# How do you define Classical Music?



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

For me, it's any music that is composition based, vs improv based, utilizing acoustic instruments. If it has vocals, they must be Operatic.

This came up in another thread, so I was curious what more ppl thought on the subject.

I'm also curious to match/adjust my definition based on what others say.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I don't agree that the instruments must be acoustic or that the vocals must be operatic (whatever that means to you).


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

Music self-consciously composed in the classical tradition. It's difficult to get any more specific than that, considering its extreme variety.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> I don't agree that the instruments must be acoustic or that the vocals must be operatic (whatever that means to you).


Isn't Operatic singing pretty much an objective term for the most part?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Gallus said:


> Music self-consciously composed in the classical tradition. It's difficult to get any more specific than that, considering its extreme variety.


This is more of a how do you define it for yourself rather than searching for any kind of objective definition that is all encompassing of all the variants.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2018)

I think I am with Gallus here. It's probably more how the composers of the music associate with some kind of tradition or element of tradition within classical music.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*How do you define Classical Music? *

One of those questions without a conclusive, objective answer.
I often prefer the term "serious music" to "classical music," but I know _that_ term is equally inadequate. I tend to use it to distinguish from "popular music". But every time I do so, I inwardly cringe. Popular music may well become classical music eventually (as is evidenced by Medieval and Renaissance dance pieces, or the ancient instrumental pieces passed down by tradition from player to player of what we term "Chinese" or "Japanese" or "Indian" or "Sudanese" or "Celtic classical music." And, of course, much "classical music" is quite popular (as is Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" or Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture").

Too, "serious music" implies stodginess, perhaps, or dour minor key Adagios. Yet comic operas are "serious music" as is Mozart's "Musical Joke", many a Haydn symphony, the final movement of Beethoven's final string quartet, "The Poet and Peasant Overture", and Ferde Grofe's "On the Trail" from his "Grand Canyon Suite". The term serious rather implies a thoughtful attempt at composition, not the opposite of comedy, for good comedy is serious stuff.

So terminology becomes a barricade to meaning. After all, we all have a sense that we _know _ what "classical music" is, but to define it proves beyond vocabulary. Because I know what life is, and what love is, and what hope is, too, but any attempt I might make to define these concepts will simply bog down as words pile onto words and way leads to way in an ever expanding tentacle-like definition which ultimately depends upon a totally subjective, personal awareness. The stuff of philosophers' discussions, but those fellows, since the days of Plato, haven't much settled the score on anything.

One of the reasons I love philosophy (utilizing my own subjective, personal definitions of both "love" and "philosophy") is because the questions have no definitive, set answers. They may be contemplated or discussed, but ultimately the questions themselves will prove unanswerable. Unlike math, which interests me less than philosophy, the answers are not graven in stone. One plus one will always equal two, but "justice", or "rightness", or "beauty" will always remain elusive. It's good to know answers, but known answers prove less interesting than unknown or speculative answers. Classical music falls into this domain. Why do I like Beethoven's Cello Sonatas? I don't know if I can provide an answer, but I know that I have spent many an hour in the dark solitude of my listening room listening to those gems of art, investing precious time from my life for the music.

I wish I could say what "classical music" is, but the more I contemplate the matter, the more "unanswerable questions" and "exceptions to the rules" arise. For instance, are Beethoven's Scottish songs "classical music" or something else. Are the Beatles' songs, or Cole Porter's, or Bacharach and David's anything less than art? Is Leonard Bernstein's "West Side Story" not classical music, but his "Jeremiah Symphony" is? Where do we catalog the John Williams film scores? Or the tangos of Astor Piazzolla? Or the jazz numbers on Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue"?

In the end, I always think it's better that we rather listen to our music and enjoy ourselves within its sounds rather than debate definitions, a process that seems somehow antithetical to the whole aesthetic thing that is music.

Meanwhile, I will go on with my understanding of what is "classical music", and I will leave you all to continue on with your own understandings, and hopefully we can call it a day and go back to our music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

You need to ask two questions:

Was it written over 75 years ago?
If more recent, does anybody much listen to it aside from those odd people on classical music forums?

If the answer to the first is “yes,” or the answer to the second is “no,” then it’s likely classical music.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

shirime said:


> It's probably more how the composers of the music associate with some kind of tradition or element of tradition within classical music.


One might suggest that the music of John Cage is valid "classical music". (It is marketed as such in the stores and catalogs.) Yet Cage challenges tradition all along the way, even creating indeterminate music, notated by chance methods. I can't image Bach or Mozart or Beethoven to toss dice onto a score page in order to select the next note. Yet Cage's non-traditional music is quite "classical" in the sense that we tend to think of classical music.

Nurse With Wound's music is similar to that of John Cage in many instances, yet NWW is marketed generally in non-classical venues, beside pop music and jazz music and rap music and noise music. I'm a fan of the Japanese sound artist Merzbow whose music is certainly not in the tradition of Bach or Beethoven. Yet I think it can be termed "classical" as much as is that by Stockhausen or Boulez or Brian Ferneyhough.

No simple answers here. When do traditions start? Did Schoenberg adhere to a tradition when he adopted the twelve-tone method for composition? Can we call Webern's or Berg's 12-tone music "classical" if the tradition was only one generation old, coming from Schoenberg? Is rap music "classical" because it follows a tradition first laid down by, say, the Sugarhill Gang? (Rap, after all, is readily recognizable, so it must be tradition based.)

I do hope we keep digging for an answer here. But I'm not so sure we'll ever arrive at one that is satisfactory to us all, let alone elegant in the way the Einstein equation is -- short, concise, and powerful. But that's math, not art.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

KenOC said:


> You need to ask two questions:
> 
> Was it written over 75 years ago?
> If more recent, does anybody much listen to it aside from those odd people on classical music forums?
> ...


Why is it that I can seriously imagine a baboon creating these parameters for the definition of "classical music"?

I now have much to think on.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SONNET CLV said:


> Why is it that I can seriously imagine a baboon creating these parameters for the definition of "classical music"?


I'm sure a reasonably alert baboon could do as well. After all, it _is _a rather simple question!  Even a mandrill might figure it out given a bit of time and a banana or two.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

My personal definition includes being precisely composed, but that would include much "popular" music, so I would add to it that it can be performed precisely as intended by a person who isn't personally related to the composer. For example, Pink Floyd's music is composed pretty precisely it seems, and I'm sure plenty of people play covers of their music, but it would never "be" Pink Floyd like how someone playing Bach "is" Bach's music. Maybe another way to put it is that classical music is already music in its conceptual form, rather than being about one group or person's one interpretation.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Fredx2098 said:


> My personal definition includes being precisely composed, but that would include much "popular" music, so I would add to it that it can be performed precisely as intended by a person who isn't personally related to the composer. For example, Pink Floyd's music is composed pretty precisely it seems, and I'm sure plenty of people play covers of their music, but it would never "be" Pink Floyd like how someone playing Bach "is" Bach's music. Maybe another way to put it is that classical music is already music in its conceptual form, rather than being about one group or person's one interpretation.


HOWEVER... Throughout the classical period and for some time thereafter, there was a tradition of composer/instrumentalists who wrote music for their own performances. I suspect that in many cases the composers were not greatly concerned with having the music performed by others. As an example, Beethoven's Violin Concerto and 4th Piano Concerto both sank without a trace after their premieres, and Ludwig never seemed interested in rescuing them. It took Mendelssohn, many years later, to do that.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Fredx2098 said:


> My personal definition includes being precisely composed, but that would include much "popular" music, so I would add to it that it can be performed precisely as intended by a person who isn't personally related to the composer. For example, Pink Floyd's music is composed pretty precisely it seems, and I'm sure plenty of people play covers of their music, but it would never "be" Pink Floyd like how someone playing Bach "is" Bach's music. Maybe another way to put it is that classical music is already music in its conceptual form, rather than being about one group or person's one interpretation.


Tricky business, that term "interpretation". The Beethoven Fifth is apparently "classical music", yet each time it is performed by an orchestra it receives interpretation. Does it exist only as "classical music" on the printed score page? And what happens to it when Liszt arranges it for piano? Is that akin to arranging a Pink Floyd song for piano?

Christopher O'Riley arranged some Radiohead songs for piano and plays them brilliantly on his album "True Love Waits". Into what category do we put O'Riley's conceptions of Radiohead? Pop music or classical? Or something in between?

As for being "precisely composed" …. A Cole Porter song is precisely composed with a piano part and a vocal line, much like a Schubert song. Too, John Cage's aleatory music is precisely composed if you consider that his directions to "choose whatever note you wish to play" is a precise direction to the performer?

This is all too tricky for me to figure out. And I hold a long-time membership in the IBM, the International Brotherhood of Magicians. But the smoke and mirrors here are absolutely confounding.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

KenOC said:


> HOWEVER... Throughout the classical period and for some time thereafter, there was a tradition of composer/instrumentalists who wrote music for their own performances. I suspect that in many cases the composers were not greatly concerned with having the music performed by others. As an example, Beethoven's Violin Concerto and 4th Piano Concerto both sank without a trace after their premieres, and Ludwig never seemed interested in rescuing them. It took Mendelssohn, many years later, to do that.


Is it true that Paganini and Liszt refused to write down some of their music, during their own performance heydays, because they didn't want others to learn the techniques behind the music. I wonder if music is "classical" if it is improvised on the spot and then never played again, or never written down? Did Mozart write much "classical music" but improvised none? I wish I knew more than the small smattering that I think I command some firm grip on -- a grip that is becoming less firm with each passing day. Alas ….


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SONNET CLV said:


> ...I can't image Bach or Mozart or Beethoven to toss dice onto a score page in order to select the next note.


"In 1787, Mozart wrote the measures and instructions for a musical composition dice game. The idea is to cut and paste pre-written measures of music together to create a Minuet." You can actually play Mozart's game on the Internet!

http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Mozart/dice/


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

We (ordinary people, not zoologists) usually recognise a dog when we see one: they come in all sorts of shapes and sizes but we rarely mistake a cat for a dog or vice versa. I doubt ordinary people could articulate the criteria they apply (without difficulty) when recognising that an animal is a dog. Indeed other animals can recognise a dog and a dog can recognise a rodent or a cat at a considerable distance. One way of handling such situations, where analytical criteria don't work very well, is through "prototypes" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory) whereby we might have an ideal typical (actually prototypical) dog in our minds and recognise other different (even very different) examples through their relationships to that prototype. If we use something like prototypes to recognise categories in our worlds we are not really using definitions at all.

So, we can acknowledge that the prototypical rock and pop music involves electric guitars and a drum kit, and that certain types of rhythm might predominate. Jazz similarly often involves a trumpet and/or saxophone and/or a trombone (or many of these) as well as a drum kit (usually a little different to the one deployed in rock) and, again, certain rhythms. In both rhythm has considerable importance. Folk music can be similarly described. With all these we can easily come up with pieces that are not very prototypical of the genre that the music clearly belongs to. We somehow see (or rather hear) the links back to the prototype.

The situation has been made much more muddy by the arrival of new technologies that have greatly expanded the scope of what can be done within any of the genres: but the different genres often adopt this technology in different and even fairly distinctive ways. The situation is the more complex, though, because some artists (any genre) will push at boundaries or borrow from other genres. And some will consciously attempt to mix or blend genres.

As these are personal methods of recognition, we will all have slightly different ideas of the prototype and of how far one might stray from the prototype. And, as we are talking here of categories of art, we are likely to also have axes to grind and fairly strong emotions to express. This might explain why some use their definition to exclude some forms of what is generally recognised as belonging to the genre.

Personally, I think the definition of classical music has nothing to do with the age of the music and I doubt many could seriously think it does. But some do see a relatively recent point in history when classical music can be said to have suddenly died. Our prototype has very a fair amount to do with instrumentation - but the marketing trend to call anything played by an orchestra, or perhaps even just violins, "classical" does not fool many of us - but what is done with the instruments is probably more important. Classical music is generally written down and, although some improvisation may occur its function tends to be decorative. Much of it tends to be in an extended form and to have a fairly complex structure. It may be the composer's intention that it lasts (it is not simply for now) and it is likely that listening to it profitably involves some effort, especially if it is unfamiliar. There are certain expectations of the audience (how they behave) but these have changed over time. The skill involved in playing classical music tends to be considerable.

And somehow the prototype that we use needs to incorporate all the changes that have occurred in the genre since 1400! We have sub-genres (each with their own prototype) to help us with that.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2018)

There's no such thing, so a definition is not possible. Any attempts at definition are doomed to failure as they will inevitably include or exclude things that others, with legitimate cause, wish to exclude or include.

Above all, we must avoid giving the usual suspects yet another opportunity to say that music that sounds like a piano falling downstairs must be excluded.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The term 'classical music' is generally understood by the music and recording industry (together with the majority not the public at large) as art music produced or rooted in the traditions of Western culture, including both liturgical (religious) and secular music. While a more precise term is also used to refer to the period from 1750 to 1820 (the Classical period), the term is generally taken to refer to music written in the broad span of time from before the 6th century AD to the present day, which includes the so-called 'Classical' period and various other periods.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> There's no such thing, so a definition is not possible. Any attempts at definition are doomed to failure as they will inevitably include or exclude things that others, with legitimate cause, wish to exclude or include.
> 
> Above all, we must avoid giving the usual suspects yet another opportunity to say that music that sounds like a piano falling downstairs must be excluded.


But this thread is for _personal_ definitions.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> But this thread is for _personal_ definitions.


...and _personal _responses: my personal response is that there is no definition, or rather, that I don't feel the need for one. I don't run a record shop or music website. I don't earn a living as a musicologist or musician.

Whilst I recognise that others make use of them, and I know what people are usually talking about when they refer to 'classical music', I have no need of one, and I certainly don't need the variations already appearing on the idea that it is "serious" music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

We can set some general parameters:

Classical music:

Uses orchestral instruments not usually used in other genres: bassoons, contra-bassoons, contrabass flute, string sections, English horn, triangle, percussion ensembles, etc.

Classical music is almost always scored, so that large numbers of players can play it at once, in synch.

This "scoring" is done by a composer, who is trying to control and pre-determine the sounds that will be heard.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> We can set some general parameters:
> 
> Classical music:
> 
> ...


- I specified acoustic instruments since I'm personally open to instruments like Banjo being utilized in Classical Music. There is a Banjo Concerto written by Bela Fleck that I adore, he's an extremely talented composer. I feel electric instruments are against the traditional spirit of Classical Music in it's ability to sound great un-amplified.

- I don't think it _has_ to be scored, but often is. I compose for solo piano, and it's meant for me to perform. I should get someone (I wish Bettina was still around) to score out my music for me.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I'm thinking along the same lines as gallus and shirime on this. The definition I find most useful (or least problematic?) is an institutional one: Classical music is composed and played by people aligning themselves with a certain art music tradition who are trained in conservatories or similar institutions and who perform in venues or concert series devoted to this kind of music, usually as part of certain standard kinds of ensembles (symphony orchestras, string quartets, chamber orchestras, contemporary music ensembles, opera companies, etc.).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> ...and _personal _responses: my personal response is that there is no definition, or rather, that I don't feel the need for one. I don't run a record shop or music website. I don't earn a living as a musicologist or musician.
> 
> Whilst I recognise that others make use of them, and I know what people are usually talking about when they refer to 'classical music', I have no need of one, and I certainly don't need the variations already appearing on the idea that it is "serious" music.


And that's perfectly, 100%, alright! 

I'm personally a person that needs definitions to orient my brain.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I don't. I just let it be.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

With some difficulty it appears ..

I imagine many people would recognise pretty quickly whether a piece fits their own definition of classical/art music, but when asked to articulate why it fits there, then the answer can seem far more elusive and complicated than the original instinct. I suppose it's not unlike trying for example to describe what makes your Mother's face uniquely hers and nobody else's. 

So far the definitions that seem to hold most water for me, were Gallus #3 and Shirime #6


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Classical music can be any sound. That's what John Cage told me, anyway, and I believe him, because I'm a stooge of the avant-garde.

No, but I'm thinking that "Classical Music" is a concept invented by people who have built it into an institution. You need sociology to understand it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Gallus said:


> Music self-consciously composed in the classical tradition. It's difficult to get any more specific than that, considering its extreme variety.


Yeah, that's right, classical music is a social identity thing.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I'm sure a reasonably alert baboon could do as well. After all, it _is _a rather simple question!  Even a mandrill might figure it out given a bit of time and a banana or two.


We can introduce classical music into baboon groups, and Westernize them. That's already happening in South America with Dudamel.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> We can introduce classical music into baboon groups, and Westernize them. That's already happening in South America with Dudamel.


I sincerely hope I'm reading that post wrongly.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I define it as any music which comes from or is associated with the Western classical tradition. A pretty broad definition, includes things like avant-garde (conceptual, electronic, whatever). On the whole though my listening these days is mainstream (mostly Baroque to 20th century) instrumental music on acoustic instruments.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

Well, I know it when I hear it and it doesn't have to be strictly Western. Was it Paul MacCartney? who defined it as - "music you want to sit down to listen to".


----------



## Ziggabea (Apr 5, 2017)

The oldest lineage of music which focuses on technical aspects of composition, also referred to as "art music" by academics. Music that overtime has explored the depths of melody, harmony, rhythm and texture to varying degrees depending on the century itself in question.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2018)

Sid James said:


> I define it as any music which comes from or is associated with the Western classical tradition.


Having posted my 'definitive' response earlier, I wondered whether it would be more constructive to consider this from a different angle. Perhaps we have it the wrong way round, trying to focus on defining the music by what it is and what it does instead of who it's for.

So classical music is any music which was/is composed for the audiences that traditionally listened to it (and by 'listened', I'm also suggesting 'accepted'). Over time, the audience has, of course, shifted, and there has often been music that has not been 'accepted' at all, but any rejection does not discount it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

It’s music that can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 29, 2018)

Whether classical music needs to be defined, or even can be, is a moot point.

I would have said that it would be music that was based on an orchestra, or on a recognisable set of instruments (either solo or in combinations) - but orchestration is now common in pop music, and modern composers incorporate all sorts of instruments that fall outside the traditional classical toolkit.

I might have said that it was music that was created by a composer with the primary intention of it being performed by others - but that would, for example, make Bernie Taupin a composer, and the songs of Elton John classical.

Perhaps it is 'serious' music - but then how do we account for all the light hearted pieces in the classical repertoire, and all the deadly serious music in genres such as folk and rock?

Maybe the answer is in the degree of craftsmanship - but then, as an unashamed prog rock fan, I would argue that there are plenty of well crafted works outside of the 'classical' world.

So, perhaps there isn't really any point in classifying music as anything other than enjoyable or not enjoyable.

By way of illustration, here are some things I listen to which I struggle to categorise: -

Ludovico Einaudi - Le Onde (solo piano)
Uakti - Amazonia (South American instrumental music played on traditional instruments, music composed with Philip Glass)
Philip Glass - soundtracks to Powaqqatsi and Koyaaniqatsi, 'Low' and 'Heroes' symphonies based on works by David Bowie 
John Surman - Coruscating (probably jazz)
Ralph Lundsten - Nordic Nature Symphony no. 6 (electronic instruments)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

--------------------------------------


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Also, unlike Bach, no one studies Beatles extensively to gain insight into composition. This is what makes Bach classical but Beatles not classical in my view.


Hmmm... Well, if no one "extensively studies" Louis Spohr symphonies or Ferdinand Ries piano works or Antonio Salieri operas in order to "gain insight into composition", does that mean _they_ are not to be included as "classical music"?


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Beatles on the other hand are currently plummeting in popularity (even though not all of their members are dead yet) http://ultimateclassicrock.com/beatles-popularity-decline/


The article you refer to does not say that The Beatles _are _declining (much less "plummeting"). It _asks _if they are, based on the single metric of internet searches for the band over a 10 year period.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't see the Beatles disappearing nor do I - like some classical critics back in the 1960s - see Lennon/McCartney as modern Schuberts. I don't think CM is the only music that will last. And I also don't think we want definitions of CM that close possibilities. I think definitions of CM that work will necessarily be Roschian or even Platonic rather than Aristotelian. So we can think of and even agree works that are prototypical of CM and see CM as being "defined" by closeness to these prototypes. Some works will be close to a variety of prototypes, not all of them classical, and the extent to which they are and are not classical will be interesting and instructive. An approach based on boundaries - this is / this isn't - will always be unhelpful, I think.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

-------------------------------------------


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> You need to ask two questions:
> 
> Was it written over 75 years ago?
> If more recent, does anybody much listen to it aside from those odd people on classical music forums?
> ...


Okie dokie, Ken. Classical music is both a generic and specific term for a certain type of music. The odd people on forums are the ones who display a conspicuous aversion to any music that doesn't inspire visions of wigs and cathedrals.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> It's music that can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.


Ah, I get it now!





 and


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Bump.

Classical is an arbitrary word that we all nevertheless gladly adopt and use.

You can get into the most provocative and thoughtful definitions, but the most accurate, least interesting, definition of it, is actually "Long music in a 19th century idiom." This definition begs the question itself, and yet doesn't, because this music is already defined.


----------



## Ulalume!Ulalume! (6 mo ago)

The problem with trying to define [word] by simply using another [word], for example, [Classical] music is [Serious] music, is that it invites the Socrates in the room to respond by saying, "Define serious," to which the fool responds with another [word] inviting the same question. The same is also true for defining something by its components ("classical music uses violins, etc."), which is true, of course, but like saying a cat is furry, has four legs and a tail, it's still too vague and open to misinterpretation.

Rather it makes much more sense, I believe, to use words merely to express the feeling it generally conveys, the image it conjures. A doodle of a circle with pointy ears and whiskers and a smiley face gets closer to the question of "what do you mean by cat" than any definition that could be interpreted as jaguar or cheetah, which may very well be cats of sorts but not the cat of which we generally speak, nor the thing we generally picture when we hear the word. And like the cat doodle, humming the start of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik hits the nail on the head far better than any convoluted essay length definition of Classical Music.

My own definition of Classical Music, if I had to put it into words would be: _Music, including the most light, frivolous and disposable pieces, made for and reflecting the tastes of the European aristocracy in the period before democracy._

Of course, just as the jaguar exists on the cat word spectrum even if it's not what we generally mean by cat, so too do composers exist on various ends of the classical spectrum, yet, in my opinion, it's not inaccurate to say that the more something sounds like the music of Haydn and Mozart the more Classical it is.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

I personally draw a distinction between Classical (as in Classical period) and classical (with a small C, not uppercase). The term classical is one I use for mostly western-influenced (but not limited to this) art music, usually to be played in a concert hall of some sort. However, there's experimental art traditions that I'd also consider under the umbrella term classical, which aren't meant to be played in a concert hall – for instance, one of my composer friends set up some projects that are meant to challenge the relationship between audience and performer, and these performances took place on some local busses. There were busses marked as "art busses" so people knew that something was going to be unusual, and they could choose to take another bus if they didn't feel like being a part of this. Overall I think most people who were asked about their experience on the art bus gave very positive feedback.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Ulalume!Ulalume! said:


> The problem with trying to define [word] by simply using another [word], for example, [Classical] music is [Serious] music, is that it invites the Socrates in the room to respond by saying, "Define serious," to which the fool responds with another [word] inviting the same question. The same is also true for defining something by its components ("classical music uses violins, etc."), which is true, of course, but like saying a cat is furry, has four legs and a tail, it's still too vague and open to misinterpretation.
> 
> Rather it makes much more sense, I believe, to use words merely to express the feeling it generally conveys, the image it conjures. A doodle of a circle with pointy ears and whiskers and a smiley face gets closer to the question of "what do you mean by cat" than any definition that could be interpreted as jaguar or cheetah, which may very well be cats of sorts but not the cat of which we generally speak, nor the thing we generally picture when we hear the word. And like the cat doodle, humming the start of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik hits the nail on the head far better than any convoluted essay length definition of Classical Music.


What you're referring to here are the concepts of intensions/signified (defining words by other words) and extensions/referents (defining words by empirical examples). One thing people get very wrong when thinking about definitions is in thinking of intensions/signifieds first and extensions/referents last; it should be the other way around. We should take groups of referents, note meaningful likenesses, and then create words to refer to those meaningful likenesses. The problem is that once words are created they take on a life of their own and the rational process of drawing boundaries around alike "things" and giving them names devolves into useless semantic battles over how a word "should" be defined. 



Ulalume!Ulalume! said:


> My own definition of Classical Music, if I had to put it into words would be: _Music, including the most light, frivolous and disposable pieces, made for and reflecting the tastes of the European aristocracy in the period before democracy._
> 
> Of course, just as the jaguar exists on the cat word spectrum even if it's not what we generally mean by cat, so too do composers exist on various ends of the classical spectrum, yet, in my opinion, it's not inaccurate to say that the more something sounds like the music of Haydn and Mozart the more Classical it is.


With all the above said, I don't find this particular definition very useful for many reasons, from the fact that it doesn't actually point to any objective aspects of the music it refers to, from the fact that there's a lot of music people would call classical made after democracy and without reflecting the tastes of European aristocracy (and the latter doesn't really refer to anything meaningful either).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Gallus said:


> Music self-consciously composed in the classical tradition. It's difficult to get any more specific than that, considering its extreme variety.


This seems good but it still misses something: there should be something about the composer's intent ("and taking forward that tradition"?).


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

As gallus says, given the variety, it's difficult to say "in the classical tradition" when some of it patently isn't.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

It's a container of musical styles. Before the modernism, it was possible to support the idea that it was ONE musical style, because despite the differences, baroque, classical and romantic music have common denominators in terms of aesthetic.

If you create a new musical style, it might be accepted or not inside the container of classical music. If you create a piece of music in a style which has already been accepted in the big container called "classical music", then your piece is automatically classical music.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> It's a container of musical styles. Before the modernism, it was possible to support the idea that it was ONE musical style, because despite the differences, baroque, classical and romantic music have common denominators in terms of aesthetic.
> 
> If you create a new musical style, it might be accepted or not inside the container of classical music. If you create a piece of music in a style which has already been accepted in the big container called "classical music", then your piece is automatically classical music.


Nice try, but no cigar!


----------



## GMB (10 mo ago)

Classical anything is the Idea and its development, hence CM is the musical idea and its development. Atonal music is therefore Classical [whether you like it or not! ]


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_For me, it's any music that is composition based, vs improv based, utilizing acoustic instruments. If it has vocals, they must be Operatic. _

That criteria is very limiting especially for vocal music. Songs and lieder have been around for centuries; they are not operatic.

In the world of popular music rap or hip hop, based on a form of poetry and (typically) urban storytellling, is very similar characteristically to lied which was based on popular poems and literature of the time(s.) To that end ...

It may surprise you to know most popular music is composition based as well. Improv, jam or made up as it goes is atypical in any form of music.

I think the thing that distinguishes classical music is its duration and form. It is usually much longer in terms of time than popular forms and often requires greater forces. There is no form of popular music, for instance, that requires what it takes to perform any classical music oratorio. I think probably Broadway comes close to doing what it takes to perform opera, however.

Yet by such definition a film score could never be considered classical music. So it is probably fruitless to invent in your mind or elsewhere limitations for an art form.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Honestly, the effort in trying to define something that is undefinable in anything but fuzzy terms is not worth the time put into it. I'm having a hard time coming up with useful cases for when I would need to make a decision if a piece of music is classical or not (arguing on an online forum is not exactly useful, btw)


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I'm having a hard time coming up with useful cases for when I would need to make a decision if a piece of music is classical or not (arguing on an online forum is not exactly useful, btw)


Posting on a literal forum called classical music? I'm not saying I disagree, but this fuzzy and possibly silly term is central to the sheer identity of this forum. I can posit a possible scenario that there exists a separate classical community, and what if, in 50 years we discover it, and the music it prefers has started becoming significantly different than the music we listen to. If there's only one word classical, then one of those communities is closer and the other one incorrect. None of it is really_ important,_ just the realization that we call something classical without a sure framework or guarantee that it is. It's humorous.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Neo Romanza said:


> Nice try, but no cigar!


???


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Ethereality said:


> Posting on a literal forum called classical music? I'm not saying I disagree, but this fuzzy and possibly silly term is central to the sheer identity of this forum. I can posit a possible scenario that there exists a separate classical community, and what if, in 50 years we discover it, and the music it prefers has started becoming significantly different than the music we listen to. If there's only one word classical, then one of those communities is closer and the other one incorrect. None of it is really_ important,_ just the realization that we call something classical without a sure framework or guarantee that it is. It's humorous.


I know. It's hard to give classical music a general definition that is unambiguous but it's easy to point to examples of music that all would agree are classical music: a Beethoven symphony, a Mozart string quartet, a Prokofiev piano concerto, etc.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It's not that difficult, unless people are insisting on definitions like in law or maths. There are wider and narrower senses of the term as well. The widest useful one for me would encompass all music in the history and tradition of Western Art Music since the high middle ages. So ca. Notre Dame school church music until today's avantgarde (insofar it is understood in the same tradition). 
Or one could cut out the first few centuries and only start around 1600 because then one gets at least some instruments like those of the violin family that were going to dominate for the following for centuries and one gets opera, cantata, sonata, sinfonia, the forms or their predecessors that dominate the concert practice still going on. 
And of course there are fringe or borderline cases, like e.g. operetta or musical that stem from classical music but could be considered branching off. As said above, some debatable borderline cases don't change that the overwhelming number of pieces commonly called "classical" are not at all in doubt.


----------

