# Is this classical music?



## KenOC

I was loading a bunch of albums onto my wife’s phone tonight. After, we listened to the White Album and some Pink Floyd. Note that this music has been floating around for half a century and is still extremely popular.

Question: Is this “classical music”? If not, why not? We’re happy enough, for reasons that escape me, to label Babbitt’s efforts classical music – then why not this?


----------



## Woodduck

Are you suggesting that any music, of any genre (rock or jazz, for example), that's still enjoyed after half a century might be called "classical"? And, by implication, that any music that's now unfamiliar or unperformed (say, the music of J.E.H.Hartmann) would _not_ be considered classical?

Of the various criteria people use to decide what classical music is, longevity must be one of the least relevant.


----------



## KenOC

No, I asked what I asked. No need to generalize beyond that! Did you ever notice that "Money" from Pink Floyd is in septuple time?​


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> No, I asked what I asked. No need to generalize beyond that! Did you ever notice that "Money" from Pink Floyd is in septuple time?​


Well, you did point out that Pink Floyd is still popular after half a century. You must think that's relevant somehow.

No, I hadn't noticed the septuple time. Is that irrelevant too? 

I'm feeling particularly persnickety this evening. Try saying "particularly persnickety" ten times allegro molto.


----------



## KenOC

Persnickety or not, the question remains: Why not this? What are the criteria that bar this music from our incredible shrinking universe?

Note that the average age of the most popular (yes, popular) classical music is just over 200 years. Nobody much in the real world cares at all about what we call "classical music" being written today. Is it possibly -- just _possibly _-- time for some renewal, time to expand our horizons a bit?​


----------



## Woodduck

Well, Pink Floyd is pretty clearly rooted in the genre known as "rock," and rock isn't considered classical (even if it's imaginative and complex, and even if it's "classic rock"). What purpose would be served in ignoring the usual distinction? In the end, "classical" is just a term of convenience to help us narrow down what sort of music we're talking about. It can cover a lot of territory, but rock has never been part of it. If I tell people I'm a classical musician, I really don't want them asking, "You mean like Steely Dan?"


----------



## mbhaub

No, it's not. The term "classical" is unfortunate, but it's what the world uses. Use the Pink Floyd song "Money". Would you accept, buy, or avidly listen to ANY other artist performing it? What if Justin Bieber did it? Or Andre Rieu? Would you buy a recording if Dudamel and LA made it? No, of course you wouldn't. In the first place, anyone else who foolishly recorded it would use their own version (arrangement). That's one thing that stamps classical as classical: everyone plays the same music. Every orchestra that has ever played the Beethoven 3rd played it the way it was written and published, bar a few minor discrepancies and errors here and there. 

Now, there is "Classic Rock". I listen to a lot of "Classic Country". But it's not "classical". I wish a better term had been adopted a long time ago.


----------



## KenOC

mbhaub said:


> No, it's not. The term "classical" is unfortunate, but it's what the world uses. Use the Pink Floyd song "Money". Would you accept, buy, or avidly listen to ANY other artist performing it? What if Justin Bieber did it? Or Andre Rieu? Would you buy a recording if Dudamel and LA made it? No, of course you wouldn't. In the first place, anyone else who foolishly recorded it would use their own version (arrangement). That's one thing that stamps classical as classical: everyone plays the same music. Every orchestra that has ever played the Beethoven 3rd played it the way it was written and published, bar a few minor discrepancies and errors here and there.
> 
> Now, there is "Classic Rock". I listen to a lot of "Classic Country". But it's not "classical". I wish a better term had been adopted a long time ago.


Then are electronic pieces by Subotnick and others "classical music"? They were created on the fly without scores, and transcribed, however inadequately, later. They have never been (and never will be, most likely) performed by other artists. And yet, we speak of them as "classical"? Whazzup?​


----------



## Lisztian

Classical music is music from/that is most heavily influenced by the tradition of Western Art Music. This includes Babbitt; this does not include the Beatles or Pink Floyd as the aforementioned tradition was not close to being their primary influence. Simple.


----------



## KenOC

Lisztian said:


> Classical music is music from/that is most heavily influenced by the tradition of Western Art Music. This includes Babbitt; this does not include the Beatles or Pink Floyd as the aforementioned tradition was not close to being their primary influence. Simple.


I find a lot of classical rock far more directly influenced by historical Western art music than is the case with say, Babbitt, Schoenberg, and so forth. This is so obvious (to me anyway) that I really don't understand how it can be argued otherwise.


----------



## Lisztian

KenOC said:


> I find a lot of classical rock far more directly influenced by historical Western art music than is the case with say, Babbitt, Schoenberg, and so forth. This is so obvious (to me anyway) that I really don't understand how it can be argued otherwise.


Even Schoenberg? You think the Beatles were more directly/heavily influenced by Western Art Music than Schoenberg?


----------



## KenOC

Lisztian said:


> Even Schoenberg? You think the Beatles were more directly/heavily influenced by Western Art Music than Schoenberg?


I suspect that if you asked 100 classical music listeners that question, 90 would say "yes." They would be judging, of course, mainly by the results -- as they should.


----------



## Lisztian

KenOC said:


> I suspect that if you asked 100 classical music listeners that question, 90 would say "yes." They would be judging, of course, mainly by the results.


Yes but this question, when it comes down to it, is not a matter of opinion. If what you say is true (which I seriously doubt) then 90% of classical music listeners would be wrong.

I mean, the tradition we are discussing was close to 100% where Schoenberg came from. On the other hand it was only one of many of the Beatles' influences and definitely not the most pervasive.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> I suspect that if you asked 100 classical music listeners that question, 90 would say "yes." They would be judging, of course, mainly by the results -- as they should.


I suspect that most classical music listeners would identify Schoenberg as classical and the Beatles as rock 'n' roll or pop, and would do so because they have some sense of what the terms generally refer to.


----------



## Larkenfield

If you offered to play someone 'classical' music and played the Beatles, the odds that the other person was expecting to hear John, Paul, George and Ringo would probably be about a million to one-so there's your answer. But that there are 'classics' (small c) of pop or rock 'n' roll, then yes, as in the category of 'classic rock 'n' roll'. But I've rarely if ever heard it called _ classical_ rock 'n' roll, as in the use of the term 'classical music' where others might be expecting to hear Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or their musical descendants. It's called_ classic _rock 'n' roll. The words 'classical' and 'rock 'n' roll' don't even go together in the musical universe in general use, unless someone is perhaps trying to be controversial for its own sake.


----------



## Haydn70

KenOC said:


> I was loading a bunch of albums onto my wife's phone tonight. After, we listened to the White Album and some Pink Floyd. Note that this music has been floating around for half a century and is still extremely popular.
> 
> Question: Is this "classical music"?


No. And such an absurd question.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> If you offered to play someone 'classical' music and played the Beatles, the odds that the other person was expecting to hear John, Paul, George and Ringo would probably be about a million to one. But that there are 'classics' (small c) of pop or rock 'n' roll, then yes, as in the category of 'classic rock 'n' roll'. But I've rarely if ever heard it called _ classical_ rock 'n' roll as in the use of the term 'classical music' where others might be expecting to hear Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or their musical descendants. It's called_ classic _rock 'n' roll. The words 'classical' and 'rock 'n' roll' don't even go together in the musical universe in general use, unless someone may be trying to be controversial for its own sake.


You seem to be saying that it's not "classical music" because nobody calls it that. I can't disagree, but was looking for a more substantive reason we exclude it from our own definition.


----------



## KenOC

ArsMusica said:


> No. And such an absurd question.


Why absurd? Please explain. I hear melodies, progressions, rhythms, and so forth plainly associated with traditional classical music - much more so than I find in many "modern" composers that we call "classical". Above all, I hear a desire to engage with the interests of listeners in a way that I associate with the classical music tradition.


----------



## senza sordino

Ken, some years ago in my early days here you posted a similar question asking if Dark Side of the Moon was classical. While we struggle to define classical, we seem to know what isn't classical music. And Pink Floyd isn't. Just because something is old, certainly doesn't make it classical music. There's been folk music for centuries and jazz for one century and rock and roll for more than half a century, none of which is classical. 

For me, one definition of classical that seems satisfactory is that in rock and roll, the performer is primary, the performer is writer and the performer owns the music, and who wrote the song is less important than who performs it. In classical music, the composer is primary and owner, and no one performer owns a piece of music. 

And tradition plays an important role here. Rock and roll did not come from the tradition of western art music. While some rock and roll has borrowed some instruments and some structure it's tradition is from an entirely different place. 

I like the Beatles and Pink Floyd, but I just can't classify it as classical. Maybe if we're still listening to it 1000 years from now, and then Beethoven and the Beatles are both in the distant past, in a grouping called ancient music.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Why absurd? Please explain. I hear *melodies, progressions, rhythms, and so forth plainly associated with traditional classical music - much more so than I find in many "modern" composers that we call "classical".* Above all, I hear a desire to engage with the interests of listeners in a way that I associate with the classical music tradition.


"Classical" refers to more than particular kinds of sounds, but even so the kinds of sounds to be heard in the centuries-long classical tradition are so diverse that your wannabe classics resemble only parts of it, and only in particular aspects. Medieval organum and atonal serialism are certainly both "traditional classical music."


----------



## KenOC

senza sordino said:


> ...In classical music, the composer is primary and owner, and no one performer owns a piece of music.


An interesting counter-example: the wealthy Paul Wittgenstein commissioned just about every left-handed piano concerto there is, and he often denied performing rights (which he owned) to all other pianists during his lifetime - whether he played those concertos or not. He "owned" the concertos, not the composers. The work he commissioned from Hindemith, for example, was not discovered until well after both men's deaths.

"You don't build a house just so that someone else can live in it. I commissioned and paid for the works, the whole idea was mine... But those works to which I still have the exclusive performance rights are to remain mine as long as I still perform in public; that's only right and fair."


----------



## Haydn70

There have been some good points made above in refuting the idea that the music of the Beatles and Pink Floyd is classical. What I believe no one has mentioned what is one of the main differences between classical and rock/popular: FORM.

Western popular music utilizes virtually one musical form: the song. Verses, choruses (or refrains), the occasional middle eight. I am fully aware that certain sub-genres of rock, primarily progressive rock, broke away from the typically song forms with extended instrumental (and vocal) pieces. And I wouldn't doubt there are current rock groups doing something similar. But by and large, for decades, CENTURIES, the song form has been THE musical form of popular music. Two-and-half, three, three-and-a-half, etc. minutes of x number of verses, y number of appearances of the refrain, maybe a middle eight, usually some kind of instrumental solo in the middle, etc. etc., etc….

Compare that to the formal richness and variety and sophistication of the forms used in Western art music: sonata, rondo, theme and variations, fugue (yeah, I know, not a form but a procedure), opera, oratorio, cantata, concerto, etc., etc., etc…oh yes, and the art song.

And then there is Western art music’s harmonic richness and variety and sophistication, the use of various contrapuntal techniques, the use of various instrumental groupings, including the symphony orchestra (the supreme instrumental ensemble of all time), etc., etc., etc…

I could go on and on with the differences but it is late, I have to get to bed and explanations regarding this issue really are not necessary...but I couldn't resist chiming in.

So Ken, do you really want to propose that a song form the White Album such as “Birthday”, with its mind-numbing simplicity and crudity, can be considered classical music?


----------



## KenOC

ArsMusica said:


> So Ken, do you really want to propose that a song form the White Album such as "Birthday", with its mind-numbing simplicity and crudity, can be considered classical music?


Pejoratives aside, can you deny that Schubert's songs (many of the same formal simplicity) are classical music?


----------



## Haydn70

KenOC said:


> Pejoratives aside, can you deny that Schubert's songs (many of the same formal simplicity) are classical music?


Some of Schubert's songs are formally simple...but melodically, harmonically that is not the case. And there are no examples of crudity and silliness in Schubert's songs.

Art music can at times be deceptively simple...but there is depth and substance supporting that simplicity which isn't the case with rock/popular music.

As I have stated elsewhere, popular music is the fast food of music.


----------



## Malx

Hereby lies the inherent danger of applying labels to music. 
Yes labels can be useful for identifying a general style of music but more often they can stop people trying something they don't know.
Is it important what something is designated as? Listen with your ears and like what you like - simple.


----------



## janxharris

Lisztian said:


> Classical music is music from/that is most heavily influenced by the tradition of Western Art Music. This includes Babbitt; this does not include the Beatles or Pink Floyd as the aforementioned tradition was not close to being their primary influence. Simple.


Seriously? What of the 'God only knows' by the Beach Boys - it's rooted in classical harmony.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I was loading a bunch of albums onto my wife's phone tonight. After, we listened to the White Album and some Pink Floyd. Note that this music has been floating around for half a century and is still extremely popular.
> 
> Question: Is this "classical music"? If not, why not? We're happy enough, for reasons that escape me, to label Babbitt's efforts classical music - then why not this?












...............


----------



## janxharris

ArsMusica said:


> Art music can at times be deceptively simple...but there is depth and substance supporting that simplicity which isn't the case with rock/popular music.
> 
> As I have stated elsewhere, popular music is the fast food of music.


Mere opinion. There are plenty of examples of lack of depth in Classical music.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I suspect that if you asked 100 classical music listeners that question, 90 would say "yes." They would be judging, of course, mainly by the results -- as they should.


I think this is a case for musicologists, not just the listeners and the fans. And you need not worry, because there is (and has been for a while) already a consensus that Schoenberg belongs to the western classical tradition and the Beatles came from skiffle, rock, motown etc., a very different background of influences and traditions. No doubt, the Beatles and Pink Floyd drew on western classical music, particularly electroacoustic music, and these influences in turn became an important part of popular music production later on.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> I think this is a case for musicologists, not just the listeners and the fans. And you need not worry, because there is (and has been for a while) already a consensus that Schoenberg belongs to the western classical tradition and the Beatles came from skiffle, rock, motown etc., a very different background of influences and traditions. No doubt, the Beatles and Pink Floyd drew on western classical music, particularly electroacoustic music, and these influences in turn became an important part of popular music production later on.


Curious - you seem to be contradicting yourself. Perhaps I have misunderstood.


----------



## janxharris

Perhaps Mike Oldfield's 'Tubular Bells' is a an example of classical music.


----------



## AlexD

I don't see why not. Why can't a concept album, which is structured to deliver a story be regarded as classical music? Is Strauss's Alpine Symphony much different from Pink Floyd's The Wall? 

It's the same musical ideas, with different technology (but at times similar instruments). No-one argues that Bach's music for harpsicord is more classical than music featuring the later invention such as the piano.

I'm sure there are modern pieces of music that could be enjoyed as pieces of classical music, Some heavy metal music is hugely operatic in style too. 

I think your question is a good one -there are many similarities and cross overs from classical music to modern music. Modern artists have cited Bach, and other classical composers, as an influence. 

Certainly we could say, If you enjoy this concept album, then try this piece of classical music, and vice versa. The structure of recurring themes and using instruments and effects to create mood and character are the same, albeit with different techniques.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Curious - you seem to be contradicting yourself. Perhaps I have misunderstood.


Nothing is black and white. The Beatles of course drew on _some _aspects of classical music to inform their pop songs, but to say that this makes it classical music would be a gross misunderstanding of the evolution of their style, history and influences in the British pop/rock/skiffle scene (and the other influences across the pond) when they were active.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> Nothing is black and white. The Beatles of course drew on _some _aspects of classical music to inform their pop songs, but to say that this makes it classical music would be a gross misunderstanding of the evolution of their style, history and influences in the British pop/rock/skiffle scene (and the other influences across the pond) when they were active.


Paul McCartney's song 'Yesterday' is rooted in Classical harmony is it not? Schoenberg's music may contain motivic development but it is deliberately without traditional harmony and melody; there is clear blue water between serial and tonal music here.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Paul McCartney's song 'Yesterday' is rooted in Classical harmony is it not? Schoenberg's music may contain motivic development but it is deliberately without traditional harmony and melody; there is clear blue water between serial and tonal music here.


I would have thought _Revolution 9_ is a better example of the more classically-inspired Beatles composition.

What type of classical harmony are you talking about? I have never heard of such thing as 'classical harmony.'

I have heard of Common Practice Era to refer to the harmonic progressions that were common from about Monteverdi to Mahler. I have heard of derived rows, pitch collections, church modes, chord multiplication, modes of limited transposition, non octaving scales and microtonal scales of more than 12 pitches as ways of creating an harmonic language within the classical tradition.

You will have to teach me what 'classical harmony' is and what defines it as something separate from the things I listed above and what makes it different from chords progressions in pop, rock music, jazz and traditions that formed out of different roots to classical.


----------



## Jacck

It is clear, that you cannot decide if a given composition is classical or not, intrinsically from the composition itself. So what is important is the context. Schoenberg was trained in classical music and composed within its traditions, hence he is classial. Beatles do not belong to that tradition and are not classical.


----------



## AlexD

So, Wagner is not classical because he was not trained, but self-taught?


----------



## Jacck

AlexD said:


> So, Wagner is not classical because he was not trained, but self-taught?


there is a consensus that Wagner is classical, but if you want to swim against the stream and want to believe that Wagner is not classical, you may


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> I would have thought _Revolution 9_ is a better example of the more classically-inspired Beatles composition.
> 
> What type of classical harmony are you talking about? I have never heard of such thing as 'classical harmony.'
> 
> I have heard of Common Practice Era to refer to the harmonic progressions that were common from about Monteverdi to Mahler. I have heard of derived rows, pitch collections, church modes, chord multiplication, modes of limited transposition, non octaving scales and microtonal scales of more than 12 pitches as ways of creating an harmonic language within the classical tradition.
> 
> You will have to teach me what 'classical harmony' is and what defines it as something separate from the things I listed above and what makes it different from chords progressions in pop, rock music, jazz and traditions that formed out of different roots to classical.


Okay - common practice era harmony if you wish. You don't consider 'Yesterday' or 'God Only Knows' as rooted in such harmony?


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> Western popular music utilizes virtually one musical form: the song.


One generalisation after another. Where would Schubert's lieder fit then? Are they not songs?

There is plenty of "western popular music" (whatever that may be) that is not in song form. Ken's question is not absurd, though he might be a bit more precise and point to works by Pink Floyd and The Beatles that would not fit your generalisation. It seems obvious that _Money _and _She Loves You _belong to one tradition more than another, but _Atom Heart Mother _and _Strawberry Fields
_less obviously. I think it would be easier to make the case for some of the work of Pink Floyd belonging to 20th C experimental classical than for the work of The Beatles, but there are plenty of artists whose work appears in the non-classical section of the music store that nevertheless has much in common with work that appears in the classical section (assuming a decent store that carries more than Bieber and Beethoven of course!)


----------



## Strange Magic

The increasing phenomenon of Tribute Bands/Groups covering Pink Floyd, ABBA, the Buckingham-Nicks Fleetwood Mac, etc. is showing a way for rock & pop ("classic") to evolve into a genre increasingly independent of the primacy of the original performer. The varying concert and/or invariant original studio versions of rock and pop classics will subtly be remolded into an established concert version--perhaps written, perhaps not--of any given work. Besides, the only two real examples of "classical music" are Strauss waltzes and the marches of John Philip Sousa .


----------



## Crudblud

Classical music is like pornography, I know it when I see it.

Also, I'm curious: Are there any examples of pop song structure in classical music? Excepting Pink Floyd and the Beatles for a moment, if you'll entertain such a radical notion, I can't think of any Lieder or mélodies that exhibit a verse-chorus type structure, which seems rather to have come from folk musics.


----------



## LezLee

*ArsMusica* says...:Compare that to the formal richness and variety and sophistication of the forms used in Western art music: sonata, rondo, theme and variations, fugue.....

And then there is Western art music's harmonic richness and variety and sophistication, the use of various contrapuntal techniques, the use of various instrumental groupings .....

_______________________________________________

Doesn't quite a lot of this also apply to jazz and electronica?


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Okay - common practice era harmony if you wish. You don't consider 'Yesterday' or 'God Only Knows' as rooted in such harmony?


I do consider it within that harmonic language. There are probably other factors at play historically that make The Beatles non-classical rather than classical. Harmonic language isn't the only thing. Btw, I'm not an expert at all on this kind of thing, just a 20 something year old with a laptop and a love for listening to music, so I can't explain everything. I _am_ curious to learn a little bit more about the history of various styles and their influences, however.


----------



## Blancrocher

If someone wanted to post Takemitsu's arrangement of "Yesterday" for guitar in the Classical section of the forum, I suppose we could allow it.


----------



## Gallus

'Classical' is just a label for the music performed in concert halls and composed by people trained in conservatories, and what is self-consciously made in those traditions. Pretty simple as I see it.

Besides, I rather doubt that The Beatles and their fans would even _want_ their works to be considered classical music. As far as I can tell they're quite happy listening to it as rock, so I'm not sure what the point of the thread even is.


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> Pejoratives aside, can you deny that Schubert's songs (many of the same formal simplicity) are classical music?





janxharris said:


> Mere opinion. There are plenty of examples of lack of depth in Classical music.


The mistake being made here is ignoring that people who generally wrote music of the Western art-music tradition also wrote 'bagatelles', and music derived from folk-dance music.

Such music coming from Mozart's pen is thus not bait in a trap to be sprung asking whether this is "classical music" or not classical music.

It's now common knowledge that McCartney, aided by George Martin, brought his interest in classical music to the Beatles. N.B. 'brought this interest to his rock music world', not 'started writing music in the tradition of western art music'.
Perhaps, by combining the two he helped initiate the 'art rock' idea of a more intellectual or art-oriented pop-rock. This is maybe yet another sub-genre.

This business of progressive rock and 'metal bands' being grouped as some sort of classical music gets on my nerves. They borrow stuff from their influences (maybe some went to music college), but they tend to be rather derivative of the - 'hey, we sound a bit like Bach!' variety. It's dabbling.

Plus, I think Pink Floyd are boring and dreary, so I am biased.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> I do consider it within that harmonic language. There are probably other factors at play historically that make The Beatles non-classical rather than classical. Harmonic language isn't the only thing. Btw, I'm not an expert at all on this kind of thing, just a 20 something year old with a laptop and a love for listening to music, so I can't explain everything. I _am_ curious to learn a little bit more about the history of various styles and their influences, however.


If you allow that it is within the harmonic language then I am unclear why you consider it non-classical. The Beatles' arrangements might make it sound non-classical - but that is merely an arrangement.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> If you allow that it is within the harmonic language then I am unclear why you consider it non-classical. The Beatles' arrangements might make it sound non-classical - but that is merely an arrangement.


I am unclear why anyone would consider the Beatles _classical._ When I understand that argument I might be able to put together a rebuttal....


----------



## Gallus

shirime said:


> I am unclear why anyone would consider the Beatles _classical._ When I understand that argument I might be able to put together a rebuttal....


Common practice harmony doesn't have anything to do with whether a piece of music is classical or not, unless one wants to get rid of all music pre-1600ish from the repertoire...


----------



## Guest

Gallus said:


> Common practice harmony doesn't have anything to do with whether a piece of music is classical or not, unless one wants to get rid of all music pre-1600ish from the repertoire...


Exactly! It seems as if there is an idea going around in some people's minds that because Yesterday and some classical pieces have similar chord progressions, it makes them the same kind of music..............I really don't see how that is even logical. Glad to see you get my point!


----------



## janxharris

eugeneonagain said:


> The mistake being made here is ignoring that people who generally wrote music of the Western art-music tradition also wrote 'bagatelles', and music derived from folk-dance music.
> 
> Such music coming from Mozart's pen is thus not bait in a trap to be sprung asking whether this is "classical music" or not classical music.
> 
> It's now common knowledge that McCartney, aided by George Martin, brought his interest in classical music to the Beatles. N.B. 'brought this interest to his rock music world', not 'started writing music in the tradition of western art music'.
> Perhaps, by combining the two he helped initiate the 'art rock' idea of a more intellectual or art-oriented pop-rock. This is maybe yet another sub-genre.
> 
> This business of progressive rock and 'metal bands' being grouped as some sort of classical music gets on my nerves. They borrow stuff from their influences (maybe some went to music college), but they tend to be rather derivative of the - 'hey, we sound a bit like Bach!' variety. It's dabbling.
> 
> Plus, I think Pink Floyd are boring and dreary, so I am biased.


You don't accept that much Classical music is derivative? There's plenty of examples of progressive rock that's original and ditto in the Classical world.


----------



## Jacck

is this classical music?
The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra plays Queen


----------



## eugeneonagain

janxharris said:


> If you allow that it is within the harmonic language then I am unclear why you consider it non-classical. The Beatles' arrangements might make it sound non-classical - but that is merely an arrangement.


That argument would then abolish ALL distinctions using such basic harmonic methods. So then we are at odds to identify Mozart from Frère Jacques or Katy Perry.

The differences are in harmonic variety, style, complexity, form, etc.

If the Beatles or Pink Floyd or whomever else writes a piece and offers it up as music in the tradition of art music, I'd be inclined to say they had written a piece of classical music, but not that they are generally 'classical musicians or composers'.

After all McCartney really did write a set of piano pieces called 'A Leaf', which were intended as classical music and written to that particular form and style. Very different to, say, his album _Chaos and Creation in the Backyard_.

Separations may be fine at times, but this pretence that it all eventually collapses into one musical singularity is a very disingenuous approach.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> I am unclear why anyone would consider the Beatles _classical._ When I understand that argument I might be able to put together a rebuttal....


Paul McCartney & The London Symphony Orchestra- My Love

It's not the Beatles but Paul McCartney and it's regularly played on Classic FM in the UK; it would seem that it's generally accepted.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> is this classical music?
> The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra plays Queen


It sounds as good as some classical I'd say.


----------



## janxharris

eugeneonagain said:


> That argument would then abolish ALL distinctions using such basic harmonic methods. So then we are at odds to identify Mozart from Frère Jacques or Katy Perry.
> 
> The differences are in harmonic variety, style, complexity, form, etc.
> 
> If the Beatles or Pink Floyd or whomever else writes a piece and offers it up as music in the tradition of art music, I'd be inclined to say they had written a piece of classical music, but not that they are generally 'classical musicians or composers'.
> 
> After all McCartney really did write a set of piano pieces called 'A Leaf', which were intended as classical music and written to that particular form and style. Very different to, say, his album _Chaos and Creation in the Backyard_.
> 
> Separations may be fine at times, but this pretence that that it all eventuallycollapses into one musical singularity is a very disingenuous approach.


Why not cite Genesis's "Supper's Ready" against Grieg's "In the Hall of the Mountain King" or the second movement of Mozart's "Piano concerto no 21"?


----------



## eugeneonagain

janxharris said:


> Why not cite Genesis's "Supper's Ready" against Grieg's "In the Hall of the Mountain King" or the second movement of Mozart's "Piano concerto no 21"?


What difference does it make?

edit - I am wary of a 'Ken Trap' in this thread. Once it appears established that something might not be 'classical music' this is will be resurrected in another thread where experimental music is being castigated as 'non-classical'.


----------



## janxharris

eugeneonagain said:


> What difference does it make?


Because not all pop is about Katy Perry and the like.


----------



## eljr

KenOC said:


> I was loading a bunch of albums onto my wife's phone tonight. After, we listened to the White Album and some Pink Floyd. Note that this music has been floating around for half a century and is still extremely popular.
> 
> Question: Is this "classical music"? If not, why not? We're happy enough, for reasons that escape me, to label Babbitt's efforts classical music - then why not this?


Is Frank Sinatra Rock Music?

Is John Coltrane Indie Music?

Is Lynyrd Skynyrd Broadway Show Music?

So then why would Pink Floyd be Classical Music?

These Genres are simply classifications based on similarity of sound, era and culture.

Classic music is not Classical music the genre. We do have Classic Rock which is where Pink falls.

Kinda of a silly question, don't you think?


----------



## LezLee

Classic FM plays loads of film soundtracks and video games music. Does this mean they are accepted as classical?


----------



## eugeneonagain

janxharris said:


> Because not all pop is about Katy Perry and the like.


Well that's self-evident, but it still doesn't mean the examples will be more of a challenge. I think the reason Genesis are called progressive rock and didn't object to the term is because they weren't specifically trying to write classical music. I don't recall any of their albums being released to the classical music market.

There likely is some overlap, but let's not get silly.


----------



## eugeneonagain

LezLee said:


> Classic FM plays loads of film soundtracks and video games music. Does this mean they are accepted as classical?


No, it means they use forms familiar to and originated within classical music.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> What difference does it make?
> 
> edit - I am wary of a 'Ken Trap' in this thread. Once it appears established that something might not be 'classical music' this is will be resurrected in another thread where experimental music is being castigated as 'non-classical'.


I don't think it's necessarily wise to assume that the creator of this thread has such intention, and categorising it as a kind of 'trap.'

There's some interesting discussion here and it's actually pretty cool to take a more serious look at the repertoire that bridges and crosses over from pop to classical.


----------



## janxharris

eugeneonagain said:


> Well that's self-evident, but it still doesn't mean the examples will be more of a challenge. I think the reason Genesis are called progressive rock and didn't object to the term is because they weren't specifically trying to write classical music. I don't recall any of their albums being released to the classical music market.
> 
> There likely is some overlap, but let's not get silly.


OK - forgive me for posting this again:


----------



## eugeneonagain

janxharris said:


> OK - forgive me for posting this again:


Is that any different from me playing Culture Club's _Karma Chameleon _on a Steinway in the style of classical?


----------



## janxharris

eugeneonagain said:


> Is that any different from me playing Culture Club's _Karma Chameleon _on a Steinway in the style of classical?


I don't know about 'Karma Chameleon' but the music of Genesis clearly does not sound out of place in the classical concert hall.


----------



## eugeneonagain

janxharris said:


> I don't know about 'Karma Chameleon' but the music of Genesis clearly does not sound out of place in the classical concert hall.


One sees a lot of people here on this forum writing: 'I came to classical via progressive rock/heavy metal'... If they were the same thing in essence there would have been no crossover necessary, they would be on a natural continuum without having to announce their entrance into 'classical'.

They know and we know that they went from one thing to another.


----------



## Blancrocher

janxharris said:


> Because not all pop is about Katy Perry and the like.


I see where you're coming from: there are some jazz artists and songwriters that I like and respect more than various classical composers. But that's not the primary reason for the classification. The point is that discussion of the relative merits of rock bands has to be carried out in the non-classical area of the forum so that it doesn't flood out the original rationale for all of us having joined in the first place (to produce random lists of classical compositions and bicker with one another).


----------



## janxharris

eugeneonagain said:


> One sees a lot of people here on this forum writing: 'I came to classical via progressive rock/heavy metal'... If they were the same thing in essence there would have been no crossover necessary, they would be on a natural continuum without having to announce their entrance into 'classical'.
> 
> They know and we know that they went from one thing to another.


Ok - I see things differently, but I accept your view as valid.


----------



## janxharris

Blancrocher said:


> I see where you're coming from: there are some jazz artists and songwriters that I like and respect more than various classical composers. But that's not the primary reason for the classification. The point is that the relative merits of rock bands has to be carried out in the non-classical area of the forum so that it doesn't flood out the original rationale for all of us having joined in the first place (to produce random lists of classical compositions and bicker with one another).


Ok, but things become problematic when such pieces as this are allowed here:

Charlie Sdraulig - "Collector"


----------



## Lisztian

janxharris said:


> Ok, but things become problematic when such pieces as this are allowed here:
> 
> Charlie Sdraulig - "Collector"


Only if one doesn't consider John Cage to be part of the western art music tradition. Of course, some on here probably don't, but that shouldn't override the large number of those who do when we're talking about who is 'allowed.'


----------



## eugeneonagain

Now... didn't I say that this discussion would go in this direction? Trap, sprung.


----------



## Blancrocher

janxharris said:


> Ok, but things become problematic when such pieces as this are allowed here:
> 
> Charlie Sdraulig - "Collector"


It's not really problematic, except insofar as we don't want to generate rarefied debates about the conceptual limits of music that eventuate in mentions of 4'33'', personal attacks, thread closures, and heartache. Such discussions are not, in principle, out of place on a CM forum; I'd be more surprised to see endless threads, no matter how technical they might occasionally be, comparing Pink Floyd and The Animals.

As long as we remember that "Classical Music" is not a measure of quality but a generally useful categorization that gets blurry around the edges when obsessives like ourselves are interrogating it, I don't see much problem with it.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that most classical music listeners would identify Schoenberg as classical and the Beatles as rock 'n' roll or pop, and would do so because they have some sense of what the terms generally refer to.


I've thought that it was the intent of the composer that mattered most. What was Beethoven's intent and what was the intent of the members of Pink Floyd?, or Cage the questioner?

added: I think both Lennon and McCarthy have said in interviews that they started out merely to get girls, and eventually maybe make a living performing music. What was their intention in their later songs? To remain popular and relevant to the age groups who bought their records? Don't get me wrong I love their output..


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> Now... didn't I say that this discussion would go in this direction? Trap, sprung.


No, no, not quite yet. Cage is in, but we still need to wait for Wagner and then Hitler. Then the trap will be well and truly sprung!


----------



## janxharris

Godwin's lawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


----------



## eljr

shirime said:


> I don't think it's necessarily wise to assume that the creator of this thread has such intention, and categorising it as a kind of 'trap.'
> 
> There's some interesting discussion here .


Where?

I must have missed that post.


----------



## eljr

---------------------------


----------



## Joe B

....................................................


----------



## Blancrocher

........................... ..... ... .. . !


----------



## BabyGiraffe

The problem with pop songs is that they are too simplistic. Someone may arrange a popular song in a more sophisticated style (adding counter themes, modulations, development, nice orchestration - typical pop band orchestration is very unimaginative, not utilising the expression possibilities of the instruments) that can be probably be liked by the critics that say what is classical and what is not classical. The problem with something becoming a classic - it has be very masterful (Bach, Beethoven etc) or very original (Schoenberg and other modernists). The composer also should be somewhat famous - there are probably many good composers that are completely forgotten or never became famous at all. Beatles have some all right melodies and some unusual harmonies for a pop group, but can you compare to them to any of the great composers of the past? I don't think so.


----------



## DaveM

BabyGiraffe said:


> Beatles have some all right melodies and some unusual harmonies for a pop group, but can you compare to them to any of the great composers of the past? I don't think so.


Yes, but if the Beatles are excluded on that point then so is a chunk of what is called classical music.


----------



## Woodduck

Is a bacterium a plant or an animal? Is archaeopteryx a dinosaur or a bird? Is turquoise blue or green? Is Sweeney Todd an opera or a musical? 

I don't know, but I know a geranium is a plant, a platypus is an animal, a stegosaurus is a dinosaur, a cormorant is a bird, lapis lazuli is blue, arugula is green, Wozzeck is an opera, Oklahoma is a musical, and Pink Floyd isn't classical. I don't know who Floyd is or whether he is pink.


----------



## eugeneonagain

He's probably cerise really (or 'Nantucket red').


----------



## Woodduck

I do love cerise. Perhaps I should give him another listen.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

NUMBER 9! I think someone mentioned Revolution 9. My Beatlemaniac coworker says that Sir Paul went to new music concerts in the 60's and was updated on contemporary music. I'd like to say this is classical  I remember my friend found it on the jukebox at the pub...They turned it down!


----------



## janxharris

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> NUMBER 9! I think someone mentioned Revolution 9. My Beatlemaniac coworker says that Sir Paul went to new music concerts in the 60's and was updated on contemporary music. I'd like to say this is classical  I remember my friend found it on the jukebox at the pub...They turned it down!


Terrible.
.............................


----------



## KenOC

In passing, there is just one "classical music" composer on the cover of Sergeant Pepper. An interesting factoid only, not offered in support of any position. I'm sure we all know who it is.

There is also one music critic, who was a great fan of Wagner. (and there's the second prong of the trap...)


----------



## aleazk

Woodduck said:


> Is a bacterium a plant or an animal? Is archaeopteryx a dinosaur or a bird? Is turquoise blue or green? Is Sweeney Todd an opera or a musical?
> 
> I don't know, but I know a geranium is a plant, a platypus is an animal, a stegosaurus is a dinosaur, a cormorant is a bird, lapis lazuli is blue, arugula is green, Wozzeck is an opera, Oklahoma is a musical, and Pink Floyd isn't classical. I don't know who Floyd is or whether he is pink.


"Oh, btw, which one is Pink?" (I think that line is in one song by them, "Have a Cigar" if I remember well.)


----------



## Larkenfield

Revolution 9? Brilliant! The avant-garde.


----------



## Haydn70

Woodduck said:


> Is a bacterium a plant or an animal? Is archaeopteryx a dinosaur or a bird? Is turquoise blue or green? Is Sweeney Todd an opera or a musical?
> 
> I don't know, but I know a geranium is a plant, a platypus is an animal, a stegosaurus is a dinosaur, a cormorant is a bird, lapis lazuli is blue, arugula is green, Wozzeck is an opera, Oklahoma is a musical, and Pink Floyd isn't classical. I don't know who Floyd is or whether he is pink.


Once again a superb, spot-on post, Woodduck...thank you!


----------



## DaveM

Listen to the last half of this and note the classical-like violins/cellos accompaniment. The ending could have been a string quartet ending. Why shouldn't this be called classical music if it has more characteristics of classical music than some music being called classical.

Of course, my point has nothing to do with reclassifying some popular music as classical music.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...I don't know, but I know a geranium is a plant, a platypus is an animal, a stegosaurus is a dinosaur, a cormorant is a bird, lapis lazuli is blue, arugula is green, Wozzeck is an opera, Oklahoma is a musical, and Pink Floyd isn't classical. I don't know who Floyd is or whether he is pink.


So you "know". The greatest scientists in the world once "knew" that the universe was suffused with luminiferous aether. As it turned out, they were mistaken.

In the scientists' defense, of course, they were able to express sound reasons for their belief.


----------



## janxharris




----------



## LezLee

Woodduck said:


> Is a bacterium a plant or an animal? Is archaeopteryx a dinosaur or a bird? Is turquoise blue or green? Is Sweeney Todd an opera or a musical?
> 
> I don't know, but I know a geranium is a plant, a platypus is an animal, a stegosaurus is a dinosaur, a cormorant is a bird, lapis lazuli is blue, arugula is green, Wozzeck is an opera, Oklahoma is a musical, and Pink Floyd isn't classical. I don't know who Floyd is or whether he is pink.


(Keith) Floyd was a TV cook who opened a bottle of wine at the start of his programme and consumed it throughout. Cerise is probably close enough.


----------



## Bulldog

DaveM said:


> Listen to the last half of this and note the classical-like violins/cellos accompaniment. The ending could have been a string quartet ending. Why shouldn't this be called classical music if it has more characteristics of classical music than some music being called classical.
> 
> Of course, my point has nothing to do with reclassifying some popular music as classical music.


That's a country music song, nothing more - nothing less. Don't get stuck in the weeds.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> I was loading a bunch of albums onto my wife's phone tonight. After, we listened to the White Album and some Pink Floyd. Note that this music has been floating around for half a century and is still extremely popular.
> 
> Question: Is this "classical music"? If not, why not? We're happy enough, for reasons that escape me, to label Babbitt's efforts classical music - then why not this?


With Philomel, Milton Babbitt used a soprano, singing like a soprano in the classical sense, with electronic sounds. As a composer, he is able to score & notate complex music. "Philomel" is based on a classical Greek myth. Why should any of those factors "escape" you?

On the other hand, The Beatles emerged from the world of pop music. They did not notate; they composed by ear, and put everything down on recording tape. They recorded a "performance" in sound. If anybody needs a lead sheet, it will be done after.

These are the main differences, and I've already thought about all this, and have formulated all the criteria and differences.

I'm sure that many of The Beatles' songs will be recognized as great songs, just like 'All the Things You Are' and 'Over the Rainbow,' but like Gershwin, they will be seen as products of the popular genre.

John Corigliano setting songs of Bob Dylan: that's classical.

Bob Dylan singing his own songs? That's popular, or folk-rock.

Why did we drag Milton Babbitt into this? Mistake of ill-defined criteria on your part, Ken, and another veiled excuse to criticize radical modernism. Yawwwnnn....


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Are you suggesting that any music, of any genre (rock or jazz, for example), that's still enjoyed after half a century might be called "classical"? And, by implication, that any music that's now unfamiliar or unperformed (say, the music of J.E.H.Hartmann) would _not_ be considered classical?
> 
> Of the various criteria people use to decide what classical music is, longevity must be one of the least relevant.


No, he's just saying that Milton Babbitt sucks.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Then are electronic pieces by Subotnick and others "classical music"? They were created on the fly without scores, and transcribed, however inadequately, later. They have never been (and never will be, most likely) performed by other artists. And yet, we speak of them as "classical"? Whazzup?​


One of the distinguishers of popular vs. classical is that classical music is scored & notated as part of the composing process, whereas popular music is often composed by ear & memory, then recorded as a way of "fixing it in time". So recording, in this sense, is a way of escaping the "oral/aural" performing procedures of folk & ethnic music, which are not fixed, and subject to "morphing" over time, to being "fixed" and "notated" permanently, without changes, as "definitive" versions.

The electronic composers mentioned are taking advantage of the recording process, by "composing" directly to tape. This is somewhat different than merely recording a performance. In this case, the recording is the "score" in fixed form.

It's all in the subtleties, and the details, and the intent, Ken. You need to think about these things in more detail.


----------



## Haydn70

janxharris said:


>


That Radiohead music is being performed by a string quartet does not make it classical. Just as a string quartet or orchestral arrangement of Yesterday or Eleanor Rigby or any pop/rock song/music is not classical. I could select from dozens of YouTube videos of Mantovani and his orchestra or Percy Faith and his orchestra playing orchestral arrangements of pop/rock songs...we call that Muzak.

Now this Radiohead sample might not qualify as Muzak but it certainly doesn't qualify as classical. All I am hearing are pop/rock harmonic, rhythmic and melodic gestures and patterns being played by a classical ensemble.* I am not hearing classical music.*


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Why absurd? Please explain. I hear melodies, progressions, rhythms, and so forth plainly associated with traditional classical music - much more so than I find in many "modern" composers that we call "classical". Above all, I hear a desire to engage with the interests of listeners in a way that I associate with the classical music tradition.


Again, this is just a veiled subterfuge, designed to criticize more radical modern music. If we went with your flimsy criteria, the disco version of Beethoven's Fifth would be "more classical" than Pierot Lunaire.


----------



## Haydn70

KenOC said:


> I was loading a bunch of albums onto my wife's phone tonight. After, we listened to the White Album and some Pink Floyd. Note that this music has been floating around for half a century and is still extremely popular.


Hey Ken, listen to what George Harrison has to say about rock vs. classical in his appearance on the Dick Cavett show in 1971.

In discussing his songs he says at 12'41": "It's not really, sort of, music..." and at 12'52" "it's [his music] just really very simple…"

Here you go…take a look and listen:


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Again, this is just a veiled subterfuge, designed to criticize more radical modern music. If we went with your flimsy criteria, the disco version of Beethoven's Fifth would be "more classical" than Pierot Lunaire.


I wouldn't argue with that position! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> I wouldn't argue with that position! :lol:


Ha ha. The disco version of Beethoven is obviously kitsch.

The criteria we cite (harmonic procedures, melodies, forms, sound itself) are not any good in isolation (except for argument fodder). We have to have developed an extensive, well-thought-out set of criteria, and take all the criteria as a whole.

For instance, you can't reject Milton Babbitt's "Philomel" simply on the basis that it uses 12-tone language and electronic sounds; there are too many other factors that outweigh those two (indeed, if its 12-tone language can even be considered a valid factor).

Of course, we usually instantly know it when we see it. It's only in explaining it that we need these criteria.


----------



## eljr

My take on the entire discussion is much like this scene from Animal House.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Ha ha. The disco version of Beethoven is obviously kitsch.


Kitsch is disqualified? Uh...I think you'll find Ketelbey over there, in the classical bin...


----------



## Luchesi

There's a few survivors of The Beatles and Pink Floyd. We can ask them if they intended to write 'classical' works.

Someone will still say it's classical music...


----------



## Haydn70

Luchesi said:


> There's a few survivors of The Beatles and Pink Floyd. We can ask them if they intended to write 'classical' works.
> 
> Someone will still say it's classical music...


And they will be wrong.


----------



## Haydn70

Luchesi said:


> I've thought that it was the intent of the composer that mattered most.


Why? The intent of the composer has nothing to do with my perception of a piece of music. Unless one reads about the composer's intention, which may or may not be possible depending on the how the music presented, how is one to know?

If, for example, some progressive rocker intends his music to be perceived as classical and informs me as such, but I don't hear his music as classical then all his intentions are irrelevant. The test is in what the listener perceives.


----------



## Luchesi

"I think we're in a disposable world and 'Stairway to Heaven' is one of the things that hasn't quite been thrown away yet."

Robert Plant


----------



## Haydn70

Luchesi said:


> "I think we're in a disposable world and 'Stairway to Heaven' is one of the things that hasn't quite been thrown away yet."
> 
> Robert Plant


And of course Robert Plant is being completely objective....:lol:


----------



## Guest

Whoever brought up Mantovani, can people not see that his music neatly fits in the world of contemporary classical music? I've seen his name pop up in another thread before, in a different context, but implied that his music was not classical music. Although he is not my favourite composer, he's a good example of the kind of repertoire that Ensemble InterContemporain performs well.

EIC _have_ performed music by composers that 'crossed over' between popular and classical styles, like Frank Zappa, but Bruno Mantovani is not one of them as far as I can tell.


----------



## Luchesi

ArsMusica said:


> Why? The intent of the composer has nothing to do with my perception of a piece of music. Unless one reads about the composer's intention, which may or may not be possible depending on the how the music presented, how is one to know?
> 
> If, for example, some progressive rocker intends his music to be perceived as classical and informs me as such, but I don't hear his music as classical then all his intentions are irrelevant. The test is in what the listener perceives.


That sounds reasonable and I will accept the conclusion of an expert, but not just anyone.


----------



## Luchesi

shirime said:


> Whoever brought up Mantovani, can people not see that his music neatly fits in the world of contemporary classical music? I've seen his name pop up in another thread before, in a different context, but implied that his music was not classical music. Although he is not my favourite composer, he's a good example of the kind of repertoire that Ensemble InterContemporain performs well.
> 
> EIC _have_ performed music by composers that 'crossed over' between popular and classical styles, like Frank Zappa, but Bruno Mantovani is not one of them as far as I can tell.


B. Mantovani - 4 etudes pour piano


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> B. Mantovani - 4 etudes pour piano


I've heard these. Very beautiful.


----------



## KenOC

Luchesi said:


> B. Mantovani - 4 etudes pour piano


Mantovani -- I get so confused!


----------



## Guest

What Mantovani is that?


----------



## Haydn70

.................................


----------



## Haydn70

shirime said:


> What Mantovani is that?


Annunzio Paolo Mantovani (15 November 1905 - 29 March 1980), known mononymously as Mantovani, was an Anglo-Italian conductor, composer and light orchestra-styled entertainer with a cascading strings musical signature. The book British Hit Singles & Albums states that he was "Britain's most successful album act before the Beatles...the first act to sell over one million stereo albums and six albums simultaneously in the US Top 30 in 1959".

He was responsible for a huge quantity of elevator music.

Looks like we had something of generation gap issue here.


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> Annunzio Paolo Mantovani (15 November 1905 - 29 March 1980), known mononymously as Mantovani, was an Anglo-Italian conductor, composer and light orchestra-styled entertainer with a cascading strings musical signature. The book British Hit Singles & Albums states that he was "Britain's most successful album act before the Beatles...the first act to sell over one million stereo albums and six albums simultaneously in the US Top 30 in 1959".
> 
> He was responsible for a huge quantity of elevator music.


Hmmm I've never knowingly listened to anything from this musician and I haven't heard of him before.


----------



## DaveM

Mantovani was the type of music my father would play to show off his monaural ‘Hi-Fi’ with a 15 inch woofer!!


----------



## DaveM

Bulldog said:


> That's a country music song, nothing more - nothing less.


Of course it is. Never doubted it for a minute.


----------



## Sid James

KenOC said:


> I was loading a bunch of albums onto my wife's phone tonight. After, we listened to the White Album and some Pink Floyd. Note that this music has been floating around for half a century and is still extremely popular.
> 
> Question: Is this "classical music"? If not, why not? We're happy enough, for reasons that escape me, to label Babbitt's efforts classical music - then why not this?


I'm happy to retain the standard definition of Western music. Its abroad enough, encompassing everything from more or less between Gregorian chant and avant-garde. We can stretch it to include film scores and light classical.

Some musicians who are strictly speaking outside of Western music should be given credit for making significant impacts upon it. Duke Ellington and Ravi Shankar, for example, can't be overestimated for the ways in which they enriched Western music.

I don't know Pink Floyd enough to comment but there have been others in rock who composed music that neatly fits into the Western tradition. Jon Lord (of Deep Purple) composed and recorded a number of orchestral albums. These are stand alone pieces, not arrangements of already existing songs. Frank Zappa worked along similar lines, with a foot in both camps.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I was loading a bunch of albums onto my wife's phone tonight. After, we listened to the White Album and some Pink Floyd. Note that this music has been floating around for half a century and is still extremely popular.
> 
> Question: Is this "classical music"? If not, why not? We're happy enough, for reasons that escape me, to label Babbitt's efforts classical music - then why not this?


Aside from wanting to provoke those who are all too readily provoked ("Classical Music?? How very dare you!!??") what was your intent in asking the question? Do you really think anyone apart from those with a playful intellect is going to take seriously any suggestion about The Beatles being classical?


----------



## janxharris

ArsMusica said:


> That Radiohead music is being performed by a string quartet does not make it classical. Just as a string quartet or orchestral arrangement of Yesterday or Eleanor Rigby or any pop/rock song/music is not classical. I could select from dozens of YouTube videos of Mantovani and his orchestra or Percy Faith and his orchestra playing orchestral arrangements of pop/rock songs...we call that Muzak.
> 
> Now this Radiohead sample might not qualify as Muzak but it certainly doesn't qualify as classical. All I am hearing are pop/rock harmonic, rhythmic and melodic gestures and patterns being played by a classical ensemble.* I am not hearing classical music.*


The harmonic language in the Radiohead piece is easily as worthy of the term 'classical' as any generally accept work in the canon; nobody could say that they have borrowed - which is something even many of the masters of classical did at times. You haven't specified a distinction.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Aside from wanting to provoke those who are all too readily provoked ("Classical Music?? How very dare you!!??") what was your intent in asking the question? Do you really think anyone apart from those with a playful intellect is going to take seriously any suggestion about The Beatles being classical?


I would hope that many here would have "playful intellects". But perhaps it's not so. So many take their music so very seriously, battling any incursions on their turf with swords drawn and blunderbusses blazing!


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> Mantovani was the type of music my father would play to show off his monaural 'Hi-Fi' with a 15 inch woofer!!


My father couldn't afford a "hi-fi" rig, but my Uncle Bill* could. My father, visiting his place, was MOST impressed by the original mono Dorati version of the 1812 Overture and, even more so, by the St. Gregory finale from Respighi's Church Windows.

*Not really my uncle, being unrelated, but we called him that.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Sid James said:


> I don't know Pink Floyd enough to comment but there have been others in rock who composed music that neatly fits into the Western tradition. Jon Lord (of Deep Purple) composed and recorded a number of orchestral albums. These are stand alone pieces, not arrangements of already existing songs. Frank Zappa worked along similar lines, with a foot in both camps.


When I'm cooking Italian, I'm cooking Italian. When I am cooking French food, the food is French (sort of..). Same cook, two different styles of cooking. They do not become one another because the cook is the same person.


----------



## janxharris




----------



## DavidA

ArsMusica said:


> Annunzio Paolo Mantovani (15 November 1905 - 29 March 1980), known mononymously as Mantovani, was an Anglo-Italian conductor, composer and light orchestra-styled entertainer with a cascading strings musical signature. The book British Hit Singles & Albums states that he was "Britain's most successful album act before the Beatles...the first act to sell over one million stereo albums and six albums simultaneously in the US Top 30 in 1959".
> 
> He was responsible for a huge quantity of elevator music.
> 
> Looks like we had something of generation gap issue here.


I remember the man well. He was huge when I was a lad although I never particularly went for his brand of music. It was what is commonly referred to as 'light music' which includes things like film music and popular songs dressed up for an orchestra. This is one of his big hits which gives an idea of the genre


----------



## DavidA

I think we are arguing a lot about semantics. The term 'classical music' is generally used to indicate a certain type of serious music composed by the great (and lesser) masters throughout the centuries. Obviously there is a huge range.
The term 'pop music' tends to refer to stuff recently written more recently and consists of short pieces of popular music. Once again a huge range. There is now what was once 'pop' which is now termed 'classic'.
The term 'light music' tends to be employed for people like Mantovani which comes somewhere in-between.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

DavidA said:


> I think we are arguing a lot about semantics. The term 'classical music' is generally used to indicate a certain type of serious music composed by the great (and lesser) masters throughout the centuries. Obviously there is a huge range.
> The term 'pop music' tends to refer to stuff recently written more recently and consists of short pieces of popular music. Once again a huge range. There is now what was once 'pop' which is now termed 'classic'.
> The term 'light music' tends to be employed for people like Mantovani which comes somewhere in-between.


Let's imagine that some "serious" composer writes today a complex (harmony, counterpoint, rhythms, motivic development, orchestration, structure) country, disco or any light pop genre song/concert.
Will this be considered classical? Does it matter when it is written, if it is as good as the 5th symphony (for example) or any other old classic loved by the regular public (I'm sorry, but I don't think that something sounding like Bartok/Schoenberg and friends will ever become popular/loved by the "normal" people)? Does the instrumentation matter at all? (I don't think so.)
(The music of many old composers was based on folk and popular dances, but today the "serious" music is based on... horror movies soundtracks D)?)


----------



## isorhythm

No, it's not classical because the Beatles and Pink Floyd did not come from the classical tradition and didn't consider their music to be classical music.

"Classical music" isn't a general term for good music that has endured over time. It's music from a particular tradition that came from Europe.


----------



## Simon Moon

KenOC said:


> I was loading a bunch of albums onto my wife's phone tonight. After, we listened to the White Album and some Pink Floyd. Note that this music has been floating around for half a century and is still extremely popular.
> 
> Question: Is this "classical music"? If not, why not? We're happy enough, for reasons that escape me, to label Babbitt's efforts classical music - then why not this?


I am a fan of both bands, but there is not way I'd consider them classical.

There is a line from: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Ravel, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Babbit. The line that leads to Floyd or the Beatles, is more like: folk, blues, tin pan alley, skiffle. Just because they toss in classical influences from time to time, does not make them classical.

I mean, bands like: YES, King Crimson, PFM, Gentle Giant, Banco, etc, are a lot closer to classical than the Beatles or Floyd, but they are still not classical. These bands have more classical influences and technique on any one of the albums in their catalogs, than Floyd or the Beatles have in their entire catalogues.

A much better case can be made for the avant-garde prog bands, like: Henry Cow, Thinking Plague, Aranis, etc, being classical. They incorporate traditionally classical instrumentation (oboe, bassoon, violin, cello, flute, brass instruments, double bass, etc), and even more sophisticated compositional techniques (atonalism, 12 tone, etc).


----------



## DaveM

It’s interesting to me that the music of some past popular music groups that incorporate classical-like elements is rejected as classical music on the basis that it is not from the classical tradition, western art music or a particular tradition from Europe, but music that has virtually no classical-like elements is accepted as classical music on the only basis that it comes from the classical tradition, western art music or a particular tradition from Europe. It’s a mystery.


----------



## millionrainbows

Welcome to the post-modernist age! The only reason this thread can survive is because we now have an overview of what "history" used to be, and now we can draw freely from all its genres and aspects. So if Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" is classical or not is not such a crucial matter.

Pink Floyd does have some advantages over The Beatles in that most of The Beatles' music is in short song form, whereas Pink Floyd are getting closer to the long form of classical music.

Still, "Dark Side of the Moon" exists as a recorded work, not in score, so it is not a composition that was intended to exist as an idea in score, with different "interpretations" of it by other artists; we want the original, bonafide work, not a K-Tel version. In this sense, it is popular, since we are listening to, essentially, a "performance" by the original artists.

Likewise with Frank Sinatra; we are listening to him specifically as a performer, and the songs he sings are just vehicles for his voice.

Recording has given popular and folk musics a great boost in their veracity. In the days before recording, live performances were here and gone, there was no permanent record. Now, the recording is the "definitive score" of a performance, in the same way that a score gave a symphony an independent identity, as "gospel" or the definitive Platonic "idea" of a musical idea.

There are other aspects of the classical procedure which distinguish it from popular music created by the recorded process; the orchestra is an hierarchy, and the players are anonymous, unlike pop singers and instrumentalists, so they serve the "idea" of a work. The composer is at the top of the hierarchy.

Now that we have recording, popular songs are able to take on some of this Platonic independence; standards such as "All the Things You Are" and Gershwin songs are interpreted by many artists. But still, the individual artist is still more important; for example, when we hear John Coltrane play "My Favorite Things," the song, although great, is still just a vehicle for our main interest: Coltrane's improvisation.

One very important distinguishing characteristic of "classical" music and its procedures is that it serves a musical idea first and foremost, whereas in pop music, the performance itself, or the singer or band, becomes of prime importance. In this sense, classical music is more "abstract" than pop, because it serves a musical idea which exists in idealized form in the score, and must be realised by performance.


----------



## DeepR

DaveM said:


> It's interesting to me that the music of some past popular music groups that incorporate classical-like elements is rejected as classical music on the basis that it is not from the classical tradition, western art music or a particular tradition from Europe, but music that has virtually no classical-like elements is accepted as classical music on the only basis that it comes from the classical tradition, western art music or a particular tradition from Europe. It's a mystery.


When some guy was still around he would post examples of "new music" that had no audible classical elements and also didnt seem to come from the classical tradition. Perhaps the only factor that could link some of that music to classical music was the composer's educational background. Something which can't be known by listening to the music itself. So there you go, a different genre of music I'd say (yet it was posted in this subforum).


----------



## DaveM

DeepR said:


> When some guy was still around he would post examples of "new music" that had no audible classical elements and also didnt seem to come from the classical tradition. Perhaps the only factor that could link some of that music to classical music was the composer's educational background. Something which can't be known by listening to the music itself. So there you go, a different genre of music I'd say (yet it was posted in this subforum).


Exactly! The solution to the mystery solved!


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> When some guy was still around he would post examples of "new music" that had no audible classical elements and also didn't seem to come from the classical tradition. Perhaps the only factor that could link some of that music to classical music was the composer's educational background. Something which can't be known by listening to the music itself. So there you go, a different genre of music I'd say (yet it was posted in this sub forum).


In the case of electronic and electro-acoustic music, it doesn't have any audible elements of being "popular" music either.

The main thing which "separates" electronic and electro-acoustic music from other classical music is that it does not exist in scored form, because it does not deal with instruments.

Other than that, there are other important criteria which *do* connect it with the classical tradition.

1. The recording is the "definitive score" of a performance, in the same way that a score gave a symphony an independent identity, as "gospel" or the definitive Platonic "idea" of a musical idea.

2. The composer is dealing with musical ideas in the form of pure sound. This can be distinguished from music which is obviously designed to entertain in a lighter way, like pop music or light classical. This makes it "classical" in that it is exploring new areas of sound.

3. In electronic and electro-acoustic music, there are no "performers," unlike pop singers and instrumentalists, so the sounds serve the "idea" of a work. The composer and his ideas are at the top of this hierarchy, as in classical music. One very important distinguishing characteristic of "classical" music, including electronic and electro-acoustic music, is that it serves a musical idea first and foremost, whereas in pop music, the performance itself, or the singer or band, becomes of prime importance. In this sense, classical music, and electronic and electro-acoustic music is more "abstract" than pop, because it serves a musical idea which exists in idealized form in the score or on recordings. Unlike other classical music in score, electronic and electro-acoustic music does not require a performance. The recording itself already serves this purpose.

Again, the listener must get past the notion that music is a "rhetoric" or language of conventionally pitched and played instruments. In the case of electronic and electro-acoustic music, sound itself is the medium.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Again, the listener must get past the notion that music is a "rhetoric" or language of conventionally pitched and played instruments. In the case of electronic and electro-acoustic music, sound itself is the medium.


The listener must get past the notion that music is "rhetoric" or language of conventionally pitched and played instruments to do what?


----------



## DavidA

BabyGiraffe said:


> Let's imagine that some "serious" composer writes today a complex (harmony, counterpoint, rhythms, motivic development, orchestration, structure) country, disco or any light pop genre song/concert.
> Will this be considered classical? Does it matter when it is written, if it is as good as the 5th symphony (for example) or any other old classic loved by the regular public (I'm sorry, but I don't think that something sounding like Bartok/Schoenberg and friends will ever become popular/loved by the "normal" people)? Does the instrumentation matter at all? (I don't think so.)
> (The music of many old composers was based on folk and popular dances, but today the "serious" music is based on... horror movies soundtracks D)?)


Again, you're just arguing over semantics. Most people - at least those I talk to - know what we mean when we say 'classical music'. I wasn't trying to be technical - just give it the meaning most ordinary people understand, which is the purpose of language and communication. Why complicate things?


----------



## isorhythm

People really tying themselves in knots here because they think "classical" means "good" or something.


----------



## aleazk

Experiment. If you can't see why this _obviously_ is classical music, despite its apparent 'radical' surface (being produced only with synthesizers) with respect to past tradition, then I would say you are not a true classical listener, and that you are only listening to the mere surface of both past and present music. The way of thinking and organizing the piece at the big scale in that Stockhausen piece is so evidently based on the knowledge of the great germanic composers, the way in which color is added and handled is also evidently informed by the classical tradition, and so many other things. _A composer of popular music or any other tradition couldn't have composed such a piece ever._ That, and the fact that there are elements that directly belong to the classical tradition and some others that are 'new' (speaking now of electronic music done by classical composers), is what makes it part of a new sub-genre of classical rather than a new sub-genre of music (although it's also a new sub-genre of music, too, and popular music has its own brand of it, too; to which of those it belongs is a question of to what degree the influences from either classical or popular are defining enough of the essence of the piece*).

*thus, this, for example, is not classical. One can use a violin to produce a couple of effects in a popular song, or, instead, one can have lots of them and write a whole symphony for that ensemble of violins. That's the difference between that rock piece and Oktophonie.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> It's interesting to me that the music of some past popular music groups that incorporate classical-like elements is rejected as classical music on the basis that it is not from the classical tradition, western art music or a particular tradition from Europe, but music that has virtually no classical-like elements is accepted as classical music on the only basis that it comes from the classical tradition, western art music or a particular tradition from Europe. It's a mystery.


I don't find it mysterious. You seem to want classical music to include particular sounds and exclude others. But this is problematic for two reasons: the sounds of music we call classical have varied so enormously over a period now exceeding a millennium that generalizing about them is virtually impossible; and sound is only one of the possible distinguishing traits of classical music as that term is widely understood.

We're entitled to say how we think words should be used, and to make our arguments for our preferred usages. Unfortunately for us, the rest of the world is likely to go on using words in ways that annoy us for reasons we find unreasonable. It won't do us any good to try to own the term "classical" in defiance of a world which recognizes George Crumb's music as classical but denies that designation to Kenny Chesney's, although Chesney's may contain more of what you would call "classical-like elements" (which may mean primarily "classical elements that you recognize and prefer").

What "classical-like elements" does Perotin's "Viderunt Omnes" have in common with Tchaikovsky's "Pathetique" Symphony, or does Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" have in common with Stravinsky's "Le Sacre du Printemps"? Arguably, all those works share something that Crumb's "Black Angels" does not, but Crumb didn't arise in a musical or cultural vacuum. There is certainly music which, from the sheer sound of it, we may have difficulty describing in terms of a specific or single genre. There is even music which might be considered classical in one context but not in another, or which, historically, might be seen to migrate from one genre to another as the culture's perspective on it changes. Was the music of Johann Strauss classical when he wrote it? Did anyone ask the question? Is it classical now?

Based on the sheer sound of it, it's probably easier in most cases to say what music isn't classical than what is; "classical-like elements" notwithstanding, most of us will confidently say that Crumb's "Black Angels" is classical music, while Kenny Chesney's "Better as a Memory" is not. But whether a piece is called "classical" is only partly an aesthetic question. It's mainly a cultural question, and culture has decreed that certain styles of music, descended from certain traditions, created by people of certain backgrounds, intended to be performed and heard in certain ways in certain circumstances, are called "classical." Of course that's not to say that in the case of some musical offerings of the 20th and 21st centuries, we can't debate whether what's being offered under the classical rubric should be called music at all. But my general impression is that if what we're hearing can't be called "pop" or "jazz" or "ethnic" or some other generally obvious category, and if indeed we aren't even sure that we're listening to music, it's fairly safe to assume that it's "classical."

What that may say about our culture, I'm too old to care. Much.


----------



## fluteman

KenOC said:


> Persnickety or not, the question remains: Why not this? What are the criteria that bar this music from our incredible shrinking universe?
> 
> Note that the average age of the most popular (yes, popular) classical music is just over 200 years. Nobody much in the real world cares at all about what we call "classical music" being written today. Is it possibly -- just _possibly _-- time for some renewal, time to expand our horizons a bit?​


Here is where discussions like this routinely wander off track. There is no such thing as popular classical music (or art), under any reasonable definition of either term. The distinction between the two is in their purpose. The creator of "classical", "serious" or "art" music is trying to create something that expresses some lasting and universal aesthetic, emotional or intellectual ideas that will speak across generations and even cultures. The popular musician, as skilled and talented as he or she may be, is trying to speak to a specific culture, and especially since the invention of the phonograph and radio, to a very specific age group and even demographic. That is why the most succesful popular musicians can inspire fierce loyalty in a particular generation that burns brightly until that generation dies off.

Now, I am a very big Beatles fan. They are a special case in a way, and in a way they are not. They certainly started out as a perfect example of successful popular musicians, who understood the increasing popularity of a musical genre that they had no role in creating, in fact that wasn't even created in their country (rock 'n' roll), and successfully adopted it, as did several other popular musicians of their time (late 50s, early 60s) and place (Great Britain), to achieve commercial success.

The difference between the Beatles and most other rock bands of their time is that they had the talent and ambition (and encouragement of a great producer, George Martin) to expand beyond the then-existing confines of rock 'n' roll and incorporate all kinds of other elements, musical and otherwise, in a very imaginative, and often downright sophisticated way. This enabled them to create music, movies and even an iconic album cover that captured the spirit of their era in a way very few popular musicians have.

But make no mistake, more and more teenagers today have never heard of the Beatles. I talk with teens about this all the time. I recently had my hair cut by a young woman (early 20s) who is the daughter of Egyptian immigrants. She had never heard of the Beatles, but was familiar with George Moustaki, the late Greek/Egyptian/French singer/songwriter who collaborated with Edith Piaf as a young man and was very popular in France in the 60s, 70s and 80s. So as great as the Beatles were, we are seeing that even they are of a time and place, not surprisingly, as that was very much their purpose, a purpose very successfully achieved.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> I don't find it mysterious. You seem to want classical music to include particular sounds and exclude others.


For one thing, by using the term,'you', you are inferring that I stand alone in the position I'm taking. You know very well that not only do I not, but I likely speak for a relatively silent majority, probably silent because either the position is so obvious or the silent majority doesn't have the opportunity to voice an opinion.

This isn't about my wanting classical music to include particular sounds and exclude others. It's about not accepting classical music as what are often random sounds to the listener and the manipulation of things like timbre as the objective to the exclusion of virtually all other things that constitute classical music. One can continue to cry that the Emporer's new clothes are wonderful, but most of us (and by us, I mean those outside the relatively tiny clique on this forum compared to those outside the clique and those of the listening public in general) aren't buying it



> We're entitled to say how we think words should be used, and to make our arguments for our preferred usages. Unfortunately for us, the rest of the world is likely to go on using words in ways that annoy us for reasons we find unreasonable. It won't do us any good to try to own the term "classical" in defiance of a world which recognizes George Crumb's music as classical but denies that designation to Kenny Chesney's, although Chesney's may contain more of what you would call "classical-like elements" (which may mean primarily "classical elements that you recognize and prefer").


I'm surprised at those who don't realize that I was playing devil's advocate with the use of the Kenny Chesney piece. As far as how we think words should be used, the 'rest of the world' is not classifying the music I am referring to as classical music. It is a relatively small group who want to have this music hang on the coattails of classical music so as to give it some gravitas that it should earn on its own as a totally separate genre. Put works like this in the middle of a typical classical concert without warning and see how many people call them 'classical.



> But whether a piece is called "classical" is only partly an aesthetic question. It's mainly a cultural question, and culture has decreed that certain styles of music, descended from certain traditions, created by people of certain backgrounds, intended to be performed and heard in certain ways in certain circumstances, are called "classical." Of course that's not to say that in the case of some musical offerings of the 20th and 21st centuries, we can't debate whether what's being offered under the classical rubric should be called music at all.


Assuming, after all this, that you understand that I am talking about a good segment of what is being called experimental music, culture has not earmarked it as being classical. And I am am not arguing whether it is music or not.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> For one thing, by using the term,'you', you are inferring that I stand alone in the position I'm taking. You know very well that not only am I not, but I likely speak for a relatively silent majority, probably silent because the position is so obvious.
> 
> This isn't about my wanting classical music to include particular sounds and exclude others. It's about not accepting classical music as what are often random sounds to the listener and the manipulation of things like timbre as the objective to the exclusion of virtually all other things that constitute classical music. One can continue to cry that the Emporer's new clothes are wonderful, but most of us (and by us, I mean those outside the relatively tiny clique on this forum -compared to those outside the clique and the listening public in general) aren't buying it
> 
> I'm surprised at those who don't realize that I was playing devil's advocate with the use of the Kenny Chesney piece. As far as how we think words should be used, the 'rest of the world' is not classifying the music I am referring to as classical music. It is a relatively small group who want to have this music hang on the coattails of classical music so as to give it some gravitas that it should earn on its own as a totally separate genre. Put works like this in the middle of a typical classical concert without warning and see how many people call them 'classical.
> 
> Assuming, after all this, that you understand that I am talking about a good segment of what is being called experimental music, culture has not earmarked it as being classical. And I am am not arguing whether it is music or not.


I have no doubt that others share your position, but here I can only speak to the specific thoughts of specific people, in this case yours.

You say, "This isn't about my wanting classical music to include particular sounds and exclude others. It's about not accepting classical music as what are often random sounds to the listener and the manipulation of things like timbre as the objective to the exclusion of virtually all other things that constitute classical music." Those two sentences contradict each other. Clearly you do think classical music must, and must not, sound a certain way. As for whether anyone thinks some of what's now offered in the name of classical music ("the emperor's new clothes") is wonderful, that's a different question than the question of whether classical music is a suitable name for it.

Actually, it isn't clear, from anything you've said in this thread, just what music you would choose or decline to call call "classical." But it's of little consequence what classifications any of us wish to use. The world of classical music is a rather exclusive club, as are the "fine arts" in general. The common and easily observable division of the music world into "popular" and "classical" indicates that. Large numbers of people enjoy some music that would generally be called "classical," but much smaller numbers are interested in exploring the field through extensive listening or study. The people who populate concert halls are a tiny fraction of the people who love and listen to music. I find your claim to know the ideological position of the typical classical music lover, and to bestow on him the privilege of deciding for the music world what classical music is, a bit overweening. The average person who likes classical music, a person who knows rather little about the music he hears, surely has spent little time pondering how genres of music should be defined, and I'd say that he is likely to accept as classical the music he's offered (unless a part of the program is given to a popular performer) and to recognize that the people who produce what he's hearing are in a more natural position than he is to make such determinations. Those people - the composers, performers, record producers, critics and academics - are hardly a "tiny clique."


----------



## DeepR

millionrainbows said:


> In the case of electronic and electro-acoustic music, it doesn't have any audible elements of being "popular" music either.
> 
> The main thing which "separates" electronic and electro-acoustic music from other classical music is that it does not exist in scored form, because it does not deal with instruments.
> 
> Other than that, there are other important criteria which *do* connect it with the classical tradition.
> 
> 1. The recording is the "definitive score" of a performance, in the same way that a score gave a symphony an independent identity, as "gospel" or the definitive Platonic "idea" of a musical idea.
> 
> 2. The composer is dealing with musical ideas in the form of pure sound. This can be distinguished from music which is obviously designed to entertain in a lighter way, like pop music or light classical. This makes it "classical" in that it is exploring new areas of sound.
> 
> 3. In electronic and electro-acoustic music, there are no "performers," unlike pop singers and instrumentalists, so the sounds serve the "idea" of a work. The composer and his ideas are at the top of this hierarchy, as in classical music. One very important distinguishing characteristic of "classical" music, including electronic and electro-acoustic music, is that it serves a musical idea first and foremost, whereas in pop music, the performance itself, or the singer or band, becomes of prime importance. In this sense, classical music, and electronic and electro-acoustic music is more "abstract" than pop, because it serves a musical idea which exists in idealized form in the score or on recordings. Unlike other classical music in score, electronic and electro-acoustic music does not require a performance. The recording itself already serves this purpose.
> 
> Again, the listener must get past the notion that music is a "rhetoric" or language of conventionally pitched and played instruments. In the case of electronic and electro-acoustic music, sound itself is the medium.


I don't disagree with anything you said about electronic music but these similarities do not necessarily mean there is a connection to the classical tradition. By your criteria every electronic bedroom laptop artist could be connected to the classical tradition, while none of the knowledge and musical techniques of the past are required to make this "new" music. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just think it's hard to make a distinction this way. It becomes very blurred and at some point you have to draw a line and see it as a different genre of music, separate from classical music but not necessarily "popular" music either. Why should there be only classical music on one hand and popular on the other? There's in fact a lot of electronic music that seems to fall in between these categories.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> I have no doubt that others share your position, but here I can only speak to the specific thoughts of specific people, in this case yours.
> 
> You say, "This isn't about my wanting classical music to include particular sounds and exclude others. It's about not accepting classical music as what are often random sounds to the listener and the manipulation of things like timbre as the objective to the exclusion of virtually all other things that constitute classical music." Those two sentences contradict each other. Clearly you do think classical music must, and must not, sound a certain way. As for whether anyone thinks some of what's now offered in the name of classical music ("the emperor's new clothes") is wonderful, that's a different question than the question of whether classical music is a suitable name for it.


There's no contradiction in my argument. You apparently think classical music should sound a certain way because you reject the Kenny Cheney song with its violin/cello accompaniment as classical music.



> Actually, it isn't clear, from anything you've said in this thread, just what music you would choose or decline to call call "classical."


It's perfectly clear. You just haven't been paying attention. I notice that it is in the interest of people to respond to me as if I am including a much wider range of music than I am even though over several threads I have explained it clearly and given examples. In any event, I'm not sure why someone would claim to not know what music I'm talking about and then go ahead and respond so negatively as though they do.



> I find your claim to know the ideological position of the typical classical music lover, and to bestow on him the privilege of deciding for the music world what classical music is, a bit overweening.


I know at least as much about my position as you do about yours. Bloviating with the use of terms such as 'overweening' is not going to prove your point any more than my use of the term 'bloviating is going to prove mine.


----------



## Gallus

isorhythm said:


> People really tying themselves in knots here because they think "classical" means "good" or something.


Yeah, this thread is just boring old baby boomer (gran)dads who think Pink Floyd and The Beatles are the pinnacle of musical achievement. John Lennon died 40 years ago, get over it.


----------



## KenOC

Gallus said:


> Yeah, this thread is just boring old baby boomer (gran)dads who think Pink Floyd and The Beatles are the pinnacle of musical achievement. John Lennon died 40 years ago, get over it.


Nah, Mantovani (the _real _one) beats any of those new guys hollow! 

Anyway, I know that senility's not far away. I listened to a symphony by Charles Villiers Stanford yesterday and actually _liked _it.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> Nah, Mantovani (the _real _one) beats any of those new guys hollow!
> 
> Anyway, I know that senility's not far away. I listened to a symphony by Charles Villiers Stanford yesterday and actually _liked _it.


You've still got good taste in your dotage.


----------



## KenOC

Might mention that Mantovani's main competition was Helmut Zacharias. Now there's _real _classical music! Well, maybe Liberace too, but I don't think he played the violin very much.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> There's no contradiction in my argument. You apparently think classical music should sound a certain way because you reject the Kenny Cheney song with its violin/cello accompaniment as classical music.
> 
> It's perfectly clear. You just haven't been paying attention. I notice that it is in the interest of people to respond to me as if I am including a much wider range of music than I am even though over several threads I have explained it clearly and given examples. In any event, I'm not sure why someone would claim to not know what music I'm talking about and then go ahead and respond so negatively as though they do.
> 
> I know at least as much about my position as you do about yours. Bloviating with the use of terms such as 'overweening' is not going to prove your point any more than my use of the term 'bloviating is going to prove mine.


The reason I don't consider Kenny Chesney's song classical is not that I think classical music should sound a certain way but rather that the song obviously isn't classical. It seems to belong to some sort of popular/country genre about which I know little except that nobody would call it classical. I accept the unanimous verdict of the culture and of my own classically-educated ears.

Do excuse me for not paying enough attention to all your scattered postings. I didn't know that I was expected to. Anyway, it really isn't necessary to know exactly what music you dispute the categorization of to know that your disputatious attitude is based on a false premise and ultimately a subjective preference. There is no culturally current definition of classical music which rules out the "avant garde" extremism that I probably loathe as much (or at least care for as little) as you do. Your attempt to limit the kinds of compositions that can "properly" be called "classical" based on what theoretical listeners at a theoretical "typical" concert would call them is just not much of an argument.

How the term "classical" got applied to music in the first place, what it meant then and what it has come to mean over the decades, have not been determined either by reference to a platonic ideal nor to a poll taken among patrons leaving the concert hall. What it means is a matter of convention, and conventions evolve without asking anyone's permission or approval. In our day, the concept of "classical music" embraces a wide spectrum of music and runs up against limits mainly in terms of what it is, by general consent, _not_ - namely, pop, rock, jazz, and other genres having roots primarily outside the Western European lineage of serious art music. I grant you that some of the things people who advertise themselves as composers are doing no longer give audible evidence of those roots, and haven't for a long time. We can call their efforts by any name we choose, but it would be difficult to pick a turning point in the development of music at which it ceased to be "classical," largely because there never was a point at which the term required a specific musical content. As I said, the idea of classical music is not primarily aesthetic, but cultural.

I think "overweening" is a very nice word, by the way.


----------



## Kopachris

I recall a thread a long time ago about whether or not "Eleanor Rigby" in particular should count as classical music. I can't find the thread right now, though, and I don't recall how it was concluded (honestly, it was probably locked ).


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Might mention that Mantovani's main competition was Helmut Zacharias. Now there's _real _classical music! Well, maybe Liberace too, but I don't think he played the violin very much.


The only Helmut _I_ know is Lachenmann.


----------



## KenOC

Kopachris said:


> I recall a thread a long time ago about whether or not "Eleanor Rigby" in particular should count as classical music. I can't find the thread right now, though, and I don't recall how it was concluded (honestly, it was probably locked ).


That made me chuckle, especially with the mentions of Mantovani. "When George Martin first suggested overdubbing Paul McCartney's recording of _Yesterday _with strings, McCartney's initial reaction, according to Martin, was that he didn't want it sounding like Mantovani. Martin therefore used a more classical sound, employing a string quartet." (Wiki)


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> The reason I don't consider Kenny Chesney's song classical is not that I think classical music should sound a certain way but rather that the song obviously isn't classical. It seems to belong to some sort of popular/country genre about which I know little except that nobody would call it classical. I accept the unanimous verdict of the culture and of my own classically-educated ears.
> 
> Do excuse me for not paying enough attention to all your scattered postings. I didn't know that I was expected to. Anyway, it really isn't necessary to know exactly what music you dispute the categorization of to know that your disputatious attitude is based on a false premise and ultimately a subjective preference. There is no culturally current definition of classical music which rules out the "avant garde" extremism that I probably loathe as much (or at least care for as little) as you do. Your attempt to limit the kinds of compositions that can "properly" be called "classical" based on what theoretical listeners at a theoretical "typical" concert would call them is just not much of an argument.
> 
> How the term "classical" got applied to music in the first place, what it meant then and what it has come to mean over the decades, have not been determined either by reference to a platonic ideal nor to a poll taken among patrons leaving the concert hall. What it means is a matter of convention, and conventions evolve without asking anyone's permission or approval. In our day, the concept of "classical music" embraces a wide spectrum of music and runs up against limits mainly in terms of what it is, by general consent, _not_ - namely, pop, rock, jazz, and other genres having roots primarily outside the Western European lineage of serious art music. I grant you that some of the things people who advertise themselves as composers are doing no longer give audible evidence of those roots, and haven't for a long time. We can call their efforts by any name we choose, but it would be difficult to pick a turning point in the development of music at which it ceased to be "classical," largely because there never was a point at which the term required a specific musical content. As I said, the idea of classical music is not primarily aesthetic, but cultural.
> 
> I think "overweening" is a very nice word, by the way.


Yes, people tend to get tied up with these categories, and that seems counterproductive, as they should be there to help us communicate more clearly, not confuse us, as could be said about words in general. I treated the classical v. popular music question as equivalent to the art v. entertainment question, and anyone who wants to define those terms differently is bound to disagree with me. But it is very hard to make the distinction any other way, as your post demonstrates.

I entirely agree that the only way to make the distinction that makes sense is on cultural grounds. Popular music is intended and designed to cater to a particular culture, sub-culture, age group, demographic, etc. of a particular time and place and capitalize on the aesthetics and ideas of the moment. "Serious" or "art" music is created with broader and more long-term goals. It may fail to achieve those goals, of course, and be more or less forgotten, a fate you no doubt hope for in the case of some avant-garde extremist works. (Though, without extremes to define its boundaries, how can you have a comfortably moderate middle ground?) But even the most successful popular music eventually fades away, as its targeted generation does the same.


----------



## Haydn70

fluteman said:


> I treated the classical v. popular music question as equivalent to the art v. entertainment question


Exactly as the question(s) should be treated. Excellent.



> But even the most successful popular music eventually fades away, as its targeted generation does the same.


Spot on.


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> I was loading a bunch of albums onto my wife's phone tonight. After, we listened to the White Album and some Pink Floyd. Note that this music has been floating around for half a century and is still extremely popular.
> 
> Question: Is this "classical music"? If not, why not? We're happy enough, for reasons that escape me, to label Babbitt's efforts classical music - then why not this?


Yes of course it is ken, it is American classical along with Rag Time and other stuff like that


----------



## KenOC

(deleted)…………………..


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> (deleted)…………………..


Around the flag we shall rally the cannon will go fourth or maybe fifth the grass will be defended to the bitter end, but none will match Victor Silvester The great defender of English classical orchestras or for that matter George Formby the best counter tenor that England has produced.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Do excuse me for not paying enough attention to all your scattered postings. I didn't know that I was expected to. Anyway, it really isn't necessary to know exactly what music you dispute the categorization of to know that your disputatious attitude is based on a false premise and ultimately a subjective preference. There is no culturally current definition of classical music which rules out the "avant garde" extremism that I probably loathe as much (or at least care for as little) as you do. Your attempt to limit the kinds of compositions that can "properly" be called "classical" based on what theoretical listeners at a theoretical "typical" concert would call them is just not much of an argument.


Yours isn't much of an argument either, especially the part about not needing to know what I'm talking about before you criticize it. As for this:



Woodduck said:


> I accept the unanimous verdict of the culture and of my own classically-educated ears.
> There is no culturally current definition of classical music which rules out the "avant garde" extremism...
> As I said, the idea of classical music is not primarily aesthetic, but cultural.


I have some pretty good classically-educated ears and my ears hear nothing classical about music that at its extreme is all about sounds with virtually nothing we associate with classical music. And there is no cultural verdict that has proclaimed it to be classical music.



> I grant you that some of the things people who advertise themselves as composers are doing no longer give audible evidence of those roots, and haven't for a long time. We can call their efforts by any name we choose, but it would be difficult to pick a turning point in the development of music at which it ceased to be "classical," largely because there never was a point at which the term required a specific musical content. As I said, the idea of classical music is not primarily aesthetic, but cultural.


Perhaps we are on some common ground after all. I would think that a good pair of classically-educated ears would be able to tell when people who advertise themselves as composers are no longer giving audible evidence of those roots to the point of creating something that ceases to be classical.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> *Yours isn't much of an argument either*, especially the part about not needing to know what I'm talking about before you criticize it. As for this:
> 
> I have some pretty good classically-educated ears and *my ears hear nothing classical about music that at its extreme is all about sounds with virtually nothing we associate with classical music.* And there is no cultural verdict that has proclaimed it to be classical music.
> 
> Perhaps we are on some common ground after all. I would think that a good pair of classically-educated ears would be able to tell when people who advertise themselves as composers are no longer giving audible evidence of those roots to the point of creating something that ceases to be classical.


Do you not see that your "argument" is circular? You always come back to saying that the music you don't consider classical shouldn't be called classical because it's _"all about sounds with virtually nothing we [?] associate with classical music,"_ and because you _"hear nothing classical about it."_ You start out with an assumption about what classical music should sound like, and then you make the self-evident deduction that something which doesn't sound like it should not be called classical music! This is not an argument at all, but merely an arbitrary assertion based on a terminological preference masquerading as an argument.

I'm not making an argument of that sort, and in rejecting your circular one, I'm not trying to limit what "classical music" is or should be. What I'm doing is simply pointing out how the term is widely used _in the world of music._ When _I_ say that something is not classical music, it's simply because I can tell that it belongs to some other recognized genre. I see no value in carping about how stuff that sounds weird to me but that other musicians classify as classical doesn't sound like Mozart, Satie, or Ockeghem. Neither any of them nor any other composer defines what classical music is, and it certainly isn't my place to define it for anyone else. If I prefer to call the weird stuff "electro-orphism," that's my personal affair.

"Classical" does not refer to a permanent, immutable, or sharply bounded set of things. It isn't something concrete occurring in nature. A changing culture decides what it will identify as "classical music," and what that means will change accordingly. Why pick fights with a shape-changing phantom?


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> even the most successful popular music eventually fades away, as its targeted generation does the same.





ArsMusica said:


> Spot on.


Spot off. The generation(s) that bought Elvis and The Beatles are still alive, and I don't think any one of their popular predecessors had a comparable global reach.

We have to wait and see.


----------



## Haydn70

MacLeod said:


> Spot off. The generation(s) that bought Elvis and The Beatles are still alive, and I don't think any one of their popular predecessors had a comparable global reach.
> 
> We have to wait and see.


"Global reach" is irrelevant. It is not about geography, it is about time; its passage and the passing of those generations who consume the music. As was written elsewhere on this thread, there are 20- and 30-somethings who couldn't care less about the Beatles. Virtually no one will be listening to their music 50 years from now.

Wrong again, MacLeod.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Do you not see that your "argument" is circular? You always come back to saying that the music you don't consider classical shouldn't be called classical because it's _"all about sounds with virtually nothing we [?] associate with classical music,"_ and because you _"hear nothing classical about it."_ You start out with an assumption about what classical music should sound like, and then you make the self-evident deduction that something which doesn't sound like it should not be called classical music! This is not an argument at all, but merely an arbitrary assertion based on a terminological preference masquerading as an argument.
> 
> I'm not making an argument of that sort, and in rejecting your circular one, I'm not trying to limit what "classical music" is or should be. What I'm doing is simply pointing out how the term is widely used _in the world of music._ When _I_ say that something is not classical music, it's simply because I can tell that it belongs to some other recognized genre. I see no value in carping about how stuff that sounds weird to me but that other musicians classify as classical doesn't sound like Mozart, Satie, or Ockeghem. Neither any of them nor any other composer defines what classical music is, and it certainly isn't my place to define it for anyone else. If I prefer to call the weird stuff "electro-orphism," that's my personal affair.
> 
> "Classical" does not refer to a permanent, immutable, or sharply bounded set of things. It isn't something concrete occurring in nature. A changing culture decides what it will identify as "classical music," and what that means will change accordingly. Why pick fights with a shape-changing phantom?


Actually this reminds me of Euthyphro when asked to define piety....pretty sure anything that follows that kind of circular reasoning simply does not hold water. It doesn't even hold _itself.........................._


----------



## KenOC

ArsMusica said:


> "Global reach" is irrelevant. It is not about geography, it is about time; its passage and the passing of those generations who consume the music. As was written elsewhere on this thread, there are 20- and 30-somethings who couldn't care less about Elvis and the Beatles. Virtually no one will be listening to their music 50 years from now.


In fact, there are a lot of younger people who care about the "golden age" of rock music. My own kids, for instance (who are now approaching middle age).

And I wonder about the Strauss family, whose waltzes and polkas are now considered "classical". Were there people in past years who objected to this? I don't know, maybe somebody here does.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

ArsMusica said:


> "Global reach" is irrelevant. It is not about geography, it is about time; its passage and the passing of those generations who consume the music. As was written elsewhere on this thread, there are 20- and 30-somethings who couldn't care less about the Beatles. Virtually no one will be listening to their music 50 years from now.
> 
> Wrong again, MacLeod.


Using popularity as a metric is not very fair...
How many people do you think care at all about mid-late 20th century and contemporary "avantgarde classical" music? Aside from people on this forum - people that are musically trained or very deep into experimental sounds?


----------



## KenOC

BabyGiraffe said:


> Using popularity as a metric is not very fair...


As an exercise, scan back though the Pulitzer Prizes for music from the 1990s to date. How many of these will be remembered in ten years? How many are remembered _today_?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Music#1990s


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> "Global reach" is irrelevant. It is not about geography, it is about time; its passage and the passing of those generations who consume the music. As was written elsewhere on this thread, there are 20- and 30-somethings who couldn't care less about the Beatles. Virtually no one will be listening to their music 50 years from now.


It is about time and popularity (as exemplified by global sales, for example), at least according to fluteman. My point is that it is too early to tell whether popular music lasts because those buying the most popular popular music are still alive and buying, and there are people who still care about _Eleanor Rigby_.

By all means predict what you will for 50 years hence (I'll be dead so won't be around to say 'spot on'). Fluteman was not predicting but declaring for now.



ArsMusica said:


> Wrong again, MacLeod.


Again? Sir, substantiate or withdraw!


----------



## Haydn70

BabyGiraffe said:


> Using popularity as a metric is not very fair...
> How many people do you think care at all about mid-late 20th century and contemporary "avantgarde classical" music? Aside from people on this forum - people that are musically trained or very deep into experimental sounds?


I am not sure we are discussing the same issue, BabyGiraffe. The point I was making had to do strictly with popular music and how its longevity is connected to those people who grew up with the music, so to speak. I wasn't addressing the popularity (or lack thereof) of contemporary art music.

And I agree, in general, that popularity is not a usable metric...we just have to look at the popularity of popular music vs. that of classical music to see that.


----------



## KenOC

ArsMusica said:


> I am not sure we are discussing the same issue, BabyGiraffe. The point I was making had to do strictly with popular music and how its popularity is connected to those people who grew up with the music, so to speak. I wasn't addressing the popularity (or lack thereof) of contemporary art music.
> 
> And I agree, in general, that popularity is not a usable metric...we just have to look at the popularity of popular music vs. Western art music to see that.


If we were to look back, the popularity of music today is heavily weighted toward "new music" -- music of this year as opposed to music of last year. Pretty much as it was in Vivaldi's time. Perhaps things will turn out now as well, given time, as they did then!


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> In fact, there are a lot of younger people who care about the "golden age" of rock music. My own kids, for instance (who are now approaching middle age).
> 
> *And I wonder about the Strauss family, whose waltzes and polkas are now considered "classical". Were there people in past years who objected to this? I don't know, maybe somebody here does.*


The case of the Strauss family's music, most of which was written for dancing, points up the fuzzy edges and the cultural mutability of the category of "classical music."

The term seems to have appeared around 1820, and was first used to refer to the compositional practice of Baroque and Classical music up to and including Beethoven. There was a conscious contrast with Romantic music, which had a more "literary" aesthetic in contrast to the more abstract ideal of beauty thought of as "classic" and timeless. But the term "classical" at some point began to represent merely a contrast with "popular," and thus to include Romantic and modern "art music" as well as the older repertoire.

I'm inclined to think that music such as the Strausses' was not considered "classical" when it was new, but because it went beyond simple tavern music and employed techniques and sounds - harmony, orchestration, formal elaboration - learned from contemporary concert and operatic music, it was admired by leading composers (notably Brahms and Wagner). Johann Strauss's orchestra traveled all over Europe and presented concerts of diverse classic and contemporary repertoire mixed in with his family's dance pieces, and his own new works were eagerly heard and reviewed by distinguished music critics such as Eduard Hanslick. Strauss did write some music for concerts and for the stage which were not radically different in style and technique from his dance works, and many of his waltzes quite naturally found their way into into the orchestral repertoire. They are not often included in serious orchestral concerts nowadays, but they're considered "light classics" and are apparently immortal, unlike most purely "popular" music of their era.


----------



## Gallus

Mozart, Schubert and others also wrote hundreds of pieces of light dance music which would have been the pop of their day and are now almost completely forgotten.


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> Spot off. The generation(s) that bought Elvis and The Beatles are still alive, and I don't think any one of their popular predecessors had a comparable global reach.
> 
> We have to wait and see.


Just to be clear, my point was not to belittle the Beatles (or Elvis) or their talent or accomplishments. Rather, that popular music is designed and intended for the here and now, and usually for a specific generation and even demographic in the here and now. Go back 100 years and look at the top hit songs. I posted a top 5 list from 1920. Actually, the best of them are great songs, and an important part of American cultural history, in my opinion. And you might hear a couple of them every now and then, especially in soundtracks for movies set in an earlier time, for example. So, at least those few songs are not gone entirely. But their era is gone, and they occupy a very narrow and obscure niche today.

In contrast, when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, what music was performed to celebrate? Beethoven's 9th Symphony, a work that premiered in 1824, in a famous concert attended by thousands and conducted by Leonard Bernstein. I think that's because Beethoven sought to express universal and lasting ideas that were still relevant in 1989.

I did say above that the Beatles were a special case, and did some ambitious and impressive work, especially late in their career when they were already rich and famous and no longer needed to tour or perform in public. Leonard Bernstein made of point of acknowledging them.

But even the Beatles never fully transitioned from being the most popular rock band of their day into something more permanent. Instead, they split up and formed other popular rock bands. John Lennon and Yoko Ono came the closest to evolving into something more ambitious, and to my great amusement they have been attacked for it ever since, even in this forum.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> That made me chuckle, especially with the mentions of Mantovani. "When George Martin first suggested overdubbing Paul McCartney's recording of _Yesterday _with strings, McCartney's initial reaction, according to Martin, was that he didn't want it sounding like Mantovani. Martin therefore used a more classical sound, employing a string quartet." (Wiki)


If you want to hear The Beatles and Mantovani, listen to "Goodnight" from the White Album. I much prefer the piano-only demo on Anthology 3.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> If you want to hear The Beatles and Mantovani, listen to "Goodnight" from the White Album. I much prefer the piano-only demo on Anthology 3.


I read somewhere that Lennon was very insistent it sound over-the-top schmaltzy.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Do you not see that your "argument" is circular? You always come back to saying that the music you don't consider classical shouldn't be called classical because it's _"all about sounds with virtually nothing we [?] associate with classical music,"_ and because you _"hear nothing classical about it."_ You start out with an assumption about what classical music should sound like, and then you make the self-evident deduction that something which doesn't sound like it should not be called classical music!


There's nothing circular about the argument; it's just your head spinning trying to comprehend it. And then there's the hypocrisy. You made your decision about the Chesney piece on more than just a cultural basis; it included your own musical experience and common sense. Your words:



Woodduck said:


> The reason I don't consider Kenny Chesney's song classical is not that I think classical music should sound a certain way but rather that *the song obviously isn't classical*. It seems to belong to some sort of popular/country genre about which I know little except that nobody would call it classical. I accept the unanimous verdict of the culture *and of my own classically-educated ears.*





> If I prefer to call the weird stuff "electro-orphism," that's my personal affair.


Hmm. That speaks volumes.



> "Classical" does not refer to a permanent, immutable, or sharply bounded set of things. It isn't something concrete occurring in nature. A changing culture decides what it will identify as "classical music," and what that means will change accordingly. Why pick fights with a shape-changing phantom?


I'm part of the changing culture. Voices of the culture will determine whether the music I'm talking about will prove itself to be classical. I'm one voice speaking out. Bite me.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> There's nothing circular about the argument; it's just your head spinning trying to comprehend it. And then there's the hypocrisy. You made your decision about the Chesney piece on more than just a cultural basis; it included your own musical experience and common sense.
> 
> I'm part of the changing culture. Voices of the culture will determine whether the music I'm talking about will prove itself to be classical. I'm one voice speaking out. Bite me.


"Head-spinning," "hypocrisy," "bite me"...

"Bite me"??? 

I see that in another thread you wrote: "Criticism is not new to me in these modern music related threads. But you will never see me questioning a poster's intelligence, education or other personal alleged limitations."

Too bad you can't go back and edit that.


----------



## Haydn70

Gallus said:


> Mozart, Schubert and others also wrote hundreds of pieces of light dance music which would have been the pop of their day and are now almost completely forgotten.


Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, et al, did not write pop music. They composed art music. Some of that music was 'lighter' than other music they wrote, but all of it was in the art music tradition.

The pop music of the 18th and 19th (and 16th, 17th, etc.) centuries was folk music.

Beethoven composed arrangements of Scottish folk songs. Yes, the melodies are folk melodies but the sophistication of the accompaniments raises these pieces quite a few notches above mere folk or 'pop' music. They would be an example of Beethoven 'light' music...light art music *not *pop music.






Recently an old friend of mine told me he believed Mozart's music was the popular music of his day. I met a woman some years ago who told me Beethoven was the Elvis of his time...and she wasn't just referring to the extent of Beethoven's fame…the comparison she was making was on a musical level!

Now I know the reasons why these two people thought the way they did...but it is perhaps best not to get into those reasons.


----------



## isorhythm

DaveM said:


> I'm part of the changing culture. Voices of the culture will determine whether the music I'm talking about will prove itself to be classical.


What are you talking about? Music can't "prove itself to be classical" anymore than it could "prove itself" to be jazz or country or EDM. I'm not sure you understand what musical genres are.

Plenty of symphonies from the 18th century are not well remembered because they're not very good, but they're nonetheless classical music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Anyway, it really isn't necessary to know exactly what music you dispute the categorization of to know that your disputatious attitude is based on a false premise and ultimately a subjective preference. There is no culturally current definition of classical music which rules out the "avant garde" extremism that I probably loathe as much (or at least care for as little) as you do. Your attempt to limit the kinds of compositions that can "properly" be called "classical" based on what theoretical listeners at a theoretical "typical" concert would call them is just not much of an argument.





DaveM said:


> There's nothing circular about the argument; it's just your head spinning trying to comprehend it. And then there's the hypocrisy. You made your decision about the Chesney piece on more than just a cultural basis; it included your own musical experience and common sense.Your words:
> 
> _
> Woodduck:
> The reason I don't consider Kenny Chesney's song classical is not that I think classical music should sound a certain way but rather that the song obviously isn't classical. It seems to belong to some sort of popular/country genre about which I know little except that nobody would call it classical. I accept the unanimous verdict of the culture and of my own classically-educated ears. If I prefer to call the weird stuff "electro-orphism," that's my personal affair..."Classical" does not refer to a permanent, immutable, or sharply bounded set of things. It isn't something concrete occurring in nature. A changing culture decides what it will identify as "classical music," and what that means will change accordingly. Why pick fights with a shape-changing phantom?
> 
> _
> 
> 
> ..I'm part of the changing culture. Voices of the culture will determine whether the music I'm talking about will prove itself to be classical. I'm one voice speaking out. Bite me.


Nobody is questioning your likes or dislikes; but you are stating what Woodduck correctly observed as your personal opinion as being "fact," and it is obviously not. 
At least Woodduck is being objective, even if he doesn't like the music, and also recognizes when music is obviously not his area, and when it is generally assumed to be "what it is" by concensus agreement of the culture at large, music historians, etc.

I don't think you have defined your criteria for "what is classical" enough to present a credible argument, other than your own preferences. Besides, as Woodduck observed, the post-modern situation is very complicated, and "classical" can be something unrecognizable, even foreign, to what many would consider classical, but then there's the obvious, like country star Kenny Chesney. He is part of an industry, and is recognized as such...it would indeed be absurd to consider his music "classical."

I think that the problem of labeling music "classical" can be solved by defining more precise criteria which go to deeper aspects of its creation, and intent of the creators, and is not dependent on "what it sounds like" to someone. The Criteria must by based on more objective characteristics, which are not always apparent in the sound of the music itself. It also involves cultural practices, cultural perceptions, history, the social milieu, etc.

Bite me?


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> Just to be clear, my point was not to belittle the Beatles (or Elvis) or their talent or accomplishments. Rather, that popular music is designed and intended for the here and now, and usually for a specific generation and even demographic in the here and now. Go back 100 years and look at the top hit songs. I posted a top 5 list from 1920.
> 
> [...]
> 
> But even the Beatles never fully transitioned from being the most popular rock band of their day into something more permanent. Instead, they split up and formed other popular rock bands. John Lennon and Yoko Ono came the closest to evolving into something more ambitious, and to my great amusement they have been attacked for it ever since, even in this forum.


Don't worry. I didn't assume you were belittling anyone. I just think you're being premature in claiming that popular music fades, on the basis of your example from 1920 when, as I put it (unacceptably, apparently) the global reach of popular music was much less extensive than it is now. However, I'm puzzled that I have to labour a point that seems pretty obvious.

The "transition" of The Beatles is irrelevant - it's their music that counts, does the music of LvB. He didn't transition - he only died.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> "Head-spinning," "hypocrisy," "bite me"...
> 
> "Bite me"???
> 
> I see that in another thread you wrote: "Criticism is not new to me in these modern music related threads. But you will never see me questioning a poster's intelligence, education or other personal alleged limitations."
> 
> Too bad you can't go back and edit that.


If you took the 'head spinning' thing as questioning your intelligence then my apologies.


----------



## DaveM

isorhythm said:


> What are you talking about? Music can't "prove itself to be classical" anymore than it could "prove itself" to be jazz or country or EDM. I'm not sure you understand what musical genres are.
> 
> Plenty of symphonies from the 18th century are not well remembered because they're not very good, but they're nonetheless classical music.


Non sequitur. This is about characteristics, not quality


----------



## isorhythm

DaveM said:


> Non sequitur. This is about characteristics, not quality


Fair enough. The thing is that "classical" is a broad umbrella term that encompasses a lot of different characteristics. Chuck Berry doesn't have a lot of characteristics in common with death metal but they both fall under the broad category of "rock music." Same goes for, e.g., Bach and Xenakis.


----------



## Haydn70

isorhythm said:


> Fair enough. The thing is that "classical" is a broad umbrella term that encompasses a lot of different characteristics. Chuck Berry doesn't have a lot of characteristics in common with death metal but they both fall under the broad category of "rock music." *Same goes for, e.g., Bach and Xenakis.*


Excellent post.

When I taught music appreciation, on the first day of class I would play about one minute of plainchant followed by about one minute of the first movement of Elliott Carter's Third String Quartet. I would then say something to the effect that these two pieces are directly related and we are going to spend the next ten weeks investigating that relationship.

*DaveM*, I believe you and I are in agreement wherein we both dislike (hate?) atonal, serial, and experimental music. I know, for example, the music of Ferneyhough has been discussed in this regard. I despise his music and consider it extremely ugly. That said, I will be the first to say that Ferneyhough is working in the Western art music (aka classical) tradition.

Plainchant, Elliott Carter, Bach, Xenakis, Ockeghem, Stockhausen, Corelli, Boulez, Machaut, Feldman…they all belong to the same musical "practice" or tradition: Western art music.


----------



## DaveM

ArsMusica said:


> Excellent post.
> 
> When I taught music appreciation, on the first day of class I would play about one minute of plainchant followed by about one minute of the first movement of Elliott Carter's Third String Quartet. I would then say something to the effect that these two pieces are directly related and we are going to spend the next ten weeks investigating that relationship.
> 
> *DaveM*, I believe you and I are in agreement wherein we both dislike (hate?) atonal, serial, and experimental music. I know, for example, the music of Ferneyhough has been discussed in this regard. I despise his music and consider it extremely ugly. That said, I will be the first to say that Ferneyhough is working in the Western art music (aka classical) tradition.
> 
> Plainchant, Elliott Carter, Bach, Xenakis, Ockeghem, Stockhausen, Corelli, Boulez, Machaut, Feldman…they all belong to the same musical "practice" or tradition: Western art music.


As I have said more than once, I am not talking about atonal or serial music. I'm talking about a good segment of experimental music. The very term 'experimental' suggests no constraints and no need to fall under the umbrella of any genre to the point where it moves into a new genre: the exploration of sound itself which is not what we tend to think of as classical music. My guess would be that a number of these composers aren't trying to compose classical at all and are proud of their innovations as something new and different from classical music.


----------



## Haydn70

DaveM said:


> As I have said more than once, I am not talking about atonal or serial music. I'm talking about a good segment of experimental music. The very term 'experimental' suggests no constraints and no need to fall under the umbrella of any genre to the point where it moves into a new genre: the exploration of sound itself which is not what we tend to think of as classical music. My guess would be that a number of these composers aren't trying to compose classical at all and are proud of their innovations as something new and different from classical music.


Sorry that I missed your take on atonal and serial music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> As I have said more than once, I am not talking about atonal or serial music. I'm talking about a good segment of experimental music. The very term 'experimental' suggests no constraints and no need to fall under the umbrella of any genre to the point where it moves into a new genre: the exploration of sound itself which is not what we tend to think of as classical music. My guess would be that a number of these composers aren't trying to compose classical at all and are proud of their innovations as something new and different from classical music.


A new genre springing from what origins?

You don't seem to want to give up with this cul-de-sac of an argument. One can always spot these kinds of things; they aren't really motivated by inquiry, but personal aesthetics (tastes, desires..etc etc..)


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> Don't worry. I didn't assume you were belittling anyone. I just think you're being premature in claiming that popular music fades, on the basis of your example from 1920 when, as I put it (unacceptably, apparently) the global reach of popular music was much less extensive than it is now. However, I'm puzzled that I have to labour a point that seems pretty obvious.
> 
> The "transition" of The Beatles is irrelevant - it's their music that counts, does the music of LvB. He didn't transition - he only died.


We could go back and forth on this endlessly. I think it significant that so many American teens I speak with today have never even heard of the Beatles, while you apparently don't think that is significant. As for the Beatles' transition from a performing rock band to a producer of albums including sophisticated conceptual pieces, some of which could not even be performed live, the relevance of that is, had they not made that transition, the Beatles would simply be another hugely popular in their day but ultimately forgotten popular music group.
And I think Beethoven's music counts when it is performed at one of the most significant occasions of the second half of the 20th century.


----------



## fluteman

KenOC said:


> In fact, there are a lot of younger people who care about the "golden age" of rock music. My own kids, for instance (who are now approaching middle age).


Yes, I trained my daughter well, too, and she is much younger than your kids. I took her to one of Joe Cocker's last concerts, and she became an instant classic rock fan. Later we went (at enormous expense) to see Eric Clapton perform live with several other rock luminaries. Well worth it, but our kids are very much the exception. I'm not worried about interesting her in Beethoven. She'll get there.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> I think that the problem of labeling music "classical" can be solved by defining more precise criteria which go to deeper aspects of its creation, and intent of the creators, and is not dependent on "what it sounds like" to someone. The Criteria must by based on more objective characteristics, which are not always apparent in the sound of the music itself. It also involves cultural practices, cultural perceptions, history, the social milieu, etc.


Right. I'm not sure why this is so controversial here.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> ...The Criteria must by based on more objective characteristics, which are not always apparent in the sound of the music itself. It also involves cultural practices, cultural perceptions, history, the social milieu, etc.







Well, of course! How could I have missed it? Look at all the cultural evidence of a grand classical music heritage. And I missed the most obvious evidence: there's a grand piano in the room.

(Btw, definition: "Bite me is typically used as a US idiomatic expression of discontent or annoyance with another party.")


----------



## janxharris

ArsMusica said:


> Excellent post.
> 
> When I taught music appreciation, on the first day of class I would play about one minute of plainchant followed by about one minute of the first movement of Elliott Carter's Third String Quartet. I would then say something to the effect that these two pieces are directly related and we are going to spend the next ten weeks investigating that relationship.
> 
> *DaveM*, I believe you and I are in agreement wherein we both dislike (hate?) atonal, serial, and experimental music. I know, for example, the music of Ferneyhough has been discussed in this regard. I despise his music and consider it extremely ugly. That said, I will be the first to say that Ferneyhough is working in the Western art music (aka classical) tradition.
> 
> Plainchant, Elliott Carter, Bach, Xenakis, Ockeghem, Stockhausen, Corelli, Boulez, Machaut, Feldman…they all belong to the same musical "practice" or tradition: Western art music.


You can prove that Radiohead's Paranoid Android is not also part of that art music tradition?


----------



## Bulldog

DaveM said:


> Well, of course! How could I have missed it? Look at all the cultural evidence of a grand classical music heritage. And I missed the most obvious evidence: there's a grand piano in the room.
> 
> (Btw, definition: "Bite me is typically used as a US idiomatic expression of discontent or annoyance with another party.")


That has to be the most stupid thing I've ever seen. Then again, maybe it's brain surgery music.


----------



## isorhythm

janxharris said:


> You can prove that Radiohead's Paranoid Android is not also part of that art music tradition?


It's a rock song. You can tell because it was made by a rock band.


----------



## Dan Ante

Bulldog said:


> That has to be the most stupid thing I've ever seen. Then again, maybe it's brain surgery music.


Or a Monty Python sketch…….


----------



## janxharris

This isn't art music???

Radiohead's 'Airbag' for string quartet


----------



## janxharris

isorhythm said:


> It's a rock song. You can tell because it was made by a rock band.


You mean it was composed?


----------



## janxharris

isorhythm said:


> It's a rock song. You can tell because it was made by a rock band.


It not art music because.........?


----------



## isorhythm

janxharris said:


> This isn't art music???
> 
> Radiohead's 'Airbag' for string quartet


I don't know why you would arrange a perfectly good rock song for string quartet like that. Anyway, of course it's art.


----------



## janxharris

isorhythm said:


> I don't know why you would arrange a perfectly good rock song for string quartet like that. Anyway, of course it's art.


Well why not? Why is there a two piano version of Rite of Spring?


----------



## janxharris

Programme 'Airbag' in a string quartet concert and say it was composed by some obscure modern avant-garde chap and nobody would object that it was pop/rock music (assuming said piece's authorship was not known).


----------



## KenOC

I keep seeing the argument that “popular” music isn’t classical because it’s evanescent, it doesn’t stand the test of time. But I wonder if anybody cares to estimate the portion of purposely-composed classical music that also fails the test of time…?


----------



## DaveM

Bulldog said:


> That has to be the most stupid thing I've ever seen. Then again, maybe it's brain surgery music.


It's being presented on this forum as classical music. There's more like it if you want. So when I presented the country song with classical-like violin/cello background, I wasn't in the weeds as you called it. I was making (what I believe to be) a more profound point.


----------



## Crudblud

Crudblud said:


> Also, I'm curious: Are there any examples of pop song structure in classical music? Excepting Pink Floyd and the Beatles for a moment, if you'll entertain such a radical notion, I can't think of any Lieder or mélodies that exhibit a verse-chorus type structure, which seems rather to have come from folk musics.


I have not yet lost hope of having this question answered.


----------



## janxharris




----------



## Haydn70

KenOC said:


> I keep seeing the argument that "popular" music isn't classical because it's evanescent, it doesn't stand the test of time. But I wonder if anybody cares to estimate the portion of purposely-composed classical music that also fails the test of time…?


Anyone who argues that popular music isn't classical because because it's JUST BECAUSE it is evanescent has it wrong. There is a huge quantity of art music from that has failed the test of time.

HOWEVER:

Good/great (even just OK) art music stands the test of time.

Popular music of any quality doesn't.


----------



## isorhythm

janxharris said:


> Programme 'Airbag' in a string quartet concert and say it was composed by some obscure modern avant-garde chap and nobody would object that it was pop/rock music (assuming said piece's authorship was not known).


They'd notice it had the structure and melodic features of a pop song; maybe they'd think that was some kind of postmodern gimmick, I don't know. I like the song, and Radiohead generally, but don't find these string arrangements effective at all.

None of this touches on the bizarre claim that Radiohead might be classical music.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> We could go back and forth on this endlessly. I think it significant that so many American teens I speak with today have never even heard of the Beatles, while you apparently don't think that is significant. As for the Beatles' transition from a performing rock band to a producer of albums including sophisticated conceptual pieces, some of which could not even be performed live, the relevance of that is, had they not made that transition, the Beatles would simply be another hugely popular in their day but ultimately forgotten popular music group.
> And I think Beethoven's music counts when it is performed at one of the most significant occasions of the second half of the 20th century.


But they did make that transition...so...(?)

As for teens, so what. We already know that classical has a tiny %age of followers, so what makes you think that the teens of today will become the classical lovers of tomorrow more than the lovers of their pop? I'm struggling to follow your logic. Sorry.


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> Anyone who argues that popular music isn't classical because because it's JUST BECAUSE it is evanescent has it wrong. There is a huge quantity of art music from that has failed the test of time.
> 
> HOWEVER:
> 
> Good/great (even just OK) art music stands the test of time.
> 
> Popular music of any quality doesn't.


Well Greensleeves has been around a while.

But what is this fatuous line of argument anyway? How does the alleged longevity of classical v the lack of pop longevity answer the OP?


----------



## KenOC

Crudblud said:


> I have not yet lost hope of having this question answered.


Wiki: "Strophic form, also called verse-repeating or chorus form, is the term applied to songs in which all verses or stanzas of the text are sung to the same music. The opposite of strophic form, with new music written for every stanza, is called through-composed.

"Das Wandern, the opening song in Franz Schubert's song cycle Die schöne Müllerin, is a classic example of a strophic song…

"Many classical art songs are also composed in strophic form, from the 17th century French air de cour to 19th century German lieder and beyond... Franz Schubert composed many important strophic lieder, including settings of both narrative poems and simpler, folk-like texts, such as his Heidenröslein and "Der Fischer". Several of the songs in his song cycle Die schöne Müllerin use strophic form."


----------



## janxharris

Beethoven wrote rock music?


----------



## eugeneonagain

janxharris said:


> Well why not? Why is there a two piano version of Rite of Spring?


This conversation has been had, you were there. That's why I find it doubly odd that you would ask the same question again.

Rite of Spring is an acknowledged classical piece however you arrange it. You could probably even arrange it for a guitar band and then it would be a classical piece arranged for a rock band and not magically turned into a rock song.

Arranging rock songs to be played in a self-conscious classical style doesn't transform it into 'classical music' like some sort of alchemy.


----------



## KenOC

ArsMusica said:


> Anyone who argues that popular music isn't classical because because it's JUST BECAUSE it is evanescent has it wrong. There is a huge quantity of art music from that has failed the test of time.
> 
> HOWEVER:
> 
> Good/great (even just OK) art music stands the test of time.
> 
> Popular music of any quality doesn't.


Either your logic is circular or we have to revisit the meaning of "stands the test of time." I posted the last 30 years of Pulitzer Prize in Music winners earlier, but got no response. I can't see that the vast majority of works winning that prize have stood the test of time. In fact, I have a subversive hunch that a far greater quantity of popular music written during the last half century has stood the test of time than has "classical" music composed in the same period.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> That has to be the most stupid thing I've ever seen. Then again, maybe it's brain surgery music.


Rykova is the current composer in Exploring Contemporary Music based on my recommendation and enthusiasm for her works. If you like, you can post in that thread as well.  Looking forward to more detailed opinions!


----------



## DeepR

aleazk said:


> Experiment. If you can't see why this _obviously_ is classical music, despite its apparent 'radical' surface (being produced only with synthesizers) with respect to past tradition, then I would say you are not a true classical listener, and that you are only listening to the mere surface of both past and present music. The way of thinking and organizing the piece at the big scale in that Stockhausen piece is so evidently based on the knowledge of the great germanic composers, the way in which color is added and handled is also evidently informed by the classical tradition, and so many other things. _A composer of popular music or any other tradition couldn't have composed such a piece ever._ That, and the fact that there are elements that directly belong to the classical tradition and some others that are 'new' (speaking now of electronic music done by classical composers), is what makes it part of a new sub-genre of classical rather than a new sub-genre of music (although it's also a new sub-genre of music, too, and popular music has its own brand of it, too; to which of those it belongs is a question of to what degree the influences from either classical or popular are defining enough of the essence of the piece*).
> 
> *thus, this, for example, is not classical. One can use a violin to produce a couple of effects in a popular song, or, instead, one can have lots of them and write a whole symphony for that ensemble of violins. That's the difference between that rock piece and Oktophonie.


I'm not sure if this post was directed at me, but I wasn't talking about Stockhausen so I'm just going to ignore the rest of it. For reference, this is the kind of music I was talking about in my posts #138 and #149, which some guy called "new music". I wasn't talking about electronic music that has (more) evident ties to classical music.

Music today

You'll see my post #7 in there, I was struggling with the same questions. Where do you draw the line between classical and non-classical electronic music? Where do the ties and traces to the classical tradition end and where does a different genre begin? Who would recognize this music "blindly" (just by listening and without knowing anything about it) as classical electronic music instead of "just" electronic music? It all seems very arbitrary at this point.


----------



## fluteman

KenOC said:


> Wiki: "Strophic form, also called verse-repeating or chorus form, is the term applied to songs in which all verses or stanzas of the text are sung to the same music. The opposite of strophic form, with new music written for every stanza, is called through-composed.
> 
> "Das Wandern, the opening song in Franz Schubert's song cycle Die schöne Müllerin, is a classic example of a strophic song…
> 
> "Many classical art songs are also composed in strophic form, from the 17th century French air de cour to 19th century German lieder and beyond... Franz Schubert composed many important strophic lieder, including settings of both narrative poems and simpler, folk-like texts, such as his Heidenröslein and "Der Fischer". Several of the songs in his song cycle Die schöne Müllerin use strophic form."


Good response. Schubert is in fact the king of composing songs in what you are calling "strophic form". When I read Crudblud's post, I actually started humming Heidenröslein to myself.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> Rykova is the current composer in Exploring Contemporary Music based on my recommendation and enthusiasm for her works. If you like, you can post in that thread as well.  Looking forward to more detailed opinions!


Fwiw, the detailed opinions have to be positive because negative opinions wouldn't be allowed there and rightfully so.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Fwiw, the detailed opinions have to be positive because negative opinions wouldn't be allowed there and rightfully so.


Why wouldn't negative opinions be allowed? I've posted negative things about other composers in that thread and there haven't been any issues.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> Why wouldn't negative opinions be allowed? I've posted negative things about other composers in that thread and there haven't been any issues.


Well, to be more specific, being negative about what is being treated as a sub-genre of contemporary classical music as opposed to simply not liking a given composer.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Well, to be more specific, being negative about what is being treated as sub-genre of contemporary classical music as opposed to simply not liking a given composer.


Do you feel comfortable with your opinion?


----------



## Guest

.....................................


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> Well, of course! How could I have missed it? Look at all the cultural evidence of a grand classical music heritage. And I missed the most obvious evidence: there's a grand piano in the room.


This thing was discussed extensively in another thread. The question was raised as to what it actually is: music, theater, performance art, conceptual art, or what? When there isn't even agreement among musicians on whether something should be classified as music, the question of whether it's "classical" seems at least premature, if not irrelevant.


----------



## Gallus

ArsMusica said:


> Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, et al, did not write pop music. They composed art music. Some of that music was 'lighter' than other music they wrote, but all of it was in the art music tradition.
> 
> The pop music of the 18th and 19th (and 16th, 17th, etc.) centuries was folk music.
> 
> Beethoven composed arrangements of Scottish folk songs. Yes, the melodies are folk melodies but the sophistication of the accompaniments raises these pieces quite a few notches above mere folk or 'pop' music. They would be an example of Beethoven 'light' music...light art music *not *pop music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recently an old friend of mine told me he believed Mozart's music was the popular music of his day. I met a woman some years ago who told me Beethoven was the Elvis of his time...and she wasn't just referring to the extent of Beethoven's fame…the comparison she was making was on a musical level!
> 
> Now I know the reasons why these two people thought the way they did...but it is perhaps best not to get into those reasons.


I'm not talking about Beethoven's arrangements of folk songs, but the actual _dance music_ he wrote for balls and other dances.

Another example:






This is the 18th century version of dance music which you might hear at any nightclub today. Same function, same artistic purpose. Mozart's main job in the employ of the Emperor was to write music for the Imperial balls, which he did in great number.






'Art music'? This was the 'EDM' of their day. That is not to say that Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven etc. were the Elvis of their day, but that they wrote all kinds of music _including _contemporary popular dance music like Elvis would later do.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> This thing was discussed extensively in another thread. The question was raised as to what it actually is: music, theater, performance art, conceptual art, or what? When there isn't even agreement among musicians on whether something should be classified as music, the question of whether it's "classical" seems at least premature, if not irrelevant.


How about this? Are you feeling the cultural classical tradition?


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> How about this? Are you feeling the cultural classical tradition?


I don't know what "feeling the cultural classical tradition" means, but I acknowledge this as contemporary classical music, as that term is presently understood in the classical music world. I also find the piece meaningless and annoying, but license to be meaningless and annoying is now a part of the classical music tradition. God only knows what the composer thinks he or she is communicating. It's often better not to ask.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> I also find the piece meaningless and annoying, but license to be meaningless and annoying is now a part of the classical music tradition...


Well, at the very least, that's a rather sad state of affairs.


----------



## KenOC

Gallus said:


> I'm not talking about Beethoven's arrangements of folk songs, but the actual _dance music_ he wrote for balls and other dances.


Beethoven even wrote a ballet for horses. I don't think he ever apologized, though he probably should have.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Well, at the very least, that's a rather sad state of affairs.


I don't think it's a sad state of affairs. I think there's an enormous amount of music out there and many different individual styles and aesthetics that may or may not be to our tastes. That's surely a good thing, right? It means it's guaranteed that music you like will exist and music you don't like that other people do like. To me, that seems quite simple.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> I don't think it's a sad state of affairs. I think there's an enormous amount of music out there and many different individual styles and aesthetics that may or may not be to our tastes. That's surely a good thing, right? It means it's guaranteed that music you like will exist and music you don't like that other people do like. To me, that seems quite simple.


Of course. I have been consistent on my position. This is not a question of taste. If it were I would be including atonal/serial music. The examples I gave and music like it is IMO not classical music and if people insist that it is then they are poor examples of classical music. But they may be great examples of an experimental music category separate from classical and all the more power to those who like it. Seriously.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> I don't know what "feeling the cultural classical tradition" means, but I acknowledge this as contemporary classical music, as that term is presently understood in the classical music world. I also find the piece meaningless and annoying, but license to be meaningless and annoying is now a part of the classical music tradition. God only knows what the composer thinks he or she is communicating. It's often better not to ask.


Elsewhere - in reference to this piece - another member here suggested that the performer looked as though he was struggling to perform this piece; which may also have an effect upon its performance. I imagine most people would struggle, since it is way out of the comfort zone of what most violinists are trained for.

I'm still considering having this piece performed at my funeral, which will hopefully annoy all the people I will make sure to invite.


----------



## Crudblud

KenOC said:


> Strophic form


The article you quoted clearly states that strophic form and verse-chorus form are two different things. See this article, I'm asking if anyone knows of any instances of this form in classical music.


----------



## janxharris

Crudblud said:


> The article you quoted clearly states that strophic form and verse-chorus form are two different things. See this article, I'm asking if anyone knows of any instances of this form in classical music.


Even if there is a difference - what difference does it make?


----------



## janxharris

Do we criticise Ravel's Bolero for being in ABAB etc form? I don't.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

KenOC said:


> Beethoven even wrote a ballet for horses. I don't think he ever apologized, though he probably should have.


There was a site hosting some of his unpublished works and fragments and there were few that sounded to me as "circus" music...
I don't remember what was the address, but maybe someone knows it. It was some kind of scholar site dedicated to Beethoven only.


----------



## Crudblud

janxharris said:


> Do we criticise Ravel's Bolero for being in ABAB etc form? I don't.


I'm not criticising anything, I'm just asking a question.


----------



## fluteman

Crudblud said:


> The article you quoted clearly states that strophic form and verse-chorus form are two different things. See this article, I'm asking if anyone knows of any instances of this form in classical music.


I don't know if you noticed my post about Schubert's Heidenröslein, one of the most simply constructed and written but beautiful of all Schubert's songs. A verse, and then a chorus, repeated three times. (I'm a Zappa fan, by the way.)
The lyrics, from Geothe:

Sah ein Knab' ein Röslein stehen,
Röslein auf der Heiden,
War so jung und morgenschön,
Lief er schnell, es nah zu sehn,
Sah's mit vielen Freuden.
Röslein, Röslein, Röslein rot,
Röslein auf der Heiden.

Knabe sprach: Ich breche dich,
Röslein auf der Heiden!
Röslein sprach: Ich steche dich,
Dass du ewig denkst an mich,
Und ich will's nicht leiden.
Röslein, Röslein, Röslein rot,
Röslein auf der Heiden.

Und der wilde Knabe brach
'S Röslein auf der Heiden;
Röslein wehrte sich und stach,
Half ihm doch kein Weh und Ach,
Musst es eben leiden.
Röslein, Röslein, Röslein rot,
Röslein auf der Heiden.

Translated:

A boy saw a wild rose
growing in the heather;
it was so young, and as lovely as the morning.
He ran swiftly to look more closely,
looked on it with great joy.
Wild rose, wild rose, wild rose red,
wild rose in the heather.

Said the boy: I shall pluck you,
wild rose in the heather!
Said the rose: I shall prick you
so that you will always remember me.
And I will not suffer it.
Wild rose, wild rose, wild rose red,
wild rose in the heather.

And the impetuous boy plucked
the wild rose from the heather;
the rose defended herself and pricked him,
but her cries of pain were to no avail;
she simply had to suffer.
Wild rose, wild rose, wild rose red,
wild rose in the heather.


----------



## KenOC

Crudblud said:


> The article you quoted clearly states that strophic form and verse-chorus form are two different things. See this article, I'm asking if anyone knows of any instances of this form in classical music.


I must be missing something. The Wiki article says, "Strophic form, also called verse-repeating or chorus form, is the term applied to songs in which all verses or stanzas of the text are sung to the same music. The opposite of strophic form, with new music written for every stanza, is called through-composed." I haven't yet read the article you referenced, but I can't see that Wiki says they're two different things.


----------



## isorhythm

DaveM said:


> How about this? Are you feeling the cultural classical tradition?


I assume the composer and performer are both classically trained, and in fact I think it's likely that only a performer with extensive classical training could ever perform it, so it's a classical piece. I don't think it's any good either.


----------



## Resurrexit

Obviously form is not the determining factor when determining genre. A country pop song and a heavy metal song may both use a verse-chorus-verse format, yet both are clearly differentiable.


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> I was loading a bunch of albums onto my wife's phone tonight. After, we listened to the White Album and some Pink Floyd. Note that this music has been floating around for half a century and is still extremely popular.
> 
> Question: Is this "classical music"? If not, why not? We're happy enough, for reasons that escape me, to label Babbitt's efforts classical music - then why not this?


Are Canteloube's Bailero and the Bachianas Brasileiras No. 5 Classical Music? If so, I envision a future concert where the Dawn Upshaw of her time approaches the microphone, polishes off the two aforementioned songs, then launches into Foreigner's _I Want to Know What Love Is_ (or pick your own candidates). Just a matter of time before who knows what "standard" popular songs are incorporated into the repertoires of those orchestras that choose to survive. Won't bother me.


----------



## isorhythm

Strange Magic said:


> Are Canteloube's Bailero and the Bachianas Brasileiras No. 5 Classical Music? If so, I envision a future concert where the Dawn Upshaw of her time approaches the microphone, polishes off the two aforementioned songs, then launches into Foreigner's _I Want to Know What Love Is_ (or pick your own candidates). Just a matter of time before who knows what "standard" popular songs are incorporated into the repertoires of those orchestras that choose to survive. Won't bother me.


I like all kinds of pop music, but can't imagine ever wanting to listen to worse versions of my favorite pop songs at orchestra concerts.

I think these kinds of comments are basically disrespectful of non-classical musics, which use the instruments and vocal styles they do for good, musical reasons and don't need to be "elevated" into the classical world as crossover kitsch.


----------



## Art Rock

Not all crossover is kitsch though. Here is AS von Otter with her interpretation of a medley of works by Tom Waits and Paul McCartney.


----------



## isorhythm

Art Rock said:


> Not all crossover is kitsch though. Here is AS von Otter with her interpretation of a medley of works by Tom Waits and Paul McCartney.


That's fair, I'm not saying it can never be done. Steve Reich also did an album based on Radiohead songs. I just can't imagine it ever becoming a huge part of the repertoire, based on what I've heard.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> I don't know if you noticed my post about Schubert's Heidenröslein, one of the most simply constructed and written but beautiful of all Schubert's songs. A verse, and then a chorus, repeated three times. (I'm a Zappa fan, by the way.)
> 
> [video=youtube;P/video]


I've often heard about Frank Zappa from pop aficionado friends. I should've asked them, but I'll ask you, what should I listen for?


----------



## Luchesi

Resurrexit said:


> Obviously form is not the determining factor when determining genre. A country pop song and a heavy metal song may both use a verse-chorus-verse format, yet both are clearly differentiable.


Why would you say that? Because of the Metal blaring sounds? Play some of their song sheets on a piano.


----------



## Luchesi

isorhythm said:


> I assume the composer and performer are both classically trained, and in fact I think it's likely that only a performer with extensive classical training could ever perform it, so it's a classical piece. I don't think it's any good either.


It's not meant to make money for its creator, so it's art music instead of all the music that does make money.


----------



## Luchesi

Art Rock said:


> Not all crossover is kitsch though. Here is AS von Otter with her interpretation of a medley of works by Tom Waits and Paul McCartney.


You will be missed, Art. Hurry back.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I've often heard about Frank Zappa from pop aficionado friends. I should've asked them, but I'll ask you, what should I listen for?


Yes, I'm a Zappa fan, but I'm not an expert intimately familiar with everything he ever recorded, as many Zappa fans, including some posters here, are. So, they can chime in, or you can do a quick search, as this topic has been discussed here before.
Therefore, and in the spirit of this thread, I'll confine my response to "classical Zappa", as he wrote a number of works, whether one defines them as classical or not, for traditional classical ensembles. Of these, my favorite of those I'm familiar with, are from a 1983 album called London Symphony Orchestra. Several years later, a second album was released from these same sessions called London Symphony Orchestra II, but I'm not familiar with that one. This might be the best "classical Zappa", though I doubt many would argue it is anywhere near the best Zappa.


----------



## millionrainbows

"A Salty Dog" by Procol Harum is obviously influenced by classical tradition. It contains classical voice leading, an orchestra, suspensions, and the piano solo sounds like Chopin. Still, it's rock music. And it's very good rock music. This song will stand the test of time. I have no problem if it is not considered "classical" music now, or in the future, but I do think it should be held up as an example of great rock music.

Additionally, I owe a debt of gratitude to Procol Harum for expanding my horizons. They got me interested in Bach. And, of course, almost anyone who was around in the late 1960's will remember "A Whiter Shade of Pale" on the radio.


----------



## DaveM

isorhythm said:


> I assume the composer and performer are both classically trained, and in fact I think it's likely that only a performer with extensive classical training could ever perform it, so it's a classical piece. I don't think it's any good either.


I'm not persuaded that a work like this is a classical piece simply because of the training and (alleged) skill of the performer since that wouldn't apply to a similarly trained and skilled performer playing a popular work (an example of which I posted earlier).

This, by far, is more an attempt to see how many sounds, never intended for the instrument, can be created. The result is so obviously not classical music that I continue to wonder why people are trying to fit this square block through a round hole. And I repeat, this may be a great example of another music genre and obviously there are those who enjoy it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Speaking of Kenny Chesney, here's Willie. He knows a good tune when he hears it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Astor Piazolla is a good example of the post-modern merging of classical forms and procedures with other genres, in this case, Argentinian tango music. Is it classical? Well, he studied with Nadia Boulanger who told him to "write the music you know." So he did. Is it classical? Who knows, and I don't care. It just is what it is, and that's good music.


----------



## Strange Magic

isorhythm said:


> I like all kinds of pop music, but can't imagine ever wanting to listen to worse versions of my favorite pop songs at orchestra concerts.
> 
> I think these kinds of comments are basically disrespectful of non-classical musics, which use the instruments and vocal styles they do for good, musical reasons and don't need to be "elevated" into the classical world as crossover kitsch.


"Worse" versions of almost any pop music (maybe most music--just check people arguing who conducts X better/worse) exist only in the ears of the individual listener, as do 'better" versions. Ditto what's "disrespectful" of non-classical musics; if it works (for me), it works, and I'll bet serious money you feel exactly the same way .


----------



## Hermastersvoice

I would like to contribute to this thread but I can’t figure out the purpose of labeling music. Why is it necessary to spend time knowing whether music is classic music or not?


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> Astor Piazolla is a good example of the post-modern merging of classical forms and procedures with other genres, in this case, Argentinian tango music. Is it classical? Well, he studied with Nadia Boulanger who told him to "write the music you know." So he did. Is it classical? Who knows, and I don't care. It just is what it is, and that's good music.


I just heard a piece of his at a recital three days ago. Piazzola's music is always a lot of fun. Consistently good stuff. Makes you want to get up and tango!


----------



## fluteman

Hermastersvoice said:


> I would like to contribute to this thread but I can't figure out the purpose of labeling music. Why is it necessary to spend time knowing whether music is classic music or not?


It isn't. If a label or category name isn't a convenient tool to help you discuss music more clearly, it's of no use.


----------



## mmsbls

Hermastersvoice said:


> I would like to contribute to this thread but I can't figure out the purpose of labeling music. Why is it necessary to spend time knowing whether music is classic music or not?


For the listeners I don't think it is important to label music or to know whether a particular work or composer is classical. Generally we just find music and listen.

Of course, if one is interested in classical music and looking for new works, one likely does not want to weed through many non-classical works in a catalog or other site to find possible works of interest. When I go to the Naxos Music Library, I assume the works and composers listed are classical (or maybe light classical). On TalkClassical we separate classical music from non-classical. We don't pretend to know perfectly where to draw the line, but we do try. So there are cases where distinguishing between classical and other music is of interest if not critically important.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> ...So there are cases where distinguishing between classical and other music is of interest if not critically important.


Perhaps not critically important, but IMO, important.


----------



## Woodduck

Hermastersvoice said:


> I would like to contribute to this thread but I can't figure out the purpose of labeling music. Why is it necessary to spend time knowing whether music is classic music or not?


Well, categorizing music is obviously of practical value. It makes a forum called "Talk Classical" possible, and keeps me from wandering all over a record store looking for the sort of music I like.

In a more theoretical context, we can understand things better if we know what words best describe them. But I think that in trying to do this (regarding music or anything else) we are apt to "mistake the map for the territory" and fail to ask the right questions. Debating whether a piece of music "is" classical is really useless unless we begin with a understanding of how the term "classical" is used and by whom, and how it came to be used that way. Some people here have tried, very effectively I think, to do that. I've tried to, and I have no quarrel with anyone who disagrees with me over how to classify a given piece of music so long as they're making a similar effort at understanding why we call music "classical" at all.

Current usage isn't the only criterion for how we use a term, but it's always the first criterion, and we need to have very good reasons for overruling it. Personal feelings, no matter how strong, are not sufficient. The term "classical music" came into existence carrying a particular meaning, but over time its referents changed, and they have continued to change. We may not like the changes; we may feel an attachment to the "aura" the term had at some earlier phase of its evolution, an aura perhaps evoked by the root word "classic," with its connotations of high value, canonization, dignity and permanence. "Classical" in the 18th century evoked the "golden age" of ancient Greece, a vision of ideal perfection worthy of emulation by modern man. But that ideal changed as Romanticism substituted for the veneration of the Greek temple a fascination with its ruins, and "classical" became primarily a term used to distinguish "serious" music, pursued by the upper classes, from popular genres of the dance hall and tavern. Today "classic" still connotes something of perennial value, but "classical" music carries only a whiff of special incense amid the multiplicity of genres which proliferate in a global world.

To me there seems little point in hanging on, out of nostalgia or snobbery, to a conception of "classical music" from which the culture has drifted so far. But given some of what's offered nowadays as representing the genre, I understand the temptation.


----------



## KenOC

Crudblud said:


> The article you quoted clearly states that strophic form and verse-chorus form are two different things. See this article, I'm asking if anyone knows of any instances of this form in classical music.


If I'm not mistaken, you're asking about the use of strophic music that includes a chorus (or refrain) that's played between the verses. I agree that this is very much a folk-like device, because when the group is singing around the campfire, everybody knows the refrain and can join in. Sometimes the verses are improvised by individuals, going round-robin, while the refrain is sung by all.

It's also common in pop music, as your article points out. I'm not familiar with any examples from classical music, but that kind of form is certainly ancient and may have led to the classical rondo form.


----------



## millionrainbows

Hermastersvoice said:


> I would like to contribute to this thread but I can't figure out the purpose of labeling music. Why is it necessary to spend time knowing whether music is classic music or not?


Well, according to the set of criteria I've developed over the course of my listening career, "classical" music is music that deals primarily with _musical ideas;_ in other words, it does not represent a lifestyle or a market, or an industry. So it's usually of the highest artistic standards and musical content. When I'm interested in music itself, not stars or performers or singers, this is the label I go to. Of course, there are exceptions; I like classical performers such as Glenn Gould, etc.

I think having a set of specific criteria, used for determining the "label" or nature of the music is very useful. With this set of criteria, I can refute those who attempt to exclude music I like, who in most cases have not really developed a useful set of objective criteria, but only use their likes and dislikes to determine the nature of the music in question.


----------



## Dan Ante

DaveM said:


> Perhaps not critically important, but IMO, important.


I am with you on this one it helps to sort different types of music such as Folk, Jazz, pop and even classical you can then sub categorise into different types all of this is helpful and in general causes no problems as far as I am concerned, however if you start to argue definitions it will get messy but I have no problem with labels.


----------



## Crudblud

KenOC said:


> If I'm not mistaken, you're asking about the use of strophic music that includes a chorus (or refrain) that's played between the verses. I agree that this is very much a folk-like device, because when the group is singing around the campfire, everybody knows the refrain and can join in. Sometimes the verses are improvised by individuals, going round-robin, while the refrain is sung by all.
> 
> It's also common in pop music, as your article points out. I'm not familiar with any examples from classical music, but that kind of form is certainly ancient and may have led to the classical rondo form.


Yes, that's pretty much what I wanted to talk about. The connection you make with rondo form is an interesting one, I like that. When I have more time on my hands I guess I'll have to go investigating and see what's out there, if anything.


----------



## Crudblud

fluteman said:


> I don't know if you noticed my post about Schubert's Heidenröslein, one of the most simply constructed and written but beautiful of all Schubert's songs. A verse, and then a chorus, repeated three times.


That's interesting, and a very nice song, as it happens, but the way I hear it the "wild rose" refrain is not given the same kind of structural weight that I associate with the chorus in popular song. Maybe I am looking for something too specific after all.


----------



## Luchesi

Hermastersvoice said:


> I would like to contribute to this thread but I can't figure out the purpose of labeling music. Why is it necessary to spend time knowing whether music is classic music or not?


To save time. Life is short.


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> Well, according to the set of criteria I've developed over the course of my listening career, "classical" music is music that deals primarily with _musical ideas;_ in other words, it does not represent a lifestyle or a market, or an industry. So it's usually of the highest artistic standards and musical content. When I'm interested in music itself, not stars or performers or singers, this is the label I go to. Of course, there are exceptions; I like classical performers such as Glenn Gould, etc.
> 
> I think having a set of specific criteria, used for determining the "label" or nature of the music is very useful. With this set of criteria, I can refute those who attempt to exclude music I like, who in most cases have not really developed a useful set of objective criteria, but only use their likes and dislikes to determine the nature of the music in question.


"I like classical performers such as Glenn Gould, etc."

Interestingly, I think Glenn Gould gets that 4 33 title wrong 45 seconds in here;






Here's a PDF of the score. 2 key changes. Free for download.

https://musescore.com/user/28080240/scores/5134837


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> "A Salty Dog" by Procol Harum is obviously influenced by classical tradition. It contains classical voice leading, an orchestra, suspensions, and the piano solo sounds like Chopin. Still, it's rock music. And it's very good rock music. This song will stand the test of time. I have no problem if it is not considered "classical" music now, or in the future, but I do think it should be held up as an example of great rock music.
> 
> Additionally, I owe a debt of gratitude to Procol Harum for expanding my horizons. They got me interested in Bach. And, of course, almost anyone who was around in the late 1960's will remember "A Whiter Shade of Pale" on the radio.


from wiki

Guy Stevens, their original manager, named the band after a friend's Burmese cat.[4] The cat's "Cat Fancy" name was Procul Harun, Procul being the breeder's prefix.[5]

In the absence of a definitive origin, the name attracted various interpretations,[6] being said to be Latin for "beyond these things" (but the correct Latin translation of "beyond these things" is "Procul his")[7] or translated as "of these far off things", the genitive plural "harum" perhaps agreeing with an understood "rerum", "things".[8] The name of the band is frequently misspelt; often with "Procul", "Harem", both, or other variations.

The long story about the cat is here:

http://www.procolharum.com/young_cat-claude1.htm

this showed up in my email quite a few years back;

General Comment:To cause further embarrassment to the nun, tale includes the lines: 
That on a day this clever Nicholas
Fell in with this young wife to toy and play,
The while her husband was down Osney way,
Clerks being as crafty as the best of us;
And unperceived he caught her by the puss, (google.com.au/…)
In my previous post, I also confused a couple of the characters in the Miller's Tale. The seducer was actually a boarder at the Carpenter's house by the name of Nicholas. The parish clerk, who also had the hots for the Carpenter's wife, was Absalom.
Here is a very brief paraphrase of the Miller's Tale from Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales
The tale is about a Carpenter named John, an older man who married a beautiful eighteen year old girl named Alison.
John had a Boarder, a clerk by the name of Nicholas who dabbled among other things in astrology, and had the hots for Alison.
The Parish Clerk by the name of Absalom also had the hots for Alison.
John very jealously guarded Alison, being aware that as she was so much younger, there was a good chance that she could be unfaithful.
Almost immediately Nicholas put the hard word on Alison, and although she put up a token resistance to preserve her self respect, she soon gave in to his charms.
Absalom also tried his luck but was immediately rejected in favour of, in Alison's words, "someone better", Nicholas.
Having decided to have an affair, Alison swore Nicholas to secrecy, but was keen to keep it going in full swing. So Nicholas conceived of a plan revolving around the bible story of Noah's Ark, to fool John into one night, preparing each of them a provisioned tub, in which each of them would sleep alone, waiting for the flood, so that Alison and Nicholas could sneak off during the night and be alone together in the marital bed while John slumbered on in his tub, which they did.
The Tale concludes:
"Thus futtered was the carpenter's goodwife, (en.wiktionary.org/wiki/…)
For all his watching and his jealousy; 
And Absalom has kissed her nether eye; 
And Nicholas is branded on the butt. 
This tale is done, and God save all the rout! 
HERE ENDS THE MILLER'S TALE"
The Miller's Tale seems tame by today's standards. However, the original broke many of the social mores of the day, in particular, the Ten Commandments. It contains a lot of coarse language and irreverent behaviour that the nun would have found disgusting and offensive, especially the inclusion of a biblical reference, which to her would be sacrilege, and hence easily explains why she would turn a whiter shade of pale.
Here is the original translated to modern English. (web.archive.org/web/20020415161705/http://www.litrix.com/canterby/…)
Flag grmc1on October 19, 2009


----------



## fluteman

Crudblud said:


> That's interesting, and a very nice song, as it happens, but the way I hear it the "wild rose" refrain is not given the same kind of structural weight that I associate with the chorus in popular song. Maybe I am looking for something too specific after all.


OK, I'm glad you liked the song. Sorry I didn't try harder to find a better performance, though I'll take Barbara Bonney over the stiff and formal approach of Renee Fleming. I don't think it's an accident that popular songs put so much emphasis on the chorus. It makes it easy for them to become quickly recognizable and familiar to casual listeners, who can enjoy singing along to it in the right setting.


----------



## Guest

Hermastersvoice said:


> Why is it necessary to spend time knowing whether music is classic music or not?


It isn't. But 'necessary' is clearly only one of the reasons why folk here might spend time. It isn't _necessary _to come to TC and discuss at all, if by 'necessary' we mean 'essential for the maximum enjoyment of music', but some might regard it as necessary to their self-worth to be able to advance their supreme opinions on the matter.

I'm one who occasionally loves to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> It isn't. But 'necessary' is clearly only one of the reasons why folk here might spend time. It isn't _necessary _to come to TC and discuss at all, if by 'necessary' we mean 'essential for the maximum enjoyment of music', but some might regard it as necessary to their self-worth to be able to advance their supreme opinions on the matter.
> 
> I'm one who occasionally loves to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


Plus, you can learn from forcing yourself to put your own opinions in writing as well as from reading those of others. Crudblud's comments made me think about Schubert's Heidenröslein and compare it to say, The Beatles' Hey Jude. In the latter case, the chorus is emphasized more and more as the song progresses, until finally, the chorus is simply repeated over and over as many times as the performers like with no resolution.

This emphasis on the chorus, which Crudblud intelligently pointed out, has been a common feature of western popular music for centuries, though Hey Jude brings it to an extreme. I think it is an important example of techniques commonly used in the popular songs to help give them a broad and immediate appeal to a wide audience, in short, to make them popular. So even in this modest, non-technical thread, the comments here have begun to focus in on just what the distinctions are between popular and classical music. I'm impressed with you guys (and gals)!


----------



## Haydn70

Is this classical music? No, but it is hilarious!


----------



## fluteman

ArsMusica said:


> Is this classical music? No, but it is hilarious!


I wish I had time to listen to this yesterday, I was having a tough day. Thanks, ArsMusica.


----------



## eugeneonagain

She should have kept the same lyrics "the girl that's driving me mad...". These days same-sex love stories are unproblematic.

Love that drop into a regular singing voice at the end.


----------



## Luchesi

The posts of these Beatles fans are interesting to read;

Barry from Amsterdam, Netherlands
The third meaning of the text can best be explained by later great popsongs that elaborated on the same theme: "Roxanne" of The Police and "Who is it" of Michael Jackson. John was in love with one of the "birds" in Hamburg and he really had a crush on her but at the same time she was "riding high" as an escort girl regurlarly pleasing high society clients. She (his girlfriend) didn't care when she had "a ticket to ride" but John did, because he already felt sad just thinking of it.
Barry from Amsterdam, Netherlands
The second layer underneath the first layer is, that mother Julia leaving John at her sister's place "so that she can be free and live the life she wants" in a way is comparable with an abortion: the mother not wanting her child. So the fact that pregnant teens etc. could have a late abortion in Ride is not a separate isolated meaning but confirming/emphasizing the first meaning of the lyrics in a dramatic way. The two meanings are confluent and strengthen each other in a dramatic way.
Barry from Amsterdam, Netherlands
Esspecially John was all about art, therefore the lyrics can mean different things for different people per definition. But in the case of Ticket to Ride the lyrics had multi-layered meaning for him self too. In fact they are all mentioned already, but not yet "linked". The 1st layer is about Julia leaving her son in order "to be free of him". The repeated "my baby don't care" has a double meaning: my baby is (indeed disguised) synonymous for his mammy ("she doesn't care about leaving him") but at the same time it is his mother telling HIM: my baby, don't care (about me leaving). So with the comma included (which you can't hear if you sing it) it is mother Julia speaking to her son John when she left him at Mimi's place, suddenly making the grammar correct too (don't instead of doesn't)


----------



## Hermastersvoice

“To save time”, I accept. If it narrows the mind, I find it harder to deal with. May I suggest another classification, such as alphabetical? So, Queen comes just after Puccini, Schumann before Taylor Swift and so on.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I'll bet Barry from Amsterdam is a splendid dinner guest.


----------



## Luchesi

Hermastersvoice said:


> "To save time", I accept. If it narrows the mind, I find it harder to deal with. May I suggest another classification, such as alphabetical? So, Queen comes just after Puccini, Schumann before Taylor Swift and so on.


For my life it's been categorizing them and then ranking them for myself within each category. I generally take the consensus of critics for which works are the best. I'll get around to hearing them all in a favorite category, but it's helpful and it saves time to have the rankings, because I'll know what I need to pay the most attention to. I'll disagree with the critics after that -- and then years later I often come back to agree with them.

Otherwise I would think it would just be hit and miss and you'll be likely to overlook a great work, there's so much music.


----------



## Haydn70

Hermastersvoice said:


> "To save time", I accept. If it narrows the mind, I find it harder to deal with. May I suggest another classification, such as alphabetical? So, Queen comes just after Puccini, Schumann before Taylor Swift and so on.


How, pray tell, does classifying music narrow the mind?

I am a trained classical composer who played in rock bands for years. I still listen to rock music although not often. Probably 95% of my time listening to music is spent listening to classical, the other 5% to rock. When I am listening to the Bobby Fuller Four I know that I am not listening to music anywhere close to the caliber of Haydn but I enjoy it none the less, accepting it on its level...which is much lower than Haydn.

Do you really believe Puccini's music is on the same level as Queen????


----------



## DaveM

Fwiw,
The theme (at 0:40) of Eric Carmen's Never Going to Fall in Love Again:






is from the Adagio of the Rachmaninoff Symphony #2:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Great. Like Stranger in Paradise was taken from Borodin's Polovtsian Dances. And Queen's It's a Hard Life is nicked from Vesti La Giubba from Leoncavallo's opera Pagliacci. And about a dozen songs are built on Faure's Pavane. And Barry Manilow's Could it be Magic was clearly constructed around Chopin's C minor prelude... and on and on.

First comes the 'classical', then the 'pop' which uses it as base material.

Is this classical..? No. Or have we moved past this question now?


----------



## Haydn70

DaveM said:


> Fwiw,
> The theme (at 0:40) of Eric Carmen's Never Going to Fall in Love Again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is from the Adagio of the Rachmaninoff Symphony #2:


I am not sure what your point is Dave. As eugeneonagain posted, there have been plenty of pop/rock songs that ripoff classical melodies. Another one is Tonight We Love...used the main melody from the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto #1. And Don't You Know, an "adaptation" of Musetta's Waltz from La Boheme.

And on and on....


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> *Fwiw,*
> The theme (at 0:40) of Eric Carmen's Never Going to Fall in Love Again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is from the Adagio of the Rachmaninoff Symphony #2:


Fwiw, the Rachmaninoff is worth a million bucks, and the thing that was made from (a few notes of) it ain't worth two bits.


----------



## DaveM

ArsMusica said:


> I am not sure what your point is Dave. As eugeneonagain posted, there have been plenty of pop/rock songs that ripoff classical melodies. Another one is Tonight We Love...used the main melody from the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto #1. And Don't You Know, an "adaptation" of Musetta's Waltz from La Boheme.
> 
> And on and on....


Just for interest sake. It was one of the first rock ballads from the modern rock era (that was accelerating in the 70s) to use a direct lift from a classical work. Another was Carmen's All By Myself (with the melody from the Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2) that was one of his top hits and subsequently one of Celine Dion's.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> Fwiw, the Rachmaninoff is worth a million bucks, and the thing that was made from (a few notes of) it ain't worth two bits.


Wow, I think it's a good, catchy song. Especially if you also know his other Rach inspired song - which pointed his young audience to the Rach 2 to find the 2nd mvmnt melody.

But the schmaltzy adagio above OTOH is the type of indulgence responsible for so many creative people stretching chromaticism into the tone row detour. ..Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## fluteman

Hermastersvoice said:


> "To save time", I accept. If it narrows the mind, I find it harder to deal with. May I suggest another classification, such as alphabetical? So, Queen comes just after Puccini, Schumann before Taylor Swift and so on.


I recently inherited a stamp collection, in the form of a box stuffed with old stamps. Not only did I go to the trouble and expense of buying the items needed to house and display them properly, I bought the reference catalogs (secondhand and cheaply but not for free), learned all about them and then carefully displayed them in proper order. 
Now, stamps have plummeted in value, never mind that over 99 percent of them were worth far more as postage than as collectibles in the best of times. My modest collection is worth no more for my efforts. But the value in all this was in what I learned about those stamps and the world during the period in which they were issued, roughly 1905 to 1945. That's the point behind cataloging and categorizing. They help the student, the researcher, the hobbyist, the connoisseur, the amateur, the professional, the academic, the beginner or the advanced, learn what is there and why. They are tools. There is value in that if it is done well.


----------



## KenOC

fluteman said:


> I recently inherited a stamp collection... But the value in all this was in what I learned about those stamps and the world during the period in which they were issued, roughly 1905 to 1945. That's the point behind cataloging and categorizing. They help the student, the researcher, the hobbyist, the connoisseur, the amateur, the professional, the academic, the beginner or the advanced, learn what is there and why. They are tools. There is value in that if it is done well.


I too learned a lot about the world from stamp collecting when young. Things like

Why is Croatia triangular?
What's a Sverige, and why?
Why do they sing funny in Tannu Tuva?
How many shopping carts are five quintillion pengos?

Any philanderer can answer these questions. Oh. I mean philatelist.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> But the schmaltzy adagio above OTOH is the type of indulgence responsible for so many creative people stretching chromaticism into the tone row detour. ..Not that there's anything wrong with that.


I have no idea what this means.


----------



## janxharris

It's not as if borrowing is restricted to the pop world. Much music of the classical era does so and has been discussed here on other threads.


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> When I am listening to the Bobby Fuller Four I know that I am not listening to music anywhere close to the caliber of Haydn but I enjoy it none the less, accepting it on its *level*...which is much lower than Haydn.





ArsMusica said:


> Do you really believe Puccini's music is on the same *level *as Queen????


Music on "levels"? Wrong again, Ars.

Do you really believe that you can compare the worth of a bicycle with that of a laptop?


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Music on "levels"? Wrong again, Ars.
> 
> Do you really believe that you can compare the worth of a bicycle with that of a laptop?


Society does that every day. Check Amazon for the going prices of bicycles and laptops.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Society does that every day. Check Amazon for the going prices of bicycles and laptops.


Same value?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-Laptop...ie=UTF8&qid=1540623173&sr=1-2&keywords=laptop

https://www.cyclesurgery.com/p/spec...MI5Nj1qIWm3gIVSZPtCh28twaAEAQYASABEgKluPD_BwE

(Amazon doesn't deal in high-end bikes!)



ArsMusica said:


> Probably 95% of my time listening to music is spent listening to classical, the other 5% to rock.


I'm going through a listening to nothing phase - just me and my tinnitus sharing the silence.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> Same value?
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-Laptop...ie=UTF8&qid=1540623173&sr=1-2&keywords=laptop
> 
> https://www.cyclesurgery.com/p/spec...MI5Nj1qIWm3gIVSZPtCh28twaAEAQYASABEgKluPD_BwE
> 
> (Amazon doesn't deal in high-end bikes!)
> 
> I'm going through a listening to nothing phase - just me and my tinnitus sharing the silence.


Sorry to hear that you suffer with this. Apparently it's common amongst orchestral musicians.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Sorry to hear that you suffer with this. Apparently it's common amongst orchestral musicians.


Thanks. In my case, probably a result of listening to worthless pop and rock at high volume on headphones...


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> Thanks. In my case, probably a result of listening to worthless pop and rock at high volume on headphones...


I have some tinnitus but it's very mild. I have seen woodwind players with some form of protection if they sit in front of brass players.


----------



## eugeneonagain

janxharris said:


> I have some tinnitus but it's very mild. I have seen woodwind players with some form of protection if they sit in front of brass players.


They have those little transparent screens behind them too. They don't really fix the problem. You'd think someone would just be sensible and put the weaker woodwinds behind the brass on a raised step. Tradition can be silly.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I don't know about Pink Floyd or The Beatles, but this is surely Classical:






And this is not:


----------



## fluteman

janxharris said:


> I have some tinnitus but it's very mild. I have seen woodwind players with some form of protection if they sit in front of brass players.


Ugh. We do that for good reason, as I learned the hard way.


----------



## fluteman

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't know about Pink Floyd or The Beatles, but this is surely Classical:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is not:


Jerome Lowenthal is the nicest guy you could ever want to meet. And still very much active professionally (chairman of the piano department at Juilliard)!


----------



## Dimace

Classical is something from the past it has influence to the present and to the future and it can not easily copied or successfully replaced. 

Having this into my mind, I can say that the Beatles, the Dire Straits and the Fredy Mercury are classics the same way are the Beethoven or the Brahms.


----------



## Luchesi

Dimace said:


> Classical is something from the past it has influence to the present and to the future and it can not easily copied or successfully replaced.
> 
> Having this into my mind, I can say that the Beatles, the Dire Straits and the Fredy Mercury are classics the same way are the Beethoven or the Brahms.


They're classic rock'n roll, they're not classical music as musicologists study it. You can have classic games in chess. You can have classic cars etc. etc. The word classics is the right word for them, but classical music is formal and sophisticated with a long history of logical development, its elements evolving within the documented rise of dissonance along with - in tandem with its evolving forms.


----------



## Simon Moon

As long as this video is still getting some comments, I'd like some opinion on this band, Aranis from Belgium.

Not an opinion if you like them or not, but along the same lines as the OP, are they classical or not?

I can't help but think they have more in common with classical (contemporary) than the *prog-rock* subgenre they are usually categorized as.


----------



## janxharris

How about this? Warning: it will probably break your heart.


----------



## Enthusiast

I don't see why someone might need to claim the category "classical" for music that is no such thing. Classical music is music composed in a certain tradition. Exceptionally good classical music often lasts. Just because The Stones or the Beatles or Coltrane are still remembered and revered doesn't make them classical. But that doesn't mean they are "less than" classical music. Ascribing value to art is not a matter of placing it in a genre. This is a classical forum - with an area for non-classical music - but quite a lot of the space of it is given either to dissing music that is new (= less that 100 years old!) but is in the classical tradition or praising music that may be wonderful but is not classical. I don't know if the second part of this matters (I am disgusted by the first part!) but if neatness and categorisation matters to you I still don't see a need to claim even Dylan for the classical genre.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I don't see why someone might need to claim the category "classical" for music that is no such thing. Classical music is music composed in a certain tradition. Exceptionally good classical music often lasts. Just because The Stones or the Beatles or Coltrane are still remembered and revered doesn't make them classical. But that doesn't mean they are "less than" classical music. Ascribing value to art is not a matter of placing it in a genre. This is a classical forum - with an area for non-classical music - but quite a lot of the space of it is given either to dissing music that is new (= less that 100 years old!) but is in the classical tradition or praising music that may be wonderful but is not classical. I don't know if the second part of this matters (I am disgusted by the first part!) but if neatness and categorisation matters to you I still don't see a need to claim even Dylan for the classical genre.


Many are unhappy that some avant-garde 'classical' is allowed in. There doesn't seem to be any definitive way of delimitation.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Many are unhappy that some avant-garde 'classical' is allowed in. There doesn't seem to be any definitive way of delimitation.


I think there is and that it is generally understood within the music fraternity. Except here, it seems!


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I think there is and that it is generally understood within the music fraternity. Except here, it seems!
> 
> It is fine to not like some of what is in the classical tradition but I cannot understand a need to remove it like some sort of burning of the books. And, anyway, there has been a long history of the avant garde of yesterday becoming the classical repertoire of today. Obviously some gets lost by the wayside and obviously some (but not that much) classical music that was never avant garde also makes it into the repertoire. Again, this is nothing to do with their categories or sub-genres.
> 
> But let's not get into all that again. My point was only that we are welcoming to good music that yet doesn't belong here and yet can be totalitarian with newer music that clearly does belong here.


I'm struggling to understand what you are saying here. Sorry.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ You beat me to it. I decided to delete most of my post as I don't want a debate about modern music. So, now, all you can see is my answer to your point. I would ask all to ignore the rest of my post that you have quoted. It is not worth the pain of discussion here and concerns a subject that we (here) do not do well IMO.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> ^ You beat me to it. I decided to delete most of my post as I don't want a debate about modern music. So, now, all you can see is my answer to your point. I would ask all to ignore the rest of my post that you have quoted. It is not worth the pain of discussion here and concerns a subject that we (here) do not do well IMO.


No worries.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Dear KenOC,

Question: why can't we call a chair a table? it has 4 legs too and strictly you can do the same things with a chair. There are even some chairs without a backrest and probably if it was quite a big chair, a lot of people would call it a table if they saw it. Strictly speaking you can even call some tables a chair. Ok, so we call that chair a table, fine by me, it's a small table but that's ok, we're doing KenOC a favor here. But wait, there's somebody sitting on that table next to a larger table, and on that larger table there is food and drinks and suddenly KenOC smiles and thinks to himself: "how silly of me wanting to call that chair a table"

Why do you want to call a chair a table KenOC?

But then Razumovskymas smiles and thinks to himself: "KenOC is making his first steps in philosophical thinking and look, all TC's finest are taking part in the debate, all is good"


----------



## janxharris

Razumovskymas said:


> Dear KenOC,
> 
> Question: why can't we call a chair a table? it has 4 legs too and strictly you can do the same things with a chair. There are even some chairs without a backrest and probably if it was quite a big chair, a lot of people would call it a table if they saw it. Strictly speaking you can even call some tables a chair. Ok, so we call that chair a table, fine by me, it's a small table but that's ok, we're doing KenOC a favor here. But wait, there's somebody sitting on that table next to a larger table, and on that larger table there is food and drinks and suddenly KenOC smiles and thinks to himself: "how silly of me wanting to call that chair a table"
> 
> Why do you want to call a chair a table KenOC?
> 
> But then Razumovskymas smiles and thinks to himself: "KenOC is making his first steps in philosophical thinking and look, all TC's finest are taking part in the debate, all is good"


Is the chair _4'33''_ a table? That's the problem isn't it?


----------



## Razumovskymas

janxharris said:


> Is the chair _4'33''_ a table? That's the problem isn't it?


Aha!! Finally some real debate! :lol:


----------



## Razumovskymas

4'33'' is a table with no legs or tabletop. But if you look closely you will see there are people eating on that table, so it's a table.


----------



## janxharris

Razumovskymas said:


> 4'33'' is a table with no legs or tabletop. But if you look closely you will see there are people eating on that table, so it's a table.


Seriously? - Pink Floyd's Shine on has the greater claim. It's a no-brainer.


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> They have those little transparent screens behind them too. They don't really fix the problem. You'd think someone would just be sensible and put the weaker woodwinds behind the brass on a raised step. Tradition can be silly.


"Weaker"?!? How dare you! ;-)


----------



## eugeneonagain

'Gentler' I meant. The flutes at least. Apart from the piccolos, which can be deafening when they do those speedy arpeggio hits.


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> Apart from the piccolos, which can be deafening when they do those speedy arpeggio hits.


That's right, so ya betta watch yer step.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> Many are unhappy that some avant-garde 'classical' is allowed in. There doesn't seem to be any definitive way of delimitation.


I wonder what the last decade of music is in which everyone agrees what was is classical music and what is not. Would it give us a hint about a "definitive way of limitation"? 1930?


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I wonder what the last decade of music is in which everyone agrees what was is classical music and what is not. Would it give us a hint about a "definitive way of limitation"? 1930?


If we're doing it by dates, I vote for 1750-1825.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> If we're doing it by dates, I vote for 1750-1825.


So you think that people can't agree upon what's classical music and what's not after 1825?

Does anyone think that ragtime is classical music? Why are why not? Does it have to do with the background of the composer? and what they cared about the history of music? And what their goal was in the history of music?

Why compose?

I think classical music is all about history and very little about what is attractive to music listeners. 'Just like the other arts.


----------



## Haydn70

Is THIS classical music?

An unique version Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2:






(Just to make clear, this is a joke! No way I think it is classical music.)


----------



## Dan Ante

ArsMusica said:


> Is THIS classical music?
> 
> An unique version Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2:


*No it is not.

Neither is this but it is good old jazz.
*


----------



## eugeneonagain

I wouldn't call it jazz proper. The fad of jazzing-up classics (others did it, like the Dutch flautist Chris Hinze. His 'Vivat Vivaldi album is quite good) is hardly different that an orchestra playing The Beatles. A bit cheesy.


----------



## Dan Ante

eugeneonagain said:


> I wouldn't call it jazz proper. The fad of jazzing-up classics (others did it, like the Dutch flautist Chris Hinze. His 'Vivat Vivaldi album is quite good) is hardly different that an orchestra playing The Beatles. A bit cheesy.


I could ask what you consider "Jazz proper" but I would be in trouble again for going off topic.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Dan Ante said:


> I could ask what you consider "Jazz proper" but I would be in trouble again for going off topic.


Jazz that works in its own sphere without 'jazzing-up' anything. It's simple.


----------



## Dan Ante

eugeneonagain said:


> Jazz that works in its own sphere without 'jazzing-up' anything. It's simple.


An example or two?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Dan Ante said:


> An example or two?


You must be joking? That would be jazz that isn't trying to impart anything other than the jazz idiom. So while I expect you expect me to fall into a trap by mentioning great jazz performances of 'jazz standards', many which themselves were written outside of jazz, that isn't going to happen.
A jazz standard, like e.g. _I'm confessin' that I love you_, perhaps played on solo piano by Thelonious Monk is not anyone trying to use that song to show some kind of musical marriage in the way the Jacques Loussier school are doing with Bach (and he did it with Satie).


----------



## Dan Ante

eugeneonagain said:


> You must be joking? That would be jazz that isn't trying to impart anything other than the jazz idiom. So while I expect you expect me to fall into a trap by mentioning great jazz performances of 'jazz standards', many which themselves were written outside of jazz, that isn't going to happen.
> A jazz standard, like e.g. _I'm confessin' that I love you_, perhaps played on solo piano by Thelonious Monk is not anyone trying to use that song to show some kind of musical marriage in the way the Jacques Loussier school are doing with Bach (and he did it with Satie).


I don't know what your idea of "the jazz idiom" is. In the jazz bands that I played in any melody, song or even a theme from a classical work would be played and most importantly improvised upon and played as would any song from a Broadway musical or pop song, kind of "It aint what you do it's the way that you do it" *Coda*.


----------



## KenOC

Dan Ante said:


> I don't know what your idea of "the jazz idiom" is. In the jazz bands that I played in any melody, song or even a theme from a classical work would be played and most importantly improvised upon and played as would any song from a Broadway musical or pop song, kind of "It aint what you do it's the way that you do it" *Coda*.


"90% of all Jazz is half improvisation. The other half is the part people play while others are playing something they never played with anyone who played that part. So if you play the wrong part, its right. If you play the right part, it might be right if you play it wrong enough. But if you play it too right, it's wrong." --Yogi Berra


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> "90% of all Jazz is half improvisation. The other half is the part people play while others are playing something they never played with anyone who played that part. So if you play the wrong part, its right. If you play the right part, it might be right if you play it wrong enough. But if you play it too right, it's wrong." --Yogi Berra


They say that Yogi Bear was smarter than the average bear.


----------



## Guest

Dan Ante said:


> I could ask what you consider "Jazz proper" but I would be in trouble again for going off topic.


Jazz is largely an improvised style beginning its evolution with Dixieland, right? Louisser's Bach arrangements are scored, not improvised, and jazzed up in a meticulous arrangement. Kinda reminds me of meticulously arranged jazz styles in something like a John Williams film score.


----------



## Dan Ante

shirime said:


> Jazz is largely an improvised style beginning its evolution with Dixieland, right? Louisser's Bach arrangements are scored, not improvised, and jazzed up in a meticulous arrangement. Kinda reminds me of meticulously arranged jazz styles in something like a John Williams film score.


There are no dots in sight, and there are many improvised passages, did you watch the complete video, what he was doing is the same as say the MJQ playing "Over the rainbow" but more complicated. If anyone wants to take this further can I suggest a separate thread. Now I mean *CODA*


----------



## eugeneonagain

Are you choosing to mention MJQ because they are known for having applied classical forms to jazz?

In any case I don't accept the notated/not notated argument. Monk wrote out his compositions (rather haphazardly). He also wrote out some arrangements.

This is not my complaint. I don't doubt Loussier as a jazzman, but that 'jazzing-up' of classics or pop or whatever is for want of a better term 'consumer jazz'. It's a gimmick.


----------



## KenOC

Re notated versus non-notated: Both Beethoven and (I assume) Mozart improvised in variation form. Beethoven's were highly praised in the press of the day. Even though they were never written down, I'm pretty sure they were "classical music"!


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> Re notated versus non-notated: Both Beethoven and (I assume) Mozart improvised in variation form. Beethoven's were highly praised in the press of the day. Even though they were never written down, I'm pretty sure they were "classical music"!


You mean classical composers improvising classical passages to their obviously classical compositions? Yes, I think you might be right.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> You mean classical composers improvising classical passages to their obviously classical compositions? Yes, I think you might be right.


No, I mean completely improvised compositions, as often included in "piano duels" of the time. A theme would be given, and the composer was required to improvise a set of variations on the spot. They might also be improvised for a circle of friends, or even included as "specials" in concerts. Not only theme and variations, but other forms might be used as well. Beethoven's _Fantasia_, Op. 77, is thought to be based on one such improvisation -- well buffed-up, in all likelihood.


----------



## Dan Ante

eugeneonagain said:


> Are you choosing to mention MJQ because they are known for having applied classical forms to jazz?
> 
> In any case I don't accept the notated/not notated argument. Monk wrote out his compositions (rather haphazardly). He also wrote out some arrangements.
> 
> This is not my complaint. I don't doubt Loussier as a jazzman, but that 'jazzing-up' of classics or pop or whatever is for want of a better term 'consumer jazz'. It's a gimmick.









...........................


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> No, I mean completely improvised compositions, as often included in "piano duels" of the time. A theme would be given, and the composer was required to improvise a set of variations on the spot. They might also be improvised for a circle of friends, or even included as "specials" in concerts. Not only theme and variations, but other forms might be used as well. Beethoven's _Fantasia_, Op. 77, is thought to be based on one such improvisation -- well buffed-up, in all likelihood.


You probably know this,

jazz is remembered as a derogatory word

http://www.upstateswing.com/Greg/origin-of-the-word-jazz.php

The saxophone player Garvin Bushell gives his opinion on the mystery by describing his early life in Louisiana:
"They said that the French had brought the perfume industry with them to New Orleans and the oil of jasmine was a popular ingredient locally. To add it to a perfume was called "jassing it up." The strong scent was popular in the red light district, where a working girl might approach a prospective customer and say "Is jass on your mind tonight young fellow?" The term had become synonymous with erotic activity and came to be applied to the music as well."
It is safe to say that no one will ever know who first used the term as most every early jazz musician has a story about how they were the ones that created it. Jelly Roll Morton even claims he was the one who invented the music itself and everyone else stole it from him! The spelling is another mystery but there is historical evidence that in the early days it was "Jass" not Jazz which would lead one to believe the perfume theory. The fact that the first Jazz record ever recored was by a group that called themselves "The Original Dixieland Jass Band" is proof of that. The trumpeter for the Original Dixieland Jass band, Nick LaRocca talks about how the term was changed from Jass to Jazz saying:
"...the term was changed because children and some adults could not resist the temptation to scratch the letter "J" from the posters."
Duke Ellington apparently did not care for the word at all saying:
"By and large, jazz always has been like the kind of man you wouldn't want your daughter to associate with. The word "jazz" has been part of the problem. The word never lost its association with those New Orleans bordellos. In the 1920s I used to try to convince Fletcher Henderson that we ought to call what we were doing "Negro music." But it's too late for that now. This music has become so integrated you can't tell one part from the other so far as color is concerned."
In the 1930s and 40s there were efforts by some magazines to change the name so that it would not be associated with sex by coming up with silly names like "ragtonia," "Amerimusic," and "crewcut" which of course did not catch on. It seems though that the "stigma" of the sexual references have for the most point disappeared on their own and Jazz is a proud American product that the world has embraced.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Dan Ante said:


> View attachment 109474
> ...........................


Fine counter-argument.


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> No, I mean completely improvised compositions, as often included in "piano duels" of the time. A theme would be given, and the composer was required to improvise a set of variations on the spot. They might also be improvised for a circle of friends, or even included as "specials" in concerts. Not only theme and variations, but other forms might be used as well. Beethoven's _Fantasia_, Op. 77, is thought to be based on one such improvisation -- well buffed-up, in all likelihood.


Oh I see now. Those would have been done in the forms they knew well though. Pretty much 'composing on the spot'. So not markedly different from their compositions.


----------



## Luchesi

eugeneonagain said:


> Oh I see now. Those would have been done in the forms they knew well though. Pretty much 'composing on the spot'. So not markedly different from their compositions.


In reply to an earlier post on Jan. 1, 2011 10:27 AM PST
KenOC says:
Inspired by another thread, I watched The Soloist the othe night. Pretty good. Most of the music was late Beethoven, almost all slow movements! Nice job with the orchestral arrangements. Somehow Steve Lopez (Robert Downey Jr.) gets soaked in urine TWICE in this movie (his own and a coyote's), which is more than passing strange...
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?

I've posted with Ken for probably 10 years, so he won't mind if I use him (inspiration) in this example?

I saw a used Lincoln MKS turbo hybrid at our local car lot so I bought it. I was impressed by the pushbutton transmission and the swiping volume and fan controls and the rain sensing wipers (they're a little annoying), collision alarms front and back. It's a "real fun" car to drive, high torque on starts and when the turbo kicks in you really rocket away, 45 miles per gallon around town, can't complain.
I enjoy the car for its looks and its bells and whistles, BUT my friend who's been car guy all his life knows all about the history of Lincoln and likes to learn about the developments in engineering. He's always opening the hood and looking at all that complexity.
He's like a musicologist interested in music theory and development and history vs I'm like a music lover.

fun : late 17th cent. (denoting a trick or hoax): from obsolete fun' to cheat or hoax,' dialect variant of late Middle English fon' make a fool of, be a fool,' related to fon' a fool,' of unknown origin. Compare with fond.


----------



## Dan Ante

eugeneonagain said:


> Fine counter-argument.


*OK if you insist.*



eugeneonagain said:


> Are you choosing to mention MJQ because they are known for having applied classical forms to jazz?


*NO*


> In any case I don't accept the notated/not notated argument. Monk wrote out his compositions (rather haphazardly). He also wrote out some arrangements.


*Meaning?*


> This is not my complaint. I don't doubt Loussier as a jazzman, but that 'jazzing-up' of classics or pop or whatever is for want of a better term 'consumer jazz'. It's a gimmick.


A great deal of jazz is improvised around existing melodies (tunes) 
I am not including "free jazz" as I have no personal experience of that.
So are you saying if jazz is built around an existing melody/tune it is not 'proper jazz'?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Dan Ante said:


> A great deal of jazz is improvised around existing melodies (tunes)
> I am not including "free jazz" as I have no personal experience of that.
> So are you saying if jazz is built around an existing melody/tune it is not 'proper jazz'?


Weird. I already addressed this. I clearly mentioned jazz standards written outside of jazz as pop songs. Why are you ignoring that/not paying attention?

Be off with you.


----------



## Dan Ante

eugeneonagain said:


> Weird. I already addressed this. I clearly mentioned jazz standards written outside of jazz as pop songs. Why are you ignoring that/not paying attention?
> 
> Be off with you.


Hmmm you always avoid a direct question, so if I have understood clearly. 
Any jazz ens that improvises on a Broadway musical song is classed by you as consumer jazz or what used to be called commercial or a gimmick and the same applies to a classical melody etc. 
However if Thelonious Monk does it with a pop tune it is legit (not a musical marriage) but when Jacques Loussier does it with a classical melody it becomes a musical marriage is this why you termed it" not proper jazz" now that is weird to me.

So if all jazz built around a classical/pop/show song etc is commercial (aimed at the consumer) therefore not proper jazz but not if they do the same with a classical music melody etc it then becomes an effort to be a musical marriage.

As I probably have misinterpreted you posts* what do you consider proper jazz?*

I asked you this at the beginning and you said [Jazz that works in its own sphere without 'jazzing-up' anything. It's simple.]
So you were serious wow I put it to you:
What do you mean by "works in its own sphere"?
The very basic of jazz is taking a tune and jazzing it up I.e. providing a rhythmic backing and improvising upon a tune whether that tune is classical, pop or any other genre of music, now if I am wrong I would like to know what on earth was being played in all the jazz clubs that I visited/played in for years.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I don't avoid direct questions. I just answer as concisely as I can and assume the person at the other end follows it.

You haven't followed it, because once again you mention 'Broadway songs' and falsely suggest that I think using one as a base for improvisation is by definition commercial or a gimmick.



Dan Ante said:


> However if Thelonious Monk does it with a pop tune it is legit (not a musical marriage) but when Jacques Loussier does it with a classical melody it becomes a musical marriage is this why you termed it" not proper jazz" now that is weird to me.


Monk wrote most of his own compositions, so he might have been a bad example. When he plays standards he plays them fairly straight, especially solo piano. 
No, what I am aiming at is the stuff that just lays an obvious jazz gloss on other music genres.

It will be a matter of taste for the most part, but you seem to be searching for some sort of scientific or logical truth in the matter. It's not there, so there's no point.

What was being played in the jazz clubs you visited and I visit(ed) was jazz of one sort or another. Some if it just a sort of 'thing' using the jazz idiom.


----------



## eugeneonagain

After thinking about it today I have come to the conclusion that you are right and I am wrong. If I am willing to consider a diverse sort of music under the umbrella of classical, the same must be true for jazz. It just happens that certain things won't be my cup of tea.

There we are.


----------



## Luchesi

eugeneonagain said:


> After thinking about it today I have come to the conclusion that you are right and I am wrong. If I am willing to consider a diverse sort of music under the umbrella of classical, the same must be true for jazz. It just happens that certain things won't be my cup of tea.
> 
> There we are.


So, no more categories? Has any jazz or pop performer ever said that they're creating classical music? If so, consider the source. What do they have to say about it?


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> So you think that people can't agree upon what's classical music and what's not after 1825?
> 
> Does anyone think that ragtime is classical music? Why are why not? Does it have to do with the background of the composer? and what they cared about the history of music? And what their goal was in the history of music?
> 
> Why compose?
> 
> I think classical music is all about history and very little about what is attractive to music listeners. 'Just like the other arts.


Well, I agree, and I've already given my opinion on how to differentiate between classical music, or serious or art music, and popular music, in this thread. It has nothing to do with quality, and everything to do with the primary goal of the music: to appeal to popular tastes and the zeitgeist of the moment in the case of popular music, and to create something more universal and enduring in the case of classical music.
We had a long debate about Scott Joplin here earlier. Joplin truly straddled both worlds. He wrote popular music, but he also felt ragtime was an art form that deserved to be treated seriously and remembered by future generations. He had the musical training and the talent to write a full scale ragtime opera, Treemonisha, that I think is delightful. I wouldn't put it on quite the same level as Porgy and Bess, but I still think both qualify as classical music.


----------



## Dimace

Gentlemen, I don't want to interfere to your very useful conversation but for me at least Art Pepper's Winter Moon (this is an example) is better than many "classical'' works. Classical music vs classical works. Is the time the factor? Is the kind of what is played? Is the nationality of the composer? Is simply geography? I don't know. No one can compare the Beethoven with the Art. But Art is the Beethoven of the sax. After 200 years he will be what Beethoven is for us today. As we can not reach a conclusion with such things, I keep the word Classic and after instead of music or work I put the word *quality.* This is out of time, out of place, out of any human made compromises. The time will do the rest and the history will write to its books the results.


----------



## Luchesi

Dimace said:


> Gentlemen, I don't want to interfere to your very useful conversation but for me at least Art Pepper's Winter Moon (this is an example) is better than many "classical'' works. Classical music vs classical works. Is the time the factor? Is the kind of what is played? Is the nationality of the composer? Is simply geography? I don't know. No one can compare the Beethoven with the Art. But Art is the Beethoven of the sax. After 200 years he will be what Beethoven is for us today. As we can not reach a conclusion with such things, I keep the word Classic and after instead of music or work I put the word *quality.* This is out of time, out of place, out of any human made compromises. The time will do the rest and the history will write to its books the results.


Welcome to the forum.

According to what you've said, Art Pepper didn't realize he put out a classical music album.


----------



## Dimace

Luchesi said:


> Welcome to the forum.
> 
> According to what you've said, Art Pepper didn't realize he put out a classical music album.


*He realized it very well!* He knew, what he had done. Exactly like Beethoven. Let us see what he said for his Winter Moon:

_''It took me a life time to do it and if somebody doesn't like, well, they don't know what to listen for.''_

So, literally, he made a classical* quality*, jazz music album. The Quality is the new word I brought to your beautiful conversation. All the other aspects were already covered. At the very end, in the bus of the time, Art's and Beethoven's works will have a seat. The German first row, the American, maybe somewhere in the middle, but both of them has earned the immortality and at the end is the only which matters. (immortal quality=classic quality)

Thanks a lot for the welcome.


----------



## Luchesi

Dimace said:


> *He realized it very well!* He knew, what he had done. Exactly like Beethoven. Let us see what he said for his Winter Moon:
> 
> _''It took me a life time to do it and if somebody doesn't like, well, they don't know what to listen for.''_
> 
> So, literally, he made a classical* quality*, jazz music album. The Quality is the new word I brought to your beautiful conversation. All the other aspects were already covered. At the very end, in the bus of the time, Art's and Beethoven's works will have a seat. The German first row, the American, maybe somewhere in the middle, but both of them has earned the immortality and at the end is the only which matters. (immortal quality=classic quality)
> 
> Thanks a lot for the welcome.


All high quality music is classical music to you?


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> All high quality music is classical music to you?


This is why I don't venture down this path. "Quality" is a tricky word, especially in a context like this.


----------



## Larkenfield

Dimace said:


> Gentlemen, I don't want to interfere to your very useful conversation but for me at least Art Pepper's Winter Moon (this is an example) is better than many "classical'' works. Classical music vs classical works. Is the time the factor? Is the kind of what is played? Is the nationality of the composer? Is simply geography? I don't know. No one can compare the Beethoven with the Art. But Art is the Beethoven of the sax. After 200 years he will be what Beethoven is for us today. As we can not reach a conclusion with such things, I keep the word Classic and after instead of music or work I put the word *quality.* This is out of time, out of place, out of any human made compromises. The time will do the rest and the history will write to its books the results.


Art was truly 'on' that day with Winter Moon. Just beautiful. Was fortunate to hear him live back in the day and he's still a favorite. While I'd never call this classical by virtue of its strings, such arrangements and performances are certainly capable of being enjoyed just as much as anything in the classical genre.


----------



## philoctetes

Hearing Winter Moon for the first time, no it is not classical. It's blues, under the influence of Round Midnight...

Classic rock is not classical. Classic jazz is not classical. Language is complicated, get used to it, save the arguments for stuff that matters...


----------



## millionrainbows

I bypass the problem of categories by realizing that effective art & music is a product of "being." If I can tune into my own being, then I can tune in to other forms of being, as translated through the medium of music. Thus Art Pepper can be more 'in tune' with his being, and with my being, than a classical composer of old, who was just going through the motions. But this means nothing, it is only a generalized hypothetical conjecture.
Great art is about the being of an artist, his translation of being into forms, our shared reading of forms, our ability to relate our own being to that map, and ultimately the state and development of being in the listener or receiver; not about procedures or forms only. The essence of "being" must shine through the forms, in all great art.


----------



## millionrainbows

philoctetes said:


> Hearing Winter Moon for the first time, no it is not classical. It's blues, under the influence of Round Midnight...
> 
> Classic rock is not classical. Classic jazz is not classical. Language is complicated, get used to it, save the arguments for stuff that matters...


"Being" is being, and it takes on many forms. Sometimes achieving a state of being can be "complicated," and can result in arguments, depending upon where one is on the "wheel."
You are on a wheel, and the blues is the blues.


----------



## philoctetes

The second thing I heard in Winter Blues is that the string arrangements would make Mozart roll in the grave. Chords that clash worse than a lot of avant-garde stuff. Not even on the Gil Evans level.

Rather than disputing non-technical, categorical terminology that only matters to non-musicians, raise the game by discussing what's happening in the music, and how different genres do different things with the same materials. At least that's what interests me. Crossover is good! Defy those categories. Let the compartment-heads go crazy while freer minds enjoy the music.

"being is being... and the blues is the blues"

Dude, roll another one. i got nothing better to do, here in CA, it's "Midnight at Noon"









The "Camp Fire" is over 100 miles away... for now... but the smoke came straight this way... hope Ken and others are safe...

here is another way to witness the conditions

http://www.alertwildfire.org/northbay/


----------



## fluteman

philoctetes said:


> The second thing I heard in Winter Blues is that the string arrangements would make Mozart roll in the grave. Chords that clash worse than a lot of avant-garde stuff. Not even on the Gil Evans level.
> 
> Rather than disputing non-technical, categorical terminology that only matters to non-musicians, raise the game by discussing what's happening in the music, and how different genres do different things with the same materials. At least that's what interests me. Crossover is good! Defy those categories. Let the compartment-heads go crazy while freer minds enjoy the music.
> 
> "being is being... and the blues is the blues"
> 
> Dude, roll another one. i got nothing better to do, here in CA, it's "Midnight at Noon"
> 
> View attachment 109733
> 
> 
> The "Camp Fire" is over 100 miles away... for now... but the smoke came straight this way... hope Ken and others are safe...
> 
> here is another way to witness the conditions
> 
> http://www.alertwildfire.org/northbay/


Here's hoping you can keep yourself and your loved ones out of harm's way. Meanwhile, needless to say, all sorts of classical composers have given us their take on jazz and blues: Stravinsky, Milhaud, Poulenc, Martinu, Weill, Bernstein, Bowles, Gould, and this, which immediately came to my mind after millionrainbows' comment that "the blues is the blues". Da blues, woodwind quintet style:


----------



## philoctetes

Jazz infused or inspired a lot of 20c music that was touched by America, by composers who landed in America as refugees, those who survived the wars in Europe, and even some who didn't, such as the composers at Terezin... Haas, Messiaen, Eisler, Xenakis, 

It's pretty simple, jazz represented freedom, it adapted well to the transient nature of the times, it provided relief from the tragedy that many couldn't avoid, and found a special niche in the theatre.

I think modern jazz has reached a level beyond what Art Pepper was doing, jazz performance skills are much closer to the level we expect from classical musicians, while compositions have also become more sophisticated and original. The gap between jazz and classical is certainly narrower than ever, because both sides have great musicians who want to close the gap. 

But many won't accept that view, like those who think certain instruments or techniques don't belong in the classical domain. Is it ever the other way around?

I think, for the moment, that jazz and classical can be identified by aesthetic ancestry... metaphorically, one has to listen for the musical DNA, strip away the mutations, does it come from Mozart or from Jelly Roll? 

With Bill Evans, Wolfie and Jelly Roll got married. Add just about everybody Paul Motian played with, they were all classicists who played jazz. More of the younger generation of jazz players are classicists. And they can get raunchy, bluesy, funky, or play pop songs without shame. Why shouldn't they?

Listen to recent releases by Leo Smith, Henry Threadgill, Henry Kaiser, Tania Chen, Rez Abassi, this jazz music is bouncing round a very large space of possibilities, and it's gonna get harder to trace this musical geneology with each generataion, but it's more interesting to attempt to preserve and trace history than to destroy it IMO...


----------



## fluteman

philoctetes said:


> But many won't accept that view, like those who think certain instruments or techniques don't belong in the classical domain. Is it ever the other way around?
> 
> I think, for the moment, that jazz and classical can be identified by aesthetic ancestry... one has to listen for the DNA, strip away the mutations, does it come from Mozart or from Jelly Roll?


Indeed. Any technique or instrument is fine for any kind of music, if the composer finds a good way to put it to use. When Gunther Schuller wrote a blues piece for woodwind quintet, he was trying (and succeeding, I think) to simultaneously honor two different musical traditions that originated in very different times and places. As both a great jazz musician and a great classical musician, he was in a good position to do that. And not coincidentally, the classical woodwind quintet sound is not that far different from the sound of a traditional jazz band, which usually has saxophones, often has clarinets, and sometimes has flutes. Jean Francaix wrote a jazzy woodwind quintet, and Francis Poulenc wrote a jazzy sextet for woodwind quintet and piano, another traditional jazz instrument. Of course, Stravinsky's Ragtime and Ebony Concerto make use of jazz band instruments.
So there is a long tradition of classical composers incorporating the popular music of their day. Mozart certainly did that.


----------



## philoctetes

Right, if we follow the lineage we find that Mozart was doping his compositions with opiates from the East, and we continue to do so today... it's not only geographical but temporal, whenever Western music looks back on itself, the relative minor sneaks up on the major... 

So if anything, by calling folk songs by "Anonymous" "classical", we began to destroy "credit where credit is due" many many centuries ago. Who really wrote Petite Camusette? I wanna know! Imagine the future when classical music is borrowing from The Beatles for melodic inspiration but the sources are long forgotten.

As for wind instruments, they're the Rodney Dangerfields of their kind, but what would we do without them?


----------



## millionrainbows

Jazz was always multi-faceted, as it was music brought to America by Africans, playing Western instruments. Jazz is so assimilable that 'everyone' has taken their liberties with it: as soundtracks for TV shows and movies (Peter Gunn, Mannix, Twilight Zone, Perry Mason, James Bond), as transformed into Debussy-esque colors by Bill Evans, and morphed with tin-pan alley as 'jazz standards (I Got Rhythm, What Is This Thing Called Love, Days of Wine and Roses).

Miles Davis apparently tried to take it back harmonically to its African roots with Bitches Brew, using drone-like vamps and bass lines, with chromatic solos over the top. Meanwhile, in South America, the swing 6/8 was replaced by the Bossa Nova straight 4/4 beat...


----------



## millionrainbows

philoctetes said:


> Right, if we follow the lineage we find that Mozart was doping his compositions with opiates from the East, and we continue to do so today... it's not only geographical but temporal, whenever Western music looks back on itself, the relative minor sneaks up on the major...
> 
> So if anything, by calling folk songs by "Anonymous" "classical", we began to destroy "credit where credit is due" many many centuries ago. Who really wrote Petite Camusette? I wanna know! Imagine the future when classical music is borrowing from The Beatles for melodic inspiration but fails to credit the songwriters.


But those old folk songs were before the invention of recording, and were transmitted (and changed) by performance, aurally and orally. This was before the idea of "authorship" had developed.


----------



## philoctetes

millionrainbows said:


> But those old folk songs were before the invention of recording, and were transmitted (and changed) by performance, aurally and orally. This was before the idea of "authorship" had developed.


Yeah I know but I just say keeping records of these relationships is our now our responsibility and not to be taken lightly. Ya know, in the Orwellian sense (me paranoid? nah)


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> Indeed. Any technique or instrument is fine for any kind of music, if the composer finds a good way to put it to use. When Gunther Schuller wrote a blues piece for woodwind quintet, he was trying (and succeeding, I think) to simultaneously honor two different musical traditions that originated in very different times and places. As both a great jazz musician and a great classical musician, he was in a good position to do that. And not coincidentally, the classical woodwind quintet sound is not that far different from the sound of a traditional jazz band, which usually has saxophones, often has clarinets, and sometimes has flutes. Jean Francaix wrote a jazzy woodwind quintet, and Francis Poulenc wrote a jazzy sextet for woodwind quintet and piano, another traditional jazz instrument. Of course, Stravinsky's Ragtime and Ebony Concerto make use of jazz band instruments.
> So there is a long tradition of classical composers incorporating the popular music of their day. Mozart certainly did that.


I place Gunther Schuller's *results* in a higher category than others who tried to meld jazz with classical, namely Gershwin, who was a good pop song writer. Likewise, Schuller is more "Western modern" when he writes. To me, it's contemporary modern , not a form of jazz.
And, I'm sorry, when I hear a saxophone concerto, it just doesn't sound right to me. the sax will always be a jazz instrument for me. Too much Parker, Dolphy and Rollins, I suppose.


----------



## philoctetes

MR, true on a lot of saxophone concertos, but many of them are written by non-Americans, and Adams is just awful. Hovhaness does a little better and Villa-Lobos makes the instrument sing. This is something that the best wind writers get, that they have to breath like a voice. I think most classical composers put their sax-y efforts into the bass clarinet or bassoon, perhaps. And depending on the soloist, the results can be very beguiling.. 

I think those Jazz Suites by Shostakovich have saxes, where the nod would be to big band rather than bop... and they also have that Danse Macabre thing that he seemed to get from St-Saens and Suk... I feel like ice skating when I hear them..


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> I place Gunther Schuller's *results* in a higher category than others who tried to meld jazz with classical, namely Gershwin, who was a good pop song writer. Likewise, Schuller is more "Western modern" when he writes. To me, it's contemporary modern , not a form of jazz.
> And, I'm sorry, when I hear a saxophone concerto, it just doesn't sound right to me. the sax will always be a jazz instrument for me. Too much Parker, Dolphy and Rollins, I suppose.


But check out Concerto da Camera by Jacques Ibert, for example. I'm guessing you already have. He captures the sonority and flexibility of the sax perfectly. And of course, Schuller was a sideman for Sinatra when he was younger and later worked with Miles Davis.


----------



## janxharris




----------



## hammeredklavier

"As sales of music across the board continue to decline in favor of streaming, another manner of determining an act's popularity is by seeing how often people search for them on Google and YouTube. By that metric, it would seem that the *Beatles are decidedly less popular than they were a decade ago.*" http://ultimateclassicrock.com/beatles-popularity-decline/ The Beatles have been declining in popularity in the last decade. At this rate, in another 100 years, how many people in the world will be listening to Beatles?

In classical music composers, Vivaldi, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Brahms, Tchaikovsky etc, there are structural elements in their music that make them unique from the others and other genres of music. A very competent composer today could study Tchaikovsky in great depth and become the second Tchaikovsky but he won't re-produce the exact same music like Tchaikovsky. People will keep coming back to the real Tchaikovsky for inspiration. This is what makes classical composers and classical music "Classical".

The Beatles, on the other hand, if you listen to songs like "Strawberry Fields Forever", it has the Beatles' feel, but that's about it. There's not much structural depth that proves its greatness. 
How much more is there to study and analyze in "Yesterday" compared with today's 4 chord pop songs? The second Bruno Mars will perfectly replace the current Bruno Mars in the future, after that, the third will replace the second, and the cycle will continue. 
This is why pop musicians' popularity is short-lived and the Beatles are no exception. They're credited as being the pioneers of their genre and hold special place in it, and so they'll enjoy longer period of popularity than say, Justin Beiber would. But in another 100 years, they will be forgotten, just like any other retired, disbanded, deceased pop artists. I'm sure.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Gallus said:


> I'm not talking about Beethoven's arrangements of folk songs, but the actual _dance music_ he wrote for balls and other dances.
> Another example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the 18th century version of dance music which you might hear at any nightclub today. Same function, same artistic purpose. Mozart's main job in the employ of the Emperor was to write music for the Imperial balls, which he did in great number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Art music'? This was the 'EDM' of their day. That is not to say that Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven etc. were the Elvis of their day, but that they wrote all kinds of music _including _contemporary popular dance music like Elvis would later do.


I actually find 12 German Dances for orchestra K586 somewhat interesting for its use of clever polyphonic devices. They're obviously not as good as the canonic minuets of his serious works, but I can see these are the works Mozart was drawing his inspiration from, to write something like..




much like Chopin was intending to do with some of his late Mazurkas, unlike the pop artists today, these composers didn't just endlessly spam brain-dead music. Even in their lighter music they demonstrate their solid understanding of music. In Musical Joke K522, Mozart experiments with polytonality and whole-tone scales.

Beethoven's Wellington's Victory is still better than today's pop musicians endless 4-chord song spam.
Pop singers today even use Auto-tune and lip-sync. So much of their "musical" abilities is fake and artificial you can't tell how much of it is real. Michael Jackson and John Lennon couldn't even read notated sheet music. Paris Hilton never received proper musical training, she still made her debut as a EDM DJ. There is a difference between a proper musician and a "musical" jester.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> ...Beethoven's Wellington's Victory is still better than today's pop musicians endless 4-chord song spam.
> Pop singers today even use Auto-tune and lip-sync. So much of their "musical" abilities is fake and artificial you can't tell how much of it is real. Michael Jackson and John Lennon couldn't even read notated sheet music. Paris Hilton never received proper musical training, she still made her debut as a EDM DJ. There is a difference between a proper musician and a "musical" jester.


When I see someone disparage popular artists to this extent, I assume that they aren't really very familiar with them. (I'm not sure what Paris Hilton has to do with anything.)


----------



## Lisztian

hammeredklavier said:


> Michael Jackson and John Lennon couldn't even read notated sheet music.


Not being able to read notated sheet music does not make you a 'jester:' the Western classical paradigm is not the only one that is valid. Sure it helps in some circumstances, but it is not a pre-requisite for creating/performing great music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Lisztian said:


> Not being able to read notated sheet music does not make you a 'jester:' the Western classical paradigm is not the only one that is valid. Sure it helps in some circumstances, but it is not a pre-requisite for creating/performing great music.


That's like saying "you can still be a good essayist even if you don't know how to write properly." The very reason we admire composers like Bach is because of his supreme command of melody, harmony, counterpoint, structure. How can you acquire these skills if you don't know how to read and write in proper musical notation first? Jazz uses proper music notation because of this. Whereas pop musicians like Michael Jackson didn't bother to learn cause popularity was all that mattered for them and "catchiness", "popularity" don't necessarily equate to "greatness". https://www.youtube.com/user/richardatkinson2108/videos whereas classical music has had numerous elements to analyze for countless composers through history, pop doesn't. It's one of the reasons why I think guys like John Lennon can't be considered "classical".


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> That's like saying "you can still be a good essayist even if you don't know how to write properly."


How about, "you can be a great storyteller even if you can't write at all"?


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> That's like saying "you can still be a good essayist even if you don't know how to write properly."


No, it isn't. It's still possible to compose in sound without actually being able to "write", whereas being able to write (compose in words) does require being able to compose in words.

Any evidence that "popularity" was all that mattered to Jackson?

I think you missed the general thrust of this thread, which rejected fairly early on the idea that pop/rock could be considered classical - they're both perfectly valid but different forms of music that are not comparable (not in terms that leads to a declaration that one is superior to the other). The rest of the desultory arguments were just amusing or tiresome side issues. Heaven knows how it's lasted 26 pages.


----------



## Dan Ante

hammeredklavier said:


> That's like saying "you can still be a good essayist even if you don't know how to write properly."


I have played with some musicians that cannot read but play good jazz.


----------



## Strange Magic

The line of people ready to rip the mask from popular music--finally expose the rot, denounce the fraud, defy the Power Structure--forms about seventeen blocks down the street. Be sure to go to the back of the line, where you will be issued a number, an apple, and an orange.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> The line of people ready to rip the mask from popular music--finally expose the rot, denounce the fraud, defy the Power Structure--forms about seventeen blocks down the street. Be sure to go to the back of the line, where you will be issued a number, an apple, and an orange.


I prefer a nice autumnal mead.


----------



## Zhdanov

KenOC said:


> time for some renewal, time to expand our horizons a bit?


no, classical is not about renewal or widening horizons; classical refers to the Ancient Rome & Greece, the institutions they built and perspectives on life they had; its about return to old & better times, not about moving forward, whatever new forms it might produce - make no mistake, this occurs merely by chance... it also takes a lot of mastery, expertise and power to create something we call by the name of 'classical' as much as it takes proper learning to produce a person of such talents.


----------



## fluteman

hammeredklavier said:


> "As sales of music across the board continue to decline in favor of streaming, another manner of determining an act's popularity is by seeing how often people search for them on Google and YouTube. By that metric, it would seem that the *Beatles are decidedly less popular than they were a decade ago.*" http://ultimateclassicrock.com/beatles-popularity-decline/ The Beatles have been declining in popularity in the last decade. At this rate, in another 100 years, how many people in the world will be listening to Beatles?
> 
> In classical music composers, Vivaldi, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Brahms, Tchaikovsky etc, there are structural elements in their music that make them unique from the others and other genres of music. A very competent composer today could study Tchaikovsky in great depth and become the second Tchaikovsky but he won't re-produce the exact same music like Tchaikovsky. People will keep coming back to the real Tchaikovsky for inspiration. This is what makes classical composers and classical music "Classical".
> 
> The Beatles, on the other hand, if you listen to songs like "Strawberry Fields Forever", it has the Beatles' feel, but that's about it. There's not much structural depth that proves its greatness.
> How much more is there to study and analyze in "Yesterday" compared with today's 4 chord pop songs? The second Bruno Mars will perfectly replace the current Bruno Mars in the future, after that, the third will replace the second, and the cycle will continue.
> This is why pop musicians' popularity is short-lived and the Beatles are no exception. They're credited as being the pioneers of their genre and hold special place in it, and so they'll enjoy longer period of popularity than say, Justin Beiber would. But in another 100 years, they will be forgotten, just like any other retired, disbanded, deceased pop artists. I'm sure.


Agreed. However, the Beatles, while not an "exception", were a bit atypical. As I keep saying, popular music seeks to exploit the zeitgeist of the moment and create immediate and broad audience appeal, often to a particular demographic or age group. The Beatles did exactly that, as they were young British musicians who saw the growing popularity of American rock 'n' roll with young Europeans in the late 50s and early 60s and seized that opportunity.

Ultimately, the Beatles turned out to be rather more cosmopolitan, intellectually-oriented and ambitious than most other rockers of their day, and they expanded beyond the rock 'n' roll genre in some imaginative ways. But they did that only after they had established a huge popular following, and could afford the luxury of forays beyond the traditional boundaries of their chosen popular music genre. They became popular music leaders and taste-makers, almost experimental and avant-garde, but imo never fully broke out of their popular music role. And they broke up after less than three years of this avant-garde period.

Later rockers like Frank Zappa, David Byrne and Thom Yorke have gone further in experimental and avant-garde directions. Some of their music arguably goes beyond the popular idiom.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> As I keep saying, popular music seeks to exploit the zeitgeist of the moment and create immediate and broad audience appeal, often to a particular demographic or age group.
> .


isn't this backwards? Isn't Pop music labeled popular because it is popular?

Was not classical music Pop music in it's day?

Sounds to me like you are making stuff up to suit your agenda. (as all us humans tend to do)


----------



## eugeneonagain

We humans......


----------



## Dan Ante

eugeneonagain said:


> We humans......


Wee humans..................


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> isn't this backwards? Isn't Pop music labeled popular because it is popular?
> 
> Was not classical music Pop music in it's day?


No, no and no, at least the way I and many others are using the words pop and classical in this thread and other discussions of this topic here. As many here have noted, for better or worse these terms have become category labels, not just aesthetic characterizations or value judgments, though they can be used in those senses as well.


----------



## Zhdanov

eljr said:


> Was not classical music Pop music in it's day?


no, it was that of then ruling elites.


----------



## KenOC

Zhdanov said:


> no, it was that of then ruling elites.


Nowadays it's the music of the chatterati elites. We have met them, and they are us.


----------



## Dan Ante

Zhdanov said:


> no, it was that of then ruling elites.


Jeeeeez I would have thought that it was far above their heads.......


----------



## Zhdanov

Dan Ante said:


> Jeeeeez I would have thought that it was far above their heads.......


not at all - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_II_of_Bavaria


----------



## fluteman

Frederick the Great of Prussia


----------



## fluteman

KenOC said:


> Nowadays it's the music of the chatterati elites. We have met them, and they are us.


Actually, it's still the music of the ruling elites:


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Actually, it's still the music of the ruling elites:
> View attachment 110017


Huh? Perhaps you're thinking about expensive performances, but any child from any background can learn music and grow up to be a composer, even if only as a sideline.

Ruling elites supported the shows (and some of the creators), but surely that's not what music is limited to, nor is it what serious folks care about.


----------



## Zhdanov

Luchesi said:


> Ruling elites supported the shows (and some of the creators)


not only supported, but also directed them, and not some, but most of them.


----------



## Luchesi

Zhdanov said:


> not only supported, but also directed them, and not some, but most of them.


Who's ruling over the music of today?

Schubert? Chopin? Schumann? Brahms? Liszt? Who ruled over their music? I don't see it..


----------



## Zhdanov

Luchesi said:


> Who's ruling over the music of today?
> 
> Schubert? Chopin? Schumann? Brahms? Liszt? Who ruled over their music? I don't see it..


and you're not supposed to, otherwise there would be no need to build great names.


----------



## Luchesi

Zhdanov said:


> and you're not supposed to, otherwise there would be no need to build great names.


From what I've read I can't see who it was who ruled over their music, but you can?


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> Huh? Perhaps you're thinking about expensive performances, but any child from any background can learn music and grow up to be a composer, even if only as a sideline.
> 
> Ruling elites supported the shows (and some of the creators), but surely that's not what music is limited to, nor is it what serious folks care about.


Ruling elites (or wealthy elites, which amounts to the same thing) don't just "support the shows", they have a lot of influence over what music is performed, and, of course, what music is commissioned.


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> Persnickety or not, the question remains: Why not this? What are the criteria that bar this music from our incredible shrinking universe?
> 
> Note that the average age of the most popular (yes, popular) classical music is just over 200 years. Nobody much in the real world cares at all about what we call "classical music" being written today. Is it possibly -- just _possibly _-- time for some renewal, time to expand our horizons a bit?​


As a young guy who has talked with the hip kids both in indie music forums and in real life, Steve Reich, Terry Riley, Arvo Pärt, Philip Glass, Penderecki, LaMonte Young, Radigue, Pauline Oliveros, and older dead giants like Ligeti and Messiaen are mentioned way more regularly than you'd imagine, always very positively and with admiration, while mentions of Mozart, Brahms or Beethoven are really few and far between. This isn't surprising as guess who their loved bands like The Velvet Underground, CAN, Radiohead or Sufjan Stevens list as their influences? Micropolyphony is even becoming a cool thing bands venture into (see King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard).

You should pay Reddit a visit sometime.


----------



## fluteman

Chronochromie said:


> As a young guy who has talked with the hip kids both in indie music forums and in real life, Steve Reich, Terry Riley, Arvo Pärt, Philip Glass, Penderecki, LaMonte Young, Radigue, Pauline Oliveros, and older dead giants like Ligeti and Messiaen are mentioned way more regularly than you'd imagine, always very positively and with admiration, while mentions of Mozart, Brahms or Beethoven are really few and far between. This isn't surprising as guess who their loved bands like The Velvet Underground, CAN, Radiohead or Sufjan Stevens list as their influences? Micropolyphony is even becoming a cool thing bands venture into (see King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard).
> 
> You should pay Reddit a visit sometime.


Sigh. Nice post, but this discussion keeps circling back to the same things in every thread. If one thinks of classical music solely as something played in concert halls without amplification by people sitting or standing on a stage dressed in black formal wear and playing acoustic instruments designed in the 19th century or earlier, in traditional configurations such as the symphony orchestra or string quartet that date to the nineteenth century or earlier, then one might think, as KenOC apparently does, that the 19th century was the peak, golden age of classical music, or one might think, as many younger listeners today do, that classical music is irrelevant and uninteresting.

I think both camps confuse the context of the art for the art itself. It's funny how the music of Arvo Pärt or Philip Glass or even wilder (and certainly more atonally oriented) composers has long been accepted without a peep of protest in movies and TV but is still viewed by many as a sacrilege when presented in the concert hall. Zubin Mehta called the symphony orchestra a "museum", and people go to a museum, if they care to go at all, with certain expectations.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Sigh. Nice post, but this discussion keeps circling back to the same things in every thread. If one thinks of classical music solely as something played in concert halls without amplification by people sitting or standing on a stage dressed in black formal wear and playing acoustic instruments designed in the 19th century or earlier, in traditional configurations such as the symphony orchestra or string quartet that date to the nineteenth century or earlier, then one might think, as KenOC apparently does, that the 19th century was the peak, golden age of classical music...


And of course, he's the only one...


----------



## Chronochromie

fluteman said:


> Sigh. Nice post, but this discussion keeps circling back to the same things in every thread. If one thinks of classical music solely as something played in concert halls without amplification by people sitting or standing on a stage dressed in black formal wear and playing acoustic instruments designed in the 19th century or earlier, in traditional configurations such as the symphony orchestra or string quartet that date to the nineteenth century or earlier, then one might think, as KenOC apparently does, that the 19th century was the peak, golden age of classical music, or one might think, as many younger listeners today do, that classical music is irrelevant and uninteresting.
> 
> I think both camps confuse the context of the art for the art itself. It's funny how the music of Arvo Pärt or Philip Glass or even wilder (and certainly more atonally oriented) composers has long been accepted without a peep of protest in movies and TV but is still viewed by many as a sacrilege when presented in the concert hall. Zubin Mehta called the symphony orchestra a "museum", and people go to a museum, if they care to go at all, with certain expectations.


Some good points. But also this discussion goes nowhere and neither do contemporary composers and their music. I still see young composers making a name for themselves. I still see their music being performed, despite "nobody much" caring about them. Recordings of their music still being made, despite "nobody" listening to them. Popular music since forever (cue the Beatles and Stockhausen) was and is still inspired by
it. With so "few" aficionados they mostly seem to be doing fine. Maybe there's a massive crisis approaching and no more composers will write or no performers will perform new music or whatever but for now it's doing fine. If that crisis has already passed, then I go to a concert of Aimard playing all of Ligeti's Études and see all the young people there and think that this is a most curious way of being dead.

And again, about the future, when I see the future new young composers getting no commissions or performances and dying of hunger I may worry but the future doesn't look so bleak.

To spell it out very clearly this is not a "I know nobody cares about new classical but I can listen now so it so it's all good", it's more like "with whatever small or big amount of people listening to it, the people responsible for commissioning it, writing it and performing it are still here and they are not going away soon, the popularity of the music is enough as it is (and obviously I wouldn't mind it being bigger) so lets stop the pessimism and the putting down of what IS here NOW because it's good enough as it is and it enters popular consciousness in one way or the other, so I see no need of including Paul McCartney's songs or whatever you want into Classical as a label. But you can try to do that if you want of course, it doesn't matter much to me (and that was the real subject of this thread wasn't it? Christ.). Some might say we have to "let it be"...


----------



## Dan Ante

fluteman said:


> Sigh. It's funny how the music of Arvo Pärt or Philip Glass or even wilder (and certainly more atonally oriented) composers has long been accepted without a peep of protest in movies and TV but is still viewed by many as a sacrilege when presented in the concert hall. Zubin Mehta called the symphony orchestra a "museum", and people go to a museum, if they care to go at all, with certain expectations.


I think you will find that Part is accepted by the majority of grey haired concert goers also some works of Glass at least in NZ and the UK, You could learn a bit if you go to a museum, I take it you don't play in one of these museum type orchestras.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Ruling elites (or wealthy elites, which amounts to the same thing) don't just "support the shows", they have a lot of influence over what music is performed, and, of course, what music is commissioned.


So you're imagining that people other than the composers are determining what music will be composed? That can't be true. Was it ever true? The composers are the experts. They've always been the experts.


----------



## Larkenfield

The Beatles had their roots in the US, in (early) Elvis, The Beach Boys, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and so on, but they took the music further, way further. Classical music has its roots firmly ensconced in Europe. I’ve never considered classic rock as classical music—and it doesn’t have to be for both to be enjoyed. The problem with classical music is that it hardly ever addresses anything of today and there’s virtually no sex in it. Except for the erotic sensuality of a composer such as Wagner, it’s essentially sexless. And the young are very much interested in sex, so they have to turn elsewhere, and I don’t blame them. The roots of the classical and popular music are different, with some overlay, as different as two continents are different. But as I’ve gotten older, I no longer require the stimulation of the pop beat of the Beatles or anyone else, and that’s where classical music reigns supreme with incredible variety and depth.


----------



## Zhdanov

Larkenfield said:


> The problem with classical music is that it hardly ever addresses anything of today


ever heard of Beethoven 9th or Wagner Der Ring?



Larkenfield said:


> and there's virtually no sex in it.


want sex, then go see whores.



Larkenfield said:


> it's essentially sexless.


Strauss Salome, the veils dance. Shostakovitch Lady Macbeth, the sex scene... all sexless? are you sure?


----------



## Larkenfield

Zhdanov said:


> ever heard of Beethoven 9th or Wagner Der Ring?
> 
> want sex, then go see whores.
> 
> Strauss Salome, the veils dance. Shostakovitch Lady Macbeth, the sex scene... all sexless? are you sure?


I don't recall bringing up the subject of whores, so feel free to educate everyone on its benefits. Shostakovich telling the story of a lonely woman in 19th-century Russia who falls in love with one of her husband's workers and is driven to murder?-never been interested in that twisted aspect of 20th-century opera, though very much interested in his other works which I've spoken of favorably on a number of occasions. Strauss's Salome? If Salome kissing the severed head of Jochanaan whets your appetite-go for it. That's not what I was referring to at all, so feel free to wander through that libretto on your own. Wagner was mentioned. Healthy sensuality and eroticism have rarely been heard in the 1000 year history of what's known as classical music... It exists but it's rare. _За здоровье!_


----------



## fluteman

Dan Ante said:


> I think you will find that Part is accepted by the majority of grey haired concert goers also some works of Glass at least in NZ and the UK, You could learn a bit if you go to a museum, I take it you don't play in one of these museum type orchestras.


Well, I played in my college orchestra, that was conducted by a Pulitzer-prize winning composer, and we played music by Stravinsky, Webern, and several contemporary composers. We also played Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, of course. And yes, Glass and Part have reached such a high level of acceptance and notoriety that their music is widely accepted -- though not by some posters here!

The point I was trying to make was, some people still associate the traditional classical concert experience, which has changed little since the end of the 19th century, with traditional classical music of the 19th century or earlier. For them, modern or contemporary music that breaks from those traditions, often in very fundamental and obvious ways, can seem incongruous or even inappropriate in that context. No doubt many listeners in NZ and the UK are not like that. Certainly many listeners in the US are not like that. But I advance that as a possible reason certain music meets with some hostility in the concert hall when it has long been accepted in movies and TV, for example.


----------



## Gallus

Larkenfield said:


> The Beatles had their roots in the US, in (early) Elvis, The Beach Boys, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and so on, but they took the music further, way further. Classical music has its roots firmly ensconced in Europe. I've never considered classic rock as classical music-and it doesn't have to be for both to be enjoyed. The problem with classical music is that it hardly ever addresses anything of today and there's virtually no sex in it. Except for the erotic sensuality of a composer such as Wagner, it's essentially sexless. And the young are very much interested in sex, so they have to turn elsewhere, and I don't blame them. The roots of the classical and popular music are different, with some overlay, as different as two continents are different. But as I've gotten older, I no longer require the stimulation of the pop beat of the Beatles or anyone else, and that's where classical music reigns supreme with incredible variety and depth.


Sex in a metaphorical sense, sure, but it's more because there isn't a 4/4 driving percussion beat in classical. Sex in the sense that pop music is written primarily for bodily enjoyment in dance and not intellectual appreciation.

I think another barrier is the lack of lyrics in most of classical, which makes sense if one considers that the most popular classical music of the 18th/19th centuries was opera, which is sung.


----------



## Zhdanov

Gallus said:


> another barrier is the lack of lyrics in most of classical, which makes sense if one considers that the most popular classical music of the 18th/19th centuries was opera, which is sung.


that is why listening and watching the opera so essential in the first place.

when they go on about symphonies, i always recommend watching opera first.

because the message in its music corresponds with that in the score for its vocals.


----------



## Luchesi

Zhdanov said:


> that is why listening and watching the opera so essential in the first place.
> 
> when they go on about symphonies, i always recommend watching opera first.
> 
> because the message in its music corresponds with that in the score for its vocals.


These animated operas are on YouTube

Operavox EP1 The Magic Flute

Operavox EP2 Barber of Seville

Operavox EP3 Rhinegold

Operavox EP4 Rigoletto

Operavox EP5 Turandot

Operavox EP6 Carmen


----------



## aleazk

Chronochromie said:


> If that crisis has already passed, then I go to a concert of Aimard playing all of Ligeti's Études and see all the young people there and think that this is a most curious way of being dead.


That's exactly what I think when I read these supposed death certificates here.

I still can't believe I missed that Aimard concert. I also wasn't able to go to the Requiem, some weeks ago (I assume you did and that it was also awesome). Two years ago they also played Boulez's Le marteau and it was full of young people, as well as most concerts of contemporary music I go in Buenos Aires.


----------



## Dan Ante

fluteman said:


> Well, I played in my college orchestra, that was conducted by a Pulitzer-prize winning composer, and we played music by Stravinsky, Webern, and several contemporary composers. We also played Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, of course. And yes, Glass and Part have reached such a high level of acceptance and notoriety that their music is widely accepted -- though not by some posters here!
> 
> The point I was trying to make was, some people still associate the traditional classical concert experience, which has changed little since the end of the 19th century, with traditional classical music of the 19th century or earlier. For them, modern or contemporary music that breaks from those traditions, often in very fundamental and obvious ways, can seem incongruous or even inappropriate in that context. No doubt many listeners in NZ and the UK are not like that. Certainly many listeners in the US are not like that. But I advance that as a possible reason certain music meets with some hostility in the concert hall when it has long been accepted in movies and TV, for example.


Concert etiquette changes over time E.g it was common for audiences to applaud between movements, then this became taboo, it is now starting to creep back if there are many young people in the audience. 
Modern (?) music in movies is used to convey atmosphere, at least in the movies that I have seen so it is not holding itself up to musical scrutiny.
Yes I agree there are people stuck in the 18-19th century but even this group will appreciate some mod music particularly the choral music of Part or any other composer that provides: melody, harmony and rhythm in a composition.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Sex! Wow! I like that, but always felt strange "doing things" to any kind of music


----------



## Chronochromie

aleazk said:


> That's exactly what I think when I read these supposed death certificates here.
> 
> I still can't believe I missed that Aimard concert. I also wasn't able to go to the Requiem, some weeks ago (I assume you did and that it was also awesome). Two years ago they also played Boulez's Le marteau and it was full of young people, as well as most concerts of contemporary music I go in Buenos Aires.


Hi aleazk it's been a while! I haven't been here or on the other site lately.

I wasn't able to go to the Requiem actually (family reasons) but by pure coincidence the other day I met a voice teacher who is a member of the choir who performed it and I was reminded of it! I wanted to go so badly.

Last thing I saw in the Colón was Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet in its full ballet glory. Turns out ballet may be not the most enjoyable thing for me but the music and choreography in the Mercutio and Romeo vs Tybalt fight alone was worth it.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> So you're imagining that people other than the composers are determining what music will be composed? That can't be true. Was it ever true? The composers are the experts. They've always been the experts.


I assume you are being sarcastic here. Either that, or you have never met a professional composer.


----------



## fluteman

Dan Ante said:


> Modern (?) music in movies is used to convey atmosphere, at least in the movies that I have seen so it is not holding itself up to musical scrutiny.


While I certainly agree with the rest of your post, in this statement I think you greatly underestimate the function, capacity and sophistication of the human ear and brain. Perhaps when you enter a concert hall after paying for an expensive ticket, and sit before a symphony orchestra, you think to yourself, "OK, now it's time to listen and scrutinize carefully!" But in reality, your ears are working all of your waking hours, and hearing more than you may think. Not without justification, you say that music in the movies "is used to convey atmosphere", but you say that as if it is somehow insignificant or unimportant, and it is anything but. Some of our most effective listening is done when we are NOT busy telling ourselves, "OK, now it's time to listen."


----------



## Dan Ante

fluteman said:


> While I certainly agree with the rest of your post, in this statement I think you greatly underestimate the function, capacity and sophistication of the human ear and brain. Perhaps when you enter a concert hall after paying for an expensive ticket, and sit before a symphony orchestra, you think to yourself, "OK, now it's time to listen and scrutinize carefully!" But in reality, your ears are working all of your waking hours, and hearing more than you may think. Not without justification, you say that music in the movies "is used to convey atmosphere", but you say that as if it is somehow insignificant or unimportant, and it is anything but. Some of our most effective listening is done when we are NOT busy telling ourselves, "OK, now it's time to listen."


Can you drive a car and listen to music without one becoming the main focus of attention; I can't do that with out one of them becoming my main centre of attention hence no music while I am driving.
Of course music (classical) in films is not insignificant or unimportant I did not say that it was but you are engrossed in the happening on the screen not assessing the performance of the musicians or how cleverly the music has been adapted for the film, if it is music written specifically for film then it is what it is.
At a concert I go to enjoy the music and the performers that is my sole reason afterwards I may be of the opinion that it was either a fantastic performance or not.


----------



## fluteman

Dan Ante said:


> Can you drive a car and listen to music without one becoming the main focus of attention; I can't do that with out one of them becoming my main centre of attention hence no music while I am driving.
> Of course music (classical) in films is not insignificant or unimportant I did not say that it was but you are engrossed in the happening on the screen not assessing the performance of the musicians or how cleverly the music has been adapted for the film, if it is music written specifically for film then it is what it is.
> At a concert I go to enjoy the music and the performers that is my sole reason afterwards I may be of the opinion that it was either a fantastic performance or not.


Well, what if the concert includes Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky or Bernstein's On the Waterfront, both of which were originally written as movie soundtracks but then adapted by the composer for concert performance? The movie scores of John Williams have become standard material for classical music concerts, and when I attended a violin recital by Itzhak Perlman and Samuel Sanders, one of the pieces they played was the Theme from Schindler's List, also played by Perlman in the movie. Michael Nyman and John Corigliano are also "serious" composers who have written notable music for movies.

More recently, British modernist composer Mica Levi has drawn notice for her eerie score for the sci-fi movie Under the Skin. However, that has electronic elements, and so I suppose will never make it to the acoustic concert hall.

Whether you chose to listen to any of that music "seriously", other people certainly are. I don't deny that most movie and TV soundtracks are forgettable. But they need not be.


----------



## APL

I think Pink Floyd The Wall is on the verge of being classical. And many contemporary non melodyc, unrhytmical (dodecaphony) music are far from being classical.


----------



## Botschaft

At least it’s music, which is more than can be said of some of the things going by the moniker of classical music these days. If it’s classical then you have yourself another difference.


----------



## Dan Ante

fluteman said:


> Well, what if the concert includes Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky or Bernstein's On the Waterfront, both of which were originally written as movie soundtracks but then adapted by the composer for concert performance? The movie scores of John Williams have become standard material for classical music concerts, and when I attended a violin recital by Itzhak Perlman and Samuel Sanders, one of the pieces they played was the Theme from Schindler's List, also played by Perlman in the movie. Michael Nyman and John Corigliano are also "serious" composers who have written notable music for movies.
> 
> What point are you making?
> 
> More recently, British modernist composer Mica Levi has drawn notice for her eerie score for the sci-fi movie Under the Skin. However, that has electronic elements, and so I suppose will never make it to the acoustic concert hall.
> 
> Whether you chose to listen to any of that music "seriously", other people certainly are. I don't deny that most movie and TV soundtracks are forgettable. But they need not be.


What point are you making?


----------



## millionrainbows

Dan Ante said:


> What point are you making?


He's not making points, he's probing around. Read it like poetry, instead of a narrative.


----------



## millionrainbows

Improbus said:


> At least it's music, which is more than can be said of some of the things going by the moniker of classical music these days. If it's classical then you have yourself another difference.


Are you implying that Pink Floyd is better than, say, Milton Babbitt? That is an absurd comparison.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Are you implying that Pink Floyd is better than, say, Milton Babbitt? That is an absurd comparison.


Biting my tongue...


----------



## DaveM

Let’s say I received 2 tickets for a Pink Floyd concert and 2 tickets for a concert of Milton Babbitt music. I can tell you without a doubt which tickets all my friends and family would prefer and which tickets I wouldn’t be able to give away.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Let's say I received 2 tickets for a Pink Floyd concert and 2 tickets for a concert of Milton Babbitt music. I can tell you without a doubt which tickets all my friends and family would prefer and which tickets I wouldn't be able to give away.


Let's say I received 2 tickets for my cousin's band from college and 2 tickets for a concert of Gustav Mahler music. I can tell you without a doubt which tickets the overwhelming percentage of friends would prefer and which tickets I wouldn't be able to give away.

Do we learn anything from this? We know classical music is not popular, and we know that modern classical music is less so. I'll even say modern classical music is much less so. It may be interesting to think about and try to understand the reasons why people struggle with classical music or modern classical music.

Is it interesting, useful, important to state that Justin Bieber is vastly more popular and immeasurably more loved than Baroque music? Similarly, are there reasons to continually state that modern classical is worse than almost any other music? _Actually, I'm honestly interested in the reasons people have to repeat that point._


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^How about: "The music I like is better than the music you like." Everybody's got an opinion.....


----------



## Dan Ante

millionrainbows said:


> He's not making points, he's probing around. Read it like poetry, instead of a narrative.


That is a violation of my person I do not want to be probed.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> I assume you are being sarcastic here. Either that, or you have never met a professional composer.


I don't know what you're telling me.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> ...It may be interesting to think about and try to understand the reasons why people struggle with classical music or modern classical music. ...


I suspect that most people don't "struggle with" music at all. If they like it, they listen; otherwise, they find different music. There's always plenty of that.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Let's say I received 2 tickets for my cousin's band from college and 2 tickets for a concert of Gustav Mahler music. I can tell you without a doubt which tickets the overwhelming percentage of friends would prefer and which tickets I wouldn't be able to give away.
> 
> Do we learn anything from this? We know classical music is not popular, and we know that modern classical music is less so. I'll even say modern classical music is much less so. It may be interesting to think about and try to understand the reasons why people struggle with classical music or modern classical music.
> 
> Is it interesting, useful, important to state that Justin Bieber is vastly more popular and immeasurably more loved than Baroque music?...


Of course, I agree. But I was responding to the following which for some reason compared a popular band to a contemporary composer without any distinction between the two very different genres, so I took the same liberty :


millionrainbows said:


> Are you implying that Pink Floyd is better than, say, Milton Babbitt? That is an absurd comparison.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> He's not making points, he's probing around. Read it like poetry, instead of a narrative.


I was responding to Dan Ante's comment, "Of course music (classical) in films is not insignificant or unimportant I did not say that it was but you are engrossed in the happening on the screen not assessing the performance of the musicians or how cleverly the music has been adapted for the film ...." My response to that was to point out that at least some music written for the movies is worthy of serious assessment, and is routinely performed in the concert hall, no doubt at least in part for the benefit of those unable to seriously assess music in the movie theater because they "are engrossed in the happening on the screen".

My broader point was that music worthy of serious assessment can exist outside the traditional concert hall and can be produced by other than the traditional symphony orchestra and the traditional Steinway grand piano, both of which are products of 19th-century Europe, and both of which are probably by in large best suited to the music of late 18th-century and 19th-century Europe and early 20th-century Europe and America.

I also maintain there is a distinction, though not an absolute, airtight one, between "popular" music, produced in an attempt to capitalize on the zeitgeist of the moment and become an immediate hit with its target demographic, and "serious" music, produced in an attempt to express more enduring, profound and universal values and remain fully relevant across eras and cultures.

Agree or not, are any of those points that hard to understand?


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> I was responding to Dan Ante's comment, "Of course music (classical) in films is not insignificant or unimportant I did not say that it was but you are engrossed in the happening on the screen not assessing the performance of the musicians or how cleverly the music has been adapted for the film ...." My response to that was to point out that at least some music written for the movies is worthy of serious assessment, and is routinely performed in the concert hall, no doubt at least in part for the benefit of those unable to seriously assess music in the movie theater because they "are engrossed in the happening on the screen".
> 
> My broader point was that music worthy of serious assessment can exist outside the traditional concert hall and can be produced by other than the traditional symphony orchestra and the traditional Steinway grand piano, both of which are products of 19th-century Europe, and both of which are probably by in large best suited to the music of late 18th-century and 19th-century Europe and early 20th-century Europe and America.
> 
> I also maintain there is a distinction, though not an absolute, airtight one, between "popular" music, produced in an attempt to capitalize on the zeitgeist of the moment and become an immediate hit with its target demographic, and "serious" music, produced in an attempt to express more enduring, profound and universal values and remain fully relevant across eras and cultures.
> 
> Agree or not, are any of those points that hard to understand?


 music worthy of serious assessment

"serious" music, produced in an attempt to express more enduring, profound and universal values and remain fully relevant across eras and cultures

Thanks, I'll think of these phrases when I'm at a loss for words for describing what classical music is.

We need more of these phrases, if we can agree on some..

I think they should include the words universal and serious intention, and enduring and innovative, and maybe universally relevant.

Not jazz, IMO. I study and dissect recordings of the famous jazz innovators and I'm trying to steal their attractive and clever ideas for my own playing, but it's a very different feeling, awareness, impression and solicitude when you're playing jazz. It's one of those things about music that is difficult to put into words but I think musicians know what I'm saying..

Does the jazz composer or improviser intend to be profound? I think that's the word that is such a stumbling block.

A composer of rock 'soundscapes' might very much intend to be profound, but will it be relevant to older people who see through it?

added -

You get a feeling of fun when you're playing jazz. The early geniuses of jazz expression incorporated the jazz devices from singing. I think of those devices as not from nature but from humans. So this sets the tone from the very first notes that I play. It's a very human expression.


----------



## Dan Ante

Luchesi said:


> You get a feeling of fun when you're playing jazz. The early geniuses of jazz expression incorporated the jazz devices from singing. I think of those devices as not from nature but from humans. So this sets the tone from the very first notes that I play. It's a very human expression.


Spot on, my best memories and enjoyment of music was playing with other jazz musicians it is so different from just listening to it, that in no way belittles those that do not play an instrument


----------



## Haydn70

hammeredklavier said:


> "As sales of music across the board continue to decline in favor of streaming, another manner of determining an act's popularity is by seeing how often people search for them on Google and YouTube. By that metric, it would seem that the *Beatles are decidedly less popular than they were a decade ago.*" http://ultimateclassicrock.com/beatles-popularity-decline/ The Beatles have been declining in popularity in the last decade. At this rate, *in another 100 years, how many people in the world will be listening to Beatles?*
> 
> In classical music composers, Vivaldi, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Brahms, Tchaikovsky etc, there are structural elements in their music that make them unique from the others and other genres of music. A very competent composer today could study Tchaikovsky in great depth and become the second Tchaikovsky but he won't re-produce the exact same music like Tchaikovsky. People will keep coming back to the real Tchaikovsky for inspiration. This is what makes classical composers and classical music "Classical".
> 
> The Beatles, on the other hand, if you listen to songs like "Strawberry Fields Forever", it has the Beatles' feel, but that's about it. There's not much structural depth that proves its greatness.
> How much more is there to study and analyze in "Yesterday" compared with today's 4 chord pop songs? The second Bruno Mars will perfectly replace the current Bruno Mars in the future, after that, the third will replace the second, and the cycle will continue.
> This is why pop musicians' popularity is short-lived and the Beatles are no exception. They're credited as being the pioneers of their genre and hold special place in it, and so they'll enjoy longer period of popularity than say, Justin Beiber would. But in another 100 years, they will be forgotten, just like any other retired, disbanded, deceased pop artists. I'm sure.


Excellent post. And the answer to your question in red: virtually none.


----------



## Haydn70

eljr said:


> isn't this backwards? Isn't Pop music labeled popular because it is popular?
> 
> *Was not classical music Pop music in it's day? *
> 
> Sounds to me like you are making stuff up to suit your agenda. (as all us humans tend to do)


No, it wasn't. Folk music was the pop music.


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> I was loading a bunch of albums onto my wife's phone tonight. After, we listened to the White Album and some Pink Floyd. Note that this music has been floating around for half a century and is still extremely popular.
> 
> Question: Is this "classical music"? If not, why not? We're happy enough, for reasons that escape me, to label Babbitt's efforts classical music - then why not this?


Those albums are popular but they're not in a classical style unless Mozart is being played with a Fender bass and a trap set of drums.


----------



## janxharris

Larkenfield said:


> Those albums are popular but they're not in a classical style unless Mozart is being played with a Fender bass and a trap set of drums.


There is nothing 'unclassical' about any instrument.


----------



## KitMurkit

"Classical" as a genre makes sence. And so Rock is Rock, Pop is Pop. Even if it is "classical". Classical pop.. ))))) Sounds good.


----------



## Dan Ante

janxharris said:


> There is nothing 'unclassical' about any instrument.


 It's not what you play it's the way that you play it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Haydn70 said:


> And the answer to your question in red: virtually none.


The correct answer to the question is: as many if not more people than are listening to classical music.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fluteman said:


> I also maintain there is a distinction, though not an absolute, airtight one, between "popular" music, produced in an attempt to capitalize on the zeitgeist of the moment and become an immediate hit with its target demographic, and "serious" music, produced in an attempt to express more enduring, profound and universal values and remain fully relevant across eras and cultures.


There's a difference in intention, perhaps--though even in that it doesn't cleanly split between the genres--but I would stress that the intention to create great, profound, enduring art does not guarantee success in creating great, profound, enduring art; nor does the intention to create hits capitalizing on the zeitgeist guarantee failure in creating great, profound, enduring art. In literature and film, I'd argue the two greatest artists we had--William Shakespeare and Alfred Hitchcock--were both popular artists capitalizing on the zeitgeist to create popular works that were hits with their demographics... AND they crated profound, enduring art with universal values that have remained fully relevant across eras and cultures.

Classical music is a bit different, but for most of its history we must admit that most composers were composing on commission, or for the church, or for royalty, or for the theater, and being a "hit" with their target demographic was crucial for them maintaining employment, or even getting their music heard at all. The image of the tortured artist creating for himself and not caring about, or being at odds with, the fashion of their time was only popularized during romanticism, and even then I'd say it was rather exaggerated and there were plenty of popular entertainers--Verdi, Rossini--who created enduring, profound, and still-relevant art. Perhaps certain strains of 20th century classical music might even serve as a cautionary tale of what happens when artists completely stop caring about appealing to the tastes of a target demographic outside other composers and academics.


----------



## Haydn70

janxharris said:


> Paul McCartney & The London Symphony Orchestra- My Love
> 
> It's not the Beatles but Paul McCartney and it's regularly played on Classic FM in the UK; it would seem that it's generally accepted.


Let's see, a pop song arranged for orchestra...the kind of stuff that was heard in elevators for years...the stuff called Muzak.

Here is another pop song arranged for orchestra...is it classical? If you answer no, which you should, the same goes for 'My Love'...and all rest of Sir Paul's "Working Classical"






*The use of flutes, French horns, strings, et al, does not classical music make.*


----------



## AeolianStrains

I don't want to read through 30 pages, but we also have those dozens and dozens of albums from the mid-20th century featuring jazz vocalist "with strings."


----------



## Dan Ante

AeolianStrains said:


> I don't want to read through 30 pages, but we also have those dozens and dozens of albums from the mid-20th century featuring jazz vocalist "with strings."


 Cross over, I think it just does not work, same as classical soprano trying to sing jazz 95% of the time it just does not work.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Dan Ante said:


> Cross over, I think it just does not work, same as classical soprano trying to sing jazz 95% of the time it just does not work.


Gordon Jenkins' and Nelson Riddle's hits disagrees. Plenty of orchestrated "trad pop/vocal jazz" records sold incredibly well, and were very well done. What *really* is the difference between Cliff Edwards (as Jiminy Cricket) singing When You Wish Upon a Star and Schubert's Ave Maria?

As soon as we start saying things like "vocal range" or "structures," we'll find "Classical" examples that contradict it.

Genres are impermeable and man-made. They're not real. There is always so much boundary-pushing and form-swapping that at best we can just draw clusters around pieces and use fuzzy criteria and "know it when you see it" instinct for everyday life, which is good enough, really.


----------



## eugeneonagain

AeolianStrains said:


> What *really* is the difference between Cliff Edwards (as Jiminy Cricket) singing When You Wish Upon a Star and Schubert's Ave Maria?


Obviously one is an awful, talentless cartoon character and the other is Jiminy Cricket.


----------



## Dan Ante

AeolianStrains said:


> Gordon Jenkins' and Nelson Riddle's hits disagrees. Plenty of orchestrated "trad pop/vocal jazz" records sold incredibly well, and were very well done. What *really* is the difference between Cliff Edwards (as Jiminy Cricket) singing When You Wish Upon a Star and Schubert's Ave Maria?


I don't know what point you are making? Do you class pop/film/show music as classical? 
Andrea Rhea must sell a lot of CDs and plays to packed houses but his following is not from the dedicated Classical music audiance, Nelson Riddle from memory was a pop man and arranger.



> As soon as we start saying things like "vocal range" or "structures," we'll find "Classical" examples that contradict it.


Could you give an example, our own Kiri Te Kanawa is a well known soprano and I like her voice but a few years ago she dabbled in cross over and as far as I know was not a great success, she could never come near singers such as Amy Winehouse, Zaz etc etc who have natural rhythm and timbre.


> Genres are impermeable and man-made. They're not real. There is always so much boundary-pushing and form-swapping that at best we can just draw clusters around pieces and use fuzzy criteria and "know it when you see it" instinct for everyday life, which is good enough, really.


So a man made thing is not real. From what I understand you say genres/pigeon holing etc are not needed, or am I not understanding what you posted


----------



## AeolianStrains

Dan Ante said:


> I don't know what point you are making?


My point is that genre is arbitrary.



> Do you class pop/film/show music as classical?


That was _my_ initial question. Plenty of people classify modern film scores as "Classical." And why not?

Just because it's arbitrary doesn't mean its not useful, though. I think people mix those two things up.


----------



## hammeredklavier

AeolianStrains said:


> My point is that genre is arbitrary.
> That was _my_ initial question. Plenty of people classify modern film scores as "Classical." And why not?
> Just because it's arbitrary doesn't mean its not useful, though. I think people mix those two things up.


In classical music, there is the practice of allowing and encouraging 'varying degrees of interpretation'. Different conductors and performers contribute to the art by giving different, unique interpretations to the same music. It's a tradition full of artists who specialize in 'interpretation of existing music' and the whole industry is built around this concept. On the other hand, in other genres, if you sing or play music of others, you'll be considered to be merely copying and not as important as the original artists of the same work.


----------



## AeolianStrains

hammeredklavier said:


> In classical music, there is the practice of allowing and encouraging 'varying degrees of interpretation'. Different conductors and performers contribute to the art by giving different, unique interpretations to the same music. It's a tradition full of artists who specialize in 'interpretation of existing music' and the whole industry is built around this concept. On the other hand, in other genres, if you sing or play music of others, you'll be considered to be merely copying and not as important as the original artists of the same work.


This is simply untrue for jazz and traditional pop.


----------



## Luchesi

AeolianStrains said:


> Gordon Jenkins' and Nelson Riddle's hits disagrees. Plenty of orchestrated "trad pop/vocal jazz" records sold incredibly well, and were very well done. What *really* is the difference between Cliff Edwards (as Jiminy Cricket) singing When You Wish Upon a Star and Schubert's Ave Maria?
> 
> As soon as we start saying things like "vocal range" or "structures," we'll find "Classical" examples that contradict it.
> 
> Genres are impermeable and man-made. They're not real. There is always so much boundary-pushing and form-swapping that at best we can just draw clusters around pieces and use fuzzy criteria and "know it when you see it" instinct for everyday life, which is good enough, really.


Why do we categorize anything? Why do we learn categories? To save time. For a platform to jump off from. For understandings among people with different life experiences. Because it's the intelligent thing to do, with unexpected and unseen benefits after you have the organized approach.

History has done it for us - we don't have to reinvent the wheel. But we can rebel and throw it all out and start with our own feeble assessments.. How far will we get?


----------



## AeolianStrains

Luchesi said:


> Why do we categorize anything? Why do we learn categories? To save time. For a platform to jump off from. For understandings among people with different life experiences. Because it's the intelligent thing to do, with unexpected and unseen benefits after you have the organized approach.
> 
> History has done it for us - we don't have to reinvent the wheel. But we can rebel and throw it all out and start with our own feeble assessments.. How far will we get?


Yes, I said as much already in the post you quoted...



> There is always so much boundary-pushing and form-swapping that *at best we can just draw clusters around pieces and use fuzzy criteria and "know it when you see it" instinct for everyday life, which is good enough, really.*


----------



## Dan Ante

AeolianStrains said:


> My point is that genre is arbitrary.
> 
> That was _my_ initial question. Plenty of people classify modern film scores as "Classical." And why not?
> 
> Just because it's arbitrary doesn't mean its not useful, though. I think people mix those two things up.


If by arbitrary you mean subjective then that is completely untrue if you mean something else then what?

As for plenty of people calling Film music classical then they are ignorant of classical music and we have been through this very point of view on other threads, it is merely an adaptation of a classical piece changed and arranged to suit a film often repeating a phrase time after time.


----------



## KenOC

Dan Ante said:


> As for plenty of people calling Film music classical then they are ignorant of classical music and we have been through this very point of view on other threads, it is merely an adaptation of a classical piece changed and arranged to suit a film often repeating a phrase time after time.


This seems to me a trifle unfair. We happily consider incidental music to plays written in the 19th century as "classical," and yet turn up our noses at music written, far more effectively, to accompany movies in the 20th.


----------



## Larkenfield

Dan Ante said:


> If by arbitrary you mean subjective then that is completely untrue if you mean something else then what?
> 
> As for plenty of people calling Film music classical then they are ignorant of classical music and we have been through this very point of view on other threads, it is merely an adaptation of a classical piece changed and arranged to suit a film often repeating a phrase time after time.


The line is not always that sharply drawn between them except for those who believe that everything can be crammed into one genre or another. Such an argument does not explain why some of the top-rated classical musicians in the world have recorded music from the cinema and played their hearts out. Beauty and genius do not belong to classical or film music alone. Sometimes there's a thin line between them. This is classically arranged film music with exceptionally beautiful, sensitive, and expressive playing by Yo-Yo Ma... In fact, I've never heard him sound better. Wild and fun, too.


----------



## Luchesi

In the best music there's a thin line between what's viably commercial, intentionally appealing to the masses - and music in the pursuit of furthering the art of music. The creators of the music know what their intention is, but, if they're successful, they hope there IS a fine line between both aspects.

I'm glad that classical stars use their skills in every category, but we need categories, just like in every other field of human exploration, science and technology and literature and art and crafts.


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> This seems to me a trifle unfair. We happily consider incidental music to plays written in the 19th century as "classical," and yet turn up our noses at music written, far more effectively, to accompany movies in the 20th.


So any music written for a film should have the classical tag?


----------



## KenOC

Dan Ante said:


> So any music written for a film should have the classical tag?


We can categorize as we wish, of course. But my feeling is that by "protecting" classical music from what we consider "unworthy" trends, we are, slowly but surely, killing it. And it's close to dead already.


----------



## DaveM

Dan Ante said:


> So any music written for a film should have the classical tag?


I don't know why one would jump to that extreme. On the other hand, I would think it would be very easy to attach the classical tag to this:


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> This seems to me a trifle unfair. We happily consider incidental music to plays written in the 19th century as "classical," and yet turn up our noses at music written, far more effectively, to accompany movies in the 20th.


The difference - and it doesn't apply to all film music by any means but does apply to the "classical" genre overall - is that worthy classical music is not pastiche. If you can tolerate pastiche as genuine classical music why bother with the real thing? Pastiche is so much more easy to digest.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> The difference - and it doesn't apply to all film music by any means but does apply to the genre overall - is that worthy classical music is not pastiche. If you can tolerate pastiche as genuine classical music why bother with the real thing? Pastiche is so much more easy to digest.


There is quite a lot of pastiche and second-rate classical music, therefore (according to your standards) also quite a lot of unworthy classical music which gets a leg-up as 'art'.

The real difference is that you are pitting art music against lower-end film, and perhaps television, cues and drawing an artistic distinction which is then applied wholesale.


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> There is quite a lot of pastiche and second-rate classical music, therefore (according to your standards) also quite a lot of unworthy classical music which gets a leg-up as 'art'.
> 
> The real difference is that you are pitting art music against lower-end film, and perhaps television, cues and drawing an artistic distinction which is then applied wholesale.


I don't intend to do that so thank you for pointing out an ambiguity in what I wrote. What I wanted to say is that if it is pastiche - and a lot of film music is - then it is not meaningfully classical. The confusion is probably my clause "_it doesn't apply to all film music by any means but does apply to the genre overall_. What I intended by this is that lots of film music is not pastiche but that I am criticising any music (not just film music) that is pastiche.

I have edited my original post to make this clear.


----------



## Luchesi

Why would the average music listener enjoy the clever pieces of John Williams, but shun Elliott Carter or even Gorecki?

Everyone knows why.


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> We can categorize as we wish, of course. But my feeling is that by "protecting" classical music from what we consider "unworthy" trends, we are, slowly but surely, killing it. And it's close to dead already.


So the answer to the decline in classical music is to dumb it down well Ken I think that is one sure way of killing it off, why not expose children to classical music at an early age? because that works if you can get them to listen and not just hear.


----------



## Larkenfield

Dan Ante said:


> So the answer to the decline in classical music is to dumb it down well Ken I think that is one sure way of killing it off, why not expose children to classical music at an early age? because that works if you can get them to listen and not just hear.


Good point. I grew up with CM in school and that was my entrance into music and the arts. It led to a professional career in music. If only the arts could be consistently funded for students starting out at a young age. But so often it's not and then it's up to the parents to broaden their horizons and they may have no background or interest. It's a shame, truly, because art appreciation, or better yet, participation, can greatly profit one's life in ways that can never be exactly measured. Perhaps future generations will have the wisdom to once again value its importance as part of basic education.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Dan Ante said:


> So the answer to the decline in classical music is to dumb it down well Ken I think that is one sure way of killing it off, why not expose children to classical music at an early age? because that works if you can get them to listen and not just hear.


You think all music made before 1900 was intelligent and high class? You're just seeing what survived. Also, we've now moved far away from genre classifications into quality classifications. They're entirely unrelated.

At any rate, I have family and some friends who only got into Classical music through movie scores or other "easily digestible pieces" (Debussy's Clair de Lune, Prokofiev's Montagues and Capulets, Barber's Adagio, etc.). Barring that entrance way is the surest method to killing the whole field off, and making generic distinctions is just going to confuse anyone looking to dig deeper into what they already like.

What we don't need is hyper-elitist (and absurdly arbitrary) opinions.


----------



## DaveM

AeolianStrains said:


> You think all music made before 1900 was intelligent and high class? You're just seeing what survived.


Not true. Companies such as Hyperion are reviving a lot of music from that period, much of which is better than what is being composed today.


----------



## AeolianStrains

DaveM said:


> Not true. Companies such as Hyperion are reviving a lot of music from that period, much of which is better than what is being composed today.


You're still seeing what survived. Any "better" is entirely subjective and absolutely worthless for classifying into genres anyway.


----------



## Dan Ante

Larkenfield said:


> Good point. I grew up with CM in school and that was my entrance into music and the arts. It led to a professional career in music. If only the arts could be consistently funded for students starting out at a young age. But so often it's not and then it's up to the parents to broaden their horizons and they may have no background or interest. It's a shame, truly, because art appreciation, or better yet, participation, can greatly profit one's life in ways that can never be exactly measured. Perhaps future generations will have the wisdom to once again value its importance as part of basic education.


We had it in primary school the organised games we played were done to classical music however we did not know this at the time, by the time I got to proper school there was none at all, but when I went to boarding school (13 years old) the whole world of the classics was opened to us, art, literature and music, also both parents played piano and grandfather played violin and cello so I got used to the sound.
I consider my self to be one of the lucky boys.
I agree with you the arts should be covered in schools otherwise it becomes an elite only subject.


----------



## DaveM

AeolianStrains said:


> You're still seeing what survived. Any "better" is entirely subjective and absolutely worthless for classifying into genres anyway.


You made an isolated comment about the music before 1900. I responded to it. The comment 'You're still seeing what survived' is wrong unless you have a new meaning for 'what survived'.


----------



## Dan Ante

AeolianStrains said:


> You think all music made before 1900 was intelligent and high class? You're just seeing what survived. Also, we've now moved far away from genre classifications into quality classifications. They're entirely unrelated.
> 
> At any rate, I have family and some friends who only got into Classical music through movie scores or other "easily digestible pieces" (Debussy's Clair de Lune, Prokofiev's Montagues and Capulets, Barber's Adagio, etc.). Barring that entrance way is the surest method to killing the whole field off, and making generic distinctions is just going to confuse anyone looking to dig deeper into what they already like.
> 
> What we don't need is hyper-elitist (and absurdly arbitrary) opinions.


There is nothing wrong in finding CM later in life many people do.
Of course only the best of CM survives to become regular concert pieces to day, that applies to every thing however some of the best of today's CM was saved from oblivion by chance JS Bach for example.
I do not understand what you mean by "we've now moved far away from genre classifications into quality classifications. They're entirely unrelated"
Also your comment "What we don't need is hyper-elitist (and absurdly arbitrary) opinions"
Explain please


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Good point. I grew up with CM in school and that was my entrance into music and the arts. It led to a professional career in music. If only the arts could be consistently funded for students starting out at a young age. But so often it's not and then it's up to the parents to broaden their horizons and they may have no background or interest. It's a shame, truly, because art appreciation, or better yet, participation, can greatly profit one's life in ways that can never be exactly measured. Perhaps future generations will have the wisdom to once again value its importance as part of basic education.


Hats off to KenOC. How did he do it?  I should ask him if he monitors this thread.


----------

