# Is it classical music or not?



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

One of the things that draws me to contemporary music is its frequent defiance of traditional (for us) genre categories. In this thread, I'd like us to present recordings that some people would consider classical music but other people wouldn't, and then if we want we can also discuss the reasons for and against labeling it "classical music" or not. (Of course there may be no objective answer, and I personally believe that almost all such labels are absolutely arbitrary, mere conventions, but they are interesting to explore, so it might be fun to hear each other's reasons for rejecting or including something.) There's a lot of this out there, so this could go a long time, and that'd be great because this is sort of a hobby for me.

I'll get us started with a few examples (I do not expect everyone, or perhaps anyone, to consider all of these classical)....

View attachment 56386
View attachment 56387
View attachment 56391
View attachment 56389
View attachment 56388


What do you think? Classical or not?

And, what examples would you give of recordings on the margins of the definition, or perhaps that transcend it?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Yes / No / No / Yes / Not heard!

Eno, as is in the electronic version not, I've heard "Music for Airports" played by an acoustic Chamber ensemble (Could have been "Bang on a Can"), and then perhaps, is !acoustic ambient! an available term, anyway I hesitate.
Tubular Bells are to rooted in Jazz and Rock to be classical even if it is an accomplished (amazing) composition!
Riley and Feldman are doubtless classical in my mind!
Don't think I've heard the Uniko album so I can't say...

But in general terms, I don't give much thought about what is classical music and what is not on a personal level, as I have said before, I only recognise three forms of music, that what I'm absolutely sure I like, that what I am vehemently dislike and the remaining 99.9% that I'm undecided on!
For me "genres" are just a tool to help me find music I have a hunch I would like a little faster, it is by no means a quality or enjoyment indicator!

/ptr


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2014)

What we REALLY need is a distinction between "classical" tape music and other electronic music. Terry Riley played/recorded A Rainbow In Curved Air, and if it weren't an electronic work, that alone would make it suspect.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Terry Riley: classical
Brian Eno: non classical
Mike Oldfield: non classical
Morton Feldman: classical
Kronos Quartet and the Uniko project: classical

All these belong to my "good music" drawer, anyway.

Just wondering what do you think of this










or this










the different scale mirrors my thoughts...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ptr said:


> I've heard "Music for Airports" played by an acoustic Chamber ensemble (Could have been "Bang on a Can")


I know they've done it, so that's one reason I thought it might be interesting.

So everyone so far is counting Feldman's work as classical. I want to make sure everyone knows that in a live performance two of the three voices are taped, and from our POV (almost inevitably) all three of course.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Einaudi = Not Classical, maybe popsical? (i.e He's the Justin Bieber of "compositional" music, makes Young girls scream of lust but have no apparent longevity of quality)

Jarrett = Think is solo piano stuff is borderline, to improvised to be real classical, to composed to be real Jazz, some of it have an almost Ambient quality in the way he let the instrument work with the room / environment! 

/ptr


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

science said:


> I know they've done it, so that's one reason I thought it might be interesting.


That is for me an interesting experience, that a piece of music can be more then one thing, and maybe transcending in to a third!



> So everyone so far is counting Feldman's work as classical. I want to make sure everyone knows that in a live performance two of the three voices are taped, and from our POV (almost inevitably) all three of course.


One apparent thing that defines "classical" or not is the way it was composed, traditionally "pen and paper", today computer software that simulates pen and paper, also, the freedom of the post WWII environment have allowed composers to more easily include non traditional musical scopes and with the the digital age we live in to day, anyone can be a composer, You don't even have to have anything to express with Your music to be popular (like that pointless Einaudi dude!)

/ptr


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

One of my favorite bands here. They have music with orchestral elements but rely heavily on electronics. Classical?


----------



## Musicforawhile (Oct 10, 2014)

'Moment in time' by Alexis Ffrench


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Some interesting suggestions - but has everyone agreed that GioCar's Jarrett album is classical? I don't know it myself, so I can't judge.


----------



## Musicforawhile (Oct 10, 2014)

The Keith Jarret piece sounds experimental to me - there's classical ideas there and jazz and parts that sound like a film score. It could work well as intelligent film music. I wouldn't say it was simply classical personally.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

science said:


> Some interesting suggestions - but has everyone agreed that GioCar's Jarrett album is classical? *I don't know it myself*, so I can't judge.


I'd add it into your "http://www.talkclassical.com/33173-please-help-me-recommending.html" 

Actually I'm not sure it's classical...
I am quite with ptr, I consider it an excellent example of borderline music. Keith Jarret is very well known for his jazz improvisations but in this case it is too structured to be totally improvised.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Tricky business, this attempt to pigeonhole definitions such as "classical" and "non-classical".

If traditionally "classical music" is written down (on a score), then did any improvisations by Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, etc. qualify as classical music? Or was it non-classical until perhaps the composer committed it to paper? Of course, what about a pianist or violinist improvising a cadenza into a scored concerto? Does the non-written-out portion of the concerto -- the cadenza -- qualify as non-classical? After all, the next time the performer plays the cadenza he or she may well change it, and as we all know (or at least as I seem to recall someone on this Forum suggesting) that "classical music" is unchangeable. Hmm.

I recall the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for Music went to _Time's Encomium_, an electronic, four channel, musical composition by Charles Wuorinen for synthesized and processed synthesized sound. I have the NONESUCH recording of this piece on both LP and CD, but I wonder what the score looks like. Is this classical?

There is quite a bit of computer generated and synthesized "classical" music out there. Why is something by Morton Subotnick recognized as "classical" while music by Brian Eno is debated?

Respighi includes recorded bird song in his _Pines of Rome _and Einojuhani Rautavaara in his _Cantus Arcticus_, Op. 61, subtitled _Concerto for Birds and Orchestra_. Can actual bird song be considered classical music, or only when it is written down as in the _Goldfinch_ Concerto by Vivaldi, the Sixth Symphony by Beethoven, or everything (nearly) by Olivier Messiaen?

Is music by instruction sheet (rather than notated score page) -- such as much of John Cage's work -- valid as classical, or not?

And can a composer actually live in both the classical and non-classical worlds? Did Frank Zappa or Paul McCartney ever really compose any "classical" music?

Is John Williams's or Bernard Herrmann's fully scored "film music" actually "classical music"? And if the movie score happens to be jazz-like in nature, though fully scored, is it classical or non-classical? (And many film composers have written concertos and symphonies, including Williams and Herrmann.) How does one categorize Richard Addinsell's _Warsaw Concerto_?

I hold that it's a bit presumptuous to assign too much weight to categories of music. After all, what in the Medieval period and Renaissance was once "popular" or "dance" music (all those galliards and allemandes and such) are often today performed and recorded by what we recognize as "classical music" consorts. And what in the 'ell is Gregorian Chant if it aint classical music? Oh! It's "sacred music", like the stuff sung to guitars in many a Sunday church service today. And like the Bach Cantatas. Hmmm.

Don't get too hyped over categorizing music. Rather, listen and enjoy it, whether it be a punk rock classic by The Clash, a film score by Elmer Bernstein, a synthesized ambient wrap by Merzbow, a polka by Frankie Yankovic, a Nocturne by Chopin, a Suite by Duke Ellington, or a symphony by Mozart. There's too much good sound out there to worry about whether or not one is listening in the _right_ category.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

@SONNET CLV

Good post, but anyway I do like the OP's idea to find out the "recordings on the margins of the definition, or perhaps that transcend it" such as the examples above, and to do that a categorization is needed.
No one here is speaking of _right_ or _wrong_ categories, I believe...


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

GioCar said:


> @SONNET CLV
> 
> Good post, but anyway I do like the OP's idea to find out the "recordings on the margins of the definition, or perhaps that transcend it" such as the examples above, and to do that a categorization is needed.
> No one here is speaking of _right_ or _wrong_ categories, I believe...


The phrase "right or wrong categories" suggests two different things. Perhaps you thought I meant the one while I actually meant the other.

I wrote: "There's too much good sound out there to worry about whether or not one is listening in the _right _category." What I mean is that while one listens to a piece of music, one should not worry about figuring out whether it fits into this category or that category or is borderline or whatever. Will there be disappointment is one finally determines that the "classical" piece he attempted to listen to is actually, after a serious deliberation, "non-classical"? If so, the listener is missing much.

I certainly did not propose the idea that there are right (good, valid, sound, preferential, superior) categories as opposed to wrong (bad, invalid, unsound, stupid, inferior) categories of music. In fact, I didn't use the word "wrong" at all.

In fact, the whole point of the post was that categorization remains a "tricky business" -- something which will always be highly personal, debateable, subjective and opinionated.

And before the OP or you or I or anyone can find "recordings on the margins of the definition, or perhaps that transcend it", definitions (categories) have to be decided upon. This, I posit, remains the "tricky business" and has no Plato-like definitive World-of-Forms answer (though I suspect the Platonists out there may disagree).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> One of the things that draws me to contemporary music is its frequent defiance of traditional (for us) genre categories. In this thread, I'd like us to present recordings that some people would consider classical music but other people wouldn't, and then if we want we can also discuss the reasons for and against labeling it "classical music" or not. (Of course there may be no objective answer, and I personally believe that almost all such labels are absolutely arbitrary, mere conventions, but they are interesting to explore, so it might be fun to hear each other's reasons for rejecting or including something.) There's a lot of this out there, so this could go a long time, and that'd be great because this is sort of a hobby for me.
> 
> I'll get us started with a few examples (I do not expect everyone, or perhaps anyone, to consider all of these classical)....
> 
> ...


There are problems here, since you have posted images of recorded performances. First off, to understand a work of art, it's better to understand its context. You can't get an accurate, informed answer to this if you just slap-up some images of recorded works and ask Mr. Joe Public what he thinks. He's probably more into Tchaikovsky, anyway.

First, YOU MUST RECOGNIZE AND ACKNOWLEDGE AS TRUE THIS DISTINCTION: the distinction between "composer" and "performer" is key to the "classical" ethos. *The written score separated the "composer" from the performer of the score,* and elevated the composer to high status.

By contrast, *recording of audio* changed this, and gave us definitive recordings of performances (instead of originating as a score), or_ if it existed first as a score,_ a definitive recording of a performance (of that score). Thus, the audio recording itself becomes a "definitive artifact." This fact began to rob the importance of composer, and elevate the importance of performer, because *it once again allows the uniting of performer with composition.* Performance "becomes" the composition, not separated by a score.

*There is a subtle difference; *in some instances (jazz standards, pop song written by ear in a studio setting, electronic music composed directly to tape without score), this audio recording is an originating, definitive process which subsumes composition; in other cases, mainly of classical music (recordings of Beethoven sonatas), the audio recording is an attempt at creating a definitive performance of an already-scored work; in this case, the "compositional" component has been removed (it exists definitively in the score), and the recording is the record of a particular performance.

Each case here is unique. Using these criteria, I will explain:

_*Terry Riley's* "A Rainbow In Curved Air" (with "Poppy Nogood and the Phantom Band") _are recordings of performances which existed as "conceptual" pieces of improvisation. In this sense they are like jazz performances, but since they came from Terry Riley (who also conceptualized and performed them on keyboards and soprano saxophone), who has written scored music as well, then this recording falls within the purview of his total output, which includes string quartets and scored keyboard music. It comes from a "classically recognized composer" (by Kronos and many classical pianists).

So, yes, "A Rainbow In Curved Air" is primarily a performance, and should be considered as such, like a jazz performance; but the informed listener will know that it comes from a composer who is classically trained and recognized as such. Like jazz, the "comopositional process" has become united with the "performance."

So, John Coltrane's recording of "My Favorite Things" (Rogers/Hammerstein) becomes _a definitive recording of his improvisatory saxophone solos, which are also the "compositional element" we are interested in, _not the Rogers/Hammerstein song, which is just a vehicle for Coltrane's creativity.

Likewise, Terry Riley's "A Rainbow In Curved Air" is a definitive record of a performance (a process he developed years earlier in his "all-night flight" loft performances), and is valued for its compositional elements, _which are not separated by a score, but are integrated into the performance._

The Eno recording is "art" music, but owes little to the classical tradition. Still, it exists as a composed-to-tape piece of "electronic" music (using pre-determined lengths of tape-loops), since it was not scored; it must be seen as "the definitive artifact itself." In this sense, it is not "classical" in the old sense, since it does not separate composer or the composition process by written score; yet, it is an audio record of a "conceptual process" we would recognize as composition; and Brian Eno's increasing stature as a visual artist, author, producer, and creator of music, makes this recognition easier than a run-of-the-mill pop record.

I will not go further, except to say that there is a WHOLE NEW PARADIGM of music which is being "missed" by this thread, which would be better explained to the members, instead of "throwing it to the rabble" and letting them pontificate.

Eno, David Byrne, Glass, Reich, and anyone who was in New York during the "loft" years of the 1970s and 1980s would recognize this new paradigm, which evolved and thrived OUTSIDE of the existing music "establishment" which had become irrelevant.

Instead of questioning this new paradigm, listeners should be glad, and appreciate the fact that new, vital music is being created under the new umbrella of "classical" and art music; music which is worthy of a tradition of high concepts and high performance values.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> So, yes, "A Rainbow In Curved Air" is primarily a performance, and should be considered as such, like a jazz performance; but the informed listener will know that it comes from a composer who is classically trained and recognized as such.


See, this is what I question. A classical composer writes a piece that isn't all that classical, but since he's a classical composer, everything he writes must therefore be classical? I would prefer not to make a claim either way, at this point, but that seems like shifty logic in particular.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I will not go further, except to say that there is a WHOLE NEW PARADIGM of music which is being "missed" by this thread, which would be better explained to the members, instead of "throwing it to the rabble" and letting them pontificate.
> 
> Eno, David Byrne, Glass, Reich, and anyone who was in New York during the "loft" years of the 1970s and 1980s would recognize this new paradigm, which evolved and thrived OUTSIDE of the existing music "establishment" which had become irrelevant.
> 
> Instead of questioning this new paradigm, listeners should be glad, and appreciate the fact that new, vital music is being created under the new umbrella of "classical" and art music; music which is worthy of a tradition of high concepts and high performance values.


I have a tendency to mentally categorise new music about which we have to ask "is this classical?" in its own (nameless) category. Maybe I'll start calling it "isthis-classical".
You're right, much of what we're probably talking about owes as much to non-classical as to classical, so obliging it to be one or the other is missing the point.

By the way, can I just add that it irritates me to see the term "neo-classical" used for artists like Nico Muhly, when that adjective already suggests Stravinsky et al.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> See, this is what I question. A classical composer writes a piece that isn't all that classical, but since he's a classical composer, everything he writes must therefore be classical? I would prefer not to make a claim either way, at this point, but that seems like shifty logic in particular.


I think each case is unique. to use your model, A classical composer (Shostakovich, John Williams) _*writes*_ a piece that isn't all that classical (movie soundtrack), but since he's a classical composer, everything he writes must therefore be classical?

Well, that depends. Ask a Shostakovich expert whether his soundtrack music is worthy of the "classical" distinction or not. Is John Williams' Star Wars music worthy?

In the end, it boils down to the artistic quality and intent of the music, which can transcend its context or intended use,doesn't it?

Just because music is "written out" and scored does not make it "classical;" don't confuse the technique with the content.

The reason I keep harping on the distinction between scored music and recorded music is because *the Classical paradigm relies heavily on this distinction,* since throughout most of its history, it was written/scored music. This process of scoring was the way *compositional ideas *were preserved.

Now that we have audio recording, Paul McCartney can "compose" and put down a song idea directly to tape. He can "compose" on tape. And the end result is the "definitive form" of his composition, which might include novel processing, odd studio techniques, a certain type of guitar through a fuzz-box, a phased piano, etc.

So the techniques of composition are new; and "performer" can be united with "the composition process" which, in the old paradigm, was the exclusive realm of the "composer."

*The old paradigm of classical music is the only reason all this explanation is necessary.* We no longer need to consider "the written score" as the only way to "legitimize" the compositional process; now, with audio recording, a performance can be just as much a part of the compositional process, and need not be separated from that process.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> I have a tendency to mentally categorise new music about which we have to ask "is this classical?" in its own (nameless) category. Maybe I'll start calling it "isthis-classical".
> You're right, much of what we're probably talking about owes as much to non-classical as to classical, so obliging it to be one or the other is missing the point.
> 
> By the way, can I just add that it irritates me to see the term "neo-classical" used for artists like Nico Muhly, when that adjective already suggests Stravinsky et al.


Goodness, is the term "neo-classical" still flying around? That bird has landed several times in history. Wasn't it seen sitting on Brahms's head? Stravinsky should have been "neo-neo-classical," and Nico Muhly must be "neo-neo-neo-classical."

It's important to get these things straight.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

This again??? All I have to say is


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I like a man of few words. 

A man of no words, carefully chosen, I love.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Then, in few words:

Pink Floyd *are a pop/rock band.*

Dimitri Shostakovich was* a classical composer* who also wrote some film music/"soundtrack", like many others such as Prokofiev, Takemitsu, Petrassi, etc...

John Williams is *a movie soundtrack composer* who also wrote some classical music, like many others such as Hermann, Rota, Morricone, etc...

Philip Glass is both a classical and a movie soundtrack composer, like others such as Nyman or, in the past, Korngold.

And so on...

This is what I (and most people) think of them. Don't you agree?

Terry Riley is a classical composer who also wrote ....? How do you define "A Rainbow In Curved Air"? This work was composed in a way quite similar to Tubular Bells (and maybe influenced Mike Oldfield in the composition process), but to my ears it sounds classical (not jazz or whatelse) while Tubular Bells sounds pop/rock. A good example of borderline work.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

GioCar said:


> Terry Riley: classical
> Brian Eno: non classical
> Mike Oldfield: non classical
> Morton Feldman: classical
> ...


I second GioCar's replies to the OP.

As for his questions...

Einaudi: classical. Not the best classical let's say, but classical. Better than Allevi at least 

Jarrett: not classical. It's a jazz piano solo improvisation. The performance IS the work, which goes against my main personal guideline for telling the two things apart.

What about this: Nils Frahm & Anne Muller






and this: Louis Warynski aka Chapelier Fou


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

scratchgolf said:


> One of my favorite bands here. They have music with orchestral elements but rely heavily on electronics. Classical?


I second the preference. My cat was named after them.
But anyways, definitely not classical. Their whole oeuvre is rooted in rock and very specific styles of rock too.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Stavrogin said:


> What about this: Nils Frahm & Anne Muller


This is quite tricky at the beginning, but after the first minute or so it sounds non-classical to my ears.



Stavrogin said:


> and this: Louis Warynski aka Chapelier Fou


Definitely non classical, IMO. It reminds me some movie soundtracks (such as that for Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain).

Amazing pieces, anyway. Grazie!


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Yes, I agree about them being both amazing AND non classical (it's the beats that mostly give them away).

How about this one: The Tumbled Sea


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ptr said:


> Einaudi = Not Classical, maybe popsical? (i.e He's the Justin Bieber of "compositional" music, makes Young girls scream of lust but have no apparent longevity of quality)
> 
> Jarrett = Think is solo piano stuff is borderline, to improvised to be real classical, to composed to be real Jazz, some of it have an almost Ambient quality in the way he let the instrument work with the room / environment!
> 
> /ptr


May the gods bless you for the _popsicle_ comment


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

scratchgolf said:


> One of my favorite bands here. They have music with orchestral elements but rely heavily on electronics. Classical?


Naw, Icelandic alternative pop(sicle) :lol:


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2014)

What does classical music sound like?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

1.) Riley ~ _Rainbow_
2.) Eno ~ _Music for Airports_
3.) Mike Oldfield et alia ~ Tubular Bells
4.) Morton Feldman ~ _Three Voices (for Joan La Barbara)_
5.) Kronos _Uniko_

1.) Yup
2.) Nope
3.) Nope
3.) Yup
5.) Dunno, unheard.

I do recall the liner notes on the first recording of Steve Reich's _Music for 18 musicians,_ written by a friend / musician colleague who was working in a bricks and mortar record store at the time. He wrote that the disc was set to play on the store system, just about everyone in the store, staff and customers, were transfixed. He then wrote his next thought was *"What bin do we put it in?"*

The categories are most useful for marketing and the consumer, vs. any sorts of cries about ideologies, etc. Newer works which fall between those set lines always confuse when first presented, and eventually either 'fit in' or create a new genre or sub-genre label of their own.

I also remember that fellow student in harmony classes, who came from rock and jazz and had a somewhat constant chip on his shoulder about 'trained' and 'untrained,' classical vs. other, and who had a ready list of great non-classical musicians who had never learned to read music, etc. In class one day, along the same line of defense, he mentioned that Kieth Jarrett got kicked out of The Juilliard School and the powers that be there said he was not going to be a concert pianist -- meaning he thought of Jarrett as a concert pianist. The prof instantly responded with, "Well, he isn't, is he?" Lol. That was a basic truth, with nothing in it against Mr. Jarrett... the fact is he is not, in that usage as a classical performer, a concert pianist


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I like a man of few words.
> 
> A man of no words, carefully chosen, I love.


Telling glances and insinuating silences are my stock-and_-trade_.

And a cut-direct of mine at a cocktail party-- lethal.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Right, so it looks from some of the responses like I could safely conclude that something is not classical music if: 

- recording technology is an important part of its creation; and/or,

- it has a strong beat; and/or,

- it uses instrumentation typical of jazz or rock. 

But it looks like not everyone agrees about these implicit definitions! 

Anyway, mostly what I hope for is to be pointed to new music. The Wuorinen was an excellent recommendation, something I've had my eyes on....


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Simple rule: If the majority of folks hate it and consider it "uncool" and its advocates classified as asocial "nerds", then it must be classical.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Classical" has a lot of baggage attached to it, not all of it bad.

The major implications are these: The separation of "score" and "performer" which elevated the composer has a lot to do with *musical idea, *and *how these musical ideas are abstracted into essential information of pitch and rhythm,* which is a way of separating these elements and dealing with them in the abstract.

Writing music down changes the way it can be manipulated and thought of.

Audio recording doesn't _always_ do this; sometimes audio is just a record of sounds. It is only when the composition process is integrated into the recording process, that the audio artifact becomes more than a mere record of sound events, but becomes a medium for conveying musical ideas.

So, it can be said that music which deals with musical elements in an abstract way (as musical ideas, rather than, or in addition to, being sounds) is "classical" or "high art" music. And the elements which convey musical thought are pitch and rhythm, basically.

So, for me, this is what distinguishes "classical" or "Classically-derived" music from other forms of music which deal with other factors; "classical" music deals with the elements of music in the abstract, as ideas, and develops these sounds in a thoughtful and musical way.

Of course, audio recording has opened up the door, where any sound may now be considered as music, if it is in that context. Thus, we have a new world of "art" music in this category, by Cage, Eno, etc.

It's OK with me to use the term "classical" to denote scored music which is closer to the old tradition, using the same instruments and approach. Then, we can call Eno "art" music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

hpowders said:


> Simple rule: If the majority of folks hate it and consider it "uncool" and its advocates classified as asocial "nerds", then it must be classical.


Well, to the degree that this is true (I don't think it's all that true) it's something that we both choose and create ourselves, not something that we find ourselves stuck with.

The coolest people I've ever known were classical music fans.

But it seems like this is one more thing where I'm the weird one. A lot of us seem to have been persecuted for classical music. I'll have to take everyone's word for it.

Back on topic, however....


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> Well, to the degree that this is true (I don't think it's all that true) it's something that we both choose and create ourselves, not something that we find ourselves stuck with.
> 
> The coolest people I've ever known were classical music fans.
> 
> ...


Don't slip back into that "victim" thing again, science, unless you're able to tolerate some empathy. I'm fresh out of it at this time.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> "Classical" has a lot of baggage attached to it, not all of it bad.
> 
> The major implications are these: The separation of "score" and "performer" which elevated the composer has a lot to do with *musical idea, *and *how these musical ideas are abstracted into essential information of pitch and rhythm,* which is a way of separating these elements and dealing with them in the abstract.
> 
> ...


I "like" this not because I agree with it - I'm not sure that I agree with anything in there - but it is an interesting set of claims.

I'm all for the idea that manipulating recorded sound is the beginning of a new tradition rather than just a continuation of the old "classical music" tradition. But it doesn't seem like that perspective is widely shared.

Anyway, I think I see what you're saying about "dealing with musical elements in an abstract way," but I think I'd like to find another way to say it. I mean, how about jazz? Or certain rock? It seems to me that in pretty much any tradition of music, some musicians are eventually going to come along with a high degree of self-consciousness about how they're making the music, and are going to "deal with" the "musical elements" of their tradition "in an abstract way." You've got rock, and then there's John Lennon. You've got bluegrass, and then there's Bela Fleck. That seems to be just something that happens eventually to any tradition.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Don't slip back into that "victim" thing again, science, unless you're able to tolerate some empathy. I'm fresh out of it at this time.


I don't think I was the victim there. All classical music fans play the victim in the story that hpowders was relaying. It's a common story. I just haven't experienced it myself.

Anyway... there's a lot of rock albums that are even less cool than Feldman's 3 Voices for Joan La Barbara, so I'm not sure it's a helpful direction for the thread to go.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*1.) Riley ~ Rainbow: *

Elements which reinforce a classical label: Riley is now a recognized composer, and has numerous piano and string quartet works; he has always been able to score music; his music is seeking a high spiritual goal

Elements which discourage a classical label: Riley is coming from a non-Western perspective (studied in India); the music is droney, does not modulate; the music is improvisatory, and is essentially a record of a performance
*
2.) Eno ~ Music for Airports*

Elements which reinforce a classical label: the music is based on ideas and systems which produce novel results; the music sounds ethereal, unlike popular music with incessant beats; there is musical thought involved in the constructing of the tape loops (notes which combine to make a dorian scale, etc.); Eno is a "producer," which makes him have a detachment, and also an overview of music projects, such as directing other musicians and putting together ideas

Elements which discourage a classical label: the music was produced using recording technology as an integral part of the result (tape loops), rather than being scored; the work was created outside of the musical establishment, in a setting usually associated with popular music

*3.) Mike Oldfield et alia ~ Tubular Bells
*
Elements which reinforce a classical label: the music "develops" as in classical; an odd time signature is used; it is instrumental; the music was scored, and played as written; Oldfield is a trained musician who was called on to produce (see Eno above) and create arrangements in rock contexts (string sections, etc.)

Elements which discourage a classical label: Oldfield was involved in the production of rock and pop music; the music is rhythmic and repetitive, not unlike some pop music

*4.) Morton Feldman ~ Three Voices (for Joan La Barbara)
*
Elements which reinforce a classical label: The music originated in score form, and was performed as a precise reading; the intent of the work is to evoke a state of being, as all of Feldman's work is

Elements which discourage a classical label: The music is technologically-oriented for an actual voice, with recorded voices playing through speakers; Feldman is associated with Cage and "art" music
*
5.) Kronos Uniko*

Elements which reinforce a classical label: Kronos is involved.

Elements which discourage a classical label: I haven't heard this


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2014)

science said:


> Right, so it looks from some of the responses like I could safely conclude that something is not classical music if:
> 
> - recording technology is an important part of its creation









science said:


> - it has a strong beat









science said:


> - it uses instrumentation typical of jazz or rock.









science said:


> But it looks like not everyone agrees about these implicit definitions!


Indeed, and I can see why!


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Elements which reinforce a classical label: Kronos is involved.
> 
> Elements which discourage a classical label: I haven't heard this


I would have put it this way: Elements which discourage a classical label: Kronos is involved.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> Anyway, I think I see what you're saying about "dealing with musical elements in an abstract way," but I think I'd like to find another way to say it. I mean, how about jazz? Or certain rock? It seems to me that in pretty much any tradition of music, some musicians are eventually going to come along with a high degree of self-consciousness about how they're making the music, and are going to "deal with" the "musical elements" of their tradition "in an abstract way." You've got rock, and then there's John Lennon. You've got bluegrass, and then there's Bela Fleck. That seems to be just something that happens eventually to any tradition.


If it's effective music, it's all just "art" to me.

The "classical" label is loaded with baggage: instrumentation (who uses contrabassoons in rock music?), forms (string quartets), and other elements.

Likewise, jazz is loaded with baggage: saxophones, plucked contrabass, drum set, harmonic language, black tradition.

Rock as well: loud amplified electric guitars, etc.

So, I guess "idea" and its development is not unique to classical music.

Still, popular forms of music emerge from certain social and market environments, and are expressions of popular concerns. Since classical music's original social context (music for kings, or Church) has lost much of its original power, or has disappeared, then it seems destined to be "music for its own sake."

Perhaps I see "classical" as being more immune to the conventions of social/marketplace environments than jazz played in nightclubs, or techno music played at raves.

In this sense of being "disembodied" from its original social context, it becomes "art", and art is closely similar to religion and the Church setting from which it evolved; in other words, "non-utilitarian" music, which has no ostensible social funtion other than to remind us of our higher aspirations and goals.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Indeed, and I can see why!


I believe you have very good points here and I'd like to know them! What are the works you linked to?

Edit: I've been alerted via a helpful PM that this post might not come across as I intend. So, to be clear: I anticipate agreeing with "some guy" here, and enjoying the examples he cites. However, since I don't listen to music on youtube,* I want to know what his examples are, so that in case I'm not already familiar with them I can find out about them.

I am genuinely looking forward to this as probably an interesting learning experience!

*Copyright violations are almost always involved: even when someone says that no violations are involved, I remain skeptical and cynical, my nature in all things. For this reason, I prefer not to listen via youtube even when no copyright violations are involved. Let some service like youtube - say, spotify - become available to me, the use of which I can trust not to encourage the culture of music theft, and I will use it freely, even enthusiastically. Here I am a snob and I know it, and I apologize. However, I judge not: let each make peace with his or her own conscience; it's not my concern. I don't blame "some guy" or anyone else for posting links to youtube; I simply choose not to use them.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It's only classical if it has lots and lots of baggage.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

science, the first one is regions one and two from Stockhausen's _Hymnen._ The second is the scherzo of Bruckner's ninth symphony. And the third is Stravinsky's _Ebony Concerto._


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

science said:


> I believe you have very good points here and I'd like to know them! What are the works you linked to?
> 
> Edit: I've been alerted via a helpful PM that this post might not come across as I intend. So, to be clear: I anticipate agreeing with "some guy" here, and enjoying the examples he cites. However, since I don't listen to music on youtube,* I want to know what his examples are, so that in case I'm not already familiar with them I can find out about them.
> 
> ...




The first one is Stockhausen
The second is Bruckner's 9th Symphony *
The third one is Stravinskij's Ebony concerto

* and I think I am missing some guy's point here.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> science, the first one is regions one and two from Stockhausen's _Hymnen._ The second is the scherzo of Bruckner's ninth symphony. And the third is Stravinsky's _Ebony Concerto._


Thank you. Let me think about this...



Stavrogin said:


> I think I am missing some guy's point here.


I will figure it out if I can!

I'll guess that the first Stockhausen work involved recording technology, the second one had a beat, and the third one used instrumentation typical of jazz, to refute:



science said:


> ... it looks from some of the responses like I could safely conclude that something is not classical music if:
> 
> - recording technology is an important part of its creation; and/or,
> 
> ...


Is everyone convinced by "some guy's" rebuttal?

If not, tell me about the line between, say, the _Ebony Concerto_ and _Tubular Bells_ (some had mentioned what it "sounds like" which I took to be instrumentation, not sure how else to construe that).

Also, I think for "some guy" these particular lines are unchallenging. He's probably got a generously inclusive view of classical music on these issues. But I'd like to hear what he thinks of people like Einaudi. I haven't heard Einaudi, but from people's conversation I take it that he's not particularly modern or whatever. Neo-neo-something. Perhaps "some guy" has an easy time making his mind up about this particular example - I have no idea - but if so I bet we can find examples just a little more tame or just a little less tame, so that they would occupy some gray area in his own mind. I'd like to see that! That's what interests me. Let's explore our own ideas about the boundaries. Also, let's introduce me to controversial music. I'll get that Einaudi, though I do not anticipate enjoying it too much.... I will do my best!


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

In the Pink Floyd thread where this discussion had already been made, some guy had made an interesting objection when people kept proposing defining criteria such as instrumentation, scores, composer's background, etc.
He said (if I remember correctly) that a definition of classical vs non-classical music should involve the _music_ itself, not some exogenous elements such as the ones mentioned.
I agreed with that objection there; however, I am starting to think that maybe it's the other way around: only its context can define some music as classical (as opposed to its inherent characteristics).


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

science said:


> the second one had a beat


The "beats" issue emerged from the video of Chapelier Fou I posted. He's a French dude who plays some nice violin melodies above layers of electronics with beats and glitches (interesting stuff, definitely not classical).
So that Bruckner piece isn't really a counter-example. It does have "beat" (in the sense of both strong timpani drumming and a musician who looks like young William Burroughs) but not the "beats" I was referring to.

Not that I think that "beats" (in the rock/electronica sense) should be a defining criterion, anyways.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Stavrogin, those are both really interesting posts. 

Can you tell me about Chapelier Fou? I looked him up and he's got several interesting-looking albums. Which album was the video you posted from, and which would you recommend for a newbie? 

If "only its context can define some music as classical" - a fascinating idea because it is totally an inversion of my own assumptions, so I look forward to exploring it - what sort of things might be involved in that context?


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

science said:


> Stavrogin, those are both really interesting posts.
> 
> Can you tell me about Chapelier Fou? I looked him up and he's got several interesting-looking albums. Which album was the video you posted from, and which would you recommend for a newbie?


His best album to date, imo, is "Invisible" (Ici d'alleurs, 2012), but the song I linked was from his first one "613" (Ici d'alleurs, 2010), which is almost equally valid.
There's a brand new album out called Deltas (same label) which I still didn't have the time to listen to carefully. From the first listens I liked it a bit less though.



> If "only its context can define some music as classical" - a fascinating idea because it is totally an inversion of my own assumptions, so I look forward to exploring it - what sort of things might be involved in that context?


Yeah the "inversion" factor had me too 
By "context" I meant those other things (composer's background, instrumentation, being part of a 'flow' of development of musical ideas, scoring, etc) that are not per se inherent qualities of the music itself (as in: pitches, tempo, timbre, harmonies, etc).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Stavrogin said:


> His best album to date, imo, is "Invisible" (Ici d'alleurs, 2012), but the song I linked was from his first one "613" (Ici d'alleurs, 2010), which is almost equally valid.
> There's a brand new album out called Deltas (same label) which I still didn't have the time to listen to carefully. From the first listens I liked it a bit less though.
> 
> Yeah the "inversion" factor had me too
> By "context" I meant those other things (composer's background, instrumentation, being part of a 'flow' of development of musical ideas, scoring, etc) that are not per se inherent qualities of the music itself (as in: pitches, tempo, timbre, harmonies, etc).


Thank you so much! I will chew on these ideas and add "Invisible" and "613" to my wish list.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

How about Aphex Twin? Would any of us dare to consider his music "classical?"


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

science said:


> Thank you so much! I will chew on these ideas and add "Invisible" and "613" to my wish list.


http://www.icidailleurs.com/chapelier-fou

I think the videos on the label's website could fall within your ethical thresholds despite being from YouTube. Let me know


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> If "only its context can define some music as classical" - a fascinating idea because it is totally an inversion of my own assumptions, so I look forward to exploring it - what sort of things might be involved in that context?


Judging from the ways these seem to be perceived:
Johann Strauss played by the Vienna Phil = just-about-acceptable classical.
Johann Strauss played by Andre Rieu = not-quite classical.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

Stavrogin said:


> In the Pink Floyd thread where this discussion had already been made, some guy had made an interesting objection when people kept proposing defining criteria such as instrumentation, scores, composer's background, etc.
> He said (if I remember correctly) that a definition of classical vs non-classical music should involve the _music_ itself, not some exogenous elements such as the ones mentioned.
> I agreed with that objection there; however, I am starting to think that maybe it's the other way around: only its context can define some music as classical (as opposed to its inherent characteristics).


Funny. I've been wondering the same thing.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

If classical music were an entity it would get an identity crisis by reading the recent topics and posts around here. 
There's a large part of the genre that pretty much everyone agrees upon being classical music and then there's a grey area where in the end it all comes down to opinion, just like everything else concerning music that can't be objectively measured.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> Judging from the ways these seem to be perceived:
> Johann Strauss played by the Vienna Phil = just-about-acceptable classical.
> Johann Strauss played by Andre Rieu = not-quite classical.


Not sure I get what you mean.
That would be the same piece of music by the same composer.
Let's not go down the road of individual performances please...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Stavrogin said:


> http://www.icidailleurs.com/chapelier-fou
> 
> I think the videos on the label's website could fall within your ethical thresholds despite being from YouTube. Let me know


Thank you very much! Looks kosher to me.

I like that music very much and I really appreciate your introducing me to it. I'd really like to hear whether other people here consider it "classical" or not! Regardless, however, thank you!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hypothetically, let's imagine that an alien species revealed itself to have been monitoring us for a millennium, and then presented us with a recording of JS Bach improvising for an hour over a small number of themes. And then we got similar recordings of Keith Jarrett, or Bill Evans, or Paul Harrison, doing the same thing. All classical? None? Bach and Harrison but not Jarrett or Evans? 

I think this might let us get into the "context" idea.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DeepR said:


> If classical music were an entity it would get an identity crisis by reading the recent topics and posts around here.
> There's a large part of the genre that pretty much everyone agrees upon being classical music and then there's a grey area where in the end it all comes down to opinion, just like everything else concerning music that can't be objectively measured.


Exactly so!

In this thread, I want to know what's in your gray area.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

The whole electro-acoustic area. It perhaps grew from early pioneers such as Varese - the grandfather of electronic music - who were rooted in the classical tradition. But when I listen to Jonathan Harvey's wonderful Mortuos Plango for instance - I can't see the connection with the long tradition before it.

For me then Electro-Acoustic is it's own genre. In a slightly similiar way perhaps that Rock'n'roll grew out of Blues to become it's own genre.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Speaking of which here's a serious challenge (imo) in terms of classical/non-classical identification.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> science: Right, so it looks from some of the responses like I could safely conclude that something is not classical music if: - recording technology is an important part of its creation...


_*No,* I never said that my generalizations were truisms; *you can't safely conclude anything* until you have examined the individual case, and are well-informed of the facts surrounding the music in question. Even then, it might be a crap-shoot, since the traditionalist would probably disagree with much of it.
_
"someguy" answered with this exception: (it's a video of a Stockhausen work, _*Hymnen,*_ which in this version is a tape-only work)


some guy said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDxpa-XPMTo


So he brings some exceptions which invalidate my generalizations. That's OK; that is to be expected, since these are generalizations. As I said earlier, the Classical tradition is loaded with baggage.

Every case is unique, though; with Stockhausen, we find:

Elements which reinforce a classical label:

1.) Stockhausen is a recognized composer in the scored-music/classical instruments tradition. He wrote symphonic works, string quartets, piano music, etc., all scored.

Elements which discourage a classical label:

2.) This version of Hymnen was not generated from a score; it was composed directly to tape, as sound. A "listening score" is available from UE, but it is a transcription which was done after the fact. As I said, "the score" is a big part of the traditional notion of "classical" music. Additionally, the work does not use traditional instruments; it is electronic, with added sounds.

IT'S EASY TO FIND EXCEPTIONS; IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO CLARIFY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


> science: I could safely conclude that something is not classical music if:- it has a strong beat.


The next illuminating exception is this, a Bruckner piece.:


some guy said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIbWcXXzkqI


Most popular music has an incessant beat provided by drums. In this case, the generalization was distorted. Of course, there is rhythm, even in classical music; but it is not overwhelming, like most drum-oriented pop music. Distortion.



> science: I could safely conclude that something is not classical music if: - it uses instrumentation typical of jazz or rock.


Once again, makes a supreme effort to clarify the issue, with Stravinky's Ebony Concerto, which features a clarinet.



some guy said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccwFZ6-COec


This example is as untrue as it is true; the clarinet is used in jazz, but the rest of the instrumentation is orchestral. A gross distortion of my generalization, which was meant to clarify some parameters, but cannot be taken as literal.

The problem with this whole response from science and "some guy" is that they are distorting my general parameters into rigid literalisms. It's provides a nice logic game, but does nothing to clarify the issue.

The issue probably doesn't matter to most, anyway; only the invalidation of other's ideas can apparently give the buzz that so many seem to thrive on.

What a gigantic waste of time!


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

As for the Stravinsky, the ensemble behind the clarinet is a jazz band.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

on a purely personal level I have often found myself asking a similar question when listening to two Bobo Stenson albums-Serenity and Indicum-I know they are jazz albums but something about the 'sensibility', the actual world the music inhabits seems to be more 'classical'.....well I know what I mean (I think!!!!)-great recordings by the way, recommended if you have not heard them....


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It's hilarious no one has been able to pragmatically define what classical music is, haha. We make all this crap up.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

When "classical music" was first coined, songs and opera were not included.

I know some people who still insist that opera is not classical music. But then, I know people who insist that Catholics are not Christians, so whaddaya gonna do?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

some guy said:


> I know some people who still insist that opera is not classical music. But then, I know people who insist that Catholics are not Christians, so whaddaya gonna do?


Opera is certainly not classical music, it is more akin to Jousting Tournament's or Gladiator games at the grand circus and Catholicism are more like the Bipolar disorder of religion! :devil:

I think that what ever genre one/we discuss, there will be border line composers and works that will be bound to expand the rules and boundaries of what convention accepts as the limits of any genre. For me it is the music that transcends and break the rules of any genre that makes music stimulating!

/ptr


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think "art music" is a better term for me to indicate music which is of the highest order, regardless of genre.

But for me, this pursuit of a definition of "classical" has not been fruitless; it allows me to expose and define some of the standard criteria, such as "classical music is scored music," which persists partly because of the baggage of the tradition, and partly because of an incomprehension of the functions and significance of the new era of audio recording. Further, the baggage may persist because of a reluctance on the part of some to see classical music as _more_ than a historical form which is viewed in a "museum without walls," but can be a living, vital form, and because they can't stand Philip Glass.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yeah. Opera is a separate category. One talks about "classical music and opera".


----------

