# What is Classical Music?



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

How do we distinguish it from other genres of music? What adjectives would you use to describe it that are as objectively accurate as we can be?

This thread is a search for objectivity, not the subjective.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Originally music for the Church and aristocracy, and ts descendants. Now referred to as "art music."


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I'll give it a try:

Classical music is music that fulfils the following conditions:

[1] It is notated to define the notes as well as the preferred instrument(s) and/or vocalists
[2] When performed (live or in recording) the name of the composer is always mentioned


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fantastic answers so far!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MarkW said:


> Originally music for the Church and aristocracy, and ts descendants. Now referred to as "art music."


I especially like this answer because it showcases neither superiority or inferiority.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*What is Classical Music?*



Captainnumber36 said:


> How do we distinguish it from other genres of music? What adjectives would you use to describe it that are as objectively accurate as we can be?
> 
> This thread is a search for objectivity, not the subjective.


First thing to consider: the lines blur.

Classical music today encompasses many Medieval and Renaissance works that were considered, in their own time, as folk or popular music. I'm speaking here of those guitar pieces, mostly by Anonymous, that I pick at now and then. Dance movements they seem to be, which once functioned as such for village gatherings. Today the stuff is hard core "classical music" fit for the fingers of John Williams and Christopher Parkening. Hmmm...

The same goes for the Medieval and Renaissance church music. It wasn't called "classical music" back then. It was functional music, as were the lute dances with their occasional accompanying tabors. Functional music, as is film music today, no matter what "style" that music is in.

So, function has something to do with this definition, which can only be vague at best. A savvy composer can write a catchy Mozartian-like tune for a car commercial, and we take it as _sounding like_ "classical music". But is it? Or is it no different from a pop-like tune used for a commercial? Or a jazz-like tune? The car commercial producer could have just as well selected a Mozart piece for the ad. When appearing in the ad is the Mozart "classical music", or is it "ad music" equivalent to the fake-Mozart tune or the pop or jazz tune?

We think we know what the sound of "classical music" is, but do we? Twelve-tone or atonal or serial music is highly constructed, following general rules, and notated. We think of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern -- definitely "classical" composers, no? I have in my record collection an album titled _New Directions: Essays for Jazz Band by David Mack_. It features serial music for jazz band written by one who was a clarinet player with a Scottish Symphony Orchestra by day and a sit-in musician at jazz clubs in the evening. The composer's liner notes for this album deal with the issue of "What is serial music?" without ever leaning fully into the question "What is the difference between classical serial music and jazz serial music?" But the following passage proves illuminating:

The serial pieces in this album are of course modest by symphonic standards -- but they are the product of a personal and widely varied musical experience ranging from Tin Pan Alley to the concert hall. The jazz inflection is authentic and the "straight" techniques are faithfully applied.

And further Mack writes:

To do justice to this kind of music, only skilled musicians of the calibre of Gordon Lewis and Jim Easton can maintain the effort required for the important and delicate accompanying parts.
... [T]he high standards of skill of the players ensure that this particular piece does "work".

Mack seems to be talking about "classical" music here, but he's talking rather about "jazz." Still, if one were to take one of the Mack pieces and supplant it to a New York Philharmonic Orchestra concert, the audience will likely feel they are hearing a piece of "classical" music, the same as when they hear the non-serial work _Rhapsody in Blue_ by George Gershwin. As well, any Beatles song can be arranged in a "classical" manner and be performed by an orchestra (or a Pops Orchestra!) and pass as, well, "classical music".

Lewis and Easton are two of the players on the album. Mack implies a high level of skill needed to perform his music, a trait we often assign to "classical music" performance. Yet, even novice players find pieces amongst the so-called "classical" repertoire that are easy to play, even with limited technique. (I know. I look for those pieces among the guitar repertoire.)

Lines blur.

I cannot truly offer much help to this thread, for the definition of "classical" music (as opposed to jazz, or film/theatre music, or pop music, or folk music...) continues to elude me. But if I were to pin down to a single necessity for the definition, I would suggest it falls in the realm of functional intention. If the composer _intends_ the music to be "classical", then it functions as such, regardless of how a listener perceives it. Yet, too, a listener may interpret a work as being "classical" when others might consider it "easy listening orchestral music" or some such other form.

Lines blur.

It seems intuitive to me that "classical" music is notated for repeated interpretation, yet much of our modern "classical" music, _intended_ "classical" music is written in such a way that performers have many choices to make and can even improvise, as do jazz musicians. And no two classical performers ever play a piece identically anyway, so interpretation always comes into play. To consider what is "classical" we may have to forego considering performance itself, which likely complicates the matter even more.

The definition of "classical music" continues to elude me, so I will watch this thread with eager interest, hoping to come to firmer grips with exactly what it is. My preliminary thought, though, is that I will not soon be satisfied with having arrived at a convincing resolution to the initial question: What is classical music? But I remain hopeful....


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

The first google result is pretty decent:



> serious or conventional music following long-established principles rather than a folk, jazz, or popular tradition.
> 
> (more specifically) music written in the European tradition during a period lasting approximately from 1750 to 1830, when forms such as the symphony, concerto, and sonata were standardized.


My own personal definition is music that utilizes an orchestra or the parts thereof. It's why a 4 piece rock band or a computerized dance track isn't classical, but a symphony, chamber piece, or movie soundtrack (SUCH AS JOHN WILLIAMS :devil is.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

MatthewWeflen said:


> My own personal definition is music that utilizes an orchestra or the parts thereof. It's why a 4 piece rock band or a computerized dance track isn't classical, but a symphony, chamber piece, or movie soundtrack (SUCH AS JOHN WILLIAMS :devil is.


A pop singer/songwriter accompanying him/herself on piano is classical music by that definition.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MatthewWeflen said:


> My own personal definition is music that utilizes an orchestra or the parts thereof. It's why a 4 piece rock band or a computerized dance track isn't classical, but a symphony, chamber piece, or movie soundtrack (SUCH AS JOHN WILLIAMS :devil is.


Obvious question: are pieces for solo instruments--piano, violin, guitar, cello, etc.--classical in the definition above? I see no reason why a rock band could not perform a "classical" work composed for it. I am rather hoping that some day one will be so composed that will enter the canon. Led Zeppelin's _Kashmir_ could be considered a harbinger of such, an Art Song of a vigorous character. Lots of other rock songs from the 1960s-1970s, when the rock generation--like other generations before it--discovered Romanticism all over again, could be considered such harbingers. A list can be supplied.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> How do we distinguish it from other genres of music? What adjectives would you use to describe it that are as objectively accurate as we can be?
> 
> This thread is a search for objectivity, not the subjective.


Why does a label "classical music" matter?


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Here is a 5 piece rock band with an orchestra. However, it isn't like some efforts with an orchestra and rock band, where the rock band and the orchestra are not quite an integrated "whole".

The composition is original, composed by the keyboardist of the 'rock' band, who is a graduate of a major Italian classical conservatory.

Please tell me, why or why not, this is or isn't classical:


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Since no one in the last thread (thus this thread) could thoroughly define musical features of the best Classical music, although asked many times, I'll just say that "Classical music" is a spectrum of music bearing closest similarity to the Big 3 composers. Once you analyze those similarities, you can determine _how_ Classical a piece is. What this doesn't imply are that other pieces are inferior. It is not a strict category with limits, because different pieces get less and less Classical to the benchmark, so different pieces are simply 'less Classical' and fitting better into 'other genres.'

Think of genres as just many different, newly defined benchmarks of sound. Pieces fit many genres. Beethoven you could call its own genre, as well as Bach and Mozart. "Classical" is just most similar to the three of them, and then spreads out from there into other genres. What music truly 'greater' than this, and worth talking about, is up to individuals on our forum to decide. It is not exclusive to Classical.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'm in a grumpy mood today and really tired of these threads mulling over what classical is, is Cage classical, is Dk. Williams classical, is film music classical, etc. Listen to what you like, call it what you want, and I'll do the same.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

like most genre labels i think you can drill it down to a set of artistic/aesthetic criteria that works in the genre are intended to be engaged and evaluated by


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

New thread idea: Is John classical music?

Cage, Williams, or Bach... that's for you to decide


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

the very term 'classical' denotes relation to Ancient Rome & Greece and their culture, it requires a narrative which should be diverse enough to produce information, that gives birth to various images and symbols on top of these, in the process of utilising high-quality techniques provided by trancendent technologies going by the Greek name of 'music'.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

fbjim said:


> like most genre labels i think you can drill it down to a set of artistic/aesthetic criteria that works in the genre are intended to be engaged and evaluated by


Precisely. Though no one on this forum can do that, so the Classical genre is defined as a community of ideas surrounding certain benchmark composers. There are millions of other genres you can create or denote, ie. Romantic, Wagnerian, Schoenbern, nothing that implies they are not part-Classical or of lesser quality in any way to individuals. 'Classical' is just a specific concept most tend to agree with, ie. my last definition.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Art Rock said:


> A pop singer/songwriter accompanying him/herself on piano is classical music by that definition.


Yeah, that's why I included the first element from google.

Piano is the one that puts the lie to a lot of instrument based definitions because it has crossed basically every genre since its invention.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

As with most things, it's probably a multi-axis evaluation, like diagnosing something with the DSM-V. Create a list of 12 attributes. If it meets 7 of them, it's classical music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

It is music that has been composed by musicians who are trained in the art of writing music (composing) and written down in music notation so that other musicians can play it. This is a basic working definition.

However, it is important to note that any *great* classical music is that which has objectively stood the test of times over people and different cultures, not music that has been rejected by most listeners consistently for decades or more. Simply writing music on music sheets is a simple endeavor that any music student can profess in doing, even me (I am not a great composer by any means).


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> I'll give it a try:
> 
> Classical music is music that fulfils the following conditions:
> 
> ...


That is true most of the time. Many occasion, the art of improvisation during say the Baroque and Classical periods did not necessitate the writing of notes. As we know, the great composers were supreme at improvisation. As for the name of the composer, sometimes works by unknown authorship today are performed or works of doubtful authorship.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Most important criterion is classical tone generation to wit no electronic tone generation or alternation. 

Also important to distingush classical music from jazz descendant music is on-beat and no back-beat/off-beat etc.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I don't have any answers, but I do have more questions.


Why is West Side Story by Bernstein and Sondheim not classical while West Side Story Symphonic suite by Bernstein is classical?
Why is Pictures at An Exhibition by Emerson, Lake and Palmer not classical music but Pictures at an Exhibition by orchestra and conductor X and Y is classical?
Is Peaches en Regalia by Frank Zappa performed by an orchestra classical music?
A few years ago my local amateur orchestra brought in a drummer at a drum kit and performed Sing, Sing, Sing by Benny Goodman. Was that classical music?
Is the Mikado by Gilbert and Sullivan classical music?


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> As with most things, it's probably a multi-axis evaluation, like diagnosing something with the DSM-V. Create a list of 12 attributes. If it meets 7 of them, it's classical music.


Of all the things I've read here so far, this makes the most amount of sense to me.

I don't know what classical music is, and I'm not sure I always know it when I hear it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> I don't know what classical music is, and I'm not sure I always know it when I hear it.


But you know what you like, and that's all that really counts.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

senza sordino said:


> I don't have any answers, but I do have more questions.
> 
> 
> Why is West Side Story by Bernstein and Sondheim not classical while West Side Story Symphonic suite by Bernstein is classical?
> ...


1) this is going to be a common response but the difference is listener expectations and context. we evaluate and engage with classical on a fundamentally different way than we do pop, and most broadway is, at its core, pop music in the old-school tin-pan alley sense. this means the things we listen for, and the expectations we have of a Broadway hit are going to be completely different than say, an aria, in the same sense that I wouldn't put on a folk album expecting metal guitar solos. 
2) same as above. the cultural context has us listen to ELP as a rock album, and a recording of an orchestra playing it as classical. 
3/4) yes, though stuff like classical versions of pop songs usually gets considered "light classical". as above, the important thing is that the listeners are engaging with the music in a classical music context 
5) this is actually tricky. G+S is where lines between pop/classical/opera get blurred, but I generally consider them "real" opera and thus classical


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

SONNET CLV said:


> The same goes for the Medieval and Renaissance church music. It wasn't called "classical music" back then. It was functional music, as were the lute dances with their occasional accompanying tabors. Functional music, as is film music today, no matter what "style" that music is in.


Functional music and classical music is no contrasting pair. Functional music and art music is a contrasting pair. A music can be functional music and classical at the same time. Film music can be art music btw. Many films are art and have no other function. Functional music is march or dance music for example.

That Renaissance music was considered popular music back then and is considered classical music now shows that popular music isn't the opposite of classical music either. The opposite of classical music is modern music. But it is about the technology and not about the time of composition. Classical music doesn't use electronic tone generation/alternation.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

senza sordino said:


> I don't have any answers, but I do have more questions.
> 
> Why is West Side Story by Bernstein and Sondheim not classical while West Side Story Symphonic suite by Bernstein is classical?


I guess because no microphone is used in the suite.



senza sordino said:


> Why is Pictures at An Exhibition by Emerson, Lake and Palmer not classical music but Pictures at an Exhibition by orchestra and conductor X and Y is classical?


Because of the microphone.



senza sordino said:


> Is Peaches en Regalia by Frank Zappa performed by an orchestra classical music?


No, because the beat isn't classical.



senza sordino said:


> A few years ago my local amateur orchestra brought in a drummer at a drum kit and performed Sing, Sing, Sing by Benny Goodman. Was that classical music?


No, wrong beat.



senza sordino said:


> Is the Mikado by Gilbert and Sullivan classical music?


Yes.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

fbjim said:


> ...................listener expectations and context.....................


I've never considered this before. I like it, it helps.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

tempted to ask if a modern organ with mechanically driven bellows counts as artificial sound amplification now


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> New thread idea: Is John classical music?
> 
> Cage, Williams, or Bach... that's for you to decide


Something to ponder while on the john, certainly.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> *What is Classical Music?*
> 
> First thing to consider: the lines blur.
> 
> ...


IMHO, you used your time poorly by typing all that out. I think we all know what we mean when we say "Classical Music", and at least for the purposes of this thread, I'm using that assumption.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> Why does a label "classical music" matter?


It's not for label sakes. It's for further understanding purposes.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> I'm in a grumpy mood today and really tired of these threads mulling over what classical is, is Cage classical, is Dk. Williams classical, is film music classical, etc. Listen to what you like, call it what you want, and I'll do the same.


That's true, but sometimes these tired threads bring rise to new avenues of enhanced understanding, at least that's been my experience with forums.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> But you know what you like, and that's all that really counts.


But I can totally see your aggravation towards such threads, and completely understand your perspective.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> IMHO, you used your time poorly by typing all that out. I think we all know what we mean when we say "Classical Music", and at least for the purposes of this thread, I'm using that assumption.


I think you started the thread to have a discussion about defining classical music. SONNET CLV's post showed that the kinds of definitions that people have often given lead to ambiguities with certain music. The result is that defining classical music is difficult, and almost any definition will not clearly separate classical music from other types. There would appear to be grey areas that cause problems with straightforward definitions. I'm not at all sure that we all know what we mean when we say "classical music".



SanAntone said:


> Why does a label "classical music" matter?


This issue arises at times on TC because we have a forum for classical music. Other music is relegated to non-classical or film. In practice, we have to make determinations about what music can be discussed in which forum. Of course, to an individual, the label does not really matter, but in situations such as classical music forums and classical music canons, the label does matter.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I've asked it before and don't remember if I got an answer, but is "Revolution 9" from the Beatles' White Album a piece of classical music?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

consuono said:


> I've asked it before and don't remember if I got an answer, but is "Revolution 9" from the Beatles' White Album a piece of classical music?


no, and i can't imagine why it would be, it's on a rock/pop album, and anyone listening to it "normally" will be doing so from a rock/pop context


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mmsbls said:


> This issue arises at times on TC because we have a forum for classical music. Other music is relegated to non-classical or film. In practice, we have to make determinations about what music can be discussed in which forum. Of course, to an individual, the label does not really matter, but in situations such as classical music forums and classical music canons, the label does matter.


Is there really such confusion about what is included in the label, "classical music?" It seems more a question designed to instigate the same old arguments.

There are many books devoted to the classical canon in one way or another. Simply put, the music written by the composers included in _Lives of the Great Composers _by *Harold C. Schonberg* and *Alex Ross*'s _The Rest is Noise_ on the music of the 20th century would pretty much cover it.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

like to sum things up art does not exist without some kind of context, and "genre" is one of those contexts.

remember that jokey bit where one of the French dadaists put a toilet in an art gallery? one of the points of that was that if you surround a toilet with the framing and cultural contexts we associate with art, suddenly the toilet becomes art, because so much of art depends on how it is "framed" and engaged with. it's kind of a silly point, but hey

you could actually say the same thing about 4'33'' - now Cage had a different point to make with this but the fact that we conceivably can say 4'33'' is a classical work depends _entirely_ on its framing and the context of its "performance", and not at all on the (non)existence of aesthetic features in the work itself - after all even if we say 4'33'' is classical, it doesn't follow that all silence is classical music


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

To return to my Led Zeppelin example of _Kashmir_, it has a strong "symphonic, orchestral" aura to it, and I can see/hear it in my mind either being performed by an orchestra or by a Rock band of the caliber of Zeppelin on a concert stage as a vigorous Art Song. Ditto with Cream's _White Room_, Neil Young's _Cortez the Killer_, Mountain's _Theme for an Imaginary Western_; others. These are all examples from an era of Rock artists discovering Romanticism all over again and writing, intentionally or not, what I would consider Art Songs perfectly capable of presentation within a CM concert setting.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

"art music" is kind of a fraught term and I've never been a fan of it since virtually all music is art, and even the stuff that was never intended to be engaged with in as art can have artistic value (this is actually surprisingly common, it's not rare for electronic artists to make production music, ie the music that plays on the Weather Channel, for instance, and some people actually seek those recordings out!)


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

SanAntone said:


> Is there really such confusion about what is included in the label, "classical music?" It seems more a question designed to instigate the same old arguments.
> 
> There are many books devoted to the classical canon in one way or another. Simply put, the music written by the composers included in _Lives of the Great Composers _by *Harold C. Schonberg* and *Alex Ross*'s _The Rest is Noise_ on the music of the 20th century would pretty much cover it.


I'm not sure how much confusion there is although there have been several discussions aiming to separate avant-garde from classical music and to include some film music within classical music. Some people may honestly wish to better understand exactly where the line is drawn and why.

Incidentally, I do not consider so called noise music as classical. Examples would be Merxbow's many releases. Do you consider it classical?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

What about The Caretaker's albums? (Which I find really haunting, btw.)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure how much confusion there is although there have been several discussions aiming to separate avant-garde from classical music and to include some film music within classical music. Some people may honestly wish to better understand exactly where the line is drawn and why.
> 
> Incidentally, I do not consider so called noise music as classical. Examples would be Merxbow's many releases. Do you consider it classical?


The simple answer to your question is that I don't put any emphasis on genre labels. I listen to a variety of music and like some of it. Whether it is called classical, or avant-garde, or jazz, or whatever, is not important. I am aware of the general categories and post in the threads I think are appropriate.

Which is why I have also created specific threads for new music: chamber and orchestral music of the 21st century and string quartets since 1970. These are date-based, not stylistically-based, since in the last 75 years, styles have exploded and I think that the idea of what is classical music includes a lot of music which more traditionally-minded listeners might wish to exclude.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> I've asked it before and don't remember if I got an answer, but is "Revolution 9" from the Beatles' White Album a piece of classical music?


Free form jazz, alternative hip hop, experimental pop, modern classical music-all converge towards one another because as rules are shaken off, the closer one gets to a broader art form that can simply be termed as "experimental music".

Revolution 9 is explicitly influenced by Stockhausen.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Free form jazz, alternative hip hop, experimental pop, modern classical music-all converge towards one another because as rules are shaken off, the closer one gets to a broader art form that can simply be termed as "experimental music".
> 
> Revolution 9 is explicitly influenced by Stockhausen.


So you'd call it a classical piece. Aren't the "shaken off" rules an objective marker?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> So you'd call it a classical piece.


I call it experimental music.



consuono said:


> Aren't the "shaken off" rules an objective marker?


Yes, rules can be objective.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

To answer the OP - Whatever you want it to be!


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Yes, rules can be objective.


So...adherence to and deviation from those rules can be an objective sign of skill as well. Creating a work of art within externally-set limits (a fugue on a melody instrument, for example) is an objective sign of skill. It follows then that this one may be more skillful at such than that one, just as this one might be better at ice skating than that one.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Basically concert music


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Bruckner Anton said:


> Basically concert music


Well, that would basically make most pop/rock music classical music.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

wonder why mass culture apologists are present on this forum whilst there are thousands mass culture forums available for them elsewhere...


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> wonder why mass culture apologists are present on this forum whilst there are thousands mass culture forums available for them elsewhere...


Where are there noteable traces of mass culture apologists on this forum, besides ArtMusic and a couple Beethoven enthusiasts? :lol: (You guys aren't, just making comparison.)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Classical music can be music from the so-called classical period or it can be music that is rooted in the ever-evolving tradition that is the subject of this forum. You can normally tell which is intended by the context - even if some trollish commentators pretend otherwise sometimes - and can range from very high brow to very low brow. People got confused because over the last 100+ years there has been a huge diversification of styles and intentions within the tradition.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

You may now include *"The Beatles"* as *"Classical Music"*, going by some of the definitions here.

*The Analogues*, a five to seven-member ensemble of singer/multi-instrumentalists, supplemented, as needed, by additional musicians (10 of 'em playing brass, woodwinds, and strings, and occasionally a guest singer to cover some of the more 'intense' vocals), play *Beatles* albums note for note, as though it were a suite of songs.

The audience sit in their assigned seats in a concert hall, in rapt attention (or with big ol' grins), as the ensemble deftly incorporates the disparate elements of the *Beatles*' diverse sound spectrum, with mellotron, harmonica, harpsichord, vocal effects, sound effects, handclaps, and whatever else is needed to recreate the music originally created in a studio in a live setting. They even brought in an extra person especially to create the bird calls accurately during the song _*Blackbird*_.

Here they are performing *The Beatles' White Album*. The more familiar you are with this album the more astonishing it is.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

pianozach said:


> You may now include *"The Beatles"* as *"Classical Music"*, going by some of the definitions here.
> 
> The Analogues, a five to seven-member ensemble of singer/multi-instrumentalists, supplemented, as needed, by additional musicians (10 of 'em playing brass, woodwinds, and strings, and occasionally a guest singer to cover some of the more 'intense' vocals), play *Beatles* albums note for note, as though it were a suite of songs.
> 
> ...


This is exactly what happens when an orchestra plays a symphony by Beethoven. Thanks for the post.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

to those who might hope their bad taste can be endorsed or justified somehow - no way these 'beatles' or 'stones' and other ugly acts would ever be considered as music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> to those who might hope their bad taste can be endorsed or justified somehow - no way these 'beatles' or 'stones' and other ugly acts would ever be considered as music.


We can see sometimes why classical music sometimes is viewed with little enthusiasm among large populations. They sometimes sense that the air is so rarified as to be unbreathable.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Zhdanov said:


> to those who might hope their bad taste can be endorsed or justified somehow - no way these 'beatles' or 'stones' and other ugly acts would ever be considered as music.


You have your opinion and billions of others have theirs.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> We can see sometimes why classical music sometimes is viewed with little enthusiasm among large populations. They sometimes sense that the air is so rarified as to be unbreathable.


and it is their problem, not the music's.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Zhdanov said:


> and it is their problem, not the music's.


Okay. I will wait for the music to complain.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> You have your opinion and billions of others have theirs.


so why are you not with those 'billions' elsewhere right now?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Zhdanov said:


> to those who might hope their bad taste can be endorsed or justified somehow - no way these 'beatles' or 'stones' and other ugly acts would ever be considered as music.


this, except about Bruckner


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> So...adherence to and deviation from those rules can be an objective sign of skill as well. Creating a work of art within externally-set limits (a fugue on a melody instrument, for example) is an objective sign of skill. It follows then that this one may be more skillful at such than that one, just as this one might be better at ice skating than that one.


Yes, it is an objective sign of skill but only in subjective human context. You can say that Brahms was objectively more skilled than Schumann but that does not necessarily correspond to "greatness" or even enjoyment.

Some people dislike Brahms because they think he was "too" skilled and thus sounds sterile. Some people like Schumann because of the flaws and awkwardness in his writing reflect the imperfect nature of reality.

If you look at a composer like Reger, there is obvious mastery of counterpoint and other compositional skills-more so than perhaps any other composer.

So why isn't Reger considered one of the greatest composers? Simply because not that many people enjoy his music.

(For the record, I like Reger, but I can totally see how his style is too dense and academic for most people).


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

chu42 said:


> Some people dislike Brahms because they think he was "too" skilled and thus sounds sterile.


some people must have never heard his symphonies & Hungarian Dances.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> some people must have never heard his symphonies & Hungarian Dances.


On the contrary, it is exactly his symphonies that people think to be too "well crafted" and lacking emotion.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> so why are you not with those 'billions' elsewhere right now?


This is something of a non-sequitur.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

chu42 said:


> it is exactly his symphonies that people think to be too "well crafted" and lacking emotion.


they just don't hear the music if so.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Zhdanov said:


> they just don't hear the music if so.


They have heard the music. They just do not agree with you. We can keep this up indefinitely.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

sanantone said:


> they have heard the music. They just do not agree with you.


they hear no music. Brahms not lacking emotions, period.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> they hear no music. Brahms not lacking emotions, period.


Time to wind up this thread?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> they hear no music. Brahms not lacking emotions, period.


So you decide what music lacks emotions and what doesn't?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> to those who might hope their bad taste can be endorsed or justified somehow - no way these 'beatles' or 'stones' and other ugly acts would ever be considered as music.


Hahahahahahahahaha . . . . !

There's a Facebook group you might enjoy; it contains the words "Classical", "music", "pretentious", and "elitists" in its group name.

It's been a very long time since I've come across someone that described the music of *The Beatles* as "ugly".


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

pianozach said:


> It's been a very long time since I've come across someone that described the music of *The Beatles* as "ugly".


must be in the 1960s the description belongs... incidentally, it was back then when mass culture could have been stopped and uprooted, when there still were those who could hear and see.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Art Rock said:


> I'll give it a try:
> 
> Classical music is music that fulfils the following conditions:
> 
> ...


Best definition here.

There is an online music history course that I have were the instructor said this.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

mmsbls said:


> I think you started the thread to have a discussion about defining classical music. SONNET CLV's post showed that the kinds of definitions that people have often given lead to ambiguities with certain music. The result is that defining classical music is difficult, and almost any definition will not clearly separate classical music from other types. There would appear to be grey areas that cause problems with straightforward definitions. I'm not at all sure that we all know what we mean when we say "classical music".


Fair. I was just more interested in searching for the objective measures we can find, unless he really meant to say there aren't any in his experience with this topic.


----------

