# The line between classical and not-classical



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

Isn't it interesting how blurry the line between classical and not-classical is? For example, the contemporary ensemble Osso recently translated indie-pop artist Sufjan Steven's electronic album "Enjoy Your Rabbit" into a piece for string quartet. Now it's classical.


Spoiler



Or is it?


And then there's Yasunao Tone. Considered by many to be a classical composer. Yet his music is entirely digital and produced through chance processes. What makes an artist a "composer" or not a composer?
/post


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

Hmm interesting topic. Paul McCartney has written some 'classical' composition e.g The Liverpool Oratorio, Standing Stone; but for me none of these has any real merit and sound empty despite the forces involved.
Isao Tomita's electronic re-workings of such works as Holst's The Planets, Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition and Stravinsky's Firebird were always filed under 'rock/pop' in record shops as were Ray Manzarek's version of Carmina Burana and Deep Purples' Concerto for Group & Orchestra.
Some 'prog rock' music is conceptually 'classical' but because it is scored for rock instrumentation/vocalists lies well outside the genre; I'm thinking of works such as Mike Oldfields first two albums, Rick Wakeman's Journey to the Centre of the Earth and Six Wives of Henry the Eighth, Vangelis Heaven & Hell, earlier Tangerine Dream and Klaus Schulze, etc.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

techniquest said:


> Some 'prog rock' music is conceptually 'classical' but because it is scored for rock instrumentation/vocalists lies well outside the genre; I'm thinking of works such as Mike Oldfields first two albums, Rick Wakeman's Journey to the Centre of the Earth and Six Wives of Henry the Eighth, Vangelis Heaven & Hell, earlier Tangerine Dream and Klaus Schulze, etc.


Have you heard of avant-prog? It's a prog genre that leans extremely close to classical. Often the only "rock" instrumentation involved is a drum kit or electric bass. I should have mentioned it in the OP. I imagine the only reason it's called rock not classical is because it's played by musicians associated with rock music.
Example:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hello said:


> Have you heard of avant-prog? It's a prog genre that leans extremely close to classical. Often the only "rock" instrumentation involved is a drum kit or electric bass. I should have mentioned it in the OP. I imagine the only reason it's called rock not classical is because it's played by musicians associated with rock music.
> Example:


After seven minutes in, I decided Art Zoyd is better named "Arty Rock."

This piece will not be improved, have its merit rating or status raised, by calling it "classical." It just is not. To try and 'elevate' it to classical is actually an inverse snobbery ("classical is _better / best. I want that Legend of Zelda orchestral suite and my favorite Hans Zimmer score called classical!"_ and does the non-classical music a disservice -- people will expect something from it which is not present.

Berio ~ Sequenza VI for Viola









*Instruments NEVER determine the musical genre.*

Both these use violin....
Stravinsky _Violin Concerto_




Avery Country Band play Old Joe Clark


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> *Instruments NEVER determine the musical genre.*


I don't think they do. I don't think the similarities end at instrumentation.




Listen to this - it wouldn't sound out of place at all on a Steve Reich CD. The rhythmic patterns are very similar. Well, maybe a little out of place since he's never to my knowledge written for trumpets, but still.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

PetrB said:


> *Instruments NEVER determine the musical genre.*


Absolutely. It annoys me when just because pop music has been played by an orchestra it suddenly becomes 'Classical' when it's clearly not.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hello said:


> I don't think they do. I don't think the similarities end at instrumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is more pushing the line, but considering it is nearly forty years after Reich's music for 18 musicians, or music from the late Steve Martland, or some of Graham Fitkin's recent "band" music, this still sounds like a slightly more sophisticated rock mentality making 'sounds like,' and it is just four minutes long 

Fitkin ~ band music




Mesh




Hook




Circuit





Betwixt these, to my ears, the Art Zoyd drops near automatically into the pop music bin, the Fitkin into classical.

My most earnest and sincere question back is: Why would anyone want or feel the need to categorize the Zoyd as classical? Secondarily, can't / don't you hear a rather distinct difference between it and Steve Reich, the Fitkin pieces?


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> and it is just four minutes long
> 
> 
> PetrB said:
> ...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

A transcribed or moderately arranged pop tune / piece remains a pop tune / piece, UNLESS it is extensively re-written, incorporated as element(s) reworked into another piece, and another genre at that.

While there is some healthy and welcome blurring of lines (it has never been a matter of a black or white truth) I think the most blurred, and recently blurred, is the notion in some peoples heads that Andrew Lloyd Weber musicals, the orchestral suite from The Legend of Zelda, Howl's Moving Castle, Yiruma, and almost all of prog rock are "Classical." 

It's more the nouvelle vague of an inverse snobbery, where it is thought classical must mean something is better.... It is not necessarily better, but its intent, M.O. and result are quite different, even though some pop music (naturally) borrows some of the technical tricks and devices of classical and makes use of them as it will -- which still is not enough to qualify a work as "classical."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hello said:


> PetrB said:
> 
> 
> > and it is just four minutes long
> ...


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> The Fitkin and Zoyd share only the most superficial of resemblances, including use of rhythm.


I disagree.


PetrB said:


> ...and then one day it will dawn on you why the Zoyd is semi-sophisticated alternative pop, and the Fitkin is classical.


I disagree. I think Zoyd are a fusion of rock and classical, leaning equally towards both.

It seems we've reached an impasse and I consider this conversation over,


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hello said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I disagree. I think Zoyd are a fusion of rock and classical, leaning equally towards both.
> 
> It seems we've reached an impasse and I consider this conversation over,


"Hrumphhh." _(Gathers up its toyz; leaves room.)_

So, Watered down wine, or Wined up water?" To me, it is watered down wine, to you, the other.


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

> Have you heard of avant-prog? It's a prog genre that leans extremely close to classical. Often the only "rock" instrumentation involved is a drum kit or electric bass. I should have mentioned it in the OP. I imagine the only reason it's called rock not classical is because it's played by musicians associated with rock music.
> Example:


Thanks for the info and the link - I've not heard this before. To be honest, for me this falls into the avant-garde/experimental sub-genre which I have always felt is separate from classical music or from rock or from jazz, even though much of it has these genres as it's provinence. Maybe it just shows that the line between classical and not-classical is not a clearly defined one at all.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Instruments in themselves don't define a genre, but the combination of certain instruments which are then defined as particular types of work (eg symphony, string quartet, concerto) have very strongly defined what classical music has traditonally been about. So instruments have definitely been part of it. Obviously there are newer style works which then expand what we think of as classical using other instruments and using other terms and structures for works, away from more traditional ones and combining with a wider experimental scene which embraces electronic, jazz, world and other influences.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I definitely side with them who believe that the rhythmic content or choice of instrument do not define what music something is!

Listened to the Art Zoyd clip Hello gave above and I have a hard time to equate any of the music in that clip as "Classical", had You said pop goes improvisational fee-Jazz, then I could agree, I cant hear anything in the AZ clip that is previously notated music, which for comparison the music in the Fitkin clip's PetrB provided (or anything by Steve Reich) is based on.
In a simplified world You could easily argue that what makes music "Classical" is the why the music is crafted; X writes something on paper that Y performs, it is not that easy, it is as much about the experience of what constitutes the parameters of the cultural form (as I believe PetrB has argued above?). Unfortunately we all know that we are living in a deconstructed world were the premise borders of genres are continuously more and more fleeting then most of us want, mea culpa!



hello said:


> It seems we've reached an impasse and I consider this conversation over,


Yea, it is always simpler to dismiss the other party in a discussion when they don't agree with You! You cup out when it actually is starting to become a discussion, that is sad! Please hone Your arguments and do a come back!

/ptr


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Art Zoyd who the hell?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Rapide said:


> Art Zoyd who the hell?


Since you're so curious about Art Zoyd, why don't you make use of the internet to which you clearly have access and read up about them before you post? I am sick of seeing morons wade into every thread that could potentially generate an interesting discussion in order to post their "$0.02" on a subject they clearly know nothing about, thereby lessening that potential and proving that they shouldn't be posting there in the first place.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Most 'music genre' terms lack the precision required for precise categorization, because they are not ***'designed' for precision. People who are _compelled to categorize_ were, are and will be frustrated by them.

***Designed words were created with specific meanings, to serve a specific purpose. The _jargon_ in technical/scientific fields happens that way.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

What an interesting, and very tricky question. In Mr Playford's 'English Dancing Master' series (17th century), there are tunes that sound as 'baroque' as a Handel March, and others that are little removed from folk jigs. No problem for me, as I am a human hall where folk fan meets baroque buff.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

the instruments and the form define it.

the instruments do matter because a piano concerto has to have a piano and so on.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

LordBlackudder said:


> the instruments and the form define it.
> 
> the instruments do matter because a piano concerto has to have a piano and so on.


Instrumentation and form define genre in classical music, they do not define classical music in and of itself.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hello said:


> I don't think they do. I don't think the similarities end at instrumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Musically, ignoring the instrumentation, to an experienced listener it would stand out on a CD of Steve Reich works as much as a red barn stands out in the visual field of a vast green prairie.

The borrowed musical element not redefining genre category cuts both ways:
Stravinsky's Piano Rag Music _is not Ragtime_. Anyone well familiar with Ragtime, blues, would tell you that upon one hearing of the Stravinsky. Similarly, Stravinsky's Praeludium for Jazz Band and his Ebony Concerto _are not Jazz_.

The middle movement of Ravel's Violin Sonata, the middle movement of John Adams' Road Movies, blues like, the Ravel called 'Blues,' _are not, by anyone's measure, the real thing. _They're classical music which is doing "a take" on something Blues-LIKE.

Similarly, Art Zoyd's music is alternative pop / rock (neither genre tag a pejorative term, just a completely neutral categorization of type) and not classical.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

LordBlackudder said:


> the instruments and the form define it.
> the instruments do matter because a piano concerto has to have a piano and so on.





Hilltroll72 said:


> Most 'music genre' terms lack the precision required for precise categorization, because they are not ***'designed' for precision. People who are _compelled to categorize_ were, are and will be frustrated by them.
> 
> ***Designed words were created with specific meanings, to serve a specific purpose. The _jargon_ in technical/scientific fields happens that way.


To elaborate on Hilltroll's very accurate statements....

A concerto has to have a play of musical elements which have the give and take roles of solo, or accompaniment: that is all.
This can be for an ensemble (Concerto Grosso) or an ensemble with any instrument in the role of soloist, or for a solo instrument -- the last I've only seen as for keyboard instruments of one sort or another (Bach, Italian Concerto, "fur Klavier.")
The argument you give is moot.

Other genres are solo instrumental, chamber music (varied number of players, _ditto which instruments_) small and large orchestral works, and choral works -- those with chorus, maybe vocal soloists, and orchestra.

Those are the Genres (as in general.)

String Quartet is a specific instrumentation, falling under the genre of Chamber Music. Some might call it a Genre in its own right, I would call it an instrumentally specified sub genre of Chamber Music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Since you're so curious about Art Zoyd, why don't you make use of the internet to which you clearly have access and read up about them before you post? I am sick of seeing morons wade into every thread that could potentially generate an interesting discussion in order to post their "$0.02" on a subject they clearly know nothing about, thereby lessening that potential and proving that they shouldn't be posting there in the first place.


Not only that, the OP specifically provided several audio links. You'd think anyone would give a listen before...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Not only that, the OP specifically provided several audio links. You'd think anyone would give a listen before...




I think it is reasonable to suspect that the author of "Art Zoyd who the hell?" had an ulterior motive for his post.

TC is well populated with _ulterior motivators_. It's one of the things that try the mods' souls.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think it is reasonable to suspect that the author of "Art Zoyd who the hell?" had an ulterior motive for his post.
> 
> TC is well populated with _ulterior motivators_. It's one of the things that try the mods' souls.


zOMG!!!!! Hidden Agendae? Agendae-die-die-die.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Crudblud said:


> Instrumentation and form define genre in classical music, they do not define classical music in and of itself.


Genres in a way have defined what classical is though. That has changed obviously through the ages, the orchestra coming into being in the baroque and then developing over time, same with the keyboard. So why would we stop expecting it to stop developing in modern times? Classical has obviously been music within those genres but with a more academic and sophisticated and educated bent than folk music for instance.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I have a theory on different types of music... Some music mixes well, some doesn't. Jazz mixed very well... latin jazz, western swing, jazzy pop vocals, Gershwin, etc. All great stuff. Rock music tends to drag down anything you mix it with... progressive classical rock, jazz rock fusion, California country rock, etc. Rock and Roll is best straight up... pure, raw and tons of energy. If you mix it, it loses a lot of its spark and the directness that makes it great. They aren't my favorites, but I'll take the most obnoxious heavy metal or punk rock over mushy progressive or noodly fusion any day.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Egad! That Art Zoyd stuff everyone is getting all hot and bothered over sounds like a soundtrack to a bad Giallo film from the early 80s!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

bigshot said:


> I have a theory on different types of music... Some music mixes well, some doesn't. Jazz mixed very well... latin jazz, western swing, jazzy pop vocals, Gershwin, etc. All great stuff. Rock music tends to drag down anything you mix it with... progressive classical rock, jazz rock fusion, California country rock, etc. Rock and Roll is best straight up... pure, raw and tons of energy. If you mix it, it loses a lot of its spark and the directness that makes it great. They aren't my favorites, but I'll take the most obnoxious heavy metal or punk rock over mushy progressive or noodly fusion any day.


Maybe it depends how you define 'rock', it's a word used to describe all kinds of stuff.

Anyway why does there even have to be a line between classical and other kinds of music now? Is there still a line between popular art like posters or comics and oil painting?


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

bigshot said:


> I have a theory on different types of music... Some music mixes well, some doesn't. Jazz mixed very well... latin jazz, western swing, jazzy pop vocals, Gershwin, etc. All great stuff. Rock music tends to drag down anything you mix it with... progressive classical rock, jazz rock fusion, California country rock, etc. Rock and Roll is best straight up... pure, raw and tons of energy. If you mix it, it loses a lot of its spark and the directness that makes it great. They aren't my favorites, but I'll take the most obnoxious heavy metal or punk rock over mushy progressive or noodly fusion any day.


I prefer rock music that has some ambition to do something different and more complex than the same old basically simple stuff that has been going on for decades.

Raw emotion is great, but I think rock music has run its course. But then again, I'm not exactly part of the target audience for rock music.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think rock music has run its course too. It grew and evolved a lot in the first two decades, and then stopped dead and rehashed ever since.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> Maybe it depends how you define 'rock', it's a word used to describe all kinds of stuff.
> 
> Anyway why does there even have to be a line between classical and other kinds of music now? Is there still a line between popular art like posters or comics and oil painting?


The medium is just a medium -- some pop poster makers and illustrators may still work in oil paint.

There is a difference, and always will be, with a grey zone moveable boundary between the two, of popular art and fine art.

(Oil paining is not synonymous with fine art, it just names the color medium.)


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

starry said:


> Genres in a way have defined what classical is though. That has changed obviously through the ages, the orchestra coming into being in the baroque and then developing over time, same with the keyboard. *So why would we stop expecting it to stop developing in modern times?* Classical has obviously been music within those genres but with a more academic and sophisticated and educated bent than folk music for instance.


Well of course, and who expects it to stop developing? Certainly not me, but it is in fact the case that this continued development is what makes it impossible to say that "this is classical because it is played by <traditional group of instruments>." It is possible to arrange a Haydn string quartet for a five piece electric band (if we take a group like guitar, saxophone, bass, keyboard, drums), many will say that this is sacrilege, but that is a moot point; similarly it is possible to arrange _Purple Haze_ for string quartet and vocalist (à la Schoenberg) and I would be surprised if Kronos hadn't done something like that already.

This is of course assuming that the first "stop" in the bolded sentence is an error, if it isn't then I don't understand the question.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I have a theory on different types of music... Some music mixes well, some doesn't. Jazz mixed very well... latin jazz, western swing, jazzy pop vocals, Gershwin, etc. All great stuff. Rock music tends to drag down anything you mix it with... progressive classical rock, jazz rock fusion, California country rock, etc. Rock and Roll is best straight up... pure, raw and tons of energy. If you mix it, it loses a lot of its spark and the directness that makes it great. They aren't my favorites, but I'll take the most obnoxious heavy metal or punk rock over mushy progressive or noodly fusion any day.


I agree.

_*If it ain't rowdy, it ain't rock 'n' roll*_. P.B. (c) 2013

It does not fuse well with anything I have yet to hear fused with it. It becomes a clearly mixed gene pool child, inheriting none of the more positive or attractive traits of either parent.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Well both non-classical & classical music use fragments of african music such as polyrhythm.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Crudblud said:


> Well of course, and who expects it to stop developing? Certainly not me, but it is in fact the case that this continued development is what makes it impossible to say that "this is classical because it is played by <traditional group of instruments>." It is possible to arrange a Haydn string quartet for a five piece electric band (if we take a group like guitar, saxophone, bass, keyboard, drums), many will say that this is sacrilege, but that is a moot point; similarly it is possible to arrange _Purple Haze_ for string quartet and vocalist (à la Schoenberg) and I would be surprised if Kronos hadn't done something like that already.
> 
> This is of course assuming that the first "stop" in the bolded sentence is an error, if it isn't then I don't understand the question.





starry said:


> Instruments in themselves don't define a genre, but the combination of certain instruments which are then defined as particular types of work (eg symphony, string quartet, concerto) have very strongly defined what classical music has traditonally been about. So instruments have definitely been part of it. Obviously there are newer style works which then expand what we think of as classical using other instruments and using other terms and structures for works, away from more traditional ones and combining with a wider experimental scene which embraces electronic, jazz, world and other influences.


My earlier post. Traditionally seen as as I put it, and so that is what is the dominating definition of classical to most people. But as I said that can expand and change in modern times.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Instruments *sometimes* determine the musical genre.
Bluegrass (Mandoline, Violin, Guitar, Banjo), Country (Violin, Acoustic, Steel or normal Electric Guitar), Jazz & Blues (20s-60s some of the classical instuments plus saxophone and newer kind of drums, optional violin), Traditional Chinese, Arabic, Persian etc.

Rhythm and style is more important but still...


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

mtmailey said:


> Well both non-classical & classical music use fragments of african music such as polyrhythm.


Or maybe everything didn't come from Africa. Perhaps it was Ireland, Middle East or East Asia.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> There is a difference, and always will be, with a grey zone moveable boundary between the two, of popular art and fine art.


I think this is your main point, the others seem nitpicking to me. You accept there is a moveable boundary and I think that shows some agreement with me. This boundary perhaps has moved more in modern times though.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I have a theory on different types of music... Some music mixes well, some doesn't. Jazz mixed very well... latin jazz, western swing, jazzy pop vocals, Gershwin, etc. All great stuff. Rock music tends to drag down anything you mix it with... progressive classical rock, jazz rock fusion, California country rock, etc. Rock and Roll is best straight up... pure, raw and tons of energy. If you mix it, it loses a lot of its spark and the directness that makes it great. They aren't my favorites, but I'll take the most obnoxious heavy metal or punk rock over mushy progressive or noodly fusion any day.


I think Rockabilly (Rock'n'Roll-Country-Bluegrass fusion), artistic Country-Rock (like Rosanne Cash, Trisha Yearwood, Hank Williams Jr.) still can develop and florish. Rock and original Country have run their courses. Metal was pure trash from its begining. Jazz can find newer ways without going atonal or boring indeed. Rhythm & Blues can revive itself by looking back to 60s-90s.

Also I think a fusion between Folk/Traditional music and Jazz & Blues will be quite interesting.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I thought blues was seen as a kind of folk anyway having taken some folk elements within the style.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> Or maybe everything didn't come from Africa. Perhaps it was Ireland, Middle East or East Asia.


Virtually every "Western" musical instrument, keyboards of any sort excepted, have a direct lineal ancestor to an instrument from China or a bit less further east.


----------



## brudy (Jun 11, 2013)

I recently saw Sufjan Stevens perform some co-composed material with Nico Muhly (a youngish composer) and it was a total crossover thing, although I'd put it more in the classical camp for sure. It was quite spectacular.

I think these days there are a ton of crossover composers/musicians, often working at the intersection of classical, electronic and rock. I love the Bedroom Community label and what they're doing. But even some slightly more traditional composers like Max Richter are doing some very cool stuff like his take Four Seasons. I have been going off the deep end into contemporary composers and experimental stuff lately and just love it. Coming from more of a rock place, I find the instrumentation, tonalities and structures exhilarating.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Anyway why does there even have to be a line between classical and other kinds of music now? Is there still a line between popular art like posters or comics and oil painting?

There certainly still is a debate over a divide between "high" (or "fine") art and "low" art (illustration, commercial art, comics, etc...). As there is an assumption of superiority of "Fine Art" this debate can become quite heated. I was quite impressed that the critic, Robert Hughes, was a great admirer of R.Crumb... comparing him favorably with Bruegel.

Personally, I find the term "classical music" rather useless considering that it embraces everything from Arab-Andalusian dances to Byzantine Chant to Beethoven's string quartets, to Johann Strauss waltzes to Gershwin's Porgy and Bess to Cage's 4:33 to Xenakis, Golijov, and Musique concrète.

Peter suggests that the term "classical music" is not a term suggesting a value judgment... but I think that's precisely just what it amounts. The term does not define a genre or form. I don't see it as being far removed from the terms "classic literature" (or "the classics") or "fine art". We hear terms such as "standards" applied to the finest examples of jazz and pop and "classic rock" etc...

So how can we determine what isn't "classical music" when we can't define what "classical music" is?


----------

