# The Timelessness of Art and The Western Classical Tradition



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In Classical music, we are in a unique position regarding our genre; works are viewed as "art" and are ushered into the "permanent canon" of timeless art. Thus, we can listen to Beethoven symphonies, piano sonatas, and string quartets from now until infinity, with no regard to their being "current." We can get a "taste of newness" by hearing a new interpretation; and as recording technology improves, we always have the chance to hear a remastering of an old gem, or a brand-new recording of it.

Plus, with HIP instruments and performances, we can hear old works in a new light, using different tunings, instruments, and practices.

This "permanent canon" goes back further than any popular genre, since it precedes the invention of recording. Even with recordings, opera buffs can go back and listen to early singers from the turn of the century. Popular music, by contrast, is largely a history of recorded performances, of the radio and the hit parade. With Classical, we have the score, and a much longer history.

Thus, unlike popular music, many of the criticisms of music being "outdated" or of ideologies or stylistic movements of music being "old hat" are largely irrelevant. The point is not for a work to be "current," but rather, to be ushered in to the permanent canon of the Western Classical Tradition as a great, timeless, or crucial work.

The timeline extends back to early Christianity, and continues up to the present...

So what are your thoughts on the "timelessness" of the Western classical tradition? What qualifies a work for inclusion into the "hall of timeless art," or is that a mystery we can even know? Are "new" works since 1950 "worthy" of inclusion, or even consideration? Does History determine this, or can we, as consumers?

For that matter, has our modern "consumer culture" changed the game? Are we classicists on the same basic playing-field as popular music, or are there mitigating circumstances which exempt us from the same fate as more trendy, throw-away genres of music?

For that matter, has recording itself created a new, post-modern "history" for all genres: "classic" jazz, doo-***, music of the 60's, great singers like Sinatra, etc? Is Classical just one of many genres, or are we more? Are we truly "timeless?"

Perhaps more importantly, is classical music still a living genre, or just a history of re-hashed performances and recordings?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"Perhaps more importantly, is classical music still a living genre, or just a history of re-hashed performances and recordings?"

Sure and it's 'still a living genre'. It's still being composed.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Perhaps more importantly, is classical music still a living genre, or just a history of re-hashed performances and recordings?


The merits of individual works of art do not rely on the continuation of the tradition to which it belongs.


----------



## Jimm (Jun 29, 2012)

Higher consciousness art is built for long distance time travel by design .. it's very much alive & well with no signs of disappearing. Music from the preeminent composers of the last 50 or 60 years are receiving more interest and performance year after year so it's not going away anytime soon, with many important newer works already starting to enter the standard repertoire, and their is more & more demand for challenging forms of art, which in the process will recontextualize & renew various aspects .. so, the best of it is hear to stay and 250 years from now when we look back on this time in the legacy of classical music & it's history... it's those composers and works that will remain, just like every era of the past before 'our time' that has it's important composers & compositions.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2012)

Jimm said:


> 250 years from now when we look back on this time in the legacy of classical music & it's history...


You maybe. I'm planning on having died long before 250 years are up.


----------



## Jimm (Jun 29, 2012)

When I say "we" I mean the collective "we" as in _the human race _...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Jimm said:


> When I say "we" I mean the collective "we" as in _the human race _...


 My self esteem is in good health, but even so I avoid speaking for the 'human race'.

[Sorry 'bout that, _Jimm_. _some guy_ drew you into the void between a rock and a hard place, and I felt obligated.]


----------



## Jimm (Jun 29, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> My self esteem is in good health, but even so I avoid speaking for the 'human race'.
> 
> [Sorry 'bout that, _Jimm_. _some guy_ drew you into the void between a rock and a hard place, and I felt obligated.]


I wasn't speaking on behalf of the human race, just merely stating how _it's always been_ up this point. Meaning, if we have examined history, then we know it repeats itself generally speaking, there is a trend (and we can learn a great deal from it) .. so if this is the case with all of the previous eras of western classical music's history (and it is) than chances are this will continue with the most recent 'era(s)' (talking the _best of_ it, i.e. composers, works) in order to have 'that important music/history' into the future when looking back .. giving us light on how we got to where we are in the big picture and learning even more about ourselves & the art ..


----------

