# Do we need a new system of classification?



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Here's an idea: Say I play electric guitar in a punk rock band, and I decide to compose an instrumental tune for the group to play. Say this piece is follows a traditional sonata form, or what if its a fugue? Does this make the piece a classical piece, or is it a rock piece because of the instruments used?


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Didn't you answer that yourself by saying it is being performed by a 'punk rock band'? That seems to say that the genre is predefined. It also depends a great deal what the result sounds like. IMO, it is culturally understood what is different by a chamber ensemble and a rock band.

To give an example of what you suggest, how about this? There is no sonata form, but otherwise...






Oh, the Stranglers also toured with a group called the Electric Strings who performed with them. Like here:






All very non-traditional in terms of 'punk rock', but I still wouldn't call it classical.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Well why wouldn't you call it classical? Besides, if we go by what constitutes a chamber ensemble, most rock bands are chamber groups, with a couple such as some of Frank Zappa's bands constituting chamber orchestras.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I often wonder if Classical music can secure itself by having essentially Classical ideas played by punk rock (or whatever) bands. Still, I think its classification depends more on the ideas than the structure or instruments.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I have an idea... let's just call it "music".


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I have an idea... let's just call it "music".


To go a step further, we might as well take a leaf out of John Cage's book and call it sound. The term 'music' is too limiting!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> To go a step further, we might as well take a leaf out of John Cage's book and call it sound. The term 'music' is too limiting!


Except Cage would call it music.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Instead of trying to create a set of terms to define "classical music" as a whole, why not instead try to separate classical music into a set of easily distinguishable genres similar to popular music? Once that's done, you can work backwards to figure out how to best classify something.

I'm not even talking about separating it into something traditional like "symphonies, piano sonatas, string quartets, fugues". Everyone has a a certain set of characteristics that they prefer in music. Characteristics can be shared across compositional styles. For instance, if you like form and diatonicism, you can narrow down your preferences to the majority of classical and early romantic composers, however, if you add chromaticism into those restrictions, you can narrow it down to Mid/Late Mozart and Chopin, for instance.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

To me, it is something like an ethical imperative to play play Bach with rock guitars, and to play Jimi Hendrix with string quartets.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

science said:


> To me, it is something like an ethical imperative to play play Bach with rock guitars, and to play Jimi Hendrix with string quartets.


In those cases, I ask if the arrangement isn't altered in any way, the compositions are simply reorchestrated, does it change their genre? Even within classical forms you have a similar conundrum: say we reduce a Mozart horn concerto's orchestra part to a piano, does it become a horn sonata? and say we take some Ives violin sonata and orchestrate the piano part, does it become a violin concerto? :3


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

science said:


> To me, it is something like an ethical imperative to play play Bach with rock guitars, and to play Jimi Hendrix with string quartets.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> In those cases, I ask if the arrangement isn't altered in any way, the compositions are simply reorchestrated, does it change their genre?


You're asking the wrong person! I am opposed to these labels. Not taken seriously, they are occasionally helpful; but as soon as they become something we have to think about, they've gone much too far, and our duty becomes to systematically transgress and destroy them.

The world is too complex to be classified with _any_ set of labels, let alone simple labels; and in the realm of human cultures, that insight is worth more than the labels themselves.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Even within classical forms you have a similar conundrum: say we reduce a Mozart horn concerto's orchestra part to a piano, does it become a horn sonata? and say we take some Ives violin sonata and orchestrate the piano part, does it become a violin concerto? :3


No. They would become "Horn Concerto (piano reduction)" and "Violin Sonata (arr. Violin and Orchestra)," respectively.


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystylism

It's like having the "Mixed" choice when you're filling out a census.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

well, Piazzolla's original recordings have some arrangements more suitable to jazz/fusion, but his music lies between jazz, classical, tango, etc. This one starts with a fugue, for example:


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> Here's an idea: Say I play electric guitar in a punk rock band, and I decide to compose an instrumental tune for the group to play. Say this piece is follows a traditional sonata form, or what if its a fugue? Does this make the piece a classical piece, or is it a rock piece because of the instruments used?


Not classical. Possibly classical/punk crossover at best, but more probably unadulterated punk rock.

This is because the form of construction is a necessary condition for a piece to be classical, but it is not a sufficient condition. Choice of instruments and mode of presentation can easily change the original genre into something else. It seems so obvious.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> Not classical. Possibly classical/punk crossover at best, but more probably unadulterated punk rock.
> 
> This is because the form of construction is a necessary condition for a piece to be classical, but it is not a sufficient condition. Choice of instruments and mode of presentation can easily change the original genre into something else. It seems so obvious.


But how is this obvious? "Classical" instrumentation has NEVER been constant. Every era has different instruments that are utilized by the composers of that period. The Romantic orchestra is completely different from the early baroque orchestra. It seems obvious to me if classical instruments can grow from voice and organ to include the MANY different instruments that fit in that classification its really not a big stretch to include electric guitars and bass guitars, or synthesizers, or anything.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Notes, harmony and style indicate any genre, not the instrumentation. 

Instruments are completely 'neutral.'

Both bluegrass and the Berg Violin concerto are played using a violin....

I would say even form counts for little, including a fugue: if the style is in a genre, that is the genre category the music 'falls' into... there are very few exceptions, though many a line has been crossed many times over.

Bela Fleck playing Bach on a Banjo remains Bach, and classical.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Notes, harmony and style indicate any genre, not the instrumentation.
> 
> Instruments are completely 'neutral.'
> 
> ...


Okay :3 How about things like George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, which is stylistically heavily rooted in jazz and blues music, but its basically a piano concerto and there's no improv, whereas in Bach's time up through Mozart's and Beethoven's times, it was common to include improvisation in pieces during cadenzas, and most of the "classical" musicians could improvise. Not really making a claim on it, just wanna know what you think about that. (We could probably make a good thread about the need for classical musicians to learn how to improvise and include that great skill in music education.)


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

StevenOBrien said:


> Instead of trying to create a set of terms to define "classical music" as a whole, why not instead try to separate classical music into a set of easily distinguishable genres similar to popular music? Once that's done, you can work backwards to figure out how to best classify something.


That seems sensible to me since 'classical music' is a little too comprehensive. I'd suggest that what we consider to be classical music is a result of several overlapping features. Each feature on its own means little and is easy to find exceptions for, but together would probably account for 99% of the music that the vast majority of people would agree qualifies under what they understand by the term 'classical music'. This seems an acceptable level of functionality to me.

I also firmly agree with what *science* said about the only use of categorising being for easy reference/recommendations. Knowing what is meant by a term is useful in communication. Anything that doesn't quite fit just needs a slightly longer explanation.

*To BurningDesire:* As far as bands being the same as chamber music, that is only true for the loosest of definitions. Chamber music originated, obviously, from what was played in the chambers/salons of the rich. Small ensembles inherited that title and the style. Bands originated from an entirely different source - probably a band of players that toured and played popular music of the age. When the term is used in conjunction with another term, the expectation of the type of music played by that group is VERY effectively communicated: Rock bands usually have a group consisting of (not exclusively) a lead guitarist, bass player, drummer, singer and possibly a keyboard player. Given the number of options available, this is a very efficient means of communication. This also works for boy bands, brass bands, jazz bands, big bands, mariachi bands, one-man bands and elastic bands. You ignored my question in my first reply when I asked whether or not you had given the answer to your question by stating that they were a punk rock band. That states a genre and just because they might occasionally do something different (like the Stranglers did) the genre will still hold true. If they are more often an all-string instrumental ensemble, then they aren't going to be punk rock! I said that those pieces weren't classical because, IMO, they originated elsewhere and when put in context they are still punk rock. Waltzinblack is an intro track for their album in which the rest of the content is not so ambiguous. I also don't consider songs to be classical, but that is another point entirely.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> That seems sensible to me since 'classical music' is a little too comprehensive. I'd suggest that what we consider to be classical music is a result of several overlapping features. Each feature on its own means little and is easy to find exceptions for, but together would probably account for 99% of the music that the vast majority of people would agree qualifies under what they understand by the term 'classical music'. This seems an acceptable level of functionality to me.
> 
> I also firmly agree with what *science* said about the only use of categorising being for easy reference/recommendations. Knowing what is meant by a term is useful in communication. Anything that doesn't quite fit just needs a slightly longer explanation.
> 
> *To BurningDesire:* As far as bands being the same as chamber music, that is only true for the loosest of definitions. Chamber music originated, obviously, from what was played in the chambers/salons of the rich. Small ensembles inherited that title and the style. Bands originated from an entirely different source - probably a band of players that toured and played popular music of the age. When the term is used in conjunction with another term, the expectation of the type of music played by that group is VERY effectively communicated: Rock bands usually have a group consisting of (not exclusively) a lead guitarist, bass player, drummer, singer and possibly a keyboard player. Given the number of options available, this is a very efficient means of communication. This also works for boy bands, brass bands, jazz bands, big bands, mariachi bands, one-man bands and elastic bands. You ignored my question in my first reply when I asked whether or not you had given the answer to your question by stating that they were a punk rock band. That states a genre and just because they might occasionally do something different (like the Stranglers did) the genre will still hold true. If they are more often an all-string instrumental ensemble, then they aren't going to be punk rock! I said that those pieces weren't classical because, IMO, they originated elsewhere and when put in context they are still punk rock. Waltzinblack is an intro track for their album in which the rest of the content is not so ambiguous. I also don't consider songs to be classical, but that is another point entirely.


so the genre of a composition is determined by what a group of instruments stereotypically play? Or what a particular ensemble normally plays? That sounds kinda silly to me. Say Stephen King wrote a cute little play in a fantastic setting, would it be a work of horror because thats what he generally writes?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Here's an idea: Say I play electric guitar in a punk rock band, and I decide to compose an instrumental tune for the group to play. Say this piece is follows a traditional sonata form, or what if its a fugue? Does this make the piece a classical piece, or is it a rock piece because of the instruments used?


It might be useful to note what folks used to do "not that long ago" when the original Academy of Ancient Music was founded in England in 1726. Its purpose was to perform "old" music, which was then defined to be pieces at least a century old. (The Academy of Ancient Music today was revived by Christopher Hogwood in 1973, which is the well known period instrument band today performing classical music). The point is, calling something "classical" should at the very least adopt its usual meaning of the word, and not just bastardise it by calling something written literally ten minutes ago "classical" just because it follows a sonata form. You might prefer to call it art music instead, which is what I tend to do when discussing pieces written less than fifty years ago, to be generous.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Okay :3 How about things like George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, which is stylistically heavily rooted in jazz and blues music, but its basically a piano concerto and there's no improv, whereas in Bach's time up through Mozart's and Beethoven's times, it was common to include improvisation in pieces during cadenzas, and most of the "classical" musicians could improvise. Not really making a claim on it, just wanna know what you think about that. (We could probably make a good thread about the need for classical musicians to learn how to improvise and include that great skill in music education.)


There's always room for improv if you want it. Liszt did improv and I'm sure that it existed all the way through to late romantic period. Camille Saint-Saens was also heavily into improv. I recently saw Herbie Hancock perform Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue and I'm sure he improvised during the piece. Marc-Andre Hamelin also includes his own cadenza when he performs Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 and elsewhere, I'm sure. I think it is only some of the late 20th century composers that were ruthless about how works should be performed, but I am probably wrong.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> It might be useful to note what folks used to do "not that long ago" when the original Academy of Ancient Music was founded in England in 1726. Its purpose was to perform "old" music, which was then defined to be pieces at least a century old. (The Academy of Ancient Music today was revived by Christopher Hogwood in 1973, which is the well known period instrument band today performing classical music). The point is, calling something "classical" should at the very least adopt its usual meaning of the word, and not just bastardise it by calling something written literally ten minutes ago "classical" just because it follows a sonata form. You might prefer to call it art music instead, which is what I tend to do when discussing pieces written less than fifty years ago, to be generous.


I don't like the term art music because its redundant and pretentious. All music is art. To call any sort "art music" is to insinuate that other sorts are somehow not artistic. You may not like a Nirvana song (or you may, I dunno), but that doesn't make it less a work of art.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> so the genre of a composition is determined by what a group of instruments stereotypically play? Or what a particular ensemble normally plays? That sounds kinda silly to me. Say Stephen King wrote a cute little play in a fantastic setting, would it be a work of horror because thats what he generally writes?


I know more about writing than I do about music and, from the point of view of a publisher, it is expected that novels fit into a genre to be sold to the public. This is advice given to all budding authors. This may, at times, be a compromise of art but it is also a tried and tested working system. I have had a lot of similar discussions with people about what genre fits various written works. Horror, Sci-fi and Fantasy all share common features that are usually described under the umbrella term 'speculative fiction' by those that are dismissive of the limitations of genres, but more specific genres are very helpful to those seeking to find similar works. Within the genre of fantasy, for example there exists epic fantasy, swords and sorcery, arthurian fantasy, dark fantasy, comic fantasy etc This is the same as what I've being saying about music. It helps people understand what they might be getting.

Stephen King does write in several genres, but the difference between music in fiction is that the plot is the only variable in fiction. There is no analogue to instrumentation or style in fiction, for example. In music, there are several variables. In your example, you are only tweaking one or two of these. Not enough, IMO, to constitute a shift. Genre of music IS largely determined by what group of instruments are stereotypically played. I think my examples of different types of bands is clear enough. As far as what they normally play goes, lets assume that they are limited by what abilities they have as performers. If they can shift with ease between different styles and intruments, they will not be so easy to classify. What I meant, however, is that waltzinblack fits into the context of the rest of the album as a collective work of punk rock.


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

Nevermind.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Toddlertoddy said:


> Nevermind.


great album :3


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Instruments are completely 'neutral.'
> 
> Both bluegrass and the Berg Violin concerto are played using a violin....


Except that in one case the violin is backed by an orchestra and the other it is backed by a banjo, harmonica and perhaps a cowbell.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> I don't like the term art music because its redundant and pretentious. All music is art. To call any sort "art music" is to insinuate that other sorts are somehow not artistic. You may not like a Nirvana song (or you may, I dunno), but that doesn't make it less a work of art.


Isn't it far more pretentious to call a piece composed ten minutes ago for a punk rock group just because it uses the sonata form "classical"?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

It all depends how it's packaged and marketed.

View attachment 6466


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

This is very rushed and incomplete (and done with terrible HTML), but I've taken the time to set out some basic ideas for my idea of objectively sorting music with examples (both classical and popular), just as an example for what I was going for with my earlier post: http://www.steven-obrien.net/genres.html

If you guys have any ideas or criticism for this system, let me know. I'd love to turn it into something more useful in the future.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Isn't it far more pretentious to call a piece composed ten minutes ago for a punk rock group just because it uses the sonata form "classical"?


uh, no, it isn't.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vaneyes said:


> It all depends how it's packaged and marketed.
> 
> View attachment 6466


Someone should've told me about that years ago.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Notes, harmony and style indicate any genre, not the instrumentation.
> 
> Instruments are completely 'neutral.'
> 
> ...


How do you reconcile this with the growth of interest HIP and original instruments? Don't these developments suggest that the choice of instruments and mode of presentation are very much an integral part of the classical music package?

I don't buy the suggestion that a piece of music first written as classical (e.g. a Bach Violin Partita) still remains a classical piece regardless of how it is performed. While there might be some scope for experimentation, if this expreimenation is taken too far the typical classical music audiences will begin to drop off and eventually disappear, and the best that may happen is that the vacant places will be taken up by a different group of enthusiasts whose musical interests lay outside classical altogether.

If that happens, which I think it would, your argument would look very silly if you tried to maintain that the Bach Partita remained classical even though classical music fans have deserted it and replaced by a bunch of punk rock fans or bluegrass or whatever.


----------



## Krisena (Jul 21, 2012)

The Bach Partita in question would still be classical music, unless you actually changed something about the composition that would put it in another style, for instance put a bass line on it. But this does still not mean that changing instruments, changes the genre. It's the _style_ of the change that decides the genre. Because, imagine that you change the composition into something jazzy, complete with swing rythms, extended chords and room for improvisation, would it be classical, just because the changed composition is still played by a violin? That does not seem logical to me.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

We need a new thread.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Krisena said:


> The Bach Partita in question would still be classical music, unless you actually changed something about the composition that would put it in another style, for instance put a bass line on it. But this does still not mean that changing instruments, changes the genre. It's the _style_ of the change that decides the genre. Because, imagine that you change the composition into something jazzy, complete with swing rythms, extended chords and room for improvisation, would it be classical, just because the changed composition is still played by a violin? That does not seem logical to me.


I think you have misconstrued. My pont is that if the instrumenation and arrangement of the Partita is changed so much that the work loses its appeal to the mass of baroque fans then it would lose credibility as a classical piece. If the tinkered-about version has morphed into something else, it may be re-classified as, say, classical-jazz fusion, or whatever, but it won't be classical. I wouldn't buy it as classical and I daresay the majority of other baroque music fans would not either. If the buying public gives it the thumbs down as classical that's good enough for me to disqualify it.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> We need a new thread.


I would have thought that someone like you, who normally revels in challenging the opinions of the musical "avante garde" set, might have wished to offer a bit of support to my questioning of the assertion that any old re-arangement of a classical work can still be viewed as classical provided the basic structure remains intact. Maybe you have spent such a long time here, and are now fed up arguing about all this, that you now appreciate versions of Handelian opera played on trash can lids and bicycle horns. Or even worse maybe you've become a supporter of Ligeti? [P.S. only joking]


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> If the buying public gives it the thumbs down as classical that's good enough for me to disqualify it.


Agreed. I think this is the closest one can get to a definition of "classical" in this day and age: by its audience. It's not a perfect definition, of course--no definition is--but I think demographics tells us at least as much about the genre of a piece these days than its internal features.


----------



## Krisena (Jul 21, 2012)

If genres can't be built on objective criteria, is there any point in having them at all? :'(


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Krisena said:


> If genres can't be built on objective criteria, is there any point in having them at all? :'(


General perception, not without grey areas, allows them to be used for a much greater efficiency of communication. Pedantic precision is want to get in the way of efficiency, hence the double-edged sword of genre labeling


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Eschbeg said:


> Agreed. I think this is the closest one can get to a definition of "classical" in this day and age: by its audience. It's not a perfect definition, of course--no definition is--but I think demographics tells us at least as much about the genre of a piece these days than its internal features.


Most of that audience doesn't know enough about music to have that much authority on the subject  I think composers and people who study music have a little more say in such matters.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Ramako said:


> General perception, not without grey areas, allows them to be used for a much greater efficiency of communication. Pedantic precision is want to get in the way of efficiency, hence the double-edged sword of genre labeling


Efficiency is fine, but when genre is used as a basis to ignore and prejudge a composition, I think its become an obsolete system. Besides, it doesn't describe music very well. Rock can include Elvis Presley AND Sonic Youth, and classical is even more vague. Most people think of crap like Mozart, but classical also includes Debussy, and John Cage, and plainchant, and folk songs from the Renaissance period. Its beyond diverse, so the term classical starts to become kinda meaningless, other than being a less arrogant, less stupid substitute for "art music" or "serious music".

There are people I know who will not listen to classical because they think its all boring stuff like Mozart (the majority of his output). And there are people on here who likely ignore anything labeled as rock or hip hop or pop, regardless of its quality. Much of genre labeling seems kinda OCD, like people can't possibly think of the music in a more nuanced way, they have to shoehorn things into labels that barely describe them, like calling Frank Zappa a rock artist, when there's alot more to his work than that.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Most of that audience doesn't know enough about music to have that much authority on the subject  I think composers and people who study music have a little more say in such matters.


I'm not so sure. Composers and people who study music may have more specialized knowledge on the subject, but as VSM pointed out, if listeners have already made the decision that (for example) Frank Loesser's "Fugue for Tin Horns" is more Broadway than it is classical, nothing that composers and scholars say is going to change that. And if composers and scholars were to continue to say it anyway, then they will no longer be describing the way listeners actually receive the music, which in my opinion calls into question the composers and scholars rather than the listeners.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Eschbeg said:


> I'm not so sure. Composers and people who study music may have more specialized knowledge on the subject, but as VSM pointed out, if listeners have already made the decision that (for example) Frank Loesser's "Fugue for Tin Horns" is more Broadway than it is classical, nothing that composers and scholars say is going to change that. And if composers and scholars were to continue to say it anyway, then they will no longer be describing the way listeners actually receive the music, which in my opinion calls into question the composers and scholars rather than the listeners.


It really doesn't matter if the majority wants to think something. If its dumb and uninformed and wrong, then its dumb and uninformed and wrong :3 If popular consensus decides truth, then I guess Twilight is among the greatest works of literature, Avatar one of the greatest films of all time, and of course Michael Jackson is the greatest musician to ever live.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Do we need a new system of classification ?


No, we do not. Classifying means restrictions, hence limits. We can not throw away all the characteristics and keep only few arbitrary ones for the name of classification... We can not perceive music only through simple classification criteria, which are nothing more than conventions. Music is so complex...and it is really just music and its full characteristics have to be tasted in this manner, as a whole, not separated, for the sake of classifications... When you classify music, you put limits, and these prevent you from enjoying it at its best. We do not need convention to like it and understand it in a way that matters. The same story with other things.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

> It really doesn't matter if the majority wants to think something. If its dumb and uninformed and wrong, then its dumb and uninformed and wrong :3 If popular consensus decides truth, then I guess Twilight is among the greatest works of literature, Avatar one of the greatest films of all time, and of course Michael Jackson is the greatest musician to ever live.


I'm not saying public opinion gets to determine what is true (though even if I were, your examples wouldn't really apply since they pertain to subjective perceptions of quality, not matters of truth). All I'm saying is that classical music, like any kind of music, denotes a demographic as much as a style, and if a wide swath of public decides it's part of that demographic, there isn't much point in trying to convince them they shouldn't be. An informed critic who pretends that symphonic arrangements of Metallica or video game music are not being consumed in exactly the same way that Beethoven symphonies are being consumed--that is, in a concert hall in hushed reverence, with audiences dressed in their Sunday best--is simply not describing the way music operates in the current world, and in that sense is not doing much to illuminate the world of classical music.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> Most of that audience doesn't know enough about music to have that much authority on the subject  I think composers and people who study music have a little more say in such matters.


To pick up the correct context here, we're talking about a hypothethical piece of music which we can agree started out, on paper, as genuine classical music but which is instrumentalised and arranged in such a way that we may suppose the majority of consumers reject it as classical music but instead regard it as, say, classical-rock fusion, and hence don't want it.

You appear to be saying that the opinion of consumers on this matter is irrelevant because they don't have as much authority as musical experts, whose opinion alone should prevail as to whether or not the piece remains classical in its ready-to-perform stage.

I would regard as highly questionable the assertion that consumers are igorant compared with the opinion of "experts"? How much expertise is required anyway? Besides, anyone can call themselves a "composer", and many incompetents and destined failures probably do so, in which case I see no justification for having unquestioning faith in what they or any supposed musical expert claims on such a matter.

At the end of the day the consumer is sovereign and if they reject the work as classical then no amount of bleeting is going to alter this fact. In the longer term "composers" of this so-called classical music will either re-orient their further endeavours so as to meet more fully the requirements of classical audiences, or possibly pack up altogether if they can't or won't meet those requirements.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

the books say classical music uses an orchestra instruments. so it would be a punk genre.

the instruments seem to outway the composition style. since some classical pieces have turkish sounds or jazz and so on but remain classical.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

LordBlackudder said:


> the books say classical music uses an orchestra instruments.


Which book says that? I'd be interested to hear how this book defines "orchestra instruments." Would it allow for the harmonica in Vaughan Williams' Romance, the theremin in Martinů's _Fantasia_, or the electric guitar in Bernstein's _Slava_? And would it recognize Badly Drawn Boy's "The Shining," which uses cello and French horn, as classical? Just curious.


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

How do we differentiate jazz from classical?






Is this jazz with classical influence or classical with jazz influence? I personally it's the former because it's the harmonies and rhythms that make it jazzy and funky. But the choice of having a "prelude and fugue", a solo clarinet (implying concerto maybe?), the attire and concert venue, and the trumpet types makes it completely ambiguous.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Toddlertoddy said:


> How do we differentiate jazz from classical?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I was to hear this on the radio I'd think Jazz that's not to say it is Jazz but that's what springs to mind.


----------



## Mika (Jul 24, 2009)

What is this?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Most people think of crap like Mozart...

There are people I know who will not listen to classical because they think its all boring stuff like Mozart (the majority of his output).

people can't possibly think of the music in a more nuanced way,

Then again... how "nuanced" is your thinking about music if you can dismiss Mozart as "crap" and "boring stuff"?


----------



## Krisena (Jul 21, 2012)

Toddlertoddy said:


> How do we differentiate jazz from classical?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was always of the conviction that what defines jazz is the emphasis on improvisation, not the colourful chords. The chords are more like the consequence of improvisation, with their role being to give the musician more scales to make interesting solos over. No improv, no jazz, for me.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Most people think of crap like Mozart...
> 
> There are people I know who will not listen to classical because they think its all boring stuff like Mozart (the majority of his output).
> 
> ...


Because if I dare to speak without reverence for that sacred artist all of my views on music must therefore be called into question. _That_ is my main problem with Mozart and those who constantly treat him like some holy figure, in addition to the fact that I feel his music really isn't ahead of his contemporaries. The vast majority is just classical music, no better than Haydn, and Haydn has plenty of brilliance of his own to contend with Mozart's truly great works.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

I listen to Classical music because I like classical music. I was brought up on classical music but I couldn't give a damn what kind of music I happened to like as long as I like it. For me and I mean to cause no offense to anyone on the forum music classification tends to be away of saying you are better than X because you listen to X and they don't. 

The real purpose of classification is for compiling a library so you can easily find certain works or if you happen to be writing about music then perhaps it has it's uses. Other than the that it's all just one-upmanship and personally I don't like being pigeonholed. So no I don't think we need a new system we just need people to stop trying to define themselves by how many ring cycles they own. :tiphat:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Because if I dare to speak without reverence for that sacred artist all of my views on music must therefore be called into question. _That_ is my main problem with Mozart and those who constantly treat him like some holy figure, in addition to the fact that I feel his music really isn't ahead of his contemporaries. The vast majority is just classical music, no better than Haydn, and Haydn has plenty of brilliance of his own to contend with Mozart's truly great works.


Saying Mozart isn't any better than Haydn doesn't hurt Mozart too badly, to my mind. It's like, "Michael Jordan couldn't actually dunk better than Dominique Wilkins."

Well, it's debatable, but it's not like the Human Highlight Reel couldn't slam a basketball. So even if it's true, it's nothing like saying, "Michael Jordan couldn't actually dunk better than most other NBA players in the 80s."


----------



## Krisena (Jul 21, 2012)

*Lenfer:* You forgot the second and most important reason for categorizing: Communication. Categorizing makes it possible for people without an in-depth knowledge of music to communicate aspects of it. There's a reason genres exist, and that's its purpose. If someone officially did away with genres, no one would care and people would continue to use them, because for the majority of people, they are the best tool of communicating thoughts about musical styles. If someone deleted every person on earth's memory of genres, a new form of categorization would appear, as it's desperately needed.

I agree music categorization as it is now, is a mess. But I believe it's possible to make a new system from scratch. To *Renaissance:* The only thing limiting a person is their mind. Categorization is no fiend, unless you have mental barriers.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Agreed but I think a lot on this forum and most likely other classical music forums people try to broaden the term classical in order to try and legitimize their "other" musical fancies. When in reality lots of members of this forum don't mind that you listen to other genres in fact most people on here are into other genres I'd suspect. 

Listening to modern/contemporary classical, non-classical (rock, folk, pop etc) doesn't dent your standing in terms of how well you may know classical music.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Lenfer said:


> Agreed but I think a lot on this forum and most likely other classical music forums people try to broaden the term classical in order to try and legitimize their "other" musical fancies.


Very true. Says it all.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

I suppose if it follows a form that is well-known to be part of Western classical music, then it should be considered so. The use of different instruments, after all, is part of the genre.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Ralfy said:


> I suppose if it follows a form that is well-known to be part of Western classical music, then it should be considered so. The use of different instruments, after all, is part of the genre.


Alrighty :3

Buuuuuuut~ ;D What about the inventions of new forms? The fugue and the sonata and the symphony haven't always been around :3 teehee


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

If these new forms are accepted as part of the same, then the work will probably considered as part of classical music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

That is my main problem with Mozart and those who constantly treat him like some holy figure...

I've always been struck by the fact that the greatest innovators in the arts have in the majority of instances been those artist who have the deepest understanding and respect for their great predecessors. The iconoclasts just skim across the surface and all too soon are forgotten.

...in addition to the fact that I feel his music really isn't ahead of his contemporaries. The vast majority is just classical music, no better than Haydn, and Haydn has plenty of brilliance of his own to contend with Mozart's truly great works.

It would seem that you just don't "get it" when it comes to Mozart... just as some don't "get" Xenakis, Zappa, or Bjork. Then again I suspect that the merit of the achievements of the latter are far less assured and far less commonly agreed upon by those who love classical music.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> That is my main problem with Mozart and those who constantly treat him like some holy figure...
> 
> I've always been struck by the fact that the greatest innovators in the arts have in the majority of instances been those artist who have the deepest understanding and respect for their great predecessors. The iconoclasts just skim across the surface and all too soon are forgotten.
> 
> ...


again, just because alot of people agree doesn't make them right. The achievements of great artists like Zappa and Bjork are assured enough for me. Also, is it really respect to just say an artist is an infallible genius? Wouldn't it be more respectful to recognize their great achievements and also recognize their less-quality works? I do that both with Mozart and with Zappa.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

...is it really respect to just say an artist is an infallible genius? 

Again, this is just a straw-man argument. Please point out the quotes by those individuals arguing that Mozart was an "infallible genius"? I have pointed out on more than one occasion that I am in no way enamored by the whole of Mozart's oeuvre. Many of his earlier works especially were competent... even good... at times very good... but rarely crossed over into the realm of the spectacular. But then... as I already stated:

_"I am not concerning myself with the works that fall short of brilliant... or even those that are "bad". I am concerning myself only with those works that are indeed something "special"... even spectacular. Pablo Picasso probably produced more crappy paintings than any artist of any real ability in history... but that doesn't concern me in the least. What matters is that he also probably produced more brilliant paintings than anyone in history. Mozart composed a good dozen or more mediocre symphonies, a number of stupid songs (Leck mir den Arsch fein recht schön sauber?!), and surely any number of other minor works. But he also composed at least 7 great operas... 4 of which are absolutely stunning. He wrote more spectacular piano concertos than any other composer. He composed a handful of brilliant symphonies, the Requiem, the Great Mass in C minor, etc... All told his finest achievements are quite numerous and rival the very best of any composer. This is what makes him special."_

...just because alot of people agree doesn't make them right.

Unfortunately that is what it takes for any work of art to survive and be recognized as a "classic". Mozart, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Dante, Homer, Michelangelo, Rembrandt continue to be recognized as the greatest artists of their time because their work continues to be recognized and admired by subsequent artists, academics in the field (critics, musicologists, professors, art historians, curators, conductors, etc...) as well informed art lovers. If you love Bjork and Zappa and I love Daniel Catan and Osvaldo Golijov that is surely enough for us... but if these composers do not continue to resonate with subsequent generations they will likely fade into deserved obscurity.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

*rolls eyes* I think we're done here.


----------

