# definition of terms



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

How do you, yes YOU, define classical music?


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2012)

drpraetorus said:


> How do you, yes YOU, define classical music?


I don't, so I'm happy to borrow Wikipedia's definition(s).


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

The last time I saw someone borrow the wikipedia definition they did it without apparently reading it. So they didn't notice the typo they copy/pasted nor just how badly written it was. The typo has thankfully gone for the time being but it is still mostly terrible as a definition. Broad definitions of universal subjects is just one of the many things wikipedia does poorly.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> I don't, so I'm happy to borrow Wikipedia's definition(s).


I recall that the last time we had a discussion on the definition of "classical music" things became somewhat confused and polarised, involving issues like whether or not some types of film music should be included, as well as other modern types. A bit of a minefield of a subject.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

drpraetorus said:


> How do you, yes YOU, define classical music?


I think the term is used in a general sense most of the time, so it would include Bach, Stravinsky, John Williams, or Gregorian chant, generally speaking; any tonal orchestral or chamber music.

However, I would not invite someone over to listen to "classical" music with me, and then put on some Milton Babbitt. That would be cruel. So I would add to this by saying that _even more_ generally, I consider "The Western Classical Tradition" to include all "new" and avant-garde music as well, even electronic works and John Cage.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2012)

quack said:


> The last time I saw someone borrow the wikipedia definition they did it without apparently reading it. So they didn't notice the typo they copy/pasted nor just how badly written it was. The typo has thankfully gone for the time being but it is still mostly terrible as a definition. Broad definitions of universal subjects is just one of the many things wikipedia does poorly.


I'm not claiming that Wiki's definitions are wholly accurate, or necessarily well-written, but given that any attempt at 'defining' classical music is liable to challenge, it'll do for me. It seems to draw together some of the main points that tend to crop up (and have cropped up here, even in the very short time that I've been a member) - eg tradition and notation - as well as provoke the challenges - what about works and composers that have progressively veered away from 'tradition'.

Having said that, perhaps you'd like to specify what it is about Wiki's definitions you take exception to?



Very Senior Member said:


> I recall that the last time we had a discussion on the definition of "classical music" things became somewhat confused and polarised, involving issues like whether or not some types of film music should be included, as well as other modern types. A bit of a minefield of a subject.


Very true. Of course, whilst it might be a valid question to ask, there is no reason to assume that it must have an answer. Rather like "What is love?" it provokes interesting debate (though it needn't provoke angry argument).


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

I don't define this term, ‘classical music’. When I mention to people that I edit and arrange music they always ask, what sort of music and, with a heavy heart, I say ‘classical music’. But that is a matter of expediency. The composers I've worked with in the past, apart from Havergal Brian, are all alive and it is stretching the term beyond breaking point to describe their music as classical if I am also describing Mozart as classical and if other people are calling Josquin and Monteverdi classical. I use the term classical music because I've found that my preferred alternative ‘contemporary music' doesn't differentiate me from, say, dubstep and, whilst I secretly prefer the term 'art msucic', that is impossibly arch and objectionable.

‘Classical music’ is essentially a marketing term, invented by record companies who wanted a ‘classical division’ as a cost centre distinct from their popular music operations (think EMI or Decca) and enthusiastically embraced by retailers as a way of separating out the stuff that doesn’t shift (these were in the days when record stores sold classical music), by publishers to give a cachet to their magazines (I see Gramophone magazine, which modestly describes itself as "The world's authority on classical music since 1923", now reviews film music) and by promoters as a way of focussing their marketing.

Notwithstanding the name of this forum, I don’t believe that the word ‘classical’ is remotely definable.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I still like the definition someone at this board came up with, something like: music where it is seen as more important who actually wrote the music, compared to who performed it. 

For now, even Lennon and McCartney may have their songs performed by thousands of artists but it will still be seen as a cover of the original. A composition by e.g. Bernstein may have been premiered by the composer as conductor, but a subsequent performance by any other conductor would be seen as a "Bernstein", not as a cover of Bernstein.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

It is one of those things most people have a good instinct of, but argue about the details of its application. Perhaps we should decide it's a Form, and be done with it?


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2012)

Not to mention.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, OK. I'll mention it, again. Boring.

The word classical was first used in the noun phrase "classical music" in 1810.

Think about it. The entire era we now refer to as "classical" was pretty much over before the term was applied. So obviously, the composers didn't need the term in order to do the music.

It's been a contentious term, too, since its inception (originally no operas and none of Schubert's lieder would have qualified as being "classical")--time to retire it, I think. I'm not afraid of "art music." (Pretentious? Moi?)


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2012)

Our brains are completely comfortable with terms like "classical music" even though, if we stop and try to define it, we might find any definition unsatisfactory. That's because our brains don't work the way we think (literally).

Our brains are happy to assign terms to clusters of similar experiences - like classical music. Take the top 100 classical works by popularity, or your most recent 100 classical music experiences, or whatever reasonably rich set of prior experiences that you think of as classical music. This is your working definition of classical music. Any experience that is similar enough to this set of prior experience, and not more similar to some other similarly-defined concept (e.g. jazz), is classical music.

I should qualify this a bit - this is how I understand "classical music". I suspect your brain functions similarly.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

Classical music is a style of music which adheres to certain forms and uses complex techniques to produce emotion.

Originating in 600 AD Classical music developed many ideas and formed the basis of all modern music.

Classical music is often used to portray emotion in theatre, dance, television, cinema, and other visual arts.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

drpraetorus said:


> How do you, yes YOU, define classical music?


Classical music - everything written between circa 1750 to 1820, between baroque and romantism.

Now for me there's music, folk music (with traditional geographically mannerisms which defines it) and non-music (unfortunately is what we normally listen in the radio nowadays).

And another different category i label music: quartets (whether string quartets or The Beatles), duets, Jazz sub-genres, opera, cantatas, etc, etc. Sometimes it is difficult, i confess, to label some sort of music.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2012)

Hahaha. Here's another term: discussion.

Going by how online discussions work, this term could be defined thusly, either "several independent monologues going on simultaneously" or "sniping at fellow discussants while essentially ignoring the ostensible topic."


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Well a discussion is usually conducted face to face, its usefulness in describing internet conversations is limited. You never really know who you are talking to and if they will respond or even read your thoughts, most likely someone else entirely will arrive, all of which tends to make people soliloquise or present monologues. Debate might be a better term as they are more often conducted in texts where a premise is offered, supported with evidence and arguments rebutted. None of the older terms though really do justice to what internet debates are, rather like how classical music is an increasingly stretched and awkward term.

If asked to define classical music I would refuse and point out like others have that it is mostly a marketing term and further point out that anything that potentially has a 1,000 year history from von Bingen to Stockhausen can't really be defined simply. If demanded at gunpoint to "define classical music M*****F*****" (I hear that sort of thing happens a lot in the inner-cities) then I suppose I would hazard a definition along these lines:

Classical music is music created in the tradition of Mozart and Beethoven and their predecessors.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2012)

LordBlackudder said:


> Originating in 600 AD Classical music developed many ideas and formed the basis of all modern music.


Where did you get this idea from? I'm quite sure that common folk developed a tradition of song passed on through the generations that took little account of what the posh folk were listening to in their salons!


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2012)

quack said:


> If demanded at gunpoint to "define classical music M*****F*****" (I hear that sort of thing happens a lot in the inner-cities)


LoL!



quack said:


> Well a discussion is usually conducted face to face, its usefulness in describing internet conversations is limited. You never really know who you are talking to and if they will respond or even read your thoughts, most likely someone else entirely will arrive, all of which tends to make people soliloquise or present monologues. Debate might be a better term as they are more often conducted in texts where a premise is offered, supported with evidence and arguments rebutted.


So, are you in favour of debate online or not? Are you willing to engage with the last query I posted in response to your post or not? ("Having said that, perhaps you'd like to specify what it is about Wiki's definitions you take exception to?")


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Oh I am all for online debate, that's why I am here, not sure it ever sorts anything out or illuminates anything much.

Sorry I resisted critiquing the wiki definition, as trying to improve wikipedia is an endlessly futile and worthless activity akin to blowing bubbles in a tornado but I will give it a go.



> Classical music is the art music produced in, or rooted in, the traditions of Western liturgical and secular music, encompassing a broad period from roughly the 11th century to present times.[1] The central norms of this tradition became codified between 1550 and 1900, which is known as the common practice period. It should not be confused with the Classical Era.


*Classical music is the art music*: It starts off badly with a definition that merely defines it in terms of some other ill-defined term. Even if you accept that classical music=art music (which is itself debatable) that definition tells you nothing really and merely directs you to another, even more poorly written article.
*music is the art*: It is a minor quibble I admit but the 'the' is unnecessary here. The point though is that the piecemeal, many-hands, way wikipedia is written means that you end up with such clunky, poorly-worded sentences that desperately need copy-editing and any good content is obscured beneath this writing style.
*produced in, or rooted in*: Ugly phrasing but nevermind.
*Western liturgical and secular music*: This is where the illogic sets in, what music is there other than liturgical and secular? Secular means not religious, so that has just included all music and therefore wasn't really worth saying. Classical music is listened to on Sundays, and every other day of the week. The writer clearly wants to say it is involved in both areas of music, but fails.
*encompassing*: Bad choice of word.
*broad period*: Periods are long not broad.
*roughly the 11th century*: Hooray a solid fact! But is it true? Is von Bingen and her contemporaries really the start of classical music? Harmonia Mundi's Century Collection begins with a CD of reconstructed ancient Greek and Roman music. What about Gregorian chant which is where the 600AD figure comes from, or should it start with Monteverdi, or maybe CPE Bach. There is a lone cited footnote in this paragraph which I don't have access to, but does it support the fact, too often wikipedia footnotes merely decorate rather than confirm. Also roughly is a terribly non-academic word choice.
*central norms*: What on earth is a central norm? Oh reading ahead, it is the common practice period, so it is another definition that doesn't really explain itself.
*became codified*: They are in code? What is this code I have never heard of it. Yes it is another quibble but this stupid word choice, trying to sound excessively formal and informed, just manages to hide what they want to say. The ideas about what constitutes classical music and what doesn't were certainly developed during this time, sometimes deliberately explained and specified, other times simply adopted by common consensus. Became? you mean were.
*It should not be confused with*: Why not!? but I want to! Why bring up something related but not explain why you mentioned it.

The accumulation of so many confused, half thought out sentences is a feature of wikipedia articles, particularly the introductory paragraphs of high profile articles like this. Once you get into the main article it actually explains things more clearly and is more informative (well I suppose, I only ever skim-read them as they give me a headache otherwise). But when people read the definition of subject they already know about they tend not to read it carefully or critically, instead they look for the key points to see if they are made and do not ask if they are made well.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2012)

Thanks quack - one of the best argued posts I think I've read here since I joined (not that long then, so not a compliment encompassing a broad period!) It wins hands down over the "I love x composer because they are so marvellous" type...

Having said that, given the fruitlessness of trying to finalise a definition of criteria which we can all exemplify approximately, but never exhaustively, wiki's definition, badly written as it is, contains a handful of useful features:

written (not a purely 'oral' or 'practical' tradition)
codified (let's say 'following accepted, though evolving conventions')
derived from formal traditions (the Church)

etc etc

In other words, for each part of the description, we can think of examples that would fit (even if we could also think of examples that wouldn't).


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

It's a lot easier to explain why wikipedia is atrocious than explain why classical music moves me.

I don't say that definitions are hopeless or worthless, just that there isn't an easy, universally accepted definition and wikipedia is certainly the last place to find a half decent one. Wikipedia is an easy first place to find a definition, the top of most google searches as google massages the results to promote it, but just about any professionally edited reference work will get you a clearer, more reliable and more concise definition. Even asking a 7 year old would probably get you a clearer definition, if not entirely accurate.

Your points are important to explaining what we think of as classical music, written on a score rather than oral etc, but tying to codify ::grimace:: that into a definition is more difficult, and especially deciding the prominence to give to each point. Is the score really that important or is it just the transmission medium like the CD.

I based my definition on the concrete "classical music is Mozart music" rather than the abstract "classical music is art" as that is how the idea developed. People after the classical era began calling it the classical era as they believed the music displayed the highest levels of classical proportion and perfection. There wasn't some seismic change after that defined the romantic era, it was a steady change. And to work backwards, the changes and inventions of earlier eras helped create the classical era but it is only relatively recently that the baroque, renaissance and medieval has been rescued from obscurity and been classed as the ever broadening term of classical.

If the gun was cocked and I was forced to continue my definition I might say something like this:

Classical music is music created in the tradition of Mozart and Beethoven and their predecessors. It has its origins in the religious music of the early Christian church, particularly the unaccompanied singing known as Gregorian chant, as well as the various folk song traditions of Europe such as the medieval troubadour. It is regarded as having reached a high point in its development during the so called classical era with the baroque era....

And at that point I think I would just beg them to shoot me.


----------



## Guest (Sep 1, 2012)

quack said:


> It's a lot easier to explain why wikipedia is atrocious than explain why classical music moves me.


LoL. Though I think you're a little harsh on wiki.



quack said:


> I don't say that definitions are hopeless or worthless, just that there isn't an easy, universally accepted definition and wikipedia is certainly the last place to find a half decent one. Wikipedia is an easy first place to find a definition, [...] Even asking a 7 year old would probably get you a clearer definition, if not entirely accurate.


Quite. The easiest place to start if you're trying to keep an internet dialogue going and hard copy references books (and 7 yr old children) aren't readily to hand.



quack said:


> Your points are important to explaining what we think of as classical music, written on a score rather than oral etc, but tying to codify ::grimace:: that into a definition is more difficult, and especially deciding the prominence to give to each point.


Yes, well, I'm not seeking to resolve a collection of points into a single sentence definition. That's why, as you acknowledge, the wiki article improves as it progresses.



quack said:


> And at that point I think I would just beg them to shoot me.


Please - nothing so drastic!

Two points about the significance of 'art' music, and the 'score'. I wonder whether the first term is a proxy word for the idea that "Mozart music" has always been for the aristos, the rich, the intelligentsia? In other words, it represents an element of elitism for the clever. I'm not saying that it has to be, or that it should be...but that it has been part of the tradition. Why else would Sir Henry Wood feel the need to bring such music to a wider audience through the Proms. He failed of course, since its just made itself better available to the middle-classes (I'm not commenting on the US, only the UK).

As for the score, Beethoven et al wrote not just for performance but also for publication so that others could play (and he could make money). When Dizzy Gillespie or Robbie Williams compose, it's almost exclusively for performance (even though much pop is subsequently published).

Lastly, I'm inclined to agree that 'Mozart music' is probably a better descriptive term (let's not say definition) and that John Cage and Steve Reich (and the more up-to-date Emily Howard) are not really part of the tradition except in their rejection of that tradition.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Cage and Reich are still easier to place in a classical music tradition of Mozart rather than a popular music tradition (they certainly ain't very popular). But that is why I think tradition is a good word, it suggests certain continuities of form, structure, instrumentation, reception etc. but doesn't limit things to rules of classical music which might automatically and arbitrarily exclude the oud or electronics or other practices.

The aspect of the score in classical music is, I think, a historical accident and is only tangentially related to what classical is.









This is Sumer is icumen in, a manuscript from the 13th century, the song is probably older. Other folk songs, not usually classed as classical, are also recorded in manuscript. Songs have been sung and music has been played forever but rarely are they deemed worthy of preservation, or perhaps they are but are soon lost. The relative complexity of classical music as it emerged meant that it had to be recorded or you would forget half way through how it went. Also, having initially a religious purpose it was usually regarded as worth preserving compared to the folk ballad sung outside the church.

This kind of thing conspires to give classical scores a greater prominence and importance. In a similar way the first records and CDs were often classical as that was the music worth immortalising as well as the sort of music liked by the people who could afford the technology. Only the rich could afford manuscripts too, coupled with the fact that only they could afford to learn how to read them. Beethoven wanted his music to live so he put it on paper, Diz wanted his music to live so he put it on LP.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

quack said:


> Is the score really that important or is it just the transmission medium like the CD.


Both. On the one hand, yes, it is "just" the transmission medium. By itself, it is not music. On the other hand, classical music is far more reliant on written notation than other repertories are, so in that sense, yes, the score really is that important to the definition of classical music.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

some guy said:


> Not to mention.
> .
> .
> .
> ...


"Classical music" may be a kinda silly, meaningless nonsense term, but its not as worthless as the loose-stool-water of "art music" and "serious music".


----------

