# Can this be considered an art song / classical music?



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Can these songs be considered art songs, or even classical music, even though they weren't composed as classical music?

No 1.






No 2.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'd say, "Why not?" Consider them whatever blows your skirt up.


----------



## Beethovenrox (Dec 10, 2011)

This isn't classical music...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Some will say yes, some will say no.
Some will say it's a good question with no answer.
Some will say it's a dumb question to start with.
The 'no' camp will sneer at those who say 'yes'.
The 'yes' crowd will be smug in their replies.
Those without answers will ponder the state of human knowledge and experience,
and the rest will call you an idiot.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Some will say yes, some will say no.
> Some will say it's a good question with no answer.
> Some will say it's a dumb question to start with.
> The 'no' camp will sneer at those who say 'yes'.
> ...


This is about as accurate a reply as you're going to get, Whistlerguy.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

I've always liked Eleanor Rigby, and my Word is Law; therefore, I hereby declare it to be Art Music of the highest order.

The first one is horrible though. It is degenerate art.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

To me, "classical" or "art" music has two defining qualities:
1. It develops the rules
2. It must be composed by an individual.

"Eleanor Rigby" may have the first quality, but it fails on the second, so I wouldn't consider it classical music. But then, that's just me.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Kopachris said:


> To me, "classical" or "art" music has two defining qualities:
> 1. It develops the rules
> 2. It must be composed by an individual.
> 
> "Eleanor Rigby" may have the first quality, but it fails on the second, so I wouldn't consider it classical music. But then, that's just me.


Why would it fail on the second? It may be credited as usual to Lennon-McCartney, but Paul wrote it.

I love both by the way, among my favourite Beatles songs.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

She's Leaving Home isn't horrible to my ears. I don't have to consider these songs to be anything but music to be listened to and enjoyed. What's with all the highbrow analysis?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> Why would it fail on the second? It may be credited as usual to Lennon-McCartney, but Paul wrote it.
> 
> I love both by the way, among my favourite Beatles songs.


Paul wrote the vocals. George Martin wrote the string accompaniment. But you're right: they are both great songs.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> 2. It must be composed by an individual.


So the F-A-E Sonata isn't classical music?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Klavierspieler said:


> So the F-A-E Sonata isn't classical music?


Well, I wouldn't consider it classical music, no. The only exceptions I have are for variations on themes by other composers, including quotes within larger works, and cases where the lyrics come from an outside source, but the composer still composes the music individually. Of course, there is no absolute definition of classical music--it's entirely subjective--and just because I don't consider it classical doesn't mean it's not still good.


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2011)

Whistlerguy said:


> ...even though they weren't composed as classical music?


Quite a lot of what we now call "classical music" was not composed as classical music, including _everything_ written in what we now call the classical era.

The term "classical music" was first used around 1810, in Germany. It didn't make it to England until around 1830.

Mozart and Haydn, if they were referred to at all by an attribute, were considered romantic (as opposed to the classical* of what was by then referred to as "antient music").

*The terms themselves, "classical" and "romantic", were old, old terms referring to two broad categories of art, also referred to as Apollonian and Dionysian.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Of course any comparisons can be made, but if you decide to put it in the same category as Parsifal it will look decidedly second/third rate. When most people try to put the Beatles in the "classical" or "art song" categorical it's to elevate them to a preposterously high place. Once they're in the same category, some frivolous and dubious "judge them on their own terms" argument will be used. If it wasn't for this purpose there would be no point in stamping the classical label on them. 

I would put them in the same category as Kurt Weill, whom I consider more or less an elevated pop composer. That seems fair as the best of the Beatles is arguably on par with The Threepenny Opera, Seven Deadly Sins, Mack the Knife, etc.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> She's Leaving Home isn't horrible to my ears. I don't have to consider these songs to be anything but music to be listened to and enjoyed. What's with all the highbrow analysis?


This is true, and it makes me think that these questions are just saying: "is this music Worthy?" My answer would be: "why would you care what I or anyone else thinks if the music does something for you?"


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

This sort of situation exposes the ridiculousness of applying the term "classical music", which is well-defined, outside its domain.

However, I would certainly call them artsongs, on the strength of the compositional qualities.

The argument that they aren't "classical" because they were composed by more than one person doesn't stand up (or at least it forces one into a ludicrous position). And surely, if McCartney wrote the song, Martin orchestrated it. Is the Mussorgsky/Ravel _Pictures at an exhibition_ not classical because it was orchestrated by someone other than the composer?

What about these?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

"Can this be considered an art song / classical music?"

Absolutely not. But this one can...


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> This sort of situation exposes the ridiculousness of applying the term "classical music", which is well-defined, outside its domain.
> 
> However, I would certainly call them artsongs, on the strength of the compositional qualities.
> 
> ...


Oh? Since when is "classical music" well-defined? In the case of "Eleanor Rigby," you are simply mistaken: McCartney wrote the vocals, and Martin wrote the orchestral backing. Very different from McCartney writing the song and Martin orchestrating the song. As for _Pictures at an Exhibition_, Mussorgsky wrote the piece for solo piano. Ravel rearranged it at a later date. It would be the same as a piano arrangement of one of Beethoven's symphonies.

And I can't find enough information about the two YouTube examples you gave to pass judgment on them.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

The answer is no.


/Thread


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

To me, "classical" or "art" music has two defining qualities:
1. It develops the rules
2. It must be composed by an individual.

Paul wrote the vocals. George Martin wrote the string accompaniment.






Music: Debussy Lyrics: Paul Verlaine


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> To me, "classical" or "art" music has two defining qualities:
> 1. It develops the rules
> 2. It must be composed by an individual.
> 
> ...


What's your point? Are you trying to get me to contradict myself? Did Verlaine write the lyrics or the vocals? I already mentioned that I count an exception for cases where lyrics come from an outside source, such as a librettist or a poet. If Verlaine actually wrote the notes that the lyrics are sung to, then I personally wouldn't consider the piece classical. Here is a list of pieces of music that are generally considered "classical" which were written in collaboration. I don't consider most of them "classical" or "art music" (the only exceptions being, as I said before, variations on a theme by another composer and cases where the lyrics _and the lyrics alone_ came from another person).

I keep a very strict, precise definition of "classical music." The purpose of such a definition is not without, but within. It is merely for classification and organization in my own mind. I'm not saying my definition is absolute or that everyone should follow it.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Kopachris said:


> What's your point? Are you trying to get me to contradict myself? Did Verlaine write the lyrics or the vocals? I already mentioned that I count an exception for cases where lyrics come from an outside source, such as a librettist or a poet. If Verlaine actually wrote the notes that the lyrics are sung to, then I personally wouldn't consider the piece classical. Here is a list of pieces of music that are generally considered "classical" which were written in collaboration. I don't consider most of them "classical" or "art music" (the only exceptions being, as I said before, variations on a theme by another composer and cases where the lyrics _and the lyrics alone_ came from another person).
> 
> I keep a very strict, precise definition of "classical music." The purpose of such a definition is not without, but within. It is merely for classification and organization in my own mind. I'm not saying my definition is absolute or that everyone should follow it.


Would it severely affect your internal organisation to expand your definition to include collaborative works?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Would it severely affect your internal organisation to expand your definition to include collaborative works?


Yes it would. I don't mind if _you_ include collaborative works, and I'll even use _your_ definition of "classical" when I'm speaking with you, but my own definition will remain unchanged.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Kopachris said:


> Yes it would. I don't mind if _you_ include collaborative works, and I'll even use _your_ definition of "classical" when I'm speaking with you, but my own definition will remain unchanged.


I don't understand why it would be such a big deal when you've already accepted that your personal definition is arbitrary.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Great songs, but if part of the criteria is that it had to be written by one party then let's not forget that a substantial piece of both is due to Mike Leander's arrangements in the first instance and George Martin's in the second. Hang on - if art songs tend to quote from someone else's literary works then theoretically two people have always composed them, right?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

elgars ghost said:


> Great songs, but if part of the criteria is that it had to be written by one party then let's not forget that a substantial piece of both is due to Mike Leander's arrangements in the first instance and George Martin's in the second. Hang on - if art songs tend to quote from someone else's literary works then theoretically two people have always composed them, right?


For the third time, let me state that, though the lyrics are necessary to the whole of the piece, I consider the process of writing the lyrics to be a literary one rather than a musical one, so a lyricist, librettist, or poet doesn't count as a collaborating composer.



Polednice said:


> I don't understand why it would be such a big deal when you've already accepted that your personal definition is arbitrary.


I don't have time to explain fully at the moment, as I must be leaving for work very shortly. For now, I'll just say that there's a difference between arbitrarily choosing a definition and choosing an arbitrary definition.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Sorry, Kopachris - I was guilty of skimming through a few posts so I don't want you to think I was labouring a point that was already made. I reckon I'll just settle for thinking that they are art songs as much as they aren't.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

elgars ghost said:


> Sorry, Kopachris - I was guilty of skimming through a few posts so I don't want you to think I was labouring a point that was already made. I reckon I'll just settle for thinking that they are art songs as much as they aren't.


Okay, then. No problem.

@Polednice: What I mean by "there's a difference between arbitrarily choosing a definition and choosing an arbitrary definition" is that I will go along with whatever definition is proposed for the sake of argument. Because there is no real standard definition for "classical music" or "art music" that everyone can agree on, you can ask if a piece will fit a particular definition, and I'll abide by that definition in order to answer the question. If no definition is given, I'll propose one, though I don't expect everyone to abide by it.

As for why I hold that particular definition (and I'm slightly disappointed no one bothered to ask that question), here's an excerpt of the blog post of mine that it came from:


Kopachris said:


> To begin with, we must define classical music. What is it, exactly? We know what distinguishes rock from pop from jazz, but what makes music classical? It's a common misconception that any incidental music (e.g. film scores), any orchestral music, or any piano music is classical. It's also a misconception that classical music must necessarily be "old," as there are people alive who compose what is considered to be classical music. The most common definition that will be given to you by classical-heads is that "classical music" is synonymous with "art music," that is, music which is created as art instead of entertainment. However, this can also be misleading, as music which we consider classical was usually written for entertainment during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. True, it was also considered art, but it was written primarily for entertaining, especially during the Classical period itself: chamber music was written to entertain wealthy nobles in their homes, opera was written to entertain the variety of people who could come to the theater, piano music was written for individuals to entertain their friends. . . .
> 
> A much better definition of classical music concentrates on the forms and ideas that the music is based on, or rather, the variety present within those forms and ideas. Since the Medieval era, people took note not only of the music itself, but how it was created. They made rules that had to be followed to create music. Throughout the Renaissance and the Baroque era, those rules evolved. During the Classical, Romantic, and Modern eras, those rules were more and more frequently broken. Therefore, classical music is music which is necessarily created out of an understanding of a given set of rules which are meant to be broken and evolve over time.
> 
> ...


tl;dr, FRIENDS, Y U NO ASK _Y_ I USE THAT DEFINITION?


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> Oh? Since when is "classical music" well-defined?


1971, when Charles Rosen's _The classical style_ was published - though in fact much earlier than that - try any edition of _Grove_ for example.



Kopachris said:


> In the case of "Eleanor Rigby," you are simply mistaken: McCartney wrote the vocals, and Martin wrote the orchestral backing.


I assume, by "the vocals", you mean the vocal line and the words, but none of the harmonies. Sounds rather unlikely to me, given that McCartney was able to harmonise others of his songs quite competently. And, then, you say, Martin took the unharmonised vocal line, invented harmonies in keeping with McCartney's style, and allocated instruments to play instrumental lines he had derived from those harmonies?



Kopachris said:


> Very different from McCartney writing the song and Martin orchestrating the song.


Orchestration is merely the allocation of orchestral instruments to previously composed lines of music and the definition of how each instrument should play its music at each moment. Very few orchestral compositions have been written straight into full score (Prokofiev 1 is one), most are sketched in one way or another in short score, the composer later creating fully thought out instrumental lines. The act of orchestral composition therefore includes an essential stage of orchestration, even if it is in the composer's head - he or she still has to decide to allocate that line to a clarinet, not an oboe, because it needs to stand out more, or to have fewer percussion instruments in order to reduce the cost of staging the work. So, even assuming Martin composed the harmonies, he still orchestrated the music.



Kopachris said:


> As for _Pictures at an Exhibition_, Mussorgsky wrote the piece for solo piano. Ravel rearranged it at a later date. It would be the same as a piano arrangement of one of Beethoven's symphonies.


Apart from the fact that the orchestrated _Pictures _is the opposite of a piano arrangement of a Beethoven symphony, your remark isn't really relevant. The original assertion was that a piece of music written by two people could not, ipso facto, be classical, so presumably, if Beethoven 5 is a classical piece, Liszt's transcription of it isn't. That is absurd.



Kopachris said:


> And I can't find enough information about the two YouTube examples you gave


You don't need any information about them. Just listen.



Kopachris said:


> to pass judgment on them.


There is already too much judgment on TC. Leave it in your back pocket. Your opinion will be just fine.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> 1971, when Charles Rosen's _The classical style_ was published - though in fact much earlier than that - try any edition of _Grove_ for example.


Rosen's book analyzes the style of the Classical period. It doesn't provide a definition of "classical music." And what do you mean by "any edition of _Grove_?" I'm not finding anything except books about trees. 



Jeremy Marchant said:


> I assume, by "the vocals", you mean the vocal line and the words, but none of the harmonies. Sounds rather unlikely to me, given that McCartney was able to harmonise others of his songs quite competently. And, then, you say, Martin took the unharmonised vocal line, invented harmonies in keeping with McCartney's style, and allocated instruments to play instrumental lines he had derived from those harmonies?


Close enough. By "the vocals," I meant the vocal lines (including harmony) and the words. The double string quartet acts as accompaniment to the voices. That accompaniment is what Martin wrote.



Jeremy Marchant said:


> Orchestration is merely the allocation of orchestral instruments to previously composed lines of music and the definition of how each instrument should play its music at each moment. Very few orchestral compositions have been written straight into full score (Prokofiev 1 is one), most are sketched in one way or another in short score, the composer later creating fully thought out instrumental lines. The act of orchestral composition therefore includes an essential stage of orchestration, even if it is in the composer's head - he or she still has to decide to allocate that line to a clarinet, not an oboe, because it needs to stand out more, or to have fewer percussion instruments in order to reduce the cost of staging the work. So, even assuming Martin composed the harmonies, he still orchestrated the music.


I'm very well aware of how orchestration works.



Jeremy Marchant said:


> Apart from the fact that the orchestrated _Pictures _is the opposite of a piano arrangement of a Beethoven symphony, your remark isn't really relevant. The original assertion was that a piece of music written by two people could not, ipso facto, be classical, so presumably, if Beethoven 5 is a classical piece, Liszt's transcription of it isn't. That is absurd.


Let me try to clarify: Ravel made an arrangement of Mussorgsky's _Pictures at an Exhibition_. The piece is still _Pictures at an Exhibition_ by Modest Mussorgsky, not _Pictures at an Exhibition_ by Mussorgsky and Ravel. Similarly, no matter who arranged the piano transcription, the piece is still _Symphony No. 5_ by Ludwig van Beethoven. An arrangement doesn't get its own genre or composer and doesn't influence the genre or composer of the original. It just exists. And unless Mussorgsky said to Ravel, "Hey, Ravel, you wanna help me write this? I'll sketch it out and you can orchestrate it," it doesn't count as a collaboration.



Jeremy Marchant said:


> You don't need any information about them. Just listen.
> 
> There is already too much judgment on TC. Leave it in your back pocket. Your opinion will be just fine.


By "pass judgment," I meant to decide whether or not it fits my definition of "classical music." That is why you posted them, right?--to see whether or not I would call them "classical?" I can't do that simply based on how it sounds.


----------

