intelligence, while popular music is of physiology," writes a team of researchers led by Ping Huang of South China Normal University in Guangzhou.

https://psmag.com/why-our-brains-respond-differently-to-classical-music-efbce4f3a1e2#.e3bkk0bzo


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

I think Classical Music lives longer than any other music. E.g Who will remember Olly Murs in years to come?


----------



## scott777 (Oct 9, 2016)

pcnog11 said:


> The music that we now call "classical" stands the test of time but not other genres. Time or history proves the value of such music to humanity. The longer a piece survives through time will give listeners many different perspectives of how history judged that piece.
> 
> My 2 cents.


The flaw in this argument is that modern popular music has not had enough time to determine is durability. I would argue the Beatles have done pretty well so far, and will still prove to be popular 100 years after they split (popular at least to those who like the genre).


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Here's something new:
> 
> "This study gives clear neuronal evidence supporting the view that artistic music is of intelligence, while popular music is of physiology," writes a team of researchers led by Ping Huang of South China Normal University in Guangzhou.
> 
> https://psmag.com/why-our-brains-respond-differently-to-classical-music-efbce4f3a1e2#.e3bkk0bzo


Ha, good to see a scientific study that supports my "elitist" view of classical music. Of course, you would say, it's obvious when you compare Beethoven's late string quartets and Justin Bieber, as the author of the article says, but it becomes more blurry when you include non-classical but still intelligent music like jazz.


----------



## scott777 (Oct 9, 2016)

Bevo said:


> There are a lot of things I believe that makes modern popular music inferior. For example, simply look at instrumentation. Do you think modern pop or country songwriters would be able score a piece for strings, brass, percussion, and winds? What about form? Do you think they would be able to perfect sonata form? For a lot of the artists out there nowadays, the only form they know of is Verse and Chorus, and the only modulation they know of is to raise the key a half or whole step. What about counterpoint and voice-leading? Also, the harmony is very simple now days. Mostly I, IV, and V chords over, and over, and over (maybe a ii every now and then).


It may be that it is technically inferior, in terms of the technical understanding of the performers - instrumentation and harmony etc, but that doesn't actually make the end-result inferior. The Beatles, for example, wrote rather profound music. It's greatness is in its spontaneity, its inventiveness, its emotional depth and the sound quality of the recordings (thanks to Abbey Road).

That said, I still love Beethoven more.


----------



## Gouldanian (Nov 19, 2015)

Andolink said:


> One very big difference is that an attention span of more than 3-5 minutes is required-- a rare commodity in contemporary culture.


Comment of the year... I'm using this from now on with anybody who asks me that question!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Classical music is not definitively different from other genres - just as a great novel is not definitively different from a pot-boiler. 
We're talking about a 'continuum' here as far as distinguishing 'classic/ classical/ artistic' from 'other' is concerned - great art/ music/ literature can be considered 'great' because many or most people regard it as such, and/or because it's stood the test of time, and/or because it's appreciated by those with greater intelligence or education or sensitivity, and/or because it's original, and/or because it demonstrates great skill, economy or other artistic features and/or because it seems to give utterance to 'a truth' - and/or other things, no doubt.

It's easy enough to distinguish classical from other-genre at either end of the spectrum, but not in the centre. There are 'minor classics', there are great novels which are also sci-fi or crime fiction, there are medieval melodies which started out as 'folk', there is art-music that was once 'popular' in the usual sense but now is valued mainly by the cognoscenti.

*Here is a shelf.* At one end, there is *a can of caviare* - at the other end, is *a can of cheap-quality baked beans -* and in the middle stands *a can of worms*.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Ingélou said:


> Classical music is not definitively different from other genres - just as a great novel is not definitively different from a pot-boiler.
> We're talking about a 'continuum' here as far as distinguishing 'classic/ classical/ artistic' from 'other' is concerned - great art/ music/ literature can be considered 'great' because many or most people regard it as such, and/or because it's stood the test of time, and/or because it's appreciated by those with greater intelligence or education or sensitivity, and/or because it's original, and/or because it demonstrates great skill, economy or other artistic features and/or because it seems to give utterance to 'a truth' - and/or other things, no doubt.
> 
> It's easy enough to distinguish classical from other-genre at either end of the spectrum, but not in the centre. There are 'minor classics', there are great novels which are also sci-fi or crime fiction, there are medieval melodies which started out as 'folk', there is art-music that was once 'popular' in the usual sense but now is valued mainly by the cognoscenti.
> ...


Nicely said. I appreciate the way that you presented your points. You explained some of the important differences between various genres--but you also acknowledged the difficulty of drawing a hard-and-fast distinction. Thank you for reminding us that this is a complex and nuanced issue.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I like to say there's a difference between genre and style. Think about that! I love most styles and genres in classical and rhythmic music. All are above Norwegian, Swedish & German "dance bands"


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> *Here is a shelf.* At one end, there is *a can of caviare* - at the other end, is *a can of cheap-quality baked beans -* and in the middle stands *a can of worms*.


 nicely said, but in the middle there is a can of worms? whatever it was supposed to mean it reminded me of Asian markets with roasted worms and various insects being sold :lol:

*Kjetil Heggelund* indeed an OP might have mixed up terms such as genre and style. But yes, we all understand he supposed to say classical music, not a genre. while classical music can be composed in different genres.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

helenora said:


> nicely said, but in the middle there is a can of worms? whatever it was supposed to mean it reminded me of Asian markets with roasted worms and various insects being sold :lol:


Sorry - just a joke! 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31039/how-did-term-open-can-worms-originate


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> Sorry - just a joke!
> 
> http://mentalfloss.com/article/31039/how-did-term-open-can-worms-originate


 ah, :lol: very funny. sure it must have been something metaphorical


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I always thought classical music was above other musical genres because it could move me like nothing else, but then I heard "Maria" and "Somewhere" from Leonard Bernstein's "West Side Story" and I had to revise my opinion.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

hpowders said:


> I always thought classical music was above other musical genres because it could move me like nothing else, but then I heard "Maria" and "Somewhere" from Leonard Bernstein's "West Side Story" and I had to revise my opinion.


Those are very beautiful songs. To my ear, "Somewhere" actually sounds like a classical piece. Let's just say I would put it "somewhere" in the classical category!

Its melody appears to have been borrowed from the slow movement of Beethoven's Emperor concerto. I'm not sure if Bernstein ever acknowledged this borrowing, but the similarity seems undeniable to me.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> Those are very beautiful songs. To my ear, "Somewhere" actually sounds like a classical piece. Let's just say I would put it "somewhere" in the classical category!
> 
> Its melody appears to have been borrowed from the slow movement of Beethoven's Emperor concerto. I'm not sure if Bernstein ever acknowledged this borrowing, but the similarity seems undeniable to me.


An astute observation! Yes! I can hear the similarities in my head. Lenny! Lenny Lenny!!


----------



## sloth (Jul 12, 2013)

Sorry but in my opinion there's something annoying in considering "classical music" (whatever that means) superior to other genres. People who believe that are simply uninformed or snobs, imho. There's a lot of other music out there, not just useless commercial pop (which in this binary logic acts as the usual counterpart). Just think about Hindustani ragas, Japanese Koto music, the different African traditions & so on... beautiful deep spiritual music. 
(p.s. modern "loungy" jazz is crap, no matter how smart and complex it is... I'd even prefer the worst Sun Ra record to it  )


----------

