What Constitutes Classical Music? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

aravain -> What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/14/2009 10:27:04 PM)

Hi all,

So as anyone who's noticed me ever knows, I'm going to school for Music, and as the semester pulls to a close (last day tomorrow/today!) I'm brought to wonder about the nature of music and things...

..and I always come back to one very relevant question asked and answered any multitude of ways in classes, in popular culture, even by people on the street.

What constitutes classical music?

Some people, at this point, will be smart-asses and babble on about the characteristics of classical-era music. That's, really, avoiding the question.

In today's culture we have what musicologists regularly call 'popular' music and what non-musicologists call 'classical' music. There's disdain on both sides for the "opposites" of course, but I'd like to ignore that for a bit to ask *you*.

What constitutes classical music (to you)? Is it something to avoid, or something to pursue? Should it be accessible to the masses, or should it exult in music as an 'art form' that only the 'elite' should be able to understand (if even they do)?

What constitutes popular music (to you)? Is it something to avoid, or something to pursue? Should it placate the masses, or challenge them?



fluffypet61 -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/14/2009 10:49:30 PM)

To me classical music is music that has stood the test of time (with dead composers) - usually music played by a symphony orchestra or smaller groups of instruments from the orchestra.  Also, for me, opera falls into the category of classical.  "i know it when i hear it."
 
Maybe it's generational.  Music that was written during my lifetime or my parent's lifetime, i tend to call popular music. 
 
So then there's the gray area.  Someone like Andrew Lloyd Webber writes music in both.  The Requiem i call classical.  Starlight Express, Cats, Phantom, SuperStar, etc. i would call popular. 
 
That's how i divide it up. [sm=2cents.gif]
 



slaveboyforyou -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/14/2009 11:36:51 PM)

It's a broad term for those of that aren't educated enough to talk about different musical genres at length. All over the world, there are thousands upon thousands of different musical traditions, and they blend with other musical traditions to form new musical traditons, and so on, and so forth.

When I hear the term classical music, I think of complicated European music from the Middle Ages up to the 19th Century. Now that's a broad generalization of course, but I am no music expert. We have people on our academic payrolls to study the intriacies of music for us. I love folk music, and to me folk music means what other's call World music. I like the traditional folk songs of cultures all over the world. But to other's Folk music means Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, etc.



stella41b -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 1:35:23 AM)

To me it's music up to the early 20th century which requires an orchestra and was succeeded by the emergence of jazz in the American South in the early part of the 20th century.



Vendaval -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 2:30:03 AM)

If it is pop music people pay for stadium seating and wear jeans and t-shirts.  If it is classical music they pay for a pricier venue and wear dress clothes.  If it is opera then they wear evening gowns and formal wear complete with their best jewelry.   [sm=dance.gif]



mefisto69 -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 3:20:43 AM)

It all began with a few musicians getting together on their hand made instruments trying to find ways to play together. They naturally took folk melodies and harmonized them. Over the centuries many things occurred. More instruments were made and there began a call for standardization as it was pretty tough to play in tune with people from different countries. Melodies were traded and expanded on. Organized religion got involved and "Controlled" what would be played and how - they created rules of performance practice and harmony. It was Still the music of the people. Finally, the aristocats wanted to impress with fine entertainment and hired the best musicians they could find for their courts. Most of the melodic content still came from 'the peoples music'. In the mad frenzy to constantly provide 'new music' for religious services and royal entertainment, composers were allowed latitude in creating original melodies and larger form works. Professional musicians were kept as servants until the rise of Beethoven,who gave them all the Bronx Cheer! Through his attitude and monumental works, Classical music expanded to enormous lengths - keeping in mind - the common citizens heard this music all the time.... it was as much a part of their daliy lives as the bawdy songs of troubadors and church music. Finally Romance broke out in the arts and the old rules and chains were shattered. New European wealth, power structures and modes of transportation fostered the rise of the virtuoso composers and performers. Franz Liszt arrived with shock and awe and became the first classical music Super Star, millionaire, and unrivaled pianist.
The crowds STILL went crazy for live performances and the piano became a common interest in the homes of the rising middle class - printed sheet music was available for all levels of technical ability. Liszt helped destroy the Romantic era by questing for new harmonies in music and new forms to explore. The music was Still of the people who now had the opportunity to enjoy many more forms of public entertainment. Composers went over the top creating huge forms of music for massive orchestras and chorus'..... the people still came in droves... I would say that world war 1 and the rise of serialism ( 12 tone music ) changed the face of and appreciation for classical music as much as the radio and steamships. Composers began to tell audiences that they were stupid because they didn't understand the ugly music that was being performed..... and audiences turned away from classical music listening to Jazz, big band and other more easily accessible forms of entertainment. The classicists created this divide out of hubris and then turned their backs on the importance of teaching music and music history in schools. With mass media ,we have arrived at the point and click of world wide listening possibilities but with no charismatic teachers to guide and inform audiences.



windchymes -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 6:22:04 AM)

I always considered Wagner and pieces like "Pride of the Valkyries"  ("Kill da wabbit, kill da wabbit....") or Khatchaturian's "Sabre Dance" the headbanger music of the times.



Termyn8or -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 7:55:13 AM)

I assume you mean classical in a contemporay sense. I'm pretty sure my boss would have a succint answer, but I do not, pehaps I will remember to ask him.

I think it's a damn good question. Putting aside whether people are still among the living, which I think many would agree is not an accurate criterium, one question begets anther. Was not a classic still a classic during the composer's lifetime ?

Now assuming that everything old that actually has stood the test of time is a classic, what new classics are being created ? What are the marks of a classic ?

Example number one - Rare Eath - Get Ready (the long version)

One of my more favorite pieces it has many of the components of a classic even though it is a remake of a Mowtown song. Talk about embellishment. It has better than the usual array of rock group instruments, obviously took some arrainging and everybody gets a solo. IIRC it used to be a whole albumside but I could be wrong. It has a climax at the end and everything, so does it qualify ?

Then take the case of the long version of Iron Butterfly - In A Gadda Da Vida. If I am not mistaken it was an original composition and also filled an albumside. Didn't quite have the variety of instruments, but it had a climax.

So which one is closer to being a classic ? They are both over a decade old, but excluding time that would not matter. Both are repetitive at points, but so is Ravel's Bolero. Is it when people start using the "'s" instead of the " - " that it is considered a classic ? Is that for us to judge ? Actually I think it is, although many do not really think about it.

However now that you mention it, I don't think there is one clear cut answer. Take for example Ferrante and Teicher doing Theme From Exodus, or even Elmer Bernstein's The Magnificent Seven. Both pieces are very short, but does that in and of itself disqualify them from being of classical status ? I realize the both latter examples may be parts of much longer pieces, but I don't think that matters all that much.

Does classical music need an orchestra ? Does classical music need a conductor ? Does classical music even need to be written ? I have a piece I play on acoustic guitar called Dance Of The Spider. It runs about three to four minutes (depending on my mood) and nobody else seems to be able to play it nor accompany it. Is that a qualification, or perhaps a disqualification ? I am not saying it is all that good, but it's better then Chopsticks. Chopsticks seems to have stood the test of time, but Tiptoe Through The Tulips has also, yet they both seem to have some disqualifying factor. That is very hard to put one's finger on so to speak.

Of course on the radio classic just seems to mean twenty years old, but I think we agree that is not the answer, at least not the whole answer. Actually this question is somewhat akin to asking when a picture becomes art. It's not art because it is painted, a wall is painted.

Sorry if this isn't much of an answer, but this may be another case where there is no "One size fits all" answer.

Humans, why don't you go back where you came from, you confuddle EVERYTHING !

T



popeye1250 -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 8:44:34 AM)

I went to the opera once with a girlfriend. She was pissed because I forgot the sandwhiches.



Termyn8or -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 9:05:48 AM)

Admit it pops, you were just too cheap to go to the snack bar because of that big car payment.

T



ienigma777 -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 9:59:50 AM)

What constitues Classical Music.....You're a student of music...the answer is simple as the professor standing at the head of your classroom, to have and keep his job and paycheck.

The self-proclaimed 'Experts' determine what is classical, pop, contempory, country, beebop, what is worth anything... what is common and trash...and the audiences who, because of their wealth and position, have deemed 'worthy music.'...that they are high brow enough to appreciate, and what constitues classic ...above the common.

Geezus....see the movie 'Amaddeus' (spelling?)...that should answer your question.



IrishMist -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 12:08:19 PM)

If you want the strict definition of classical music its any music produced in the western world between 1750 and 1825 ( I believe those are the correct dates, I can look them up and make sure ).

The music produced during this period includes opera, chamber music, choral pieces and any music requiring a FULL orchestra.

Now, in addition to the above, 'classical music' can also refer to NATIVE AND FOLK music of any country.

When I think of classical music, it is the above mentioned that I use when defining it.



Vendaval -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 12:09:49 PM)

You should have brought along the opera glasses for all the cleavage on display.  [8D]


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
I went to the opera once with a girlfriend. She was pissed because I forgot the sandwhiches.



RCdc -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 2:07:34 PM)

Classical when used alone, is choral, liturgal(not sure of the spelling so please forgive me) and concert music.
However you can take the word 'classical' and apply it to any music genre to create a historical point of reference and overallcatchall.  It's nothing more than that really.
 
Popular is anything that pays the right money for airplay.  It's bribery music.

the.dark.



aravain -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 2:21:01 PM)

I understand that ienigma777, however in efforts for interesting discussion/answers I did specify that I wanted to see/hear the definition that *others* use when tackling the issue of defining what is 'classical' music (especially in an off-the-cuff manner, like I've heard many times by music scholars and non-scholars alike). In other words, I don't care what the experts think (unless someone here at CM is an expert), I care what the users here think.

IrishMist, I believe I said that I didn't want a strict definition ;) But I get your point. For me, when I hear 'classical' I move instantly to Mozart and his contemporaries, probably as a result of my learning. When defining something as 'Classical' music, however, I always have to stop and think. I don't think the line between popular and classical music is as defined as some believe, especially today compared to just ten years ago.

Termyn8or, it's actually kinda interesting the point you brough up about the conductor... did you know that's a relatively recent (As far as music goes) occurence? Your thoughts are pretty much what goes through my head when I think on the subject (only my logic's slightly more circular, making it frustrating)!



Vendaval -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 6:47:53 PM)

Fast Reply -
 
Regarding folk music, one of the early researchers and composers influenced by folk melodies and instrumentation was Béla Bartók.


Béla Bartók

"In 1908, inspired by both their own interest in folk music and by the contemporary resurgence of interest in traditional national culture, he and Kodály travelled into the countryside to collect and research old Magyar folk melodies. Their findings came as a surprise: Magyar folk music had previously been categorised as Gypsy music. The classic example of this misconception is Franz Liszt's famous Hungarian Rhapsodies for piano, which were based on popular art-songs performed by Gypsy bands of the time. In contrast, the old Magyar folk melodies discovered by Bartók and Kodály bore little resemblance to the popular music performed by these Gypsy bands. Instead, they found that many of the folk-songs are based on pentatonic scales similar to those in Oriental folk traditions, such as those of Central Asia and Siberia.
 
Bartók and Kodály quickly set about incorporating elements of real Magyar peasant music into their compositions. Both Bartók and Kodály frequently quoted folk songs verbatim and wrote pieces derived entirely from authentic folk melodies. An example is his two volumes entitled For Children for solo piano containing 80 folk tunes to which he wrote accompaniment. Bartók's style in his art music compositions was a synthesis of folk music, classicism, and modernism. His melodic and harmonic sense was profoundly influenced by the folk music of Hungary, Romania, and many other nations, and he was especially fond of the asymmetrical dance rhythms and pungent harmonies found in Bulgarian music. Most of his early compositions offer a blend of nationalist and late Romanticism elements."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9la_Bart%C3%B3k



philosophy -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 7:37:41 PM)

What constitutes classical music?

Led Zeppelin, or Frank Zappa......i think it's something to with the letter 'z'........



Termyn8or -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/15/2009 8:54:40 PM)

phil, don't get me started on Zappa, oh wait, it's too late.

Everybody's heard about yellow snow and the dynamo (hum). But he did one called Titties And Beer. Quite entertaining actually. Not quite a belly buster but not bad. However there is this one album called Best Band You Never Heard. In that one they just purposely choose the wrong note to go to after another. Actually that does not disqualify it as music. They just use different scales, who knows what the clefs look like LOL. It could be in D flat minor seventh with augmented fourth and fifth and diminished third or some crazy shit like that. Almost any scale you use can be defined.

Speaking of definitions, I have been told that usually music ends on the same note on which it started. Personally I don't believe it. Anyone know ?

If we are to define classical music, a good start might ne defining music in the first place. Does it have to have notes ? Just what does it require ?

In other words I have heard things that I wouldn't even classify as music coming out of cars. Some of the rap and Hispanic music, I just don't hear it. It is all drums. But then who am I to say that a drum cannot make music. That is a highly subjective matter. To the person playing what I may consider rubbish, it might be the best music in the world. It is a matter of opinion.

So could it be similar with classical music ? No actual instruments or required components. A solo aria could be classical of course then. Or is it more of a consensus or like the agreement of a quorum or something that exhalts a piece to that level ?

I better stop now, I am bringing out more questions than answers. Sorry bout that, it's just my nature. If I let this fly my only hope is that rather than confuse, I may have refined the question in the OP. And it seems that it is, like beauty, in the [insert sensory organ name here] of the beholder.

T



Termyn8or -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/17/2009 1:24:12 PM)

Perhaps also the artist's goal has something to do with it. A couple of years ago I made a webpage for a scuptor, but we got into a fight which I won unfortunately. It was just way too late and he was way too loud and drunk. Other than that he is not stupid, he has a degree in philosophy. Quite an accomplished scuptor actually, he did a pretty nice tribute to Anthony Conova's "Psyche and......" something. I've seen enough pictures to know it is good. What I'm getting at is that he actually doesn't really do it for the money. He had me include this statement :

"As regards "A Matter Of Spirit", I think that this title closely
approximates the philosophy of all my work. That being that when one
sculpts one is trying to make matter into a representation of Spirit,
as an individualized work, through one's effort of Will directed by
one's Intellect. The value of a piece is to what degree that piece is able
to 'feel alive' to the viewer. In the hope that I have somewhat
achieved this, I bring my work to you; the Viewer."

I thought this might be pertinent to the subject, as music is but one art form. Is it a matter of the same concept but with a different medium ? I think it could be. While I am sure the perception matters more, that is going to be based on what is presented. The scuptor could do a tribute to Canova, or go wittle some wood, which is art ? Likewise a musician could do certain things, ELO could do Roll Over Beethoven, or Billy Idol could do Mony Mony. Which is classic, if either ?

T



RedMagic1 -> RE: What Constitutes Classical Music? (5/17/2009 2:12:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aravain
In today's culture we have what musicologists regularly call 'popular' music and what non-musicologists call 'classical' music. There's disdain on both sides for the "opposites" of course, but I'd like to ignore that for a bit to ask *you*.

I haven't noticed any "disdain" flowing in either direction from people who are actually professional musicians.  Performing any of that stuff for a living is hard.  Maybe Katie Perry "can't sing" without electronic assistance applied to the recording, but you can bet your ass her backup singers and her musicians are really frikkin good.  In fact, a lot of musicians cross over between the two "worlds," for example concert pianist Richard Joo's work with Billy Joel.

I got Toru Takemitsu's "Chamber Music" CD two days ago, on the advice of a professional violist.  It's awesome.  It's also definitely classical music, even though it was recorded in 2001.

The way I approach questions like that is to trust people who are actually performing, and trying to make themselves sound better.  Writers and pundits often take a different attitude -- they throw around opinions in order to make other people sound worse.  Not the kind of energy I need in my life.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875