# What makes music classical?



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

If I would take a piano trio and play the cello on bass guitar, the violin on electric guitar and add drums would it still be classical? and if I omit the drums, would it be classical? and if Shostakovich had written a piece for a rock band, would it be classical?
Where can we draw the line?


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

ha.... +1 to the topic

then we will have trouble defining a piece from Monteverdi to Xenakis, before we can make an answer to what makes music classical.

for me, some part of classical music is about tradition, that is the music should played with that orchestra tradition instrumental: violin, cello, basson etc. but then not all music played by orchestra automatically become classical, lots of movie soundtrack played by orchestra is not classical music.
the other part about what 'technically' makes music classical... I' wait to other to comment.

the fact that we can't draw a straight line about music is something that attractive about music. so it's kinda oxymoron, that you like something that you really can't tell what it is.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Before we delve further into the discussion, could we perhaps agree on a more suitable term than 'classical music'? Simply because I think it will be clearer to discuss the topic without the connotations of the word 'classical' referring to works that bear no resemblance to 18th/19th Century music.

I never know whether people like the term 'art music' or not... any other suggestions?


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Before we delve further into the discussion, could we perhaps agree on a more suitable term than 'classical music'? Simply because I think it will be clearer to discuss the topic without the connotations of the word 'classical' referring to works that bear no resemblance to 18th/19th Century music.
> 
> I never know whether people like the term 'art music' or not... any other suggestions?


Of course I'm not talking about classical era but on what we call the music that brought us to this forum (it can be medival, modern or prehistoric too ).


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

My harmony teacher used to use the french word "musique savante" which translates into something like intellectual music.

But I guess art music will do.


----------



## Dadof5 (Mar 25, 2011)

Well, I think even "art music" has it's problems given that much of jazz and some other forms of music can be considered "art" music as well. I think a good definition of what we usually label "classical" music would have to take several aspects into consideration in order to be complete and unique. This type of music is formal whereas jazz might be considered more informal. It is for the most part composed rather than improvised. It is always notated in some way. There is definitely intellectual and artistic aspects to it. And think tradition has a large part to play also (while leaving room for gradual evolution).

So how does "Formal intellectual composed notated art music in the Western tradition" sound as an iTunes genre? Maybe "Formal art music" as a succinct compromise?

With this definition, I think the OP's ensemble departs too much from tradition and so could not be considered "classical" music. But adding an electric guitar to a full orchestra just might be a gradual enough change so as to still be be considered "classical".


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

Before I started listening to more and more classical music I was very much into what was termed classical crossover - When I started listening to this kind of music, there weren't that many big classical crossover stars; Bocelli, Brightman, Groban....I was an obsessed fan of the latter for about 8 years and during that time new artists popped up all the time, and it seemed like there was no limit to what people would call classical - if there was a violin in the background and the singer had a vibrato, that was enough. I frequented a web site called classical x - I don't remember now if their slogan was "classical music with a popular twist" or the other way around, but the artists they presented ranged from RyanDan (pop twins whose father was an opera singer) to David Garrett and Katherine Jenkins. In the end I was baffled and wondered what exactly their criterion was.

On the other hand, I'm all for expanding boundaries within classical music or towards less commercial genres (I'm tired of the cynical classical pop combo, it's an old concept and no one seems to do it well). Like Lawrence Zazzo's Byrdland disc, where the lute has been replaced by saxophones. Or L'arpeggiata's classical/jazz/folk improvisations. About the electric guitar, I'm not sure that would sit right with me, but I don't know exactly where the objective distinction (if it exists) is between rock and classical.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

It's all art to me - from Justin Bieber to Igor Stravinsky and everything inbetween. While I duck to avoid the incoming mudpies I'd like to add that I don't mean to say that I think it's all good music, or good art. But as far as I'm concerned art is not a quality label to begin with. After all, both Wim Delvoye's turd machine and Michelangelo's sistine chapel paintings are art. I just don't think it's very helpful to use words like art, popular and entertainment as a means of seperating good from bad music. 

If I would be a composer the symphony I would come up with would probably be a strong contender for "the worst symphony in history award." Yet it would be considered art just on the basis of it being a symphony. Bad art, but nonetheless art. And while the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" is by far a much bigger achievement in it's field than my symphony would be it would still be dismissed by those so inclined as "just a pop song." A good pop song maybe, but nevertheless something that we shouldn't take too seriously because after all - "it's only pop."

I know the argument that what seperates art music from popular music lies in the intention for which it was created - art for art's sake and the popular just to make money. But lots of "serious" composers have produced music to put bread on the table. In a way most third rate garage bands today probably have more artistic freedom than the average composer did in the 17th or 18th centuries because he was obligated by his employer(s) to compose the music that he/they approved of. Yet none of this - the circumstances under which, or the reasons why the music was created tells us much about it's quality.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

One needs to remember that nearly all these labels - 'classical' (small 'c'), 'Classical (large 'C'), 'Baroque', 'Romantic', etc are all relatively modern inventions fabricated to help historians and musicologists. Bach didn't think of himself as 'Baroque' (he was 'modern' then) or his predecessors as 'Renaissance'. And Beethoven wasn't aware that he was the lynchpin between the 'Classical' and 'Romantic' periods.

The very term 'classical' was coined in, I think the late 19th century. It's a bad term made worse by having the generic 'classical' term and the specific 'Classical', meaning music written approximately 1740-1830. It should more properly be called 'Western Art Music'.

Pieck's original question hits upon a notion I encounter time and time again - that the instruments a piece of music is played on somehow defines its genre. No matter what instruments you play a classical piano trio on, it remains classical. It might sound appalling and be badly arranged, but its genre will not change. Similarly, playing a pop tune on the violin or flute does not make it classical. Nor does a piano solo mean that what's being played is 'classical', which so many ill-educated young people seem to think (where DID our music education go??).

Pieck asks where we draw the line. It's very simple - the STYLE of a piece music defines its genre rather than the instruments that perform it. For classical music its the derivation in the 'common practice' techniques laid down hundreds of years ago; complex working-out of clearly stated musical ideas in an extended way (OK< there are the exception which prove the rule!).


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

> 'Classical', meaning music written approximately 1740-1830.


It would be easiest to just call it Classicist music, since the term Classical is already in use for everything.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Rasa said:


> It would be easiest to just call it Classicist music, since the term Classical is already in use for everything.


Well, anything would be an improvement, considering the confusion.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Today I read in a Dutch Newspaper an article on Pop music being as dead as a doornail. So quite soon the only music left will be 'Classical'.... For me 'classical' means something that has proven to last, something that is able to renew itself, in short: the opposite of anything boring. Yes, this is subjective. I like my spaghetti to taste classically, so that I can enjoy perpetually the prospect of tasting it again.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

TxllxT said:


> Today I read in a Dutch Newspaper an article on Pop music being as dead as a doornail. So quite soon the only music left will be 'Classical'.


Damn, and I thought I was idealistic. The writer of this article must've been on drugs or something.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

TxllxT said:


> Today I read in a Dutch Newspaper an article on Pop music being as dead as a doornail. So quite soon the only music left will be 'Classical'.... Very me 'classical' means something that has proven to last, something that is able to renew itself, in short: the opposite of anything boring. Yes, this is subjective. I like my spaghetti to taste classically, so that I can enjoy perpetually the prospect of tasting it again.


I think this is an example of the confusion between two very similar words *classic* and *classical*. Those extra two letters make a world of difference. The trouble is, the distinction is not necessarily made equally (or at all) in all languages.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Delicious Manager said:


> I think this is an example of the confusion between two very similar words *classic* and *classical*. Those extra two letters make a world of difference. The trouble is, the distinction is not necessarily made equally (or at all) in all languages.


Even more confusing is the word 'modern'. Being 'modern' came into fashion around 1800 and was used to distinguish oneself from what the moderns called 'ancient'. _Tempus fugit_. Beethoven definitely wanted to be modern


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

'Modern' and 'Contemporary' simply mean of our own time. The words wold have meant the same to Monteverdi, Handel and Mozart. They are on a constantly sliding scale and, in that respect, pretty meaningless and pointless.

I have in recent times heard some people try to differentiate between 'modern' music and 'contemporary' music. Good luck with that!


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I think that what makes music classical is adherence to tradition. Meaning, that if a piece strays too much into other musical styles territory it could as well be written off as being non-classical. Hope that helps.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> 'Modern' and 'Contemporary' simply mean of our own time. The words wold have meant the same to Monteverdi, Handel and Mozart. They are on a constantly sliding scale and, in that respect, pretty meaningless and pointless.
> 
> I have in recent times heard some people try to differentiate between 'modern' music and 'contemporary' music. Good luck with that!


With all due respect, are you disputing that the Modern Classical Music Era ever existed or are you arguing that it's still firmly in place?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Delicious Manager said:


> 'Modern' and 'Contemporary' simply mean of our own time. The words wold have meant the same to Monteverdi, Handel and Mozart. They are on a constantly sliding scale and, in that respect, pretty meaningless and pointless.
> 
> I have in recent times heard some people try to differentiate between 'modern' music and 'contemporary' music. Good luck with that!


The word 'Modern' with a capital 'M' can mean the Modernist period of the early-mid 20thC. But, yeah, in lower case the two words are synonymous to me.

Also, I think this discussion has cropped up once or twice or fifty eight times before


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Serge said:


> With all due respect, are you disputing that the Modern Classical Music Era ever existed or are you arguing that it's still firmly in place?


Depends what you mean by 'Modern Classical Music Era' :tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Pieck's original question hits upon a notion I encounter time and time again - that the instruments a piece of music is played on somehow defines its genre. No matter what instruments you play a classical piano trio on, it remains classical. It might sound appalling and be badly arranged, but its genre will not change. Similarly, playing a pop tune on the violin or flute does not make it classical. Nor does a piano solo mean that what's being played is 'classical', which so many ill-educated young people seem to think (where DID our music education go??).

Pieck asks where we draw the line. It's very simple -* the STYLE of a piece music defines its genre* rather than the instruments that perform it.

The problem is that when it comes to the over-arching term "classical music" there is no single "style". The style of a Byzantine chant is not the same as that of a chanson by a medieval French troubadour which is not the same as the style of a Renaissance madrigal, a Baroque cantata, a Romantic symphony, and Impressionist melodie, or the efforts of Ligeti or Osvaldo Golijov.

The term "classical music" has been employed qualitatively. What the term is intended to denote is the whole of Western "art music"... music as fine art. What it actually defines is that music which has survived and continues to prove itself resonant... to however limited an audience. Of course the vast majority of what has survived... up until the 20th century and the advent of electronic and digital recording technologies... is the music embraced by the upper classes. Only those composers writing for such an audience were educated enough to be able to read and write music assuring its survival. Yet among that which has survived... medieval Arab-Andalusian music, songs of the troubadours, French melodies, there is much that surely is not far removed from what we define as "folk music"... which is essentially antiquated popular music.

With the advent of modern sound recording musicians/composers lacking the education needed to read, write, and score music are still able to preserve their efforts. The line between "high" and "low" art has become blurred... or eradicated altogether just as it has in the visual arts. The suggestion that the whole of Western "art music"/music as "fine art"/music of the wealthy represents a single style becomes increasingly recognized as little more than an attempt at qualifying the music of the wealthy white European and American as inherently superior to all other music... which is dismissed as falling into lesser "styles": jazz, blues, pop, folk, etc... We are to accept that Gershwin and Bernstein are "Classical composers"... but Ellington and Thelonius Monk are mere jazz. We are expected to accept that the driving rhythmic music of Arab Andalusia is in no way akin to rock or folk music or that the Madrigals of Renaissance Italy or chansons of the French troubadours have no link with the modern or contemporary ballads.

The reality is that a percentage of the finest music from every style and genre will survive and continue to speak to an audience and this is what will eventually become recognized as "classical" or "classic". In the field of literature there is no notion that genre such as fairy tales (The Arabian Nights) childrens literature (Alice in Wonderland) Science fiction (H.G. Wells) mysteries (Poe) horror (Dracula) romance (Romeo and Juliet) cannot be seen as "classic literature". By the same token, it is recognized that the finest that is among the popular arts... comic books, certain films, photography, poster designs, prints, illustrations... as well as paintings may eventually be recognized as being among the finest artistic efforts of the age... as "classic art".


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

> The problem is that when it comes to the over-arching term "classical music" there is no single "style". The style of a Byzantine chant is not the same as that of a chanson by a medieval French troubadour which is not the same as the style of a Renaissance madrigal, a Baroque cantata, a Romantic symphony, and Impressionist melodie, or the efforts of Ligeti or Osvaldo Golijov.


Well, I never claimed there was just one 'style'. My statement perhaps should have been clearer: _style(s) within the accepted varied parameters of Western Art Music_ might have been better.



> The term "classical music" has been employed qualitatively. What the term is intended to denote is the whole of Western "art music"... music as fine art. What it actually defines is that music which has survived and continues to prove itself resonant... to however limited an audience. Of course the vast majority of what has survived... up until the 20th century and the advent of electronic and digital recording technologies... is the music embraced by the upper classes. Only those composers writing for such an audience were educated enough to be able to read and write music assuring its survival. Yet among that which has survived... medieval Arab-Andalusian music, songs of the troubadours, French melodies, there is much that surely is not far removed from what we define as "folk music"... which is essentially antiquated popular music.


This is what I was getting at when I pointed out that all of these terms were invented relatively recently out of convenience and only mean as much as we allow them to mean. However, I'm not sure I agree that folk music is 'antiquated popular music' as there have been other 'popular' musical genres co-existing with folk music (eg 16/17th century tavern songs).



> We are to accept that Gershwin and Bernstein are "Classical composers"... but Ellington and Thelonius Monk are mere jazz. We are expected to accept that the driving rhythmic music of Arab Andalusia is in no way akin to rock or folk music or that the Madrigals of Renaissance Italy or chansons of the French troubadours have no link with the modern or contemporary ballads.


There's nothing 'mere' about jazz. But Gershwin and Bernstein largely composed entirely written-down music in the classical manner, albeit with strong jazz leanings. Ellington and Monk relied more on the spontaneity of improvisation (as sophisticated as some of their extended compositions are). That's one of the what separates classical and jazz (at least today).


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

If we follow Harold Bloom's arguments regarding canonical literature, then we can argue that a work is considered part of "classical music" if it stands the test of time. The amount of time involved is debatable, and there are other factors to be considered, such as the manner by which the work is seen by professors of music (i.e., if they strongly recommend it to students, if it is part of a curriculum, etc.).

In any event, since it may take a lot of time, I'd rather look at what is already recommended. I might as well since I don't have a lot of time to listen to most of them, and I have many other works of art to consider, from literature to visual art to film.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

There is no clear dividing line, since classical music runs the gamut from 2-minute trifles (Mozart minuets or Grieg Lyric Pieces) to epic masterpieces running several hours long (a Verdi or Wagner opera). 

I tend to think of classical miniatures as much closer to pop music, since they tend to only express a single idea or emotion, with little or no development of musical ideas. There is also usually not a great deal of harmonic or rhythmic complexity. But again, the division is unclear, since a lot of rock/alternative music can be musically interesting and quite extended in length.

I find it's best not to worry about such things. Forget trying to assign predetermined labels to it and just listen to it for what it is.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I have a much simpler criteria for determining if a piece is classical or not as far as western music is concerned, and it seems to work very well. That is, if the composer wrote down the piece of music using a quill or a dip pen (nib pen), then it is almost certainly classical.


----------



## befstrat (Apr 21, 2011)

I agreee with HarpsichordConcerto. The main distinction between "classical" and "non-classical" music is that the former is always written. "classical" pieces have a well defined score with well defined orchestration and every performace of a "classical" piece should follow the score with no deviations. In contrast, "non-classical" music is much more free, improvisation and variation playing a major role in each performance. And that is the distinction between composer - songwritter and orchestrator - arranger.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

To me, "art music" is too broad a term, and encompasses classical music rather than defines it. I think "classical" (with a small 'c') can be defined as any music from Medieval to Modern that shares a similar tradition of form and theory, which "art music" can also include music that isn't structured the same way (or indeed at all). "Classical," "Romantic," etc. refers to the predominant styles (inc. orchestration) of a given time period.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

befstrat said:


> I agreee with HarpsichordConcerto. The main distinction between "classical" and "non-classical" music is that the former is always written. "classical" pieces have a well defined score with well defined orchestration and every performace of a "classical" piece should follow the score with no deviations. In contrast, "non-classical" music is much more free, improvisation and variation playing a major role in each performance. And that is the distinction between composer - songwritter and orchestrator - arranger.


There are several problems with this definition, though. Improvisation has been a major part of western music for a long time. Mozart improvised most of the cadenzas for his piano concerti. I think he only wrote one down, and that was for a student. In baroque opera until the end of the bel canto period, improvisation and ornamentation of the vocal lines was expected.


----------

