# When Does A Composition Become Classical?



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I was discussing this topic with some friends: "When does a composed music become classical?"

The answers varied.

I am of the view that a newly composed classical music during its day is new music. For example a new, composed concerto by Mozart was new when he finished the work. There is no doubt it was a new composition then. When would it be appropriate to call it "classical"? This term was certainly not used during Mozart's time to describe older works, say works by Bach and Handel. It was a much more "recent" term and perhaps some readers here might know when the term "classical" was used (not so to describe the Classical period, with a capital "C").

Newly composed music by trained musicians and composers today (2021) for example is often also called classical music. It is quite a broad and generic term.

So I am asking when do you think it is appropriate to call a work "classical music"?


----------



## mahlernerd (Jan 19, 2020)

A piece of music becomes classical if it was composed between 1730 and 1820


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

mahlernerd said:


> A piece of music becomes classical if it was composed between 1730 and 1820


Are you defining the Classical period (with a capital "C")? I was referring to the general term classical music (with a lower case "c").

But I like your answer!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

You need to carefully define what "classical" means. Is it an era? A style? A certain amount of fame? Just what do you mean?

Some pop songs are_ classics_, but not _classical_. The term classical long ago stopped meaning music written from say the time of Haydn and Mozart through early Beethoven. Ravel wrote classical music in the 1920's, but there were a lot of non-classical classics from Tin Pan Alley.

For many people classical infers a certain level of seriousness. But I assure you that country writer Garth Brooks and movie composer Hans Zimmer are just as serious about their work as John Adams is. (They make a lot more money, too.)


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> You need to carefully define what "classical" means. Is it an era? A style? A certain amount of fame? Just what do you mean?
> 
> Some pop songs are_ classics_, but not _classical_. The term classical long ago stopped meaning music written from say the time of Haydn and Mozart through early Beethoven. Ravel wrote classical music in the 1920's, but there were a lot of non-classical classics from Tin Pan Alley.
> 
> For many people classical infers a certain level of seriousness. But I assure you that country writer Garth Brooks and movie composer Hans Zimmer are just as serious about their work as John Adams is. (They make a lot more money, too.)


As I wrote above, I was not referring to the period of Haydn and Mozart with a capital "C". But more generically as is done here, and everyday discussion with the word "classical" using a lower case "c".

You wrote a good point about serious music. That is a good way of looking at it. So by implication a new composed work is classical immediately as long as it is serious music.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

I prefer the term "Western art music".


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Haydn70 said:


> I prefer the term "Western art music".


I have been leaning toward this term myself, lately. Unless, of course, the music is from the Classical era.

But "Western art music" seems like a good umbrella term, that encompasses all eras of what is referred to as classical music, from Medieval or Renaissance, up through the present era.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Are you defining the Classical period (with a capital "C")? I was referring to the general term classical music (with a lower case "c").
> 
> But I like your answer!


When the Vienna Philharmonic plays it


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Haydn70 said:


> I prefer the term "Western art music".


Pity it can't be used as a one-word adjective...


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Fabulin said:


> Pity it can't be used as a one-word adjective...


Yeah, like "classical".


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

It's not really cut and dry. Is someone singing "Ave Maria" classical? Does it depend on the instruments? If she sings it in a modern style a capella, is thst classical? Are lieder classical in the first place?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

1. If Classical is just about accepted quality over centuries, then Bach is more Classical than Mozart, Schubert is more Classical than Haydn. You can't draw a genre line without first admitting that some are widely considered 'more' than others, so where the line is becomes irrelevant. This definition however doesn't sit well with me.

2. We can also define Classical as those of the most appreciated _creativity_ in history, aka, the most _influential_. This would follow the same as the first definition: some music is more Classical than others, ie. Debussy was more uniquely influential than probably Brahms or Schubert. This definition also doesn't sit well with me.

3. You can merge the two definitions to form a mega-definition of Classical. As long as people will admit there's no fine line where Classical ends and other music begins, that it can never be a _category_, but a spectrum, we can define it as the most appreciated creative music over time. This mega-definition of Classical also doesn't sit well with me.

4. I believe all music is unique and valuable to individuals, and definable in some of its characteristics. Therefore, the best definition of musical genres such as Classical, isn't to include any wording about popular quality or popular notion of what creativity is. Instead, it's to define common features of Classical composers, and define common features of other music like jazz, orchestral, ethnic, new age, etc. and to let these genres stand on their own limited descriptive usefulness, without saying one is better or different. Like the above 3 bullet points, these can't be solid categories, they have overlap. You can find some Classical new age, Classical rock music, and even Classical opera or Classical orchestra, two connected genres and rarely a single sufficable one. It doesn't imply they are less Classical than more purist or undefined music, which is always further definable. It just plainly means they have other definitions about them too.

5. With bullet point 4 in mind, a useful definition of Classical itself, as _one_ genre, a definition that appeals to the avid fans of the genre, may be music which focuses on the crafting of _complex_ tonality in different ways. Complex is at best a surface term relating to the randomness in clever patterns in music, but only later can people say, this is _good_ Classical and this is _bad_ Classical, without forcing the aspect of 'quality' or 'critical acclaim' into the definition itself. That will be subjective. Tonality, the second aspect, refers to music which follows Classical harmonic theory.

6. Therefore, _all_ genres are descriptive, not exclusive or elitist. As they should be. You'd like to know the qualities of the music you're searching for, the diversity of multiple-genred music out there, not assume a name for something, like 'Classical', should predetermine for you what is great or not. Use all different genres, as many as you want, to categorize things the most accurately and descriptively as you desire to.

7. To answer the poll question then, based on my preliminary definition of Classical above (which is also subject to group revision), _Classical_ music, that which focuses the most on complexity and tonality, is already that when it's first composed.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

For many years a trusted parameter for a given music/composition being deemed Classical was its being placed in the Classical section in Tower Records.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

"Classical music" is synonymous with "orchestral music" in the common parlance. So the answer is "when it is written for an orchestra."

The ship has sailed on the "Classical period" meaning what it used to.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

MatthewWeflen said:


> "Classical music" is synonymous with "orchestral music" in the common parlance. So the answer is "when it is written for an orchestra."


I don't think so. Play some Chopin for random people and ask what genre the music is. I'm pretty sure they'll reply "classical".


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

BachIsBest said:


> I don't think so. Play some Chopin for random people and ask what genre the music is. I'm pretty sure they'll reply "classical".


An experiment is in order


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

For those who voted "Irrelevant Question", I am wondering then why do people even bother to use the terms "classical music"?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

MatthewWeflen said:


> An experiment is in order


A question of trivial, though popular, terminology.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

A piece of music becomes classical when it becomes a matter of ridicule for someone to admit that they listen to stuff like that.
It's when enjoying it means that you are "up yourself".
By contrast other music indicates that you are cool or edgy or normal, etc.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

That was a long way to spell Schumann.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

the very term 'classical' implies being rooted in the Ancient Greek system of values and its high quality approach to art, besides the word 'music' translates as "art of the Muses" - thus only classical music is considered music as such, while the rest must be something else, maybe noise...


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

i.e. you compose a high quality piece, based on a narrative, rich with images and symbols - that's when you get classical.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

The term "Western art music" is inapropriate for me because it implies that other types of music aren't art. I don't know precisely what makes a piece of music part of the "classical" world. For instance, Stockhausen is a "classical" composer, but some of his compositions are hard for me to define in those terms, like Aus den sieben Tagen. That to me is a whole different story. I guess that something is part of the "classical music" world when there's a consensus around it. It is not a consensus on wheter a piece is good or not, only on if it belongs in that category.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> The term "Western art music" is inapropriate for me because it implies that other types of music aren't art.


Can you please explain that implication? "Western art music" does not say Japanese classical music isn't art music. How?


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> The term "Western art music" is inapropriate for me because it implies that other types of music aren't art. I don't know precisely what makes a piece of music part of the "classical" world. For instance, Stockhausen is a "classical" composer, but some of his compositions are hard for me to define in those terms, like Aus den sieben Tagen. That to me is a whole different story. I guess that something is part of the "classical music" world when there's a consensus around it. It is not a consensus on wheter a piece is good or not, only on if it belongs in that category.


Maybe it is the intention of the person creating the music, and not how it is perceived.

In other words, when Stockhausen created some of those compositions (that are hard for you to define in those terms), his intention was creating them for purely artistic motivations, whether others liked them or not.

But it may correct, that "western art music" may not be the best term (even though earlier I said I thought it was good), since, for example, a good amount of modern progressive jazz subgenres, are created as art music, and are Western. And obviously, they are not classical.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Haydn70 said:


> I prefer the term "Western art music".


I prefer that too.  But there's a lot of western art music that isn't classical in the sense the term is generically used. The term doesn't work if one wants to exclude jazz, prog rock, etc. Keeping the term classical makes more sense than saying "western art music except for …"


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Simon Moon said:


> Maybe it is the intention of the person creating the music, and not how it is perceived.
> 
> In other words, when Stockhausen created some of those compositions (that are hard for you to define in those terms), his intention was creating them for purely artistic motivations, whether others liked them or not.


This is partially true. Again, a lot of music (i'd say the vast majority of it) other than classical is art and the people that make it also have artistic intentions, and they also have plans as to how to achieve what they want to do, regardless if they know how to properly notate or formally express them or not. The only people i'd exclude from this are commercial products like some, but not all and definitely not most, pop stars.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

There's also the problem where there's a lot of things we'd consider classical which wasn't made for artistic purposes at all - eg someone writing a string quartet for a paycheck as nice background music to a party. Even Mozart wasn't above writing music to get paid.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

fbjim said:


> There's also the problem where there's a lot of things we'd consider classical which wasn't made for artistic purposes at all - eg someone writing a string quartet for a paycheck as nice background music to a party. Even Mozart wasn't above writing music to get paid.


All of their goals were to write great music and get paid.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

fbjim said:


> there's a lot of things we'd consider classical which wasn't made for artistic purposes at all - eg someone writing a string quartet for a paycheck as nice background music to a party.


art has always been made to order, and no 'artistic purpose' ever did matter.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BachIsBest said:


> I don't think so. Play some Chopin for random people and ask what genre the music is. I'm pretty sure they'll reply "classical".






^this sounds like something a late 19th century Afro-American composer would have written


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

I've always been under the impression that classical music is music that comes out of the tradition of Western culture (whether or not it was composed elsewhere) that is written showing how it should be performed (regardless of when it was composed or for what instruments). There isn't a neat and tidy way to define it, but it's likely classical if it is written down and its influences can be traced back to notated music from the Middle Ages in Europe. Perhaps there are exceptions though.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> Can you please explain that implication? "Western art music" does not say Japanese classical music isn't art music. How?


No, but it does say that rock, jazz, punk, pop, hip hop, singer-songwriter, folk, etc. etc., aren't art


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

I think "classical" refers to many things. 

First of all it is about instruments. Classical instruments in contrast to mainly electronic tone generation makes a work classical.

Its about the form. Classical music has very varying forms, but the popular music song form is an exclusion criterion. Using a form different to the popular music song form makes a work classical.

It is about rhythm. Back beat isn't classical. Another exclusion criterion.

If the work is vocal the type of singing is a criterion. If no voice amplifier is used it is classical.

I do not consider the time of composition as a criterion for classical music because that is not a property of the music.

So there are multiple criterions like instruments, form, beat, singing type and maybe more, but if only one criterion is violated I think that is not enough to deny a classical character. I think more than one criterion has to be violated, and there is a fluid transition.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Maybe it's your own ears that become classical! I used to have professional ears, now they are classical and professional with over half a century experience.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Aries said:


> I think "classical" refers to many things.
> 
> First of all it is about instruments. Classical instruments in contrast to mainly electronic tone generation makes a work classical.
> 
> ...


Others will know more about this than I do, but I sincerely doubt that someone by now hasn't written something that is decidedly classical yet uses both electronic instruments and amplified vocals. Things like that inform our traditional sense of what classical music is, but more recent compositions are expanding what the term "classical" means.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

*Classical music is music written by composer who identifies as writing classical music. 
*
This can be on a ad hoc basis, e.g. Paul McCartney has written at least one oratorio, and said he wanted to write a classical work - or a composer whose entire career has been in field of classical music. Film composers also step outside that context and have written concert works, the most prominent example is John Williams.

Classical music is defined by the composers, performers and all related practitioners.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

adriesba said:


> Others will know more about this than I do, but I sincerely doubt that someone by now hasn't written something that is decidedly classical yet uses both electronic instruments and amplified vocals.


Electronic tone generation and electronic voice/tone alternation can be combined to one criterion: Electronic tone generation/alternation vs. classical tone generation.

A work could still be rather classical if it uses just electronic tone generation/alternation, but if this is combined with popular song form or back beat, I think I would understand it rather as popular music or jazz. The thing is what the terms Pop/Jazz mean can be expanded too.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> *Classical music is music written by composer who identifies as writing classical music.
> *
> 
> Classical music is defined by the composers, performers and all related practitioners.


I suspect there's some truth in this. Two points, however:

1) Without the thing becoming meaninglessly subjective, the definition sidesteps the question of why a composer would identify as writing classical music for one piece, and writing something else for another piece. The composer, at least, must have a sense of what makes one piece classical and the other not. Perhaps the answer would be to ask them. I wonder what McCartney or Williams would answer.

2) I wouldn't entirely exclude the listeners. I think listeners can have a strong sense of what they expect when they are told a piece they are about to hear is going to be classical, or that it is not. I think they are as entitled to that opinion as composers, performers and practitioners, and their opinion is just as valid from its own perspective.

On a side issue, I like that fact that in the UK legal system judges are on occasion inclined to express the opinion, when an expert seeks to use a word in a particularly technical way, that words should be taken to mean what they are generally understood to mean in common language. I have a particularly technical example in mind in connection with insurance and the operation of with-profits funds, where a company was seeking to avoid obligations by making use of technical meanings of words, and the Law Lords (as they were then) would have none of that nonsense. I think that's a good approach. Classical music is what the standard dictionary thinks it is.

Collins dictionary says: "any style of music based on long-established principles of composition and polyphony and marked by stability of form, intellectualism, and restraint"
Cambridge English Dictionary: "music that is considered to be part of a long, formal tradition and to have lasting value"

Something in the territory of these definitions is probably also what I think classical music is. Collins is probably more likely to exclude the avant-garde, and Cambridge to include it - so we can continue to row about that.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Eclectic Al said:


> 2) I wouldn't entirely exclude the listeners. I think listeners can have a strong sense of what they expect when they are told a piece they are about to hear is going to be classical, or that it is not. I think they are as entitled to that opinion as composers, performers and practitioners, and their opinion is just as valid from its own perspective.


I agree, the audience shouldn't be excluded. I think, expanding upon the cambridge definition, that another defining trait would be where and how a piece is performed. Certain venues are apt or have a history or were designed for performances of a certain kind of music. Furthermore, I think one key issue is who performs the piece: is it a performer that has prepared her/him/them selves for the piece? If yes, I would say it's a classical piece. In non classical music usually the performer and the composer are one and the same (i.e bands, singer-songwriters, etc.)

Disclaimer: of course sometimes classical composers are also performers and they perform their pieces, and in pop music usually the singer didn't write the song.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> *Classical music is music written by composer who identifies as writing classical music.
> *
> This can be on a ad hoc basis, e.g. Paul McCartney has written at least one oratorio, and said he wanted to write a classical work - or a composer whose entire career has been in field of classical music. Film composers also step outside that context and have written concert works, the most prominent example is John Williams.
> 
> Classical music is defined by the composers, performers and all related practitioners.


They can define or call their music anything they want -and there's a lot of that probably gone on now with modern music- but that doesn't mean that publishers, recording companies and the buying public accept their definition which is important if those mentioned above want their music more widely accepted.

Of course, if they want to stay fixed with their definition and remain in relative obscurity on YouTube, that's their choice.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

DaveM said:


> They can define or call their music anything they want -and there's a lot of that probably gone on now with modern music- but that doesn't mean that publishers, recording companies and the buying public accept their definition which is important if those mentioned above want their music more widely accepted.
> 
> Of course, if they want to stay fixed with their definition and remain in relative obscurity on YouTube, that's their choice.


John Cage is often accused of not writing classical music. However, his music is published by a classical music publisher, C.F. Peters/Edition Peters, and his entire collection of works has been issued by a classical music label, Mode Records, on 40+ volumes which are bought by the public. His music has also been released by a number of classical record companies.

So using your standard, you cannot argue with his status as a classical composer.

But I think members on TC care a lot more about what is and what is not classical music than most composers and performers. All they care about is having an audience for their music. They market it as they wish.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> ..But I think members on TC care a lot more about what is and what is not classical music than most composers and performers. All they care about is having an audience for their music. They market it as they wish.


Well, I wasn't talking about John Cage or any other composer from the distant past. I was responding to your statement, _'Classical music is defined by the composers, performers and all related practitioners._ Now you're saying they don't really care about it. Which is it?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

DaveM said:


> Well, I wasn't talking about John Cage or any other composer from the distant past. I was responding to your statement, '_
> Classical music is defined by the composers, performers and all related practitioners._ Now you're saying they don't really care about it. Which is it?


I am saying that if a composer says his intention is to write classical music, then the music he writes is intended for the classical music market. If a composer doesn't want to categorize his music, then it will be marketed to an audience that responds to it, which might be a classical audience. For some time now classical music has included many different styles.

It has been my experience that composers, musicians, performers often do not embrace genre classifications since it boxes them up, and can imply assumptions about their music they do not wish to encourage. Most composers/musicians wish for their music to be judged on its own without linking it to a genre or label.

I am also saying that members on TC seem to be much more interested in this question than the professionals I've worked with.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> John Cage is often accused of not writing classical music. However, his music is published by a classical music publisher, C.F. Peters/Edition Peters, and his entire collection of works has been issued by a classical music label, Mode Records, on 40+ volumes which are bought by the public. His music has also been released by a number of classical record companies.


Something for us to think about:

"It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Film composers also step outside that context and have written concert works, the most prominent example is John Williams.


But of course if John Williams identifies his film scores as "classical music", I would imagine that composer-defined thing goes out the window.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> But of course if John Williams identifies his film scores as "classical music", I would imagine that composer-defined thing goes out the window.


You would be wrong. I am not invested in any of this. I don't care if John Williams were to do that, he is free to identify himself as 100% classical composer if that's what he wants to do. I couldn't care less. Of course I would think he were delusional - but that is neither here nor there.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Classical music is institutionally defined. It emerges from and inhabits a network of educational systems and performing arts institutions, performing ensembles, publishers, soloists, composers, promoters, managers, scholars, record companies and critics. Music emerging from, taught, promoted, and evaluated within the infrastructure of this network is classical music. If, for example, the film music of John Williams gets a firm hold in the performing rep of major orchestras it becomes classical music.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Classical music is institutionally defined. It emerges from and inhabits a network of educational systems and performing arts institutions, performing ensembles, publishers, soloists, composers, promoters, managers, scholars, record companies and critics. Music emerging from, taught, promoted, and evaluated within the infrastructure of this network is classical music. If, for example, the film music of John Williams gets a firm hold in the performing rep of major orchestras it becomes classical music.


Excellent post, EdwardBast...thank you!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> You would be wrong. I am not invested in any of this. I don't care if John Williams were to do that, he is free to identify himself as 100% classical composer if that's what he wants to do. I couldn't care less. Of course I would think he were delusional - but that is neither here nor there.


Dr. John Williams has been awarded Honorary Doctorates by leading music schools for his art in composition. This is far more recognition that many self-proclaimed classical music composers living today could achieve. Dr. Williams is full of originality and is a gifted classical music composer.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Classical music is institutionally defined. It emerges from and inhabits a network of educational systems and performing arts institutions, performing ensembles, publishers, soloists, composers, promoters, managers, scholars, record companies and critics. Music emerging from, taught, promoted, and evaluated within the infrastructure of this network is classical music. If, for example, the film music of John Williams gets a firm hold in the performing rep of major orchestras it becomes classical music.


Institutionally defined in a loose collective sense. I see what you mean. Here at TalkClassical.com it is also institutionally defined by members here.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> Dr. John Williams has been awarded Honorary Doctorates by leading music schools for his art in composition. This is far more recognition that many self-proclaimed classical music composers living today could achieve. Dr. Williams is full of originality and is a gifted classical music composer.


I am happy for him, and I guess I am happy for you for finding a composer to champion. It is wonderful to find an object for our affection. I won't rain on your John Williams Classical Composer parade. And I sincerely hope the belief Dr. John Williams is more of a classical composer than other living composers brings you joy.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Classical music is institutionally defined. It emerges from and inhabits a network of educational systems and performing arts institutions, performing ensembles, publishers, soloists, composers, promoters, managers, scholars, record companies and critics. Music emerging from, taught, promoted, and evaluated within the infrastructure of this network is classical music. If, for example, the film music of John Williams gets a firm hold in the performing rep of major orchestras it becomes classical music.


This is as true as anything else. Not really a valuable perspective.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I am happy for him, and I guess I am happy for you for finding a composer to champion. It is wonderful to find an object for our affection. I won't rain on your John Williams Classical Composer parade. And I sincerely hope the belief Dr. John Williams is more of a classical composer than other living composers brings you joy.


Well I am glad that we can agree that Dr. Williams is one of the finest living composers today.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

consuono said:


> But of course if John Williams identifies his film scores as "classical music", I would imagine that composer-defined thing goes out the window.


It doesn't matter what the composer thinks because that isn't objective. But John Williams music is classical according to objective criteria. He uses classical instruments, classical harmonies, classical rhythms.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

adriesba said:


> I've always been under the impression that classical music is music that comes out of the tradition of Western culture (whether or not it was composed elsewhere) that is written showing how it should be performed (regardless of when it was composed or for what instruments). There isn't a neat and tidy way to define it, but it's likely classical if it is written down and its influences can be traced back to notated music from the Middle Ages in Europe. Perhaps there are exceptions though.


This is largely true, but to my knowledge there are also at least Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Persian, and other classical musics, some of which have been given a very rough time such as Persian classical music since 1979.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Roger Knox said:


> This is largely true, but to my knowledge there are also at least Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Persian, and other classical musics, some of which have been given a very rough time such as Persian classical music since 1979.


Yes, then in such contexts I suppose one would have to specify Western classical vs others. As some others do, I also kind of like the term Western art music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> This is as true as anything else. Not really a valuable perspective.


It's only valuable to those who want to know how reality works.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> Well I am glad that we can agree that Dr. Williams is one of the finest living composers today.


I very much liked his score for _Catch Me If You Can_, and the concert work, _Escapades_, Concerto for Alto Saxophone that he based on the music from the score. But aside from that, I do not find John Williams's music very interesting overall. I will admit he has enormous talent and finely honed skills and puts both them to good use in his film scores, which are among the best of that genre.

As for new classical music, I am more interested in a different kind of more experimental/adventurous than what JW does.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> As for new classical music, I am more interested in a different kind of more experimental/adventurous than what JW does.


Yes. And we should remember that there is an intermediate category between classical and popular music called "light classical," into which Williams has already broken. Pops orchestras and stripped down and diluted versions of symphony orchestras, which tend to be active in the off-season, playing at summer concerts in the parks and other special programs, frequently play and have recorded suites of film music and music theater music, along with the classical "hits" of yesterdays. What makes this sort of music less than fully classical is the limited commitment of musical institutions. For example, principal wind players and senior members of string sections tend to get out of this sort of gig, their places taken by conservatory students and people on the "sub lists." And those conservatory students aren't going to be studying this music in their lessons or playing it in conservatory ensembles.

Will JW's film music graduate from the pops/light classical circuit to full-fledged classical rep? I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Dr. John Williams has been awarded Honorary Doctorates by leading music schools for his art in composition. This is far more recognition that many self-proclaimed classical music composers living today could achieve. Dr. Williams is full of originality and is a gifted classical music composer.


Let's just jump to the top and call him King Williams.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

adriesba said:


> Yes, then in such contexts I suppose one would have to specify Western classical vs others. As some others do, I also kind of like the term Western art music.


But I don't think all classical music is art music. Millitary march music for example is classical but gebrauchsmusik (utility music) instead of art music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Let's just jump to the top and call him King Williams.


No, that would be disrespectful of Dr. Williams.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> No, that would be disrespectful of Dr. Williams.


Here's something cooler: "William the Conqueror"


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> I very much liked his score for _Catch Me If You Can_, and the concert work, _Escapades_, Concerto for Alto Saxophone that he based on the music from the score. But aside from that, I do not find John Williams's music very interesting overall. ...


Truth be told, I really don't either. The film scores for Jaws and Close Encounters have some very interesting musical ideas, whether they belong in the "classical" realm or not. But overall I'm more interested in Arvo Pärt and even Glass and Adams. As far as film-score composers are concerned (leaving the debate on whether the genre is "classical" or not -- doesn't really matter) I think Bernard Herrmann is more interesting.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

ArtMusic said:


> Dr. Williams is full of originality and is a gifted classical music composer.


The last half of this is really nice.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I am sure Dr. Williams could develop the wonderful melodies and themes from _Star Wars_ into a few full scale symphonies.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I am sure Dr. Williams could develop the wonderful melodies and themes from _Star Wars_ into a few full scale symphonies.


I'm sure he knows better.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Dr. Williams?‎‎‎‎


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

adriesba said:


> Dr. Williams?‎‎‎‎


Perhaps PhD, DMA (Doctor of Musical Arts), Honorary doctorate?

The term "classical music" of course has multiple meanings. Concerning the poll, my "Other" is: "The piece is or becomes classical if it exists or is created within the classical music practices of a culture." Very roughly speaking there are western classical music, Chinese classical music, Indian classical music, Persian classical music and others. This usage does not assume or suggest that classical music is better than other music, that western is better than eastern, or that the pieces in a particular practice considered "classics" are the whole of that practice's classical music.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

Let me plagiarize - I can't define classical music but I know it when I hear it.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Haydn70 said:


> I prefer the term "Western art music".


In my mind that term would also include progressive rock music.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Fabulin said:


> Pity it can't be used as a one-word adjective...


Like maybe Westart Music or, maybe since directions are sometimes referred to by their first letter, we could say Wart Music. This would be like Polish vs polish. Wart music vs plantar wart. In both cases the spelling is the same but the pronunciation is different.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Radames said:


> Let me plagiarize - I can't define classical music but I know it when I hear it.


And you can probably tell a good composition, too.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

SixFootScowl said:


> Like maybe Westart Music or, maybe since directions are sometimes referred to by their first letter, we could say Wart Music. This would be like Polish vs polish. Wart music vs plantar wart. In both cases the spelling is the same but the pronunciation is different.


"Wart music" is actually a brilliant pejorative. Thank you.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> And you can probably tell a good composition, too.


Not always right away. Highly chromatic or dissonant music can take me time to get into. Some of it still confounds me.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Radames said:


> Not always right away. Highly chromatic or dissonant music can take me time to get into. Some of it still confounds me.


Leaving aside dissonant music however, I bet you can tell more easily.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Leaving aside dissonant music however, I bet you can tell more easily.


I think newer music is harder to rate most of the time. Baroque music is rather easy to judge in contrast. Afterwards it got increasingly more difficult. Since the 20th century it is not just dissonance that makes it difficult. Music also often got long-winded and very minor key heavy.

Compare a Brandenburger Concerto of Bach to Shostakovichs Symphony No. 8 for example. At least it took me longer to see the greatness of Shotakovichs 8th because of this minor key heavy long-windedness.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Aries said:


> I think newer music is harder to rate most of the time. *Baroque music is rather easy to judge in contrast.* Afterwards it got increasingly more difficult. Since the 20th century it is not just dissonance that makes it difficult. Music also often got long-winded and very minor key heavy.
> Compare a Brandenburger Concerto of Bach to Shostakovichs Symphony No. 8 for example. At least it took me longer to see the greatness of Shotakovichs 8th because of this minor key heavy long-windedness.


Try Bach's B minor mass. In those days, vocal music was generally considered more important than orchestral music.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

Aries said:


> I think newer music is harder to rate most of the time. Baroque music is rather easy to judge in contrast. Afterwards it got increasingly more difficult. Since the 20th century it is not just dissonance that makes it difficult. Music also often got long-winded and very minor key heavy.
> 
> Compare a Brandenburger Concerto of Bach to Shostakovichs Symphony No. 8 for example. At least it took me longer to see the greatness of Shotakovichs 8th because of this minor key heavy long-windedness.


Yes. That Shostakovitch work is finally one I learned to love. I still don't like the 4th. Maybe I have to listen more. I don't think I will ever like the 7th. I think it's overrated.


----------

