# In a 100 years time...



## Barking Spiderz (Feb 1, 2011)

To be an 'antique' an item needs to be at least 100 years old so I'm wondering how long does it take for a contemporary composer to become a 'classical' one. Following on from that, the death of John Barry's got me thinking about which post-WW2 composers might become as highly rated as say the next tier below LvB, Bach, Mozart and whoever else you reckon ranks alongside them. Might 'classic' film scores become as celebrated in their own right as the great Classical and Romantic symphonies?. And while I'm here what do you reckon of Einaudi, Karl Jenkins etc.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

are you talking about Ludovico Einaudi? Lady Gaga is better


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

haha.

I quite like Telephone and Dance in the Dark by Lady Gaga but nothing else, but that probably does beat Einaudi right now. Admittedly I haven't heard that much Einaudi but I haven't really felt the need to.

I don't think anyone probably ranks alongside the 3 you mention in the 20th century. But that's ok as it hasn't been about big individuals for me so much as the large number of different composers from all over who have done good music.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

The age an object needs to be to be considered 'antique' varies according to the object concerned. Sometimes as little as 50 years old is old enough.

Age has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a composer can be considered classical. 'Classical' music ('western art music' would be a more useful term, perhaps) is music that is written according to norms, conventions and traditions dating back a thousand years. This is sometimes referred to as 'common practice'. The genre of a piece of music has NOTHING to do with its age or the instruments it is played on; it is the STYLE of the music that matters.

John Barry wrote film and TV music. Very good film and TV music, I admit, but it will NEVER be classical - even in 200 years from now. Why? Because 'classical' music relies on the complex and ordered manipulation of its musical material. By its very nature, film music can never achieve this (short clips composed to suit the action of a film, with little or no musical 'development'). A composer might arrange their film music into a symphonic context (such as Vaughan Williams' _Sinfonia antartica_, Prokofiev's _Alexander Nevsky_ or John Corigliano's _Red Violin_), but that is a different matter.

Ludovico Einaudi is a purveyor of cheap, cynical instrumental pop, despite his very impressive musical pedigree, and this music will also never be 'classical' - even if Classic fM broadcasts it.

Let's not mix-up the words *classic* and *classical*. Those two extra letters make a world of difference. There are jazz, rock and pop songs which are considered 'classics' of their genre that are only 30 years old or less. However, they are not and will never be *classical*.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

There are some film composers that may be worthy of such thing but youre unlikely to see them in hollywood.

IMO this it the top-tier pantheon of post-war music:
Varese
Ligeti
Xenakis
Stockhausen
Boulez
Nono
Berio

Im sure there are composers I dont know of who will one day eclipse these much as Schubert did.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Some people would say I suppose that classical music develops and changes over time, so we have to look at it in a broader context including cross-over works. I would say Einaudi is more new age than classical though, and even then I've probably heard better new age.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

emiellucifuge said:


> IMO this it the top-tier pantheon of post-war music:
> Varese
> Ligeti
> Xenakis
> ...


My list of predictions would be quite similar. I may be tempted to detract Varese and possibly Stockhausen.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Film scores aren't classical compositions. Besides the fact that film scores only some of the time have classical influence (other times they're more influenced by jazz, pop, electronic, world etc), there is one huge factor the divides the two: money. Film music is (usually) written with the intent to sell a product, classical music is (usually) not. Classical composers are usually given a large amount of creative control, film composers are seldom given that. Nowadays the two genres have little relationship with each other, except that they sometimes use the same instruments, and film scores like to steal melodies from classical. 

Also, for the people mentioning Varese, he isn't really a post WWII composer.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

Well classical can mean music or something that is iconic.

Classical Music means any music composed in a classical style or using classical instruments. That is the common definition. Some people say it is only a certain era but this is usually being overly pedantic and out of context.

Since the film composer is already classically trained (or not) he is already a Classical Composer.

If his music is remembered, defining or innovative than it could become a classic.

100 years is a bit much. Classics are made well within a year. Look at the modern pop artists they come from no where and are known as classics.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

LordBlackudder said:


> \
> Since the film composer is already classically trained (or not) he is already a Classical Composer.


How would a film composer not being classically trained make him a classical composer? Either way I disagree. Often times when a pop artist says they're 'classically trained' it means they once played a Mozart sonata on the piano when taking lessons.


----------



## Jacob Singer (Jan 7, 2011)

Nix said:


> How would a film composer not being classically trained make him a classical composer? Either way I disagree. Often times when a pop artist says they're 'classically trained' it means they once played a Mozart sonata on the piano when taking lessons.


The one thing that constantly baffles me on this forum is how the word 'pop' seems to be used to describe just about anything that isn't strictly "classical music."

I'm not accusing you of anything here, but what specifically do you mean by 'pop'?



Nix said:


> Film scores aren't classical compositions. Besides the fact that film scores only some of the time have classical influence (other times they're more influenced by jazz, pop, electronic, world etc), there is one huge factor the divides the two: money. Film music is (usually) written with the intent to sell a product, classical music is (usually) not. Classical composers are usually given a large amount of creative control, film composers are seldom given that. Nowadays the two genres have little relationship with each other, except that they sometimes use the same instruments, and film scores like to steal melodies from classical.


Why does classical music have to be defined so strictly? If that's the definition agreed upon by most classical aficionados, then that's fine I guess... <shrug>

...but I just don't understand why it _matters_ so incredibly much.



Most aficionados of other genres don't seem to care nearly as much about where the exact borders of those genres are necessarily drawn. In the classical world is it vitally important for some reason to keep as many others out of the club as possible?

A "small-tent policy", so to speak?

Is it working?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Not a small tent, just quality control


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Not a small tent, just quality control


Exactly my thoughts.

And 'pop' means popular. Not all pop music is popular, but it's mostly all written with the intent to be popular. Often times written to sell, regardless of quality. And anything thats written to make money (in this day and age) probably isn't classical.


----------



## Jacob Singer (Jan 7, 2011)

Nix said:


> And 'pop' means popular. Not all pop music is popular, but it's mostly all written with the intent to be popular.


But how? "Sell" as in "be appealing enough for people to pay to see concerts" of such music?

How many people is too many? How much does something have to sell (or have the "intent" to sell) for it to be considered 'pop'? Where do you draw the line?



Nix said:


> And anything thats written to make money (in this day and age) probably isn't classical.


But in previous eras, classical music was certainly written to make money, so when did that change, exactly? Where do you draw _that_ line?

I'm hearing a lot of certainty from you, but I'm not hearing a lot of specificity.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Jacob Singer said:


> In the classical world is it vitally important for some reason to keep as many others out of the club as possible?


Classical, with a capital "c" refers to a specific period, just like Baroque and Romantic. That much is not ambiguous. Often else, classical, with a lower-case "c" without getting down to writing a thousand words by what that means exactly, is referred to by many, at least as far as the general public is concerned, to that whole bunch of music that sound ancient. It is a word I try _not_ to use as often as possible in a forum like this. I much prefer to use "Classical" to describe the unambiguous period just like "Baroque", "Renaissance" etc.

As for whether the two hundred plus symphonies by Leif Segerstam (born 1944) or Justin Biber's songs are classical or not, I really couldn't care less because I don't have much interest in them. In short, I can say I love and listen to Classical music, which is meant to refer to that unambiguous period.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Barking Spiderz said:


> To be an 'antique' an item needs to be at least 100 years old so I'm wondering how long does it take for a contemporary composer to become a 'classical' one. Following on from that, the death of John Barry's got me thinking about which post-WW2 composers might become as highly rated as say the next tier below LvB, Bach, Mozart and whoever else you reckon ranks alongside them. Might 'classic' film scores become as celebrated in their own right as the great Classical and Romantic symphonies?. And while I'm here what do you reckon of Einaudi, Karl Jenkins etc.


My simple advice is this: in 100 years time, most if not all of us here, will be dead. So who cares.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Film scores have already made it into the concert hall. Just look at how Howard Shore's score for _The Lord of the Rings _trilogy is being played "live" alongside the film by orchestras in concert halls across the world. There will be three concerts of this in May here in Sydney, which have almost already sold out (I actually found this out & told a work colleague who is a fan & who will definitely go). So yes, film scores such as this are now considered to be like classical music - it's written down (no improvisation), performed by an orchestra in a concert hall. So what distinguishes it from classical music? Nothing, imo, just the highbrow opinion of some classical music fans who want to preserve the appreciation and enjoyment of such music for their own little club (I agree with what member Jacob Singer has said above on this). There's nothing "low-brow" about film music of such quality, imo. It can be just as sophisticated and emotionally engaging as more mainstream classical music.

I don't know anything about Einaudi or Karl Jenkins so I can't comment on that...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Film scores aren't classical compositions. Besides the fact that film scores only some of the time have classical influence (other times they're more influenced by jazz, pop, electronic, world etc), there is one huge factor the divides the two: money. Film music is (usually) written with the intent to sell a product, classical music is (usually) not. Classical composers are usually given a large amount of creative control, film composers are seldom given that. Nowadays the two genres have little relationship with each other, except that they sometimes use the same instruments, and film scores like to steal melodies from classical.

I find myself siding with Jacob Singer here. How are film scores not "classical"? What actually defines "classical"? The term "classical" is rather recent and was simply employed to denote music as fine art (art music) as opposed to music as popular entertainment. But even here the line is blurry. Johann Strauss, Jaques Offenbach, Tchaikovsky's _Nutcracker_, etc... were all quite popular. At the same time, within every musical genre: jazz, bluegrass, blues, Celtic, Indian ragas, rock, etc... there are better and worse works... and there are works which will quite likely survive over time to be found in nearly any musical language.

You have raised the issue of money before, but somehow I get the feeling you are holding on to a rather naive, Romantic, and dated notion about the relationship of art and money. As Samuel Johnson declared "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." This has applied to the whole of the history of the arts. The arts have thrived especially in those cultures which provide financial backing and support. The patrons of the arts are commonly the wealthiest individuals: popes, kings, princes, emperors, bankers, investment brokers, oil tycoons, steel magnates, etc... Michelangelo, Rubens, Haydn, Bach, Dante, Chaucer, Schubert, Picasso, Matisse, and many more all had wealthy patrons. Those who did not, including Shakespeare, Handel (in his later career), Verdi, Mahler, Bruckner, Richard Strauss, etc... depended upon their success with the larger audience as well as upon their employment in related fields (as teachers, conductors, performers, etc...).

The assertion that classical music is not written to sell a product is completely naive. How are the efforts of the composer writing incidental music for the theater, music for an opera, a requiem for the death of some aristocrat, or a mass for the wedding of some dignitary differ from writing for a film? Whether you like it or not, film is quite likely the single most important art form of the 20th century into the present. The film maker is no more commercially minded than the opera impresario, the ballet producer, the theatrical producer, or the patrons of the symphony orchestra.

Classical composers are usually given a large amount of creative control, film composers are seldom given that.

There were many instances of compositions for the opera or the ballet or the theater being dictated by the producers... of multiple revisions being ordered. Of course working on commission always places the artist in the service of the patron and places certain limitations upon what he or she can or cannot do. This has its advantages and disadvantages. To suggest that the composer who writes only for himself or herself... with the hope that an audience for his or her work will be found after the fact is inherently superior to the composer who works under set criteria show a complete lack of understanding of art. Art arises from almost any circumstance... but most often where there is the demand and the money to support the efforts of the artists.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

Here we go again. 

John Barry wrote film and TV music. Very good film and TV music, I admit, but it will NEVER be classical - even in 200 years from now. Why? Because 'classical' music relies on the complex and ordered manipulation of its musical material. By its very nature, film music can never achieve this (short clips composed to suit the action of a film, with little or no musical 'development').

Go listen to the 'Dances with Wolves' score, particularly the *Farewell and End Title*, and get back to me. No development, my ****!  Sounds like you just need to listen to more film scores.

Just like all music, most will be lost with time, and the most memorable will carry on for generations and viewed in the same way we view other 'classical'.

The word 'classical' has only been used for what, 120 years? What makes you think we'll even be using that word in 200 years?


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Before I begin, I'd like to say that I became heavily into classical music after having an obsession with film scores. I have a great amount of respect for composers like Bernard Hermann, Elmer Bernstein and Thomas Newman, but the notion that film scores are apart of classical music is absurd. Film scores are their own _separate_ genre.

If you lump film scores in with classical music you might as well say jazz, techno, or heavy metal should also be classical music. Yes, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars can be heard in concert halls, but they are rarely heard along side works by Beethoven or Mozart. Just because something is played by the same type of ensemble doesn't make it the same type of music. And while Lord of the Rings may be heavily influenced by classical music, think of scores like 'A Streetcar Named Desire,' 'The Pink Panther,' 'Slumdog Millionaire', 'Lola Rent' and countless other films whose scores are largely influenced by music from other genres. When it comes down to it, all of this music has one thing in common: it's music written to moving images to invoke an immediate reaction from the viewer. It may sound like classical, or jazz, or techno, but if there's going to be any 'lumping' done, overall it's _film music_.

And in response to the money thing. I already had a huge discussion about this on another thread and when I made a couple arguments people just stopped replying. I'm not going to rehash it completely but in short: the patrons are wealthy, not the artists. No musician in this day and age goes into composing to make money- they do it cause they love to. I promise you I'm not being naive, it's the truth. _Some_ composers might cash out when they find a way to make money (Rossini, Strauss), but as a composition major, I find the Johnson quote offensive. The film industry is largely run by executives looking to make a quick buck. They don't care about the quality of the music, as long as it's pleasing to a large audience.

You can call me naive about how money motivates in the classical world (not composers, but management). But I'm well aware of how things work in Hollywood, and this is music that is not written in the same manner as classical. It's done under severe time constraints, strict creative control, with ghostwriters and a staff of orchestrators. You might find a couple of parallels, but in the end it's not the same.

Sorry for ranting. This a subject I'm passionate about


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Nix said:


> Before I begin, I'd like to say that I became heavily into classical music after having an obsession with film scores. I have a great amount of respect for composers like Bernard Hermann, Elmer Bernstein and Thomas Newman, but the notion that film scores are apart of classical music is absurd. Film scores are their own _separate_ genre.
> 
> If you lump film scores in with classical music you might as well say jazz, techno, or heavy metal should also be classical music. Yes, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars can be heard in concert halls, but they are rarely heard along side works by Beethoven or Mozart. Just because something is played by the same type of ensemble doesn't make it the same type of music. And while Lord of the Rings may be heavily influenced by classical music, think of scores like 'A Streetcar Named Desire,' 'The Pink Panther,' 'Slumdog Millionaire', 'Lola Rent' and countless other films whose scores are largely influenced by music from other genres. When it comes down to it, all of this music has one thing in common: it's music written to moving images to invoke an immediate reaction from the viewer. It may sound like classical, or jazz, or techno, but if there's going to be any 'lumping' done, overall it's _film music_.
> 
> ...


I'm sure it's the same in popular music too. It's the record companies that are only obsessed by money and that make most of the money too. Some musicians now bypass them by recording themselves and simply putting their work up on the internet. They make music mainly just because they like doing it, maybe to get some fame or some acknowledgement of what they have achieved, money is not the only priority normally for them. Recordings then act like a promotion for them to get live gigs too and to get people to come to them.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

This is also a subject I'm passionate about. Film scores are not a genre like jazz, techno or heavy metal. That is a completely incorrect and bad comparison. Film scores are incidental music like music written for plays or opera. Music for plays and opera can also be written as jazz, techno or heavy metal. Films, plays and opera create SETTINGS for music - they are not music genres. This is so unbelievable that people actually consider it a genre of music when it is so clearly NOT.

Yes, some portions of film music are written to accompany actions or to support dramatic effects in the films. The same can be said of music for plays and opera. But, like plays and opera, there are well-developed themes and overtures. I hate to intrude on your little comfort zone and crash your exclusive party, but many film scores ARE classical music. There are film scores that ARE comparable to other classical music works in development, feeling, and scope, and WILL be played alongside the works of other composers. Not all of them are classical - the scores that are jazz or rock & roll are not. But some most definitely fit the bill.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Post-war musical artists who are already rated and recognised alongside Bach et al can be identified.

Lennon/McCartney, Miles Davis, Page/Plant, Bob Marley, Ravi Shankar, Michael Jackson, John Coltrane, Brian Eno, Bob Dylan, Charlie Parker, Gilmour/Waters, Brian Wilson.

Then some that aren't considered _quite_ as highly.

Fela Kuti, Charles Mingus, Ornette Coleman, Frank Zappa, Neil Young, Elton John, Iommi/Butler/Ward, Sun Ra.

In terms of 'classical' music, I reckon only Stockhausen out of emillucifuge's list will be remembered fondly, mainly for his influence on others and his pioneering electronic pieces. John Cage will be up there too for similar reasons. The big four minimalists (Reich, Glass, Young and Riley) will probably be held in high esteem but not greatly known. John Williams and other composers for popular and acclaimed films will probably remain popular too.

Berio, Nono, Boulez etc will be not gain in recognition or popularity as times passes. Even now, their music and ideas have faded.

I agree with dmg that 'film music' is not a genre on it's own. It can contain elements of any genre or style.

Nix is right that musicians would continue making music regardless of pay, because that is what they love and enjoy doing, but forgets that musicians don't live on respect and self-affirmation. Everybody needs money to get by, and surely it's as sensible to earn it by making music at no matter what cost to the artists sense of integrity, as it is to earn it by working in an office cubicle or picking fruit during the week.

So you're right when you say musicians don't expect wealth, but a living would be nice.

Let me ask Nix this. Would you not create backing tracks for rappers as your day job if you got paid a very generous wage?


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Argus said:


> Let me ask Nix this. Would you not create backing tracks for rappers as your day job if you got paid a very generous wage?


I would, but I wouldn't consider that to be apart of my classical composition career. I agree, musicians need to get by, and if something lucrative comes along they'll probably take it because it's a rare opportunity for someone in their line of work. But like I said, they're aren't _going_ into music with the intent to make millions- which is often times the opposite of how creating a film works.

In response to dmg:

Since we've each clearly stated our (differing) opinions, I think we've reached a dead end in the argument, which is good. I'll just wrap mine up by saying that I think film scoring is unique in that it's the only genre of music defined by the circumstance in which it's written. The difference between film music and music for an opera or ballet is that in opera or ballet the music dictates the outcome of the overall product. True the libretto and story come first, but in most cases the composer partakes in a collaborative process with the librettist, or choreographer or what have you, and everything is written in a creative environment. In opera or ballet, the director knows that music will take the spotlight, and wants it to be as polished at possible. In film scoring the music is literally thought of as 'background music' and the quality is usually irrelevant so long as it gets the point across. And while film scoring may seem to span across several genres, it's all written under the same conditions, and usually by the same composer, regardless of the style of the music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sorry for ranting. This a subject I'm passionate about ...

Unfortunately, you can hold a passionate belief about something that you know virtually nothing about... or are completely wrong (Look to Sarah Palin)

the notion that film scores are apart of classical music is absurd. Film scores are their own separate genre.

Film music is not a genre of music any more than a quintet is a genre. The Rolling Stones were a quintet and Miles Davis played in quintet... but they most assuredly were not classical musicians. Nor is the purpose of the music the measure of "genre". Tchaikovsky, Rameau and Johann Strauss all wrote dance music. So did the Bee Gees. But the Bee Gees and Tchaikovsky were not writing in the same genre... rather they were writing for similar purposes.

Film music is written to accompany a theatrical productions... to heighten the emotional impact... in this it is no different from Beethoven's incidental music, Mozart's operas, Purcell's music for masques and plays, etc... It is theatrical music.

What, however, makes something "classical"? Is it the use of certain instruments? This would seem to negate composers like Tristan Murail who employ electronic instruments that are no way traditional to the orchestra. It would also ignore a lot of medieval music. And where does that leave us with the fact that many jazz ensembles, rock bands, blues groups, bluegrass performers employ instruments that are no way foreign to the symphonic repertoire?

You suggest that money and the intention have something to do with whether music is classical or not... but again this is pure nonsense. There are among the most respected "classical" composers, any number who were no less driven by money as any pop group. The reality is that composers and musicians of every walk and ilk have created music for nearly every possible reason imaginable. Now certainly no musician goes into classical music with the aim of making a gross fortune... but neither do most pop musicians unless they are incredibly naive. The goal for most is to make a comfortable living doing what they love and what they believe in.

So again, how does one define "classical music"? It seems to me that the terms "classical music" is employed as a means of defining "art music"... "serious music" ... "classic music"... rather in the sense that the terms "classic literature" is employed in the realm of writing. The reality is that "classical music" ... as the term is now employed... is not a genre... but a term of qualitative measure. "Classical measure" embraces the music of the Baroque, the classical period, the Romantics, Modernism, Late-Modernism, Minimalism, Expressionism... it includes medieval chant, Renaissance madrigals, lieder, chanson, melodies, symphonies, quartets, quintets, etc... It draws upon elements of folk music (think Vaughan-Williams, Bartok, Grieg), popular music, jazz (Shostakovitch, Satie, Ravel, Gerschwin, etc...). There are folk songs and popular songs and popular musical works that have entered into the classical repertoire (including "Greensleeves", the music of Johann Strauss, Offenbach, Gilbert and Sullivan, etc... Ultimately, it would seem that something becomes "classic" ... probably a better term than "classical"... when it continues to inspire listeners over time. By this measure, and undoubtedly to your horror... I see no reason why the best jazz, blues, cabaret, pop, rock, etc... won't eventually be recognized as "classic". I also find myself (uncomfortable as this may be) agreeing with Argus in the suggestion that some music that you dismiss as "popular"... certainly not classical... will survive well past Stockhausen, Boulez, or Ligeti.

When we look at the music of the past we largely accept all music that has survived as part of the classical tradition... at least up until the last century or so. The medieval chanson... not far certainly from today's pop ballads... are recognized as "classical". So too are the instrumental works of medieval music which in many ways are not far removed from bluegrass, folk music, or even the blues and rock. It would seem to me that the measure of serious music was whether it could be passed on from one generation to the next... and for most of recorded music's history, this meant the ability to read and write music. The simple tunes of Mozart's_ Magic Flute_ are accepted as "classical" as opposed to the tunes sung in the streets by folk musicians and popular cabaret performers for the simple reason that Mozart was able to record his music in written form. With the advent of recorded sound, this all changed. Jazz musicians could record their music... and their performances capturing the element of improvisation that were so important in Baroque music... but could not be recorded for posterity. As a result, there are works of jazz, folk, blues, pop, rock, etc... that have attained "classic" status... they continue to resonate with an audience well after their time. If the term "classical music" is a measure of quality recognized by an audience over time, how are we to suggest that these works are not worthy of the term "classic"? Placing Duke Ellington or Miles Davis or The Rolling Stones alongside Beethoven or Mozart seems ridiculous? But is it any more ridiculous than placing Ligeti, Philip Glass, or Stockhausen along side Beethoven and Mozart.

I have called your arguments "naive" for the simple reason that they are not founded upon any sort of logic or reason... let alone fact... only you passionate feelings. You feel that Duke Ellington is not of the same caliber as Beethoven. I agree. But neither is Ligeti or Boulez... and I feel that neither of them are near the caliber of Ellington or Miles Davis.

So let us have a solid logical definition of classical music that clearly excludes jazz, and blues, and pop, and film music based upon reason and fact.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So let us have a solid logical definition of classical music that clearly excludes jazz, and blues, and pop, and film music based upon reason and fact.


It seems that you've gotten beyond film music and are now simply declaring that there are no genres, and that music is just music- no separation needed.

I suppose I can falter in my argument that there is no way you can clearly define 'classical music' under one umbrella. But I still hold firm that film music is its own separate entity. And I define it as music written for a motion picture. The genre may be extremely eclectic, but all of the music written for it is written with the same intent and purpose. It's mostly all written by a type of composer, called a 'film composer'- _not_ a classical composer. That doesn't mean these composers can't explore the other medium but look at any article on Hans Zimmer, and you'll find he's _always_ referred to as a 'film composer' and _never_ a 'classical composer.' Puccini might sometimes be called an 'opera composer' and sometimes a 'classical composer.' Look at any awards show- as unreliable as they might be in choosing things of merit, categories are _always_ titled 'Best Original Score.' Not 'Best Original Classical Score', or 'Best Original Jazz Score.' Even in more specific groups such as the World Soundtrack Awards, the categories are not reduced to the style the music is written in, but to the genre of film (i.e. Best Score for a Horror Film). Why? Because it's all one genre, all serving the same purpose, regardless of style. Classical music might be difficult to define, but film music is not. And I've yet to see you define either. So now I ask you- give me a logical definition of classical music that is inclusive of film scoring, based upon reason and fact.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Nix said:


> It seems that you've gotten beyond film music and are now simply declaring that there are no genres, and that music is just music- no separation needed.
> 
> I suppose I can falter in my argument that there is no way you can clearly define 'classical music' under one umbrella. But I still hold firm that film music is its own separate entity. And I define it as music written for a motion picture. The genre may be extremely eclectic, but all of the music written for it is written with the same intent and purpose. It's mostly all written by a type of composer, called a 'film composer'- _not_ a classical composer. That doesn't mean these composers can't explore the other medium but look at any article on Hans Zimmer, and you'll find he's _always_ referred to as a 'film composer' and _never_ a 'classical composer.' Puccini might sometimes be called an 'opera composer' and sometimes a 'classical composer.' Look at any awards show- as unreliable as they might be in choosing things of merit, categories are _always_ titled 'Best Original Score.' Not 'Best Original Classical Score', or 'Best Original Jazz Score.' Even in more specific groups such as the World Soundtrack Awards, the categories are not reduced to the style the music is written in, but to the genre of film (i.e. Best Score for a Horror Film). Why? Because it's all one genre, all serving the same purpose, regardless of style. Classical music might be difficult to define, but film music is not. And I've yet to see you define either. So now I ask you- give me a logical definition of classical music that is inclusive of film scoring, based upon reason and fact.


According to your definitions, how would you classify these two pieces of music:











The first one was written for a film, the second was created as music on it's own. Would you say the first is not 'classical' music and the second is?

Your definition doesn't take one thing into account; the actual sound. Whether music was created to accompany moving pictures or dancers or as a purely aural experience, matters little compared to the final product. Even then, what do the sounds produced from Monteverdi and Beethoven's scores have in common with Earle Brown's graphic notation or Pierre Scaheffer's tape collages, yet all have been termed classical. What does Peter Brotzmann and Cecil Taylor's music have in common with the Hot Club de France and Marcus Miller. I won't even mention 'World music'.

Genre definitions work on a very loose, general, large scale but when individual objects are analysed there is soon discovered to be a large grey area.

Film music is just sounds maded to accompany a film. That says nothing about the music itself. It's such an amorpheous term. At least opera music will definitely feature singing and some kind of a story, or ballet music will have a pulse or a dancable component. Film music could be anything and everything.

The best definition of classical music is music that you are supposed to keep very quiet when listening to it live.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

Here's one way to define it:


If it is 'composed' or is created by a 'composer', it is classical.
If it is 'written' or is created by a 'writer' (or 'songwriter'), it is not.

Another way to define it is if the piece of music is performance-centric or music-centric. If the piece of music must be performed by a certain performer to be authentic, then it is not classical; the same if it is centered around a single recording. If it can be performed by any number of performers or ensembles (capable of pulling off the performance, of course), and nobody questions its authenticity, or calls it a 'cover', then it is classical.

For example: Metallica's _Master of Puppets_ must be performed by the band Metallica to be authentic. Anything else is viewed as a 'cover'. The same goes for Pink Floyd's _The Wall_ or Louis Armstrong's _What a Wonderful World_. All other performances of these pieces of music are immediately deemed 'second rate' as they are not from the original performers. In a few rare cases, you might have a cover that becomes 'first rate'; however, it is then the only other acceptable performance of the work (like The Animals' _House of the Rising Sun_ or Jimi Hendrix's rendition of _All Along the Watchtower_).

Mozart's 41st symphony can be performed by any number of orchestras under the baton of any number of conductors and nobody will question its authenticity. The same goes for the scores to _Star Wars_ or _King Kong_. Or to the score to the video game _Halo_. Or even with more obscure works such as Riley's _In C_ or Stockhausen's _MANTRA_ or Cage's _Pieces for Prepared Piano_. That doesn't mean a work can't be written with a performer or performers in mind; it just means that it can be performed by others in the future and still be considered genuine.

All in all, I am not really a fan of putting music in 'genres' in the first place. It is a universal art; different styles can borrow from each other and it can still sound great. Putting music in groups creates situations where you have to have 'purity', and it can prevent the borrowing of ideas between the styles.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Argus said:


> Your definition doesn't take one thing into account; the actual sound....
> 
> Film music is just sounds maded to accompany a film. That says nothing about the music itself....
> 
> The best definition of classical music is music that you are supposed to keep very quiet when listening to it live.


And this definition _does_ say something about the sound? When defining genres it seems that all of our definitions are just as amorphous as the next. Except that I gotta give myself credit for mine being just a tad more descriptive.

The difference between the Glass is that one of them is meant to accompany a film, and the other is meant to be played in a concert hall. Everyone keeps saying that the fact that film music is played in concert halls somehow makes it classical music. But the music wasn't written _for_ concert halls, and I think many film composers will tell you that their music wasn't meant to be a standalone piece- unless of course they arrange it as such. In that respect, film music is similar to a song, in that it can be covered, but it's not written with that intention- and people who actually listen to film scores don't buy concert recordings, they buy what was originally recorded by the studio- like songs. Keep in mind that almost all film music today is altered electronically. Instruments are amplified and layered and mixed with sound effects- even in 'classical' sounding scores. All of it is done in a studio meant to get that one 'authentic' recording.

And I'm not going to even delve into dmg's definition- since that would exclude composers of lieder, opera, musicals, and well, songs... all of which there is some 'composing' done, not just songwriting. It would be very unfair not to call those people composers, just as it would be inaccurate not to call some of them 'classical composers.'


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Andre said:


> Film scores have already made it into the concert hall. Just look at how Howard Shore's score for _The Lord of the Rings _trilogy is being played "live" alongside the film by orchestras in concert halls across the world. There will be three concerts of this in May here in Sydney, which have almost already sold out (I actually found this out & told a work colleague who is a fan & who will definitely go). So yes, film scores such as this are now considered to be like classical music - it's written down (no improvisation), performed by an orchestra in a concert hall. So what distinguishes it from classical music? Nothing, imo, just the highbrow opinion of some classical music fans who want to preserve the appreciation and enjoyment of such music for their own little club (I agree with what member Jacob Singer has said above on this). There's nothing "low-brow" about film music of such quality, imo. It can be just as sophisticated and emotionally engaging as more mainstream classical music.
> 
> I don't know anything about Einaudi or Karl Jenkins so I can't comment on that...


Good point.

I forgot about film scores. Darth Vader's imperial march tune, which has become so popular with what it was associated with, and the opening of _Star Wars_ have just about also reached modern classic status. Are these pieces classical - using the _colloquial loose sense of the word_, bear in mind "classical" is not really very well defined at all? Many would say yes. I think it's not a very satisfactory way of using the word "classical", but as I wrote above, I'm not really bothered by that at all. Many here would also consider John Cage's _4'33"_ as "classical" music, too. :lol:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Another point. You can easily find numerous pieces from hundred of years ago by recognised composers that are superficial pieces of music written say, for a folk dance (Baroque has the more formal term _gigue_, for example). These were never intended for their concert avenues but were written down nonetheless. We would still label these as Baroque, Renaissance, whatever, all under the banner of "classical", so why would modern film scores, even more sophisticated in their compositional structure, not be "classical"?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

A lot of interesting points on both sides. For me I dont really know how to define 'classical' but I dont really like the idea of The Rolling Stones or just anything being considered classical. There is something I just find more sacred and uplifting about classical music. I think its music that is best played on acoustic instruments. As a style it should be closer to nature. I also think of it as music not based on overly hypnotizing repetitive rhythms. In that sense I feel that some of the so called minimalist composers are like a sub genre unto themselves, and I definetely don't consider anything electronic to be music made in the 'classical' spirit. I know Im probably on my own here, but thats how I feel. To me Xenakis or anything ambient/ electronic doesn't feel like Classical at all, they are their own thing. Even some of the very modern acoustic/orchestral works feel almost too repetitive to be 'classical' to me, even by the broad sense of the word. The crazy thing is I dont have a problem with John Cage's music (the non-electronic stuff) being termed classical because it is not electronic or based on hypnotizing repetition, his music to me has a very wild/organic feel.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

Nix said:


> And I'm not going to even delve into dmg's definition- since that would exclude composers of lieder, opera, musicals, and well, songs... all of which there is some 'composing' done, not just songwriting. It would be very unfair not to call those people composers, just as it would be inaccurate not to call some of them 'classical composers.'


That was a small part of my first point (those weren't my actual definitions, just suggestions for thought) - when you make exclusions, you're trying to force a solid, universal definition. When you force a solid, universal definition, you have to make concessions. If you cut out film scores, then you'll have to cut out incidental music for plays and other settings. If you cut out any music that utilizes electricity, such as electric guitars, then you have to cut out the electronic works of Cage and Ligeti. If you cut out music that's written instead of composed, you have to eliminate much of the lieder and old folk music (rock & roll is simply folk music anyway) from the classification.

My SECOND point was more about how music is perceived by the public, and is more in line with how I would actually define it. Popular music is most often performance-based, meaning the music has to be performed by a specific artist or artists, or if it has to be played off of a specific recording. Anything that anyone considers 'classical' is music that can be performed by any able musician(s) and nobody questions its authenticity.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It seems that you've gotten beyond film music and are now simply declaring that there are no genres, and that music is just music- no separation needed.

No. I fully accept that there are any number of musical genre or means of defining or separating music: we have chanson, Byzantine Chant, Gregorian chant, choral music, madrigals, opera, baroque music, lieder, orchestral songs, orchestral suites, fugues, symphonic music, chamber music, opera seria, opera buffa, ballet, incidental music, film music, jazz, bop, dixieland, bluegrass, blues, etc.. etc...

What I am saying is that the term "classical" is meaningless if it cannot be defined... and you seem unable to offer a rational definition.

I suppose I can falter in my argument that there is no way you can clearly define 'classical music' under one umbrella.

Bingo

But I still hold firm that film music is its own separate entity. 

But then you slip back into your sloppy thinking. I can't define classical music... but I know film music isn't it.

And I define it as music written for a motion picture. 

Certainly. I would define film music as music written for film as well... but then listen to this:






This is film music... but it is also jazz. Wow! Imagine that! A work of art might fall under more than one rubric.

And things get even more confusing:










Is it jazz... or is it classical?

The genre may be extremely eclectic, but all of the music written for it is written with the same intent and purpose. It's mostly all written by a type of composer, called a 'film composer'- not a classical composer....

It seems to me that one might certainly call any composer that writes nearly exclusively for a given purpose or genre after that genre or form. To call Wagner an opera composer as opposed to a "classical" composer wouldn't seem much of a stretch. Hugo Wolf might frequently (along with Schubert) be called a great composer of lieder... but Wagner, Schubert, and Wolf are also defined as "classical composers". So why wouldn't Erich Korngold be a "classical composer"? His film music doesn't sound far removed from overtures to operas and operettas:






Of course he also wrote for the symphonic orchestra:






or for the opera:






Is there any logical reason that we should think of him as a "classical composer"... except when writing for film? Even if we accept that his film scores were not of the same artistic level as his operas or orchestral music how does this make sense? Are we to assume that when Beethoven wrote his 4th symphony he wasn't a "classical composer" because the work just wasn't up to the level of the 3rd or 5th?

Classical music might be difficult to define, but film music is not.

Again, I'll grant you this... but once more you are assuming that we are speaking of an "either/or" dichotomy... that something is either classical music or film music... when it appears clear that it may be both.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Here's one way to define it:

* If it is 'composed' or is created by a 'composer', it is classical.
* If it is 'written' or is created by a 'writer' (or 'songwriter'), it is not.

 This must be one of those WTF? moments??

Another way to define it is if the piece of music is performance-centric or music-centric. If the piece of music must be performed by a certain performer to be authentic, then it is not classical...

And another??? So are we assuming that Bach did not compose with the abilities and limitations of set performers in mind? We know full well that he did... as did Mozart, Handel, Haydn, etc... on through Korngold, Penderecki, Benjamen Britten, etc...

As for the "authenticity" issue... isn't this really an issue resulting from the fact that music prior to the 20th century could only be "recorded" and passed down through the ages through the use of written scores... and thus we have no single authoritative recording? But even that has changed with classical composers over the past century. The performances of Britten's music performed/conducted by Britten and sung by Peter Pears are commonly thought of as the authoritative performances. The same is true of many works by contemporary composers. By the same token, any number of popular songs have been repeatedly recorded by multiple performers. Whose "_Hound Dog_" is most authentic? Big Mamma Thornton? or Elvis? Which performer really "owns" Gerschwin's "_Summertime_"? or any number of Stephen Foster's songs, or "_Amazing Grace_"?

Mozart's 41st symphony can be performed by any number of orchestras under the baton of any number of conductors and nobody will question its authenticity.





















Authenticity Check. (Oh by the way... that would also be "film music")


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

A lot of interesting points on both sides. For me I dont really know how to define 'classical' but I dont really like the idea of The Rolling Stones or just anything being considered classical. There is something I just find more sacred and uplifting about classical music.

That is your perception... and certainly when the church was the dominant patron a great deal of music was written with the sacred or spiritual in view. Yet at the same time... sex/love/passion/lust is one of the major driving forces of all art and one might recognize that this is no more true of The Rolling Stones than it is of Wagner, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Mahler, Schubert, or the composer of Italian Renaissance madrigals.

I think its music that is best played on acoustic instruments. As a style it should be closer to nature.

Again, I won't question your personal preferences... but they are personal preferences. I might note that a great deal of jazz, and blue grass, and early rock... and even the Rolling Stones' Beggar's Banquet were played largely on acoustic instruments. I don't know if the acoustic instrument is any closer to nature as both are essentially artificial. I would also suggest that electronic instruments might seem quite natural for our time and culture.

I also think of it as music not based on overly hypnotizing repetitive rhythms.

Again, that is your preference. I quite love the hypnotic driving rhythm of this:











By the same token, I like the hypnotic driving rhythms of the _Rite of Spring_, the _Brandenburg Concertos,_ Bach's fugues, _Bolero_, Strauss' Waltzes, Steve Reich's _Drumming_, Indian ragas, Spanish medieval music, etc... but I recognize that rhythm is but one element of the music.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Here's one way to define it:
> 
> * If it is 'composed' or is created by a 'composer', it is classical.
> * If it is 'written' or is created by a 'writer' (or 'songwriter'), it is not.
> ...


Sort of.  Trying to set a definition in a varied artform such as music will result in these types of things. This is more for discussion purposes and not my actual definitions.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Another way to define it is if the piece of music is performance-centric or music-centric. If the piece of music must be performed by a certain performer to be authentic, then it is not classical...
> 
> And another??? So are we assuming that Bach did not compose with the abilities and limitations of set performers in mind? We know full well that he did...as did Mozart, Handel, Haydn, etc... on through Korngold, Penderecki, Benjamen Britten, etc...


If you read further:



dmg said:


> That doesn't mean a work can't be written with a performer or performers in mind; it just means that it can be performed by others in the future and still be considered genuine.


It is more that the music is centered around the _composer _rather than the _performer_.

I am basing this off of what I hear from others. "Oh, that's just a cover." That is a common statement, even if said cover is superior in quality. People question the legitimacy of performers who cover other songs. That is a common thing that I observe, believe it or not. But when discussing the music of Mozart or Beethoven, it is all about them and not the orchestra they watched or heard.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> As for the "authenticity" issue... isn't this really an issue resulting from the fact that music prior to the 20th century could only be "recorded" and passed down through the ages through the use of written scores... and thus we have no single authoritative recording?


That is correct - and yet the term 'classical' did not really come into fruition until right about the time of the proliferation of the record. Is it that music began to be recorded and sold for listening that would normally not be distributed widely (folk music), and people (the wealthy, perhaps?) felt the need to categorize this music separately?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> But even that has changed with classical composers over the past century. The performances of Britten's music performed/conducted by Britten and sung by Peter Pears are commonly thought of as the authoritative performances. The same is true of many works by contemporary composers.


Yes, but as I said before - any attempt at categorizing an artform such as music would result in many exceptions; however, I do not see this as the same thing. There are authoritative performances throughout the classical repertoire, such as orchestral recordings conducted by von Karajan or Bernstein, but that doesn't keep people from going to see performances live with their local orchestras or listening to recordings of others.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> By the same token, any number of popular songs have been repeatedly recorded by multiple performers. Whose "_Hound Dog_" is most authentic? Big Mamma Thornton? or Elvis?


Both. :lol: However, if someone like The White Stripes covered it, people wouldn't look at it the same way. This fits with the examples I used earlier (The Animals cover of _House of the Rising Sun_ and The Hendrix Experience cover of _All Along the Watchtower_)



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Which performer really "owns" Gerschwin's "_Summertime_"?


I would consider _Porgy and Bess_ to be classical, even if it is a jazz opera.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> or any number of Stephen Foster's songs


I would consider these to be classical as well...



StlukesguildOhio said:


> or "_Amazing Grace_"?


...and this is already classical in every sense of the word.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mozart's 41st symphony can be performed by any number of orchestras under the baton of any number of conductors and nobody will question its authenticity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why wouldn't that be classical then? :tiphat: (Even though The Wizard of Oz was a staged musical before it became a film, and the 1939 film isn't even the first film version!)

I wish we could just define it as music that's still popular after 100 years. Then you could say that classical music is music that stands the test of time. It would eliminate everything post-Romantic, but so? Why would that limit our listening enjoyment of contemporary music? _Just enjoy music. _I don't care what kind. Let the passage of time be the distributor of the 'classical' label.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> A lot of interesting points on both sides. For me I dont really know how to define 'classical' but I dont really like the idea of The Rolling Stones or just anything being considered classical. There is something I just find more sacred and uplifting about classical music.
> 
> That is your perception... and certainly when the church was the dominant patron a great deal of music was written with the sacred or spiritual in view. Yet at the same time... sex/love/passion/lust is one of the major driving forces of all art and one might recognize that this is no more true of The Rolling Stones than it is of Wagner, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Mahler, Schubert, or the composer of Italian Renaissance madrigals.
> 
> ...


^These are some good points but like I said I cant really offer any strict definition of classical other than how I think of it. You are right in that my ideas don't really provide a concrete definition. These are just my ideals of classical. Others are free to pick and choose what they like and I respect that. I do for the record also like a lot of composers who I feel are 'borderline' and not really classical by my definition. I can appreciate a lot of rock music, the Stones have some terrific stuff but are a completely different vibe than anything Id consider classical, if you dont think so I can respect that.

As far as the hypnotic rhythms go I don't really find them to be that way in your Youtube examples, I do find them somewhat in Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, which is one of the earliest examples I think I've noticed it, but only in small sections, and I might add Ive noticed it in a lot of other modern composers including Debussy who is a favorite of mine.

It is perhaps a BPM thing.

As far as writing about sex/ lust that wasnt really part of my point. I just felt that 'classical' music in _general _has 'more' of an uplifting sacred feel to it, not that it was all about spiritual content.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I wish we could just define it as music that's still popular after 100 years. Then you could say that classical music is music that stands the test of time.

My point exactly. As I suggested earlier, in the filed of literature they speak of "classic literature" or "the classics". These simply consist of books which have stood the test of time... at least 50 if not 100 years. It is recognized that popularity alone is no measure of art... but popularity among the majority is not something that is consistent over time. The popular books of 30 years ago (_Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Love Story..._) are seen as quaint period pieces... if not embarrassing a generation later. With the exception of those limited books that continue to resonate... that attain classic status. The same is true of music. The majority of jazz, blues, rock, and bluegrass was rapidly forgotten... but there are exceptions that continue to resonate with an audience... and with even more time will still resonate with an audience of educated listeners as well as academics, historians... and most importantly, future generations of composers and musicians.

The term "classical music" as it currently stands strikes me as useless. It gathers all the music written down from Byzantine chants a millennium ago through Renaissance madrigals, baroque dance music, string quartets from the 18th century, Wagnerian operas, Impressionism, Schoenberg's atonal experiments, on through Varese's efforts with electronics and recorded sound and Stochhausen's and Cage's conceptual works... while negating the achievements of folk music, jazz, etc... Now I have no problem with the "elitist" notion that some art is better than others. Ellington isn't equal to Bach. But neither is Ligeti or Cage... Where one treads into the blasphemous is with the suggestion that some "popular" and "folk" music may actually be better than Ligeti and Cage and have a far better chance of survival... of becoming recognized as a "classic".


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Some things don't get the kind of recognition they deserve at the time and probably struggle to ever get that, the reason being that there is only enough room in the limelight for a limited number of people. Those who keep in the limelight over a long period are likely to have long lasting value of course but others may still deserve more than they get.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Soundtracks and Musicals highly popular today will be the classical music of 36500 tomorrows.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Ok, so I'm getting tired of this debate. I feel like we've covered a lot and had a lot of good points, but it's branching out beyond its worth. So my closing statement...

My own personal definition of classical music that I don't expect anyone else to concede to is music that is 'art music.' Music that is not written to make huge sums of money, rather music that is written for arts sake- whatever that may be for a composer (spiritual, personal, to tell a story, whatever). Classical music is an art form in which the music itself is an important factor in how the piece is supposed to make you feel- not just the words. It's music thats written to express something that can't be said in mere words. This definition might exclude some famous (and not so famous) classical numbers, but honestly, pieces that don't fit the criteria above are pieces I don't particularly value.

Film music is music written for a motion picture- a product whose purpose is to sell. The music is a collaborative process which often leaves the score bereft of any individuality. It's written as 'background' music, and is _not_ meant to be listened to as a standalone piece unless the composer intentioned it that way- and keep in mind that most composers who arrange their scores for the concert hall are 'classical composers.' But the film composer is someone whose job it is to either sound completely individual, or not at all. To go after a certain sound (Elfman) and replicate it a hundred times, milking it for all its worth, or to have a composer that can write in a myriad of styles (Newton Howard). And while some scores may be classically influenced, the 'classical' film score is still more closely linked to the 'jazz' film score. And so if genres are to be formed into definite groups, the 'classical score' whose creative process is much closer to the 'jazz score' then to any other form in the classical world, should be grouped as a film score.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Nix said:


> And this definition _does_ say something about the sound? When defining genres it seems that all of our definitions are just as amorphous as the next. Except that I gotta give myself credit for mine being just a tad more descriptive


Err, you do know that wasn't a serious definition? It was a dig at how it's impossible to produce a concrete, conclusive definition for any musical genre.



> Ok, so I'm getting tired of this debate. I feel like we've covered a lot and had a lot of good points, but it's branching out beyond its worth. So my closing statement...


Your definition of 'classical' music is the worst I've ever heard. Nonsensical, elitist and illogical. Plus, you seem to view the tag 'classical' as being an indicator of quality, which it isn't.



Stlukes said:


> The term "classical music" as it currently stands strikes me as useless. It gathers all the music written down from Byzantine chants a millennium ago through Renaissance madrigals, baroque dance music, string quartets from the 18th century, Wagnerian operas, Impressionism, Schoenberg's atonal experiments, on through Varese's efforts with electronics and recorded sound and Stochhausen's and Cage's conceptual works... while negating the achievements of folk music, jazz, etc... Now I have no problem with the "elitist" notion that some art is better than others. Ellington isn't equal to Bach. But neither is Ligeti or Cage... Where one treads into the blasphemous is with the suggestion that some "popular" and "folk" music may actually be better than Ligeti and Cage and have a far better chance of survival... of becoming recognized as a "classic".


Coltrane and Sabbath are better than Bach. Fact.

Iggy Pop and the Stone Roses are better than Ligeti. Fact.

Chuck Berry and the Fall are better than John Cage. Fact.

Hope this clears some things up.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Argus said:


> Your definition of 'classical' music is the worst I've ever heard. Nonsensical, elitist and illogical. Plus, you seem to view the tag 'classical' as being an indicator of quality, which it isn't.


Did I not say it was my own personal opinion that I didn't expect anyone to concede to? It wasn't a definition so much as what _I_ looked for in classical music.

What I _didn't_ do is declare one artist better then the other, comparing Coltrane to Bach, thinking it gives you some sort of edge that you must be oh so knowledgeable about absolutely everything. And you call me elitist?

This is the third instance in a couple of weeks where I've gotten in what I thought was an engaging discussion, where I've made myself clear when my opinions are being stated, and have done my best to back up facts, and in the end I still get attacked. I think my time on these boards are coming to close...


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Nix said:


> Did I not say it was my own personal opinion that I didn't expect anyone to concede to? It wasn't a definition so much as what _I_ looked for in classical music.
> 
> What I _didn't_ do is declare one artist better then the other, comparing Coltrane to Bach, thinking it gives you some sort of edge that you must be oh so knowledgeable about absolutely everything. And you call me elitist?
> 
> This is the third instance in a couple of weeks where I've gotten in what I thought was an engaging discussion, where I've made myself clear when my opinions are being stated, and have done my best to back up facts, and in the end I still get attacked. I think my time on these boards are coming to close...


Don't be so soft and lighten up, Francis.

All I'm doing is expressing an opinion. I do think what you look for in classical music doesn't make sense and is illogical, and I do think John Coltrane and Black Sabbath are better than Bach, along with Terry Riley, Brian Eno, Funkadelic, CCR, Sleep, Ennio Morricone, Kraftwerk and Muddy Waters among others. I just thought listing two prominent examples was quicker. The list could be extended to the thousands if I was comparing to Mozart.

A debate normally consists of diverging viewpoints. Am I supposed to agree with your thoughts on classical music because it's your 'personal opinion'?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Nix said:


> Did I not say it was my own personal opinion that I didn't expect anyone to concede to? It wasn't a definition so much as what _I_ looked for in classical music.
> 
> What I _didn't_ do is declare one artist better then the other, comparing Coltrane to Bach, thinking it gives you some sort of edge that you must be oh so knowledgeable about absolutely everything. And you call me elitist?
> 
> This is the third instance in a couple of weeks where I've gotten in what I thought was an engaging discussion, where I've made myself clear when my opinions are being stated, and have done my best to back up facts, and in the end I still get attacked. I think my time on these boards are coming to close...


I wouldn't worry about it. You brought up a lot of good points on a topic that is obviously very hard to define. In the end I am glad there are purists out there like yourself who feel so passionately about what they're doing. You obviously care a lot about preserving the integrity of classical music, and in some fields (music/art being one) I think being passionate and truly loving what one is doing is more important than being able to intellectually define and categorize things.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

Nix said:


> My own personal definition of classical music that I don't expect anyone else to concede to is music that is 'art music.' Music that is not written to make huge sums of money, rather music that is written for arts sake- whatever that may be for a composer (spiritual, personal, to tell a story, whatever).
> 
> ...
> 
> Film music is music written for a motion picture- a product whose purpose is to sell.


You do realize that there are 'art films', right? And that there are individuals who create films as a hobby and not with 'blockbuster hit' in mind (as with ALL art forms)? Just as such, there are composers willing to create music for these films, and these composers often go unpaid for their work. There's much more to cinema than the movies you get at your local UA 8.

Quoting from my liner notes for the score to Mishima (Philip Glass):



> Over the last fifteen years, Philip Glass has defined a new form of biographical opera. There was never any doubt that he would be the ideal composer for _MISHIMA_, a mosaic film biography. I wanted a score which would unite the film's disparate elements and propel it forward. Such a score, by definition, would be a distinct, cohesive composition.
> 
> I only wondered how to induce Glass. Money was out of the question: the film was already an egregiously under-budgeted labor of love production. I opted for a soft sell. (I've subsequently learned how remarkably resistant Philip is to a hard one.) I simply gave him the script and all the materials by and about Mishima at my disposal.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Argus said:


> I think what you look for in classical music doesn't make sense and is illogical, and I think John Coltrane and Black Sabbath are better than Bach, along with Terry Riley, Brian Eno, Funkadelic, CCR, Sleep, Ennio Morricone, Kraftwerk and Muddy Waters among others.


And if this had been what you had originally said I wouldn't have been annoyed by it... and the fact that you rephrased your response shows that maybe it was you who needed to 'lighten up.' Taking out the name calling and clearly prefacing something as an opinion, instead of yelling out 'FACT' after everything you declared can go along way.

_A debate normally consists of diverging viewpoints. Am I supposed to agree with your thoughts on classical music because it's your 'personal opinion'?_

No you're not, but there is such as a thing as 'agreeing to disagree' which is how I presented myself at the end of my argument. Do you think attacking others opinions while declaring your own ones (without any reasoning) helps the discussion?

Also dmg, I know there are art films, but the industry today is not dominated by art films and 'art films' don't usually have the budget to support a classically written score, so they're mostly irrelevant to this topic. Also Philip Glass is especially unique in the film scoring world in that directors heard his classical compositions and have asked him to replicate that in movies. I think the only reason this works is because Glass's style hasn't changed in several decades- like many film composers. He's always reliable to sound just like 'Glass.' Which is odd because in the classical world thats not always a good thing (yet another trait that separates the two).

Ok, this time I'm done. I promise.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

My own personal definition of classical music that I don't expect anyone else to concede to is music that is 'art music.' Music that is not written to make huge sums of money, rather music that is written for arts sake- whatever that may be for a composer (spiritual, personal, to tell a story, whatever).

This presumes that Duke Ellington, Miles David, Muddy Waters, and The Rolling Stones were not writing music with the thought of creating a work of art but only with the thought of making money... which is obviously an argument that you cannot defend. It is also an argument based upon the the word "Art"... thus you have gone from being unable to define "classical music" to attempting to define it as "art" which is perhaps even more difficult to define. As for your obsession with money, that's simply naive, and juvenile fixation. Art has always followed the flow of money. If the composer today is more concerned with entertaining the larger audience it is because it is now they, and not the few wealthy aristocrats, who bring the largest source of income to the artist. By way of contrast, painters today couldn't care less about the opinions of the masses because it is still the very wealthy who are their patrons.

Your fixation with money assumes that money is the _raison d'etre_ for any composer, excepting the classical composer. Money, rather, is a means of allowing the artist to continue to produce what he or she believes in. It doesn't matter if that money is coming from a post as a tenured university professor, from grants from wealthy foundations and individuals, or from the sale of the product. The classical composer writing from the safety of his university professorial position... his endeavors assisted by grants... is no more or less indebted to money than the musician whose income depends upon selling a set number of tickets or recordings. The idea that your idealized "classical composer" sits aloof in a position of moral high ground above all concerns of the audience and money while the non-classical composer grovels and panders to the audience is pure BS.

Classical music is an art form in which the music itself is an important factor in how the piece is supposed to make you feel- not just the words. It's music thats written to express something that can't be said in mere words.

How does this differ from any musical genre? The meaning of any song or work in which a text is combined with music is profoundly altered or heightened by the music.

Film music is music written for a motion picture- a product whose purpose is to sell.

And that is just pure pretentious ignorance. Most film-makers I know would be tempted to bit** slap you. All art is made in part to sell. All professional artists in any field desire to be financially rewarded for their efforts... but almost any fool can tell you that there are far more lucrative fields to go into that the arts if money is your primary concern. For every film that makes a fortune for the film maker, the majority lose money. Film makers make film for the same reason composers make music. They love the art form.

The music is a collaborative process which often leaves the score bereft of any individuality. It's written as 'background' music, and is not meant to be listened to as a standalone piece 

Opera is a collaborative art from. So is the theater... and film... and the ballet... and architecture. In spite of the fact that we listen to recordings of operas and arias, overtures, and highlights of operas... and even opera music sans words... the opera was intended to be experienced as a whole. The music was no more intended to stand alone than was the music of a ballet... or a film. Most opera fans recognize the fact that the drama, acting, the stage sets, the visuals... all are equally important to the whole experience. The notion that the music comes first is simply the bias of a music lover. A visual artist might argue that the visuals are the most important, while a literary person might argue that the drama is central. The same is true of the ballet or of film. This does not mean that such music cannot stand alone. Suites of the highlights have been culled from Tchaikovsky's , Stravinsky's, and Prokofiev's ballets. This was not how they were originally intended to be experienced. How does this differ from a suite culled from John William's Star Wars music?

the film composer is someone whose job it is to either sound completely individual, or not at all. To go after a certain sound (Elfman) and replicate it a hundred times, milking it for all its worth, or to have a composer that can write in a myriad of styles (Newton Howard). And while some scores may be classically influenced, the 'classical' film score is still more closely linked to the 'jazz' film score. And so if genres are to be formed into definite groups, the 'classical score' whose creative process is much closer to the 'jazz score' then to any other form in the classical world, should be grouped as a film score.

The film composer's job is to write music for a film that suits the director's vision. When it comes to film, the director is the final say on all artistic matters. When it comes to operas it depends. Some composers like Wagner envisioned the whole: text, music, staging, visuals. In other instances the composer works in tandem with the librettist or even for the impresario or producer. A mediocre or crappy director may look upon the musical score as little more than background music. A good or great director will recognize that the end result of the film is the result of all the elements: acting, cinematography, screen play, stage sets, costumes, choreography, music, etc... Undoubtedly the majority of film music is entirely forgettable... but so is the majority of music written for the orchestra and stand-alone symphonic or classical music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Coltrane and Sabbath are better than Bach. Fact.

Iggy Pop and the Stone Roses are better than Ligeti. Fact.

Chuck Berry and the Fall are better than John Cage. Fact.

Hope this clears some things up.

Probably not in the way you intended.


----------



## Jacob Singer (Jan 7, 2011)

Argus said:


> Lennon/McCartney, Miles Davis, Page/Plant, Bob Marley, Ravi Shankar, Michael Jackson, John Coltrane, Brian Eno, Bob Dylan, Charlie Parker, Gilmour/Waters, Brian Wilson.
> 
> Then some that aren't considered _quite_ as highly.
> 
> Fela Kuti, Charles Mingus, Ornette Coleman, Frank Zappa, Neil Young, Elton John, Iommi/Butler/Ward, Sun Ra.


Nice list. I've got music from almost every single artist you mentioned in my collection, and I enjoy the artistic beauty in all of it. I'd add a few of the classic r&b icons as well, like Stevie Wonder, etc.

Just as your list suggests, _any_ of these styles or genres can potentially offer something of artistic value to the listener. It's no coincidence that the music from most of these artists continues to grow in admiration over time.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> So again, how does one define "classical music"? It seems to me that the terms "classical music" is employed as a means of defining "art music"... "serious music" ... "classic music"... rather in the sense that the terms "classic literature" is employed in the realm of writing. The reality is that "classical music" ... as the term is now employed... is not a genre... but a term of qualitative measure. "Classical measure" embraces the music of the Baroque, the classical period, the Romantics, Modernism, Late-Modernism, Minimalism, Expressionism... it includes medieval chant, Renaissance madrigals, lieder, chanson, melodies, symphonies, quartets, quintets, etc... It draws upon elements of folk music (think Vaughan-Williams, Bartok, Grieg), popular music, jazz (Shostakovitch, Satie, Ravel, Gerschwin, etc...). There are folk songs and popular songs and popular musical works that have entered into the classical repertoire (including "Greensleeves", the music of Johann Strauss, Offenbach, Gilbert and Sullivan, etc... Ultimately, it would seem that something becomes "classic" ... probably a better term than "classical"... when it continues to inspire listeners over time. By this measure, and undoubtedly to your horror... I see no reason why the best jazz, blues, cabaret, pop, rock, etc... won't eventually be recognized as "classic". I also find myself (uncomfortable as this may be) agreeing with Argus in the suggestion that some music that you dismiss as "popular"... certainly not classical... will survive well past Stockhausen, Boulez, or Ligeti.
> 
> When we look at the music of the past we largely accept all music that has survived as part of the classical tradition... at least up until the last century or so. The medieval chanson... not far certainly from today's pop ballads... are recognized as "classical". So too are the instrumental works of medieval music which in many ways are not far removed from bluegrass, folk music, or even the blues and rock. It would seem to me that the measure of serious music was whether it could be passed on from one generation to the next... and for most of recorded music's history, this meant the ability to read and write music. The simple tunes of Mozart's_ Magic Flute_ are accepted as "classical" as opposed to the tunes sung in the streets by folk musicians and popular cabaret performers for the simple reason that Mozart was able to record his music in written form. With the advent of recorded sound, this all changed. Jazz musicians could record their music... and their performances capturing the element of improvisation that were so important in Baroque music... but could not be recorded for posterity. As a result, there are works of jazz, folk, blues, pop, rock, etc... that have attained "classic" status... they continue to resonate with an audience well after their time. If the term "classical music" is a measure of quality recognized by an audience over time, how are we to suggest that these works are not worthy of the term "classic"? Placing Duke Ellington or Miles Davis or The Rolling Stones alongside Beethoven or Mozart seems ridiculous? But is it any more ridiculous than placing Ligeti, Philip Glass, or Stockhausen along side Beethoven and Mozart.
> 
> I have called your arguments "naive" for the simple reason that they are not founded upon any sort of logic or reason... let alone fact... only you passionate feelings. You feel that Duke Ellington is not of the same caliber as Beethoven. I agree. But neither is Ligeti or Boulez... and I feel that neither of them are near the caliber of Ellington or Miles Davis.


I agree with pretty much every single thing StlukesguildOhio says here.

I would add that there was "pop" music back in the classical era as well: _hausmusik_ was one name for it… mostly just generic music that was geared toward the masses, especially by the 19th century when the piano became quite common in a lot of middle-class households. This music tended to be very "accessible" to the general public, and much of it has been forgotten over time.

The trend is the same whether you are talking about classical or jazz or rock. There is the generic music geared toward the masses, and then there is the "art" music (that may _or may not_ achieve widespread popularity at a given time, depending on a variety of factors). The trends across these three eras of music - classical, jazz, and rock - are a lot more similar than they are different.

As far as the definition of 'classical' in this context…

_You can't define it simply as "art music,"_ as there are plenty of examples of "art music" that are not considered "classical", and plenty of examples of music from the classical era that are not considered "art music".

_You can't define it by saying that it can't be written to accompany some visual art form_, as plenty of examples of classical music have been written expressly for that purpose.

_You can't define it by complexity_, as plenty of examples of music exist that are indeed complex and are not considered "classical", and plenty of examples of "classical" music exist that are not complex.

The only definition that makes any sense at all is the stylistic one. In modern terms, 'classical' is a genre of music, and like all genres it is primarily defined by its style. Put simply, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, regardless of whether it was written in 1811 or 2011. Now, some may believe that all of the "good" classical music was written before 1850, or 1900, or 1950, or _whenever_, but that's a separate discussion altogether.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Jacob Singer said:


> The trend is the same whether you are talking about classical or jazz or rock. There is the generic music geared toward the masses, and then there is the "art" music (that may _or may not_ achieve widespread popularity at a given time, depending on a variety of factors).


All musical styles can be generic at some point, where creativity has fallen back in preference for just an imitation of a style.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Very interesting discussion, with several really well-thought-out posts, which I hope not to contribute. 

Anyway, I have long been skeptical about the value of sorting music into various genres, and it seems to be that musicians have long been trying to frustrate our ability to do so. Great examples of genre-bending have been given throughout this thread, and in a way it's a tradition that goes back to medieval composers using popular tunes in their religious music.

The emergence of globalization is even leading to a breakdown in regional musical traditions. Western influence on the East is more obvious than the other way around, but in the West you still have Anouar Brahem, Ravi Shankar, classical composers writing gamelan music, etc.... 

So personally, I worry less about defining the genres than about enjoying the music. 

But I am not a traditionalist, so I may be temperamentally disposed to such a view.


----------

