What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?

[Serial_Apologist]

My definition of a year ago which went something like "Music written within the Western concert hall, court and church from the 13th century to today for others besides the composer to perform" appeared to go down quite well, iirc. It may be something of a mouthful, but, originating in this form as it did around the time of Machaut, the emphasis on written down over improvised distinguishes such musics from most other musical cultures, while mention of church, court and concert hall place it in a unique performing context - or did so historically. For objectors, the fact that most other musical genres worldwide have entered classical music's performance terrain is I think more a cultural symptom of the globalisation of Western culture over the past 100 years than of those other genres' imcorporation under the banner of, erm, classical music.

[Ian]

My definition of a year ago which went something like "Music written within the Western concert hall, court and church from the 13th century to today for others besides the composer to perform" appeared to go down quite well, iirc. It may be something of a mouthful, but, originating in this form as it did around the time of Machaut, the emphasis on written down over improvised distinguishes such musics from most other musical cultures, while mention of church, court and concert hall place it in a unique performing context - or did so historically. For objectors, the fact that most other musical genres worldwide have entered classical music's performance terrain is I think more a cultural symptom of the globalisation of Western culture over the past 100 years than of those other genres' imcorporation under the banner of, erm, classical music.

The problem with this definition (and this sort of definition) is that it is more of an after-the-event (and incomplete) description rather than an overriding definition able to accommodate new situations. And as such, to a point, you are able to engineer the ‘definition’ to include and exclude what you want - as long as you are able to live with pretty significant anomalies.

For example, your definition neatly excludes film music (intended?) but also excludes incidental music for plays and such (not intended?). It excludes pop music ‘sculpted’ in the recording studio (intended?) but excludes music written for historical mechanical musical instruments (not intended?)

Your definition also excludes music for people to play in their homes - lots of nineteenth C songs, piano and chamber music. (not intended?) as well as excluding a lot of more recent music intended for people to play at home on their record players (intended?)

And what has Opera done to you? Or do you have to exclude the opera house in order to exclude musicals ?

[french frank]

Ian

One thing puzzles me and you're not really addressing it: why do you want Cole Porter or Irving Berlin to be classed as 'classical composers'?' To turn round your 'What has opera done to you?' which you asked S-A: 'What has music theatre done to you that you don't find it a perfectly acceptable description?' Music theatre is a much admired, much enjoyed, musical genre. Do you feel Cole Porter would have greater status if he were referred to as a 'classical composer'? I similarly don't understand when people want to describe jazz as 'the classical music of America'. That can't be anything other than a confusing, figurative label when America has its own western 'classical' traditions with Ives, Barber, Piston, Schuman, Cage, Carter and scads of others ...


One point that I would say is important is musical 'idiom'. If you trace the development of Western classical music, with its roots in the medieval church, it passes through distinct phases. The acknowledged masters, however individually innovative, are recognisably composing - at least at the outset of their careers - in the idiom of their time. If they lag behind it, their reputation falls, if they innovate, history judges them.

In the golden age of Broadway, classical music was moving on from Schoenberg, atonality, serialism. Just compare the music of Janacek's operas with the music of Cole Porter. Opera broadly follows the classical trends: Britten, Henze, Adams. And why shouldn't it since these composers also compose in other contemporary forms. Compare them with Sondheim (or Lloyd Webber!). It seems pointless to try to force any similarities on them.

[Ian]

Ian

One thing puzzles me and you're not really addressing it: why do you want Cole Porter or Irving Berlin to be classed as 'classical composers'?'

I don’t want (need?) Porter, Berlin to be classed as classical composers any more than I want or need Chopin and Satie to be classed as ‘classical’ composers. It’s simply what I think will happen - indeed already is happening. (Composer of the week etc.)
I don’t see the ‘classical’ tradition as a ‘integrated whole’ from which the future can be predetermined by what’s gone before, but rather by a collection of micro-traditions, to which other micro-traditions could be appended.

To turn round your 'What has opera done to you?' which you asked S-A: 'What has music theatre done to you that you don't find it a perfectly acceptable description?'

Music theatre is a perfectly acceptable description. My point was that if you are going to add ‘music written for the Opera house’ as part of a definition of classical music you couldn’t exclude musicals from being classical! as they are also written for opera houses! Also, it is the case that some ‘classic’ musicals are on the verge of becoming part of the ‘classical’ tradition by nature of the circumstances of their revivals with (for example) an emphasis on researched ‘definitive’ performing editions.

Music theatre is a much admired, much enjoyed, musical genre. Do you feel Cole Porter would have greater status if he were referred to as a 'classical composer'?

His status is determined by whether or not his music continues to be performed - pretty much the same as any ‘historical’ composer.

I similarly don't understand when people want to describe jazz as 'the classical music of America'. That can't be anything other than a confusing, figurative label when America has its own western 'classical' traditions with Ives, Barber, Piston, Schuman, Cage, Carter and scads of others ...

I suspect people who describe jazz as the classical music of America are expressing a view about its ‘importance’ possibly in the context of jazz not getting much in the way of subsidy compared with orchestral music.

One point that I would say is important is musical 'idiom'. If you trace the development of Western classical music, with its roots in the medieval church, it passes through distinct phases.

But were those phase inevitable? Were they anticipated before the event?

The acknowledged masters, however individually innovative, are recognisably composing - at least at the outset of their careers - in the idiom of their time. If they lag behind it, their reputation falls, if they innovate, history judges them.

This is untrue as often as it is true. But in any case. What makes serial music more innovative than boogie woogie? Both seem pretty different to me than what had gone before - boogie woogie more so perhaps.

In the golden age of Broadway, classical music was moving on from Schoenberg, atonality, serialism. Just compare the music of Janacek's operas with the music of Cole Porter.

Just compare the music of Philip Glass and Elliott Carter - are they more similar to each other than Kiss me, Kate and The Cunning little vixen?

Opera broadly follows the classical trends: Britten, Henze, Adams. And why shouldn't it since these composers also compose in other contemporary forms. Compare them with Sondheim (or Lloyd Webber!). It seems pointless to try to force any similarities on them.

But they don’t have to be similar to have the potential to become classic. FWIW what is the similarity between Henze and Adams? And of course they are plenty of Operas/Musicals that seamlessly bridge the stylistic gap between between Sondheim and Britten. Poulenc’s Dialogues des Carmelites isn’t a million miles away from Candide which in turn... Why do you want to draw lines?

[french frank]

Why do you want to draw lines?

I don't see myself as drawing the lines any more than is implied in the OP - 'what qualifies a composer &c &c'; or you in suggesting that music theatre should be considered 'classical'.

The logic of your argument seems to be: 'Why not just consider everything as 'music' - and be done with it?' Where people find that useful, that's fine; but because the combinations of varying musical tastes that people have are so wide, for many people it wouldn't do.

But they don’t have to be similar to have the potential to become classic.

There I see a problem: 'classic' and 'classical' are as different in meaning as 'historic' and 'historical'.

Just compare the music of Philip Glass and Elliott Carter - are they more similar to each other than Kiss me, Kate and The Cunning little vixen?

To me, yes, while recognising their individuality. I concede that there is a far wider range of styles within what I think of as 'classical music' than in music theatre. Music theatre was 'drama with tuneful songs' and it still is.

And I am here beginning to sense that we have been here before on the BBC boards ....

My point was that if you are going to add ‘music written for the Opera house’ as part of a definition of classical music you couldn’t exclude musicals from being classical! as they are also written for opera houses!

But not often for opera singers. There are those who want to include Sondheim among the opera composers: they don't include Sondheim himself.

But were those phases inevitable? Were they anticipated before the event?

Evolution doesn't work like that. Differences arise and distinctions are recognised.

This [i.e. that the acknowledged masters are working within contemporary idioms] is untrue as often as it is true. But in any case. What makes serial music more innovative than boogie woogie? Both seem pretty different to me than what had gone before - boogie woogie more so perhaps.

I'm not sure who you have in mind. It's quite clear where Schoenberg's earlier music came from (hence my reference to the outset of careers). Innovation is not a distinguishing feature of classical music so your comparison with boogie-woogie is irrelevant: an innovative musical idiom does not become 'classical' on that basis alone.

Let's take this point of yours:

I don’t see the ‘classical’ tradition as a ‘integrated whole’ from which the future can be predetermined by what’s gone before, but rather by a collection of micro-traditions, to which other micro-traditions could be appended.

All right. But on what grounds should certain micro-trends be appended? What are the criteria to be?

[Lateralthinking1]

(Brief commercial break - Xenakis : Rebonds B - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKTF0...eature=related )

[MrGongGong]

For me , I think there are Classical Musics (plural !)
If one looks at the music of the rest of the world one might refer to Classical Indian music (developed for the court) or think of Gagaku as Classical Music .... there are cultures (as mentioned elsewhere !) where there is NO building baed religion and NO court and one could argue that they therefore don't have a "Classical" music (Tuva for example).

I think one needs to use the brain and not just the ears !
To my ears some of the things I posted upthread (the Rammstein track for example) are very much within the sonic world of "classical" music yet are obviously "Rock" music.

I would think that a contextual definition is the most useful ?
assuming that we aren't referring to music of just the "Classical period" .........

if Bach's Kunst der Fuge is "classical" music is this also "Classical" ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPgrMUHIWgQ

[MrGongGong]

(Brief commercial break - Xenakis : Rebonds B - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKTF0...eature=related )

Great stuff ......... one of my favourites

[french frank]

Oh, and on the original question:

What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?

It depends what you want the term 'classical composer' to mean. For example, saying that Gershwin is a classical composer recognises (principally?) that he composed in acknowledged 'classical' forms - the piano concerto, for example. That doesn't mean to say that, because he has been 'dignified' with the title 'classical composer', everything he wrote was classical.

Stubbs was painter of horses, but that doesn't mean this is a horse.

[french frank]

if Bach's Kunst der Fuge is "classical" music is this also "Classical" ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPgrMUHIWgQ

It's crossover, innit?

It's back to the old colour spectrum: the colours merge into each other imperceptibly so that there is no point at which everyone would agree that one colour 'becomes' another. But go straight to the centre of a 'pure' colour and it becomes unmistakeably red, yellow, green, blue ...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's back to the old colour spectrum: the colours merge into each other imperceptibly so that there is no point at which everyone would agree that one colour 'becomes' another. But go straight to the centre of a 'pure' colour and it becomes unmistakeably red, yellow, green, blue ...

I think that answers the question. We might all define the "limits" of musical styles differently from one another, but when I hear the March from the Nutcracker alongside the arrangement known as "Nutrocker", I know which is which and have no hesitation in pigeonholing.

[Panjandrum]

Glad that's settled then.

[Ian]

I don't see myself as drawing the lines any more than is implied in the OP - 'what qualifies a composer &c &c'; or you in suggesting that music theatre should be considered 'classical'.

I can honestly say that I have never intentionally suggested that *any* music should be considered classical.

Ultimately music is classical if it comes out of the classical door. Increasingly music that once came from elsewhere now comes out of the classical door. For example, it is just as likely that a new production of a Cole Porter musical will be presented by an ‘opera company’ or be released on classical label. (I’ve got a recording of Kiss me, Kate performed by the London Sinfonietta! and presented exactly like an opera recording - scholarly notes, detailed libretto etc.)

The logic of your argument seems to be: 'Why not just consider everything as 'music' - and be done with it?' Where people find that useful, that's fine; but because the combinations of varying musical tastes that people have are so wide, for many people it wouldn't do.

But it is because peoples tastes are so varied that ‘classical’ is going to continue to diversify? If not, where exactly is old non-classical going to come from if not grouped together with other old types of music? Taste doesn’t divide neatly between those that like nothing but ‘classical’ (and all of it t’boot) and those that only like non-classical. Even now on BBC radio Cole Porter fits into R3 better than any other channel - what other radio station regularly broadcasts music that is over eighty years old?

There I see a problem: 'classic' and 'classical' are as different in meaning as 'historic' and 'historical'.

I am aware of the distinction but if the 'classics' of music theatre increasingly come out of the classical door what stops them being (seen as) part of a increasingly diverse 'classical' music.

To me, yes, while recognising their individuality. I concede that there is a far wider range of styles within what I think of as 'classical music' than in music theatre. Music theatre was 'drama with tuneful songs' and it still is.

A lot of music theatre goes quite a bit further than that - as does some opera!

And I am here beginning to sense that we have been here before on the BBC boards ....

I always know where to find you.

There are those who want to include Sondheim among the opera composers: they don't include Sondheim himself.

I well understand that he might not want his words mangled by your typical opera singer. But if opera companies choose to do his stuff and their audience turns up to watch it, what is it about the music that makes it illogical to put on the same shelf as Bizet and Puccini?
[/QUOTE]

Evolution doesn't work like that. Differences arise and distinctions are recognised.
I'm not sure who you have in mind. It's quite clear where Schoenberg's earlier music came from (hence my reference to the outset of careers). Innovation is not a distinguishing feature of classical music so your comparison with boogie-woogie is irrelevant: an innovative musical idiom does not become 'classical' on that basis alone.

So if Schoenberg had invented Jazz rather than serial jazz would be part of the classical tradition and 12-tone music would be outside it? But no, if anything innovation has a harder time being part of a 'tradition'. But traditions aren't pre-ordained they can go in any direction you want.

But on what grounds should certain micro-trends be appended? What are the criteria to be?

being performed, particularly within the performing 'culture' of the established classics.

[Ian]

Oh, and on the original question:



It depends what you want the term 'classical composer' to mean. For example, saying that Gershwin is a classical composer recognises (principally?) that he composed in acknowledged 'classical' forms - the piano concerto, for example. That doesn't mean to say that, because he has been 'dignified' with the title 'classical composer', everything he wrote was classical.

Stubbs was painter of horses, but that doesn't mean this is a horse.

No, but it is painting - not a photograph or a cartoon.

Gershwin wrote mainly songs. Are you saying that songs don't make up part of classical music? His piano concerto is as much like a Beethoven piano concerto as his songs are like Schubert's songs. So why can you accept one as classical but not the other?

[vinteuil]

It's back to the old colour spectrum: the colours merge into each other imperceptibly so that there is no point at which everyone would agree that one colour 'becomes' another. But go straight to the centre of a 'pure' colour and it becomes unmistakeably red, yellow, green, blue ...

o French Frank ! - surely you know how language-dependent our colour appreciation is? - not so far from us, linguistically, there is Russian - where there are two distinct words for the colour(s) we here 'see' as 'blue' - basically Oxford and Cambridge - and Russians will 'see' these as 'colours' whereas English speakers will see them as variants of one 'blue' colour; and I believe Welsh divides up the spectrum quite differently from how English 'sees' these things....