# Classical Genre Competition



## keepitreal (Jan 16, 2009)

Hi all, I'm new to the forum and was interested in getting some of your opinions. I'm a big fan of classical music, but am also a fan of what people are calling contemporary classical, crossover classical, etc. I'm also very eclectic and can enjoy almost any music (except for Country).

Do you think this crossover genre is a good thing for classical music or a bad thing? I kind of lean towards it being a good thing because it often sounds good, is new, and can bring out hidden gems to the general population. 

On the other hand, I think it might steer people away from the original beauty and complexity of classical music.

I get a feeling that the money is going with the modern style and could leave new Classical productions behind.

Thoughts?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

keepitreal said:


> Do you think this crossover genre is a good thing for classical music or a bad thing? I kind of lean towards it being a good thing because it often sounds good, is new, and can bring out hidden gems to the general population.


Depends on the work and/or artist in question I guess. I don't know if it is good for 'legitimate' classical music though. Maybe some people get into the real thing after listening to crossover music, but I'm sure that there are many who think that they are listening to the real thing already. I'm sure that there are quite a few crossover listeners who think that Andrea Bocelli and Katherine Jenkins are the best 'opera singers' in the world or that Vanessa Mae is a genius.

Welcome to the forum.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I agree that it's entirely up to the listener, although I personally think that some aren't so great. As an example, I have a few CDs of Ravi Shankar playing with people like Jean-Pierre Rampal, Yehudi Menuhin, Zubin Mehta, etc. and while they are interesting, I much prefer the original east Indian music or the original Western music. Not to say it's bad; I just don't like it so much.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2009)

keepitreal said:


> a fan of what people are calling contemporary classical, crossover classical, etc.


More importantly, what do YOU mean by "contemporary classical" and by "crossover classical"?

When I say "contemporary," I mean new classical music, music written in the past twenty or thirty years. (And by "new," I mean innovative not just "recent." There's plenty of recent music that simply mimics ideas and patterns of the past.)

And while I don't usually use the word "crossover," or listen to anything so designated (like Yo-Yo Ma's recent excursions or the perps already mentioned), I also know that the borders between jazz and rock and classical were already breaking down in the sixties (which means from when rock was still fairly young)--but that refers to the things that Sonny Sharrock and Peter Broetzmann and Nurse With Wound and John Zorn and Christian Marclay and so forth were doing (and are doing). That's what I'd LIKE to have the word "crossover" refer to, but I don't always get what I want!

Anyway, point is, what do YOU mean by those terms? (I wouldn't think that "crossover" as it's commonly used and "contemporary classical" would have anything in common.)


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

keepitreal said:


> I'm also very eclectic and can enjoy almost any music (except for Country).


Obviously a person of refined taste and intelligence.

I think crossover has been happening for centuries to be honest. Composers have drawn on folk melodies for their inspiration. Pop tunes have drawn from classical.

I for one went about crossing over backward. I started out loving pure classical music and thought I hated pop and rock -- until the mid 70's when someone turned me on to progressive rock which draws heavily on classical themes and sometimes even arguably uses sonata allegro form for the rock idiom. (see also some guy's comments ^).

I then was able to move from progressive rock to jazz fusion. Then to more mainstream jazz, blues, and folk and was eventually even able to tolerate some pop.

So I can't see how Josh Groben singing Andrew Lloyd Weber, or whatever, could really harm classical music in any way. The people who want to dig a little deeper into it will do so once exposed.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Third Stream doesn't (and can't work in the way Third Stream Composers want it to) work in Jazz. IMO it works, but sounds horrible with anything else.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

I think it can be a good thing in terms of introducing younger people to classical music. I hardly listened to any classical music until about 7-8 years ago. When I became a fan of Josh Groban (whose debut album was "classical" to my untrained ears at the time) I started liking more and more music in that genre; it was a long process, and eventually I started liking and buying more and more classical music and going to classical concerts. I still listen to Josh, and a LOT of music in other genres, but I'm not sure I would have been as open to classical music if I hadn't been introduced to Josh's music first. He's collaborated with Joshua Bell on a track too and according the latter that one song has opened a lot of young people's minds to classical music.

But when Josh Groban entered the market it was kind of new and fresh, and then other people started copying the genre and eventually it just escalated and now it seems everyone wants to be in that genre. I feel the concept is getting old. I've heard too many operatic versions of Hallelujah, Nella Fantasia and Bridge over troubled water to last a lifetime. At this point when I hear about new artists and cds in that genre I just roll my eyes.

And, like I stated in another thread, I just hate the fact that people who are in fact classical singers, who have played in operas on stage and have REAL voices, succumb to the pressure (or laziness, in Andrea Bocelli's case) and become classical crossover recording artists to gain more fans or whatever. I guess it's appealing with more fame and money but I've always been an advocate for staying true to your art, so I don't like it at all.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Other than typologies referring to the time period (Baroque vs. Romantic) or instrumentation (orchestral vs. chamber), I was unaware of varying sub-genres of classical music.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

karenpat said:


> And, like I stated in another thread, I just hate the fact that people who are in fact classical singers, who have played in operas on stage and have REAL voices, succumb to the pressure (or laziness, in Andrea Bocelli's case) and become classical crossover recording artists to gain more fans or whatever. I guess it's appealing with more fame and money but I've always been an advocate for staying true to your art, so I don't like it at all.


Although there's little doubt that there are nearly always commercial considerations involved, it's also entirely possible that some of those singers actually LIKE popular music and enjoy singing it. Whether the artistic results of them singing that music is up to par has to be judged on an individual basis in my opinion, I don't like to generalize.


----------

