# Definition of 'Classical Music'



## Des (Jul 7, 2012)

I wondered if anyone can improve on a relatively short definition I've concocted some years ago:


"A formless area (defaulting towards an aspirationally cultural & predominantly exact art form) within the universal, uncompartmentalised, wholly accessible language of sound commonly known as music: encouraging spirituality and/or various permutations of all human emotions -- centring on and radiating from the serious deployment of an ostensibly organised pattern of acoustic sounds as produced by orchestral instruments and voices (performed normally by established or qualified interpreters/musicians, from one to very many). The question of taste and the unknowable relativities of disharmony and harmony are no part of this definition, because such affective considerations differ from individual to individual."


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

I've invented my own controversial, yet simple definition:

"Any music still performed and recorded 100 years or more after its initial creation."

It's not a popular definition, particularly amongst the rabid serialists and _avant-garde_ists that inhabit this board, but I expect music to have seriously stood the test of time before it be called 'classical'. It includes a large amount of music not normally considered classical by the masses, such as old folk songs, ragtime and religious spirituals; and excludes much of the modernist stuff, as well as film scores, video game scores and the likes of rock & roll, country, and other forms of pop music commonly heard on the airwaves. If the latter forms of music persist after 100 years or more of existence, I'd be inclined to call them 'classical'.

Having said that, 100 years ago marks an increase in the quality of recording technology, allowing much music to persist over longer periods - this may pose a problem as the years progress. However, if you look at 1912, for example, there are a LOT of music releases that nobody's heard of and aren't recorded today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_in_music

Having said that, I still am open to listening to and discussing music in all its forms, and don't have a problem with other people categorizing music in their own ways.


----------



## Des (Jul 7, 2012)

If I read you right, none of us here are able to discuss music that WILL become classical music under your definition. I think 'classical' covers many things oher than strict art-classical and one gets an instinct as to what it actually is.

another useful definition for me - if a simple one is required - is:
All music sold in the classical music department of HMV in Oxford Street, London in the 1990s is classical music.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

Classical music, in all its manifestations, is the descendant of the first 'composed' music resulting from the advent of a crude musical notation in the 9th century CE.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

I think this is going to be hard.

Martin


----------



## Des (Jul 7, 2012)

NightHawk said:


> Classical music, in all its manifestations, is the descendant of the first 'composed' music resulting from the advent of a crude musical notation in the 9th century CE.


Isn't all music 'composed', unless it is performed improvisationally?


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Let Bernstein explain it for you ( It has four parts)


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

Des said:


> Isn't all music 'composed', unless it is performed improvisationally?


In Western music 'composed music' is music that is 'written down', as opposed to the wealth of popular music (drinking songs, wedding songs, work songs etc.,) which, as an aural tradition, were not considered to be in need of the costly ink and vellum. Classical music grew out of the music of the Roman Catholic Church that caused music to become notated in order to standardize the mass and rituals so that heresy might not slip into the fold.*

The great tradition of our instrumental music began in the 16th century when transcriptions of composed vocal music were arranged to be played by instruments. Motets yielded the instrumental Ricercar which culminated in the fugue. Fr. Chansons/It. Canzones yielded (eventually) the two main sonata forms 'da chiesa' (for church) and 'da camera' (for chamber). Dance Suites eventually began to influence the sonatas which is why classical symphonies even into the present day almost always have a ternary movement (Menuet and Trio in the 18th including Beethoven until he morphed the three-part _da capo_ form into the scherzo, but still ternary in time).

*Actually, notation was in all likelihood an outgrowth of monks who sang in the choir and began to make small marks (neumes) above the Latin scripture as mnemonic devices to remind them of the twists and turns of the chant melody.


----------



## Des (Jul 7, 2012)

I was hoping to ignite members' own definitions, if possible. Descriptive, rather tha prescriptive from its *perceived* history.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Provisionally, I would say something like, "Music in which the composer is generally understood to be more important than the performer(s), which can therefore legitimately be performed repeatedly by diverse performers, and generally (but not quite always) restricted to the voice and acoustic instruments." 

I might add something about generally relating to European culture/tradition if I could figure out how to phrase it acceptably. 

If you want something like what I take to be the essence of classical music, I might say something like, "The conscious exploration of patterns of sound, as instructed by a composer." I hope "patterns" includes tiny motifs, long melodies, counterpoint, harmonies, rhythms, timbres, etc.... 

My definition is intellectual rather than emotional, and I know that won't satisfy some people (especially as it implicitly legitimizes Cage, Varese, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, etc.) but taking a global perspective I think "classical" music doesn't have any unique emotional power missing from all other musical traditions. But as far as I understand those other traditions--from jazz to rock/pop to Indian classical music to everything else--the composer is rarely anything like as centrally important as s/he is in classical music, and the performers are at least as important - actually, generally much more important than they are in classical music. I think it's the only tradition where, if someone says, "What are we listening," the first word of the answer is the composer's last name.


----------



## Des (Jul 7, 2012)

science said:


> . I think it's the only tradition where, if someone says, "What are we listening," the first word of the answer is the composer's last name.


I personally like that, assuming you are happy to call Lennon & mcCartney Classical Music.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Des said:


> "A formless area (defaulting towards an aspirationally cultural & predominantly exact art form) within the universal, uncompartmentalised, wholly accessible language of sound commonly known as music: encouraging spirituality and/or various permutations of all human emotions -- centring on and radiating from the serious deployment of an ostensibly organised pattern of acoustic sounds as produced by orchestral instruments and voices (performed normally by established or qualified interpreters/musicians, from one to very many). The question of taste and the unknowable relativities of disharmony and harmony are no part of this definition, because such affective considerations differ from individual to individual."


The phrase "orchestral instruments" seems to imply the exclusion of non-orchestral instruments, which, to me, would necessitate a definition of orchestral (or orchestra). And if orchestra were defined in combination with the term classical music, there might be a case of circular reasoning.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

science said:


> Provisionally, I would say something like, "Music in which the composer is generally understood to be more important than the performer(s), which can therefore legitimately be performed repeatedly by diverse performers, and generally (but not quite always) restricted to the voice and acoustic instruments."


I think that is pretty much spot on!


----------



## Des (Jul 7, 2012)

That's a good point, Andreas. I delete the word 'orchestral'.


----------



## Des (Jul 7, 2012)

Altered myndefinition by deleting 'orchestral. And adding the words in upper case.

"A formless area (defaulting towards an aspirationally cultural & predominantly exact art form) within the universal, uncompartmentalised, wholly accessible language of sound commonly known as music: encouraging spirituality and/or various permutations of all human emotions -- centring on and radiating from the serious deployment of an ostensibly organised pattern of acoustic sounds as produced by instruments and voices (performed normally by established or qualified interpreters/musicians, from one to very many WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE SUBSUMED BY THAT OF THE COMPOSER OF THE MUSIC). The question of taste and the unknowable relativities of disharmony and harmony are no part of this definition, because such affective considerations differ from individual to individual."


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

science said:


> I think it's the only tradition where, if someone says, "What are we listening," the first word of the answer is the composer's last name.


Love it....


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

Well, I do get tiresome, I know, and I'm sorry, truly. However, in this case '_member's own definitions'_ are still coming from their '_perceived history_' of classical music, aren't they?




Des said:


> I was hoping to ignite members' own definitions, if possible. Descriptive, rather tha prescriptive from its *perceived* history.


----------



## Des (Jul 7, 2012)

You may be right, Nighthawk, but I was trying in mine to be wholly descriptive of how I saw Classical Music as performed today rather than give it its backstory as part of that description. But everyone must define It how they see it, whether with backstory or not, you are right.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Des said:


> I personally like that, assuming you are happy to call Lennon & mcCartney Classical Music.


But they Aren't, Blanche! Just because you would like them to be does not make it so.

Good Lord, NOW YOUR "AGENDA" IS SHOWING, AND IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. BE HAPPY ON YOUR LITTLE ISLAND.

Methinks you want a definition of classical which encompasses your various tastes, regardless of genre. Sorry to be rude, if it is taken that way, but genres will have their rather specific definitions no matter what your 'comfort zones' are.


----------



## Des (Jul 7, 2012)

PetrB said:


> But they Aren't, Blanche! Just because you would like them to be does not make it so.
> 
> Good Lord, NOW YOUR "AGENDA" IS SHOWING, AND IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. BE HAPPY ON YOUR LITTLE ISLAND.


I wasn't agreeing with that conclusion but was suggesting that this was the logic deriving from what someone else had said about composer's surnames.
Who's Blanche, btw?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

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

Was that so hard?


----------



## Des (Jul 7, 2012)

Philip said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music
> 
> Was that so hard?


Let's-hope the results of our discussion are eventually factored into multi-input Wikipedia. A personal definition of something is different from the exhaustive history of something, too, I feel.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

number 1: things like etudes, sonata, opera, orchestra and so on. a combination of those forms define classical music.

no electronic or other influences allowed, aside form recording and mixing.

number 2:



science said:


> Provisionally, I would say something like, "Music in which the composer is generally understood to be more important than the performer(s), which can therefore legitimately be performed repeatedly by diverse performers, and generally (but not quite always) restricted to the voice and acoustic instruments."


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Des said:


> I wondered if anyone can improve on a relatively short definition I've concocted some years ago:
> 
> "A formless area (defaulting towards an aspirationally cultural & predominantly exact art form) within the universal, uncompartmentalised, wholly accessible language of sound commonly known as music: encouraging spirituality and/or various permutations of all human emotions -- centring on and radiating from the serious deployment of an ostensibly organised pattern of acoustic sounds as produced by orchestral instruments and voices (performed normally by established or qualified interpreters/musicians, from one to very many). The question of taste and the unknowable relativities of disharmony and harmony are no part of this definition, because such affective considerations differ from individual to individual."


Anything written by the Top 100 Composers we are currently constructing at TC!


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Des said:


> I wondered if anyone can improve on a relatively short definition I've concocted some years ago:
> 
> "A formless area (defaulting towards an aspirationally cultural & predominantly exact art form) within the universal, uncompartmentalised, wholly accessible language of sound commonly known as music: encouraging spirituality and/or various permutations of all human emotions -- centring on and radiating from the serious deployment of an ostensibly organised pattern of acoustic sounds as produced by orchestral instruments and voices (performed normally by established or qualified interpreters/musicians, from one to very many). The question of taste and the unknowable relativities of disharmony and harmony are no part of this definition, because such affective considerations differ from individual to individual."


It can be improved upon considerably. That first sentence is an editor's nightmare! There is such a thing as being unnecessarily verbose, you know, and that definition could do with a trim here and there.

Questions:

What exactly do you mean by formless? 
What exactly do you mean by 'predominantly exact art form' and is why is this necessary in this description?
How does much of your definition form a distiction between classical and other genres of music?
'Various permutations of human emotions': what's wrong with just 'emotions'? Human seems a somewhat needless description and 'various permutations' doesn't seem to add anything in this context.
Acoustic sounds - as opposed to electronic? There are several electronic instruments used in classical music, especially modern classical music.

I find your definition altogether too vague. It needs to home in on more elements of classical music that distinguish it as being different from others. Here are some suggestions of points that I find are more associated with classical music than with any genre:

Historical: Music similar in name, style, form and instrumentation to music leading to and stemming from the Classical period in history with only minor deviations.
Classical music is more likely to be intellectualised and analysed by its listeners and written with this in mind.
In classical music, exploring sound is more important than storytelling.
Classical music stresses the importance of different interpretation of the same piece. There is not a 'definitive version'.
Classical music is the only music that requires a coordinator in the form of a conductor.
There is a stress on skill in classical music, whether that be skill of coordination, interpretation or virtuosity. This skill is benchmarked by the performance of commonly performed pieces. 
Pieces are associated with composers and not performers. These two are usually mutually exclusive.

I'm sure I'll think of more later.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Des said:


> I wasn't agreeing with that conclusion but was suggesting that this was the logic deriving from what someone else had said about composer's surnames.
> Who's Blanche, btw?


I don't really agree with that logic since it asserts that, in such a situation, people would really reply "Lennon and McCartney" rather than simply "The Beatles". The suggestion about composers' surnames seems a good one to me.


----------



## Des (Jul 7, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> I don't really agree with that logic since it asserts that, in such a situation, people would really reply "Lennon and McCartney" rather than simply "The Beatles". The suggestion about composers' surnames seems a good one to me.


I agree except that when there are orchestral performances of their music it's often referred to as Lennon & McCartney compositions. Not that I'm claiming one way or another the Classical Music nature of Beatles music.

I also agree that my original definition can be seen to be too verbose (and paradoxically over-succinct, too, as words evoke their own need for definitions and so on ad infinitum). I hoped it would prove to be a discussion provoker as I have lived with tussling with this definition for several years.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Des said:


> I agree except that when there are orchestral performances of their music it's often referred to as Lennon & McCartney compositions. Not that I'm claiming one way or another the Classical Music nature of Beatles music.


Well, there is always the exception that proves the rule, but I would assert that naming "Lennon and McCartney" as the composers is a misnomer since one would assume this music would have to be transcribed for orchestra by people other than Lennon or McCartney. I also doubt that it was ever the intention of the songwriters to see it performed in such a way. I would also venture to suggest that this may be a case of popular music aping the tendency of classical music to refer to the composers last names to give it an air of respectability or to somehow canonise that music by 'upgrading it'. Not consciously, of course, but it does seem more 'proper' and suitable if one is to take music from the jukebox to the music hall. I'd also point out that I don't believe that there is anything really inferior in pop music, but it is a different creature and it must be said that the decision to orchestrate pop music still operates on this assumption. It is a cultural bias that exists in reality.

It must be taken in context too, for there are other litmus tests for classical music suggested here that the music of Lennon and McCartney would fail. I would also say that the music of Lennon and McCartney is not performed very often at all in orchestral form.



> I also agree that my original definition can be seen to be too verbose (and paradoxically over-succinct, too, as words evoke their own need for definitions and so on ad infinitum). I hoped it would prove to be a discussion provoker as I have lived with tussling with this definition for several years.


Let's not be needlessly philosophical and semantic about this. Not everything needs to be defined. IMO, it would be easier to make a list of six or seven points and say that music is deemed 'classical' if it adheres to most of the points on the checklist. The next step would be to test that hypothesis with all exceptions that you can think of. You should be careful to not be too broad about it, however, as I believe you were in your initial statement. Saying that classical music is designed to elicit emotion, for example, can be applied to any music/classical or not.


----------



## Des (Jul 7, 2012)

The same may be said about some #show' music, ie Lloyd Webber, Sondheim...

I think mankind has ever tried to define terms that had been taken for granted over the years.

I was trying to define a style of music that grew up into a whole department in HMV on Oxford Street London called 'Classical Music' (in one room, this was certainly the case in the 1990s) incorporating Medieval music, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Beethoven, Schubert etc. and then composers like Wagner, Mahler, Shostokovich, Britten, Bartok, Webern, Stockhausen, Glass - all of which 9and many more) I love.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

crmoorhead said:


> I don't believe that there is anything really inferior in pop music, but it is a different creature


Very, very good point.

It's too easy for fans of one kind of music to dismiss other kinds of music as inferior. ("Kinds" here could refer to to genres, cultures, or eras - just about anything.)

Lennon and McCartney weren't trying to do exactly the same thing that Miles Davis was trying to do, who wasn't trying to do the same thing that Duke Ellington or Shostakovich were trying to do, who weren't trying to do quite what Astor Piazzolla or Rodgers & Hammerstein were trying to do, who weren't trying to do what Sachin Dev Burman, who wasn't trying to do what B. B. King was trying to do, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

> Music which, as a general rule, is liked by rich, white-haired, old dears who attend venues such as the Wigmore Hall in London...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At my local tube station there's almost constant classical music playing and young people _hate_ it. They _run_ from the station to avoid listening to it! It's a brilliant crowd control technique.

Surely any definition of classical music should include reference to the feelings it provokes in listeners? In London -- arguably the classical music capital of the world -- classical music appreciation splits on broadly class, age and economic lines: the rich like it, the poor hate it.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Building on what science said earlier:

Classical music is typically characterized by the creation of a document of music notation (the actual work), which is then made (publically) available so that performances or recordings of the work can take place.

Now, had Lennon and McCartney not recorded their songs themselves but instead published them as sheet music (as lieder for voices, guitar trio and percussion perhaps?), would there have been a difference - formally! - between them and Schubert and his song cycles?


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Andreas said:


> Building on what science said earlier:
> 
> Classical music is typically characterized by the creation of a document of music notation (the actual work), which is then made (publically) available so that performances or recordings of the work can take place.
> 
> Now, had Lennon and McCartney not recorded their songs themselves but instead published them as sheet music (as lieder for voices, guitar trio and percussion perhaps?), would there have been a difference - formally! - between them and Schubert and his song cycles?


I think that song cycles that have no orchestral accompaniment or which are not designed to explore the uses of sound or display virtuosity are possibly not classical music. At some point, if the story becomes more important than the music, it becomes a different art form. Just as some composers were librettists as well, some composers were song writers. Gershwin, for example.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I was thinking about Tin Pan Alley when we began discussing the line between classical music song and popular song. At some point that line is going to be hard to draw. But still, most things fall pretty clearly on one side or the other.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

I could be persuaded to alter my definition to the following:



> Music that is at least one hundred years old (meaning it was written or composed at least a hundred years ago), is still recorded and performed during the present day, and does not require specific recording(s) or performer(s) to be authentic.


The 'composer' argument is fine, except that causes problems for that oh-so-great maestro 'Anonymous' who parlayed through the Baroque and earlier periods - who's music occasionally finds itself entombed in my earholes. It also doesn't bode well for pieces that were started by one composer and finished by another, or by works arranged and assembled from one composer's sketchbook into a coherent piece of music by another, or pieces assembled by more than one composer in collaboration.


----------



## Dorian (Jul 15, 2012)

Music that cannot be forgotten


----------



## 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.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

i looked up the definition in about 20 dictionaries, used yahoo answers and pretty much ignored that lot.

so i thought of what cannot be taken away from the music. form is one and instruments also mention complexity and emotion. these seem to be unique.

i try to account for old and new uses of classical music.

im not sure if its 600 AD or c 600. the dark ages i think.

the key point is the forms which other people are better to expand on than myself.

long lasting doesn't matter. abba is long lasting. the composer being more important than the performer doesn't explain lang lang or vanessa mae.

i wanted to say classical music uses certain instruments but that is included with 'form'?


----------

