What music is "Classical"?

[pobble]

In everyday usage, it seems that "classical" music is Western, historical, orchestral, choral and operatic.  Or perhaps it also includes Gregorian chants, late medieval settings of monastic prayer, and instrumental "chamber" music.  

There again, there is the "Classical" period and style of music, perhaps best encompassed by Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven.  Often it seems that music from this period, the earlier Baroque and the later Romantic period are the core of the "classical" repertoire as most frequently performed.  As such it often appears as a genre primarily of historical music.  It is still very much a living genre, with spiritual composers such as Tavener and Part, composers with a populist touch such as Gorecki, as well as the "difficult"  composers such as Berio and Boulez - but I think many people feel that contemporary "classical" music is something different and more distant than the reassuring sounds of Tchaikovsky or Mendelssohn.  There is a sense in which contemporary "classical" music is not seen as popular, but is not seen as "classical" either.  Yet we group it with classical music from earlier periods because of its ancestry and the influences the composers themselves acknowledge.  We talk about a "classical" music tradition.

So I'm not too keen on the term "classical music" to cover this wide range of styles and approaches.   What do you think?

[Lily]

I don't think the distinction holds very much anymore - in German there is a distinction between "E" (for earnest) or serious, and "U" (for Unterhaltung) or entertainment music.
But there are crossovers that are just as serious and artistically valuable than the "classical" classical music.

Back in the days of a more clearly stratified society, perhaps, only the "educated" would listen to classical music (viz, a pure bred), and would not have been seen dead listening to mere entertainers (viz, a mutt). I think that time has passed.

I think "classical" categories also exist for non-western music genres such as indian, chinese, or japanese music. But I might be wrong.

[Kernos]

I agree 'classical' is not the best term, as it refers to a period, but I think most people understand what is meant. I do not like the term 'serious' music, because it denigrates other, and apparently more popular music. But I do think it is one of those things that you know it when you hear it.

How about music that lasts for more than 3 generations, or some such? I wonder what philharmonics will be playing from the latter half of the 20th century in 100 years? Perhaps movie scores

Personally, I have trouble with such music much beyond Prokofiev, with some glaring exceptions.

Kernos

[Jingle]

I find "modern classical" music is an oxymoron.  I don't like to put Stravinsky, Mussorgsky and Holst into the same genre as Beethoven or Mozart, (I might include Chopin, Schubert and maybe Brahms).  But where else do you put them?  Bach and Vivaldi should be separate, in the baroque period, but is still considered in the "classical" section in the record store (OK, I'm showing my age - I still say "record" store).  I think many people put orchestral music into the "classical" genre, regardless of composition era.

I must say I enjoyed watching the Boston Pops in the old days when they did their classic (not classical) movie soundtrack concerts, but I would not consider this classical.

Neither is Coke Classic anything like the actual formula before they introduced "New Coke", and "Classic Rock" has now come to include artists I've never heard of.  And doesn't Disney tout "The New Classic" animated features?

Dictionary.com defines it this way:

3. Music.

  a) Of or relating to European music during the latter half of the 18th and the early 19th centuries.
  b) Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera, as opposed to popular or folk music.

Using either of these definitions, I'm still not sure where to put Mussorgsky

[Kernos]

I put Mussorgsky amongst The Early "Russian Composers", those whose music reflected Russian culture and history. The Five allowed Les Six to flourish.

His music, I think of as Romantic-Impressionistic.

BTW, there is an interesting entry about "Classical Music" on WikipediA, which provides food for thought and discussion:

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

[pobble]

In German there is a distinction between "E" (for earnest) or serious, and "U" (for Unterhaltung) or entertainment music.

Thanks  Lily.  I think the German terminology sounds a little clearer in some ways.

But there are crossovers that are just as serious and artistically valuable than the "classical" classical music.

Judging artistic merit is very difficult, and probably impossible to do in any objective way - especially when comparing different genres with utterly different conventions.  I remain mystified as to why music which moves me leaves others utterly cold, and vice versa.

I think "classical" categories also exist for non-western music genres such as indian, chinese, or japanese music. But I might be wrong.

There is definitely a "classical" Chinese genre (and I'm pretty sure an Indian one too).  These have no relationship to Western classical music historically, although composers in these countries are beginning to write some crossover music too.

[Celtic Knight]

Although not accurate, people know what is meant by the the "Classical Music" so it serves its purpose as a term naming a particular style of music.

I am not sure I can give it a definition though. What immediately came to mind was music using traditional instruments - but I'm not sure that's really accurate.

To me, the modern composers like Glass, Tavener, Part, Gorecki et al all form part of the classical repertoire.

[pobble]

The Wikipedia article looks rather better than I have put it (but I'm pleased to see I was most of the way there )

Interesting that it locates the definition of "classical music" in the methods of learning and its ancestry (very druidic).

[pobble]

I put Mussorgsky amongst The Early "Russian Composers", those whose music reflected Russian culture and history. The Five allowed Les Six to flourish.

I think Mussorgsky was mostly a Romantic composer by style and probably philosophy.  Although I don't think I've heard all that much of his music in reality.

[taranwanderer]

This is an interesting topic and one close to me as I am a "classical" musician by profession. The word "classical" IS inappropriate as applied to hundreds of years of musical composition, and particularly to recent music. Other terms have been floated in addition to "serious" music, such as "concert" music or "art" music. Each of these have their problems in my view.

My view is that the music world today is ungoing a revolutionary change, driven largely by the rise of digital music and the internet. It is changing so quickly - actually becoming more and more fragmented - that labels of any sort are becoming nearly impossible. Crossovers between various genres are being fused together by today's composers in new ways. What is  "rock", "classical", "jazz", "world", etc.,  is increasingly blurred.

Perhaps a solution is to refer to "classical" works by their respective periods - i.e. baroque, classical, romantic - and refrain from using the word "classical" as an umbrella term. In art, we don't refer to the totality of history, say in painting, as "classical". Music should be the same.

I'm glad to know there are others here interested in this subject!

[taranwanderer]

Kernos wrote:

Personally, I have trouble with such music much beyond Prokofiev, with some glaring exceptions.

Many people who listen to "classical music" feel the same way, including my kids who hear lots of new music by young composers in the house. Indeed, the cut off point does seem to be around Prokofiev.  Why do you think this is? I ask, in part, because I think it does relate somewhat to the term "classsical music".

[Jingle]

Indeed, the cut off point does seem to be around Prokofiev.  Why do you think this is?

My opinion in two words: discordance and syncopation

More modern composers sometimes put notes too close together, and can't figure out where the downbeat is!!  Some people just think listening to it is like scraping fingernails down a blackboard.  I appreciate more modern composers if the orchestration is right, but sometimes I'm just not in the mood for the tight harmonies.  (It's fun to sing, though)

[Selene]

For me, most of the later composers, e.g., Gustav Mahler, Igor Stravinsky, Dmitri Shostakovitch, John Adams, Béla Bartók, et al., are not as "accessible" as were the earlier ones. As Kernos says, there are notable exceptions, such as Antonin Dvorak and Jean Sibelius, but in general the more modern composers seem atonal in comparison to the soaring melodies of Beethoven and Brahms.

Now, Mahler can go both ways—his Fifth is great but things like his Eighth leave me cold (and his Second leaves me tired!). And a couple of Shostakovitch's are tolerable enough (the Seventh and Eleventh come to mind), but the live performance I attended of his Fifteenth (conducted by his son, Maxim, yet) had me wishing passionately that the auditorium would catch fire so I could escape. Alas, DH is as passionate a Shostakovitch fan as I am an un-fan, so I was stuck for the duration...

Addendum: When I created this subforum and had to come up with a name for it, "Classical" was the best I could think of, but I did hedge a bit in my description (if you haven't seen it, just touch the name on the index page with your cursor and it will appear). And we can always change the name if somebody thinks of something better!

[Jingle]

By the way, since I'm a ballet enthusiast (thanks to my daughter's passion) I tend to put Tchaikovsky with the classical, rather than romantics where he belongs time-wise.  Again, I think it's about the harmony and rhythm, rather than specific dates.

This is further evidenced by the fact that Prokofiev is much more modern (he was born two years before Tchaikovksy died), but still considered classical by some.  Again, I still would put Tchaikovsky in a different genre than Mussorgsky, though they were contemporaries.  It's not an educated distinction, but more of what I hear personally in the music.

[Jingle]

Selene,
I think "Classical Music" for the forum name is fine.  Without it, we woudn't be having this lovely discussion.  I've been away from classical music for far too long.

[taranwanderer]

....discordance and syncopation...

Well, this defines the crux of the matter, I think.  The movement towards atonality and rhythmic ambiguity was a great experiment of early 20th century music. The question many musicians nowdays are asking is, was this a misguided venture that since has completely alienated the audience for serious music.

[Selene]

...was this a misguided venture that since has completely alienated the audience for serious music.

Pretty much, I'd say. I count myself lucky that the grade school teachers who used to play "classical" music to us kids stuck to mainstream stuff, else I might not have grown up loving it as I do.

[Kernos]

By the way, since I'm a ballet enthusiast (thanks to my daughter's passion) I tend to put Tchaikovsky with the classical, rather than romantics where he belongs time-wise.  Again, I think it's about the harmony and rhythm, rather than specific dates.

I agree the music is more important than the dates and I mean how the music sounds not so much how it was constructed.

But, I would consider Tchaikovsky most Romantic almost schmaltzy, though I love some of his music. The violin concerto, 5th and 6th symphonies are most romantic. And by Romantic I mean music that creates or even forces an emotion.

Beethoven, I see too as often Romantic and sometimes even impressionistic, while Classical at the same time. His later works are beyond pigeon-holing, IMO, and allow me to break out of our universe.

[Jingle]

I must apologize for the misuse of terms in my earlier post.  I meant dissonance, not discordance, but sometimes I have difficulty with choosing the correct words.

Kernos, I can see where you are coming from on the Tchaikovsky issue, and my husband certainly would agree with you (we may have had this discussion before).  I guess I really don't know how to classify music or why I do.  Maybe I've ignored the Romatics all together and just lump them by the sounds I hear into other areas.  

I'm not very good at intellectualizing music.  I just know what I like and what I don't.  Same goes for wine and other subjects that move into the depths of philosophy.  

I enjoy music that I can see (either with eyes open or closed):  Ballet (but not opera), Beethoven, Baroque (Vivaldi and Bach). Mussorgsky, Prokofiev, Mozart.  Chopin, Shubert and Brahms.

And I enjoy music that I can sing: Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Stravinsky and a plethora of madrigal composers.

And all of these I dump right into the overall heading of "Classical Music"

[pobble]

Tchaikovsky, not a "Romantic"?  That is a surprising idea.  I'm thinking of that finale of the 6th symphony where he shows total mastery of the string section - but also the "fate" themes in the 4th and 5th symphonies or the ballet score to Swan Lake (think of the finale to the final act).  And who but a romantic would put a directive into the score "as loud as possible" as he does in one or two of these symphonies (can't remember which now)?  I'd say he isn't classical in the sense of Haydn because he simply isn't "tidy" enough.   There is also the use of very large orchestras and more instruments.

And there are different kinds of dissonance.  There is a small amount of dissonance even in Mozart now and again. However, there are the kinds of dissonance you get in some of the later Sibelius symphonies (and he died in 1957 but stopped composing long before then) or the sweetness of the Berg violin concerto.  I think Stravinsky changed from being essentially a Romantic composer to what is called a neoclassical composer - and Prokofiev is also usually classified that way I think. They wrote music which adheres to the forms of the classical period, but uses very modern melodies and harmonies.  The Rite of Spring seems to be an extreme of the Romantic style to me in many ways, but always wonderfully orchestrated and tight in its form.  And that was hugely disliked when it was first released in 1916.  Shostakovich I feel is a late Romantic.  He persisted with the Romantic style partly due to his political compromise with the Soviet artistic establishment, and therefore took the style much further forward in time than might have been its natural limit.  But he is clearly "late" to my ear due to increased dissonance (and I'm basing this mainly on the 5th and 8th symphonies, the piano concertos, and the string quartets).  I didn't enjoy his 4th symphony when I heard it years ago, and that was his most experimental one.   And I haven't heard any of the later symphonies which I probably ought to rectify at some point.

On more modern music which does not appear to derive specifically from the harmonic and rhythmic experiments of the mid 20th century, Tavener and Part seem to have artistic integrity but in a very different way.  I think their music might much more appeal to young people than Messiaen, Berio, Schoenberg, etc.