Definitions - music

[Suffolkcoastal]

Perhaps this should be a discussion on a new thread it would be interesting one for the question and answer thread.

I now have 5 years of data (which gets more detailed with each year). I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this up as it takes about 4-6 hours a week to put together, but I propose to carry on for this year.

[french frank]

... I mean, for a start, that's all of suffy's favourite composers ruled out at a stroke - even RW hasn't been that neglectful of them!

But you're ignoring the phrase 'starting point'. i.e. that everything within that definition is IN, not that everything outside it is OUT. Much of it will be brought in.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Your problem?

The full list, or just those pertaining to the Thread?

Bearing in mind exactly what was written ...

Well, quite a lot has been written - I presumed that you were attempting a "starting point" definition of "classical Music" in response to BeefO!'s query. I feel I've missed something, but, having gone back through the Thread, I can't see what/where.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Perhaps this should be a discussion on a new thread it would be interesting one for the question and answer thread.

I now have 5 years of data (which gets more detailed with each year). I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this up as it takes about 4-6 hours a week to put together, but I propose to carry on for this year.

Apologies, Suffy - I didn't even thank you for the excellent work you've done yet again.

[Zucchini]

I'm lost - what's the survey for?

[french frank]

I'm lost - what's the survey for?

What survey? If you mean Suffy's, apologies, we're on a different thread now, at his suggestion

Anyway, getting back, the first definition would contain the vast 'core', 1900 back into the mists of time. But Sc's symphonists would all be included because they are writing in a notated/scored form that predates 1900, even if their own works are later. Similarly with concertos, string quartets &c.

[MrGongGong]

I would suggest a principle of 'ruling in', rather than 'ruling out'. So as far as Jazz goes, I'd be looking to rule it into a definition of Jazz by including something about it being an American/African form of music originating in the very beginning of the 20th century, combining African and European harmony and form etc, etc (heavily wiki that).

'Jazz' is easy
it's wot Ian says it is
so that probably excludes
much improvised music

as to 'classical' music
it's probably better to have a definition (if you really want one) that Laurie Taylor would come up with rather than one based on time, sound or orchestration

[Beef Oven!]

'Jazz' is easy
it's wot Ian says it is
so that probably excludes
much improvised music

as to 'classical' music
it's probably better to have a definition (if you really want one) that Laurie Taylor would come up with rather than one based on time, sound or orchestration

Is this your subjective or objective view (don't worry, they don't know the difference )?

[french frank]

A good starting point, IMV.

I would suggest a principle of 'ruling in', rather than 'ruling out'.

I think that was what I was trying to say, and what ferney missed . The 'starting point (for 'European classical music') ruled IN everything I could think of that was a) European in origin b) notated/scored form c) pre-1900. I couldn't think of anything (suggestions?) that would fit that definition and wasn't 'classical'. Next ruling IN would be the various post-1900 works that were notated/scored forms in the pre-1900 forms (symphonies &c) so you have the Vaughan Williamses and so on. Why would anything stop when you reached Jan 1 1901? The dividing lines would gradually begin to blur the further you got from the original points. So jazz itself, which was not originally of European origin or form, not originally scored and post-1900 would never fit the bill (nor would rock music), though you would start to include jazz-influenced works by composers whose main work also fitted the core definition.

But you have to accept with much of the creative arts that there is so much cross-fertilisation that 'definitions' overlap. Many contemporary composers producing electro-acoustic work in entirely new forms don't like to be thought of as 'classical' composers anyway.

The reason you need categories - before anyone asks - (apart from the fact that 'categorisation' is one of the earliest forms of human intellectual activity) is so that you can describe and study. How can you write a book about 'music' if you don't somehow try to limit the scope by ruling things out?

[amateur51]

The reason you need categories - before anyone asks - (apart from the fact that 'categorisation' is one of the earliest forms of human intellectual activity) is so that you can describe and study. How can you write a book about 'music' if you don't somehow try to limit the scope by ruling things out?

And you have footnotes, surely?

[Stanfordian]

Yes, it is most important that the year on year comparisons are consistent - that has been achieved and is very interesting to consider. As we're comparing like with like, conclusions can be drawn from the information.

I suppose what nags me is the simple question (in theory) of categories. If we find it difficult to categorise a piece of music, we must first have the definition and parameters of the categories available to apply to the work. Surely?

Maybe classical music can't be defined? If we can't categorise/define classic music, how, in the final analysis, will we know whether more or less of it is being programmed?

Hiya Beefy,

Great point. It is certainly not easy to define what 'classical music' is. But any survey has a reduced credibility without having a definition that provides some type of parameter; the more robust the better. Most of the time people would agree what 'classical music' is for example Beethoven’s 5th Symphony. But is Franz Lehar ‘The Merry Widow’ classical music or Bernstein’s ‘West Side Story’. In which case is Andrew Lloyd Webber’s ‘The Phantom of the Opera’ classical music? Or is the John Williams’s film score to ‘Star Wars’ classical music? Or is Dimitri Tiomkin’s ‘High Noon’ classical music?

[Flosshilde]

I think that was what I was trying to say, and what ferney missed . The 'starting point (for 'European classical music') ruled IN everything I could think of that was a) European in origin b) notated/scored form c) pre-1900.

But what you said was pre-1900 European, without the qualifications and caveats you introduced later - which would exclude 20th century classical music written by Americans (not just USA). If you wanted a definition that excluded incidental music for films, for example, you could add to the definition music that has a specific structure (not neccessarily a classical symphonic structure), which would allow for music originally written for films but later re-worked into a concert suite. Then you'd have to work out a definition that included operas like [/I]Die Zauberflote[/I] or Der Freischutz but excluded musicals.

But it seems to me that a definition of classical music would become so unwieldy that it would become almost useless - it would have to focus on what it isn't rather than what it is.

[Flosshilde]

The reason you need categories - before anyone asks - (apart from the fact that 'categorisation' is one of the earliest forms of human intellectual activity) is so that you can describe and study. How can you write a book about 'music' if you don't somehow try to limit the scope by ruling things out?

Agreed, but if you were writing a book you would would provide its definition - other authors might use a different definition.

Similarly, SC in his survey would (does?) define what he means; other people, doing a different survey for different purposes, might use a different definition (which might overlap)

[Flosshilde]

Hiya Beefy,

Great point. It is certainly not easy to define what 'classical music' is. But any survey has a reduced credibility without having a definition that provides some type of parameter; the more robust the better. Most of the time people would agree what 'classical music' is for example Beethoven’s 5th Symphony. But is Franz Lehar ‘The Merry Widow’ classical music or Bernstein’s ‘West Side Story’. In which case is Andrew Lloyd Webber’s ‘The Phantom of the Opera’ classical music? Or is the John Williams’s film score to ‘Star Wars’ classical music? Or is Dimitri Tiomkin’s ‘High Noon’ classical music?

And is Telemann's 'Tafelmusik'?

[french frank]

But is Franz Lehar ‘The Merry Widow’ classical music or Bernstein’s ‘West Side Story’.

Hybrid

In which case is Andrew Lloyd Webber’s ‘The Phantom of the Opera’ classical music? Or is the John Williams’s film score to ‘Star Wars’ classical music? Or is Dimitri Tiomkin’s ‘High Noon’ classical music?

No to all. Once you get to the point of 'hybrids of hybrids' I think you can define them as something else. And my 'core definition' would exclude them.

I accept that Suffy made his rules and stuck to them for the purpose of consistency. But whether everything a composer produced should be regarded as 'classical' just because a minor proportion of his output is - not in my book. When John Williams' 'classical' works become part of Radio 3's basic repertoire, then reconsider Star Wars. Until then ... (Similar with George Gershwin and, more arguably, Bernstein). I'm afraid it just doesn't hold water, logically, to say that because Gershwin composed a piano concerto, Girl Crazy is therefore 'classical'.