What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?

[MrGongGong]

Off the record I'm happy to agree. On the record, value judgements are a bit of a distraction in this sort of discussion.

Calling music that's strictly not from the "Classical Period" , "Classical" is a value judgement in itself as it implies that it has greater longevity and "depth" than other music. So what about cultures with no "classical" tradition ?

[french frank]

The potential for a such a tradition clearly exists - should a consensus emerge that differentiating between the ‘two’ things has some (usually marketing) benefit. Be aware that fully notated music that sounds like jazz now has a history pretty much as long as Jazz itself.

My point about ‘a separate radio station‘ alludes to my view that to large extent the styles/types of music that are perceived to be ‘classical‘ depends on ‘what door‘ they come out of. I’m sure you understand from this short-hand that a radio station, record label, even performer or institution all can function as doors, therefore, in order for this hypothetical new genre to be differentiated from 'classical' it would have to come out of a different 'door'. (my example just happened to be a radio station)

As it happens, there are signs that the somewhat separate ‘doors’ that jazz and classical used to come out of are merging. For example, there are record labels that produce both jazz and contemporary without significantly differentiating between them in terms of presentation and marketing - ECM for example.

I don't grasp the logic of much of your Msg #97. The 'potential' exists for many musical traditions to begin and develop. When they are established traditions they can be analysed for their distinguishing characteristics; in the absence of their existence, it's difficult to do so. Nor do I think your 'door' analogy works. Chick Corea played jazz and classical. So does André Previn. Radio 3 has regularly broadcast jazz since 1964: I don't see how that brings classical and jazz closer musically. Same door, different genres. Just as Radio 2 boasts of having the widest range of 'specialist' musics.

You have avoided commenting on my reasons why the concerto and songs should be *not* be categorized differently by implying that the concerto is ‘jazz’ and the songs are ‘show tunes’

I don't believe I did say (or imply) that the piano concerto was jazz. If I had thought that I would have called it jazz, not classical. As it is, I'm saying no more than that the Gershwin piano concerto is close enough in some respects - including having been written for the concert hall - to the piano concerto tradition (which is a specifically classical genre) for it to be included in the classical repertoire, to be performed by classical performers at classical concerts for an audience with expectations of listening to 'classical music'. 'Song' is not a specifically classical genre: you can have folk songs, work songs, jazz songs, show songs, pop songs (and in fact folk and pop are predominantly/largely song whereas classical music is not). 'Song' has no implication of genre; 'piano concerto' has.

i have said, clearly and unequivocatingly, that I wouldn't classify Gershwin as a 'classical composer': some of his concert hall works (in my view) just about squeak in. Probably. Possibly. For quite weak reasons. The weakness of the reasons is the justification for not including his other work which seems to be to be clearly of an existing genre: call it Broadway, Tin Pan Alley, music theatre, show music.

If posterity wishes to redefine the adjective 'classical' as it relates to music in order to include Gershwin, Porter, Berlin, Sondheim, Rodgers, so be it it. Somebody will be happy. But you do need to redefine it - and you need to present a good case for doing so. It takes more than an individual's wish that it be redefined.

[Serial_Apologist]

I did try warning you all...

[french frank]

I did try warning you all...

De generibus est disputandum .

[Serial_Apologist]

De generibus est disputandum .

My knowledge of Latin being very limited, I agree!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

With vocal music, my criterion would be that classical music performed live does not require the use of a microphone (but I expect to be shouted down on this one, probably with amplification).

[Ian]

Calling music that's strictly not from the "Classical Period" , "Classical" is a value judgement in itself as it implies that it has greater longevity and "depth" than other music.

Not by me, it doesn't.

My perspective is that 'Classical music' is used as an umbrella term to group together varies genres/styles of music that are most efficiently marketed together. (Confusingly one of the genres/styles that comprise this group is also called 'classical' - but I think that is a confusion we can cope with)

The styles/genres that comprise 'classical' include all music deriving from, or in some way belonging to Western culture (a contextual given that I think we can cope with) written before the start of the 20c. The umbrella also covers selected styles and genres developed since that date.

Of course it is true that pre-20c music has at least demonstrated a degree of longevity, but there is no real justification to assume that the contemporary styles that happen to be marketed along with this repertoire will inevitably have the same longevity. I know that it is often assumed it will - but, of course, it wouldn't be good marketing practice to disabuse anyone of this mind.

As tastes and demographics change the genres/styles that are most effectively 'marketed' together also change. Pop music has been so popular (relative to classical) that it has never made much marketing sense to put them under the same umbrella. But we now have a genre of 'vintage' pop music that appears to be more efficiently marketed under the classical umbrella. As this happens (and of course it will be a gradual process) that style of music (irrespective of what any individual might think or want) joins the other styles already comprising classical but, as always, does so without necessarily loosing its own label or identity. In particular, there is evidence some show tunes/musicals are, in the way just outlined, beginning to become part of 'classical music' without, of course, ceasing to be show tunes/musicals. NB this process doesn't turn a musical into an opera. but it does expand the definition of classical music.

[MrGongGong]

So you are saying that Indian classical music isn't ?

[french frank]

My perspective is that 'Classical music' is used as an umbrella term to group together varies genres/styles of music that are most efficiently marketed together. (Confusingly one of the genres/styles that comprise this group is also called 'classical' - but I think that is a confusion we can cope with)

My perspective too - except ... the OED's earliest quote with approximately that meaning was 1829. It may be considered a mere 'marketing label' now, but it is unlikely that it was originally so. In other words, it existed as a comprehensible term, a distinct - in some respects - genre (i.e. it wasn't popular or folk).

"Of music: of acknowledged excellence; of, relating to, or characteristic of a formal musical tradition, as distinguished from popular or folk music; spec. of or relating to formal European music of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, characterized by harmony, balance, and adherence to established compositional forms.

1829 V. Novello Diary 26 July in V. Novello & M. Novello Mozart Pilgrimage (1955) 181 This is the place I should come to every Sunday when I wished to hear classical music correctly and judiciously performed."


[I take the piano concerto to be an 'established compositional form'.]


"1856 Jrnl. Soc. Arts 18 July 605/2 The Limerick Harmonic Society is now furnished with a concert room, where classical music can be heard by a large audience."

[Ian]

I don't grasp the logic of much of your Msg #97. The 'potential' exists for many musical traditions to begin and develop. When they are established traditions they can be analysed for their distinguishing characteristics; in the absence of their existence it's difficult to do so.

My point is that there is enough material (notated 'classical' music that sounds like jazz) to populate a separate tradition should it be to anyone's advantage to define such a separate tradition. The fact that no one has chosen to do this is part evidence of a coming together of jazz with the various genres that make up 'classical'

Nor do I think your 'door' analogy works. Chick Corea played jazz and classical. So does André Previn. Radio 3 has regularly broadcast jazz since 1964: I don't see how that brings classical and jazz closer musically. Same door, different genres.

But I'm not saying they are brought closer together musically - in exactly in the same way baroque music and French impressionism aren't brought together musically because they come out of the same door.

I don't believe I did say (or imply) that the piano concerto was jazz.

that quote is part of the message that describes the interchangeability of jazz and showtunes. It wasn't intended to suggest that you think the concerto is jazz!

[Ian]

So you are saying that Indian classical music isn't ?

Isn't what?

[MrGongGong]

Isn't what?

"Classical Music"

[Ian]

My perspective too - except ... the OED's earliest quote with approximately that meaning was 1829. It may be considered a mere 'marketing label' now, but it is unlikely that it was originally so. In other words, it existed as a comprehensible term, a distinct - in some respects - genre (i.e. it wasn't popular or folk).


"Of music: of acknowledged excellence; of, relating to, or characteristic of a formal musical tradition, as distinguished from popular or folk music; spec. of or relating to formal European music of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, characterized by harmony, balance, and adherence to established compositional forms.

My understanding is that the original use of the term 'classical' in music was as reference the ancient classical world - as understood then. And came about because the 'brand' had specific relevance and resonance with the extended structures that were being developed then. However, there have been plenty of developments, innovations that have produced music that is still uncontroversially labeled as classical without relating much at all to that 'starting point' definition.

BTW, surely all labels have a marketing function - what other function can they have?

"1856 Jrnl. Soc. Arts 18 July 605/2 The Limerick Harmonic Society is now furnished with a concert room, where classical music can be heard by a large audience."

The other day I came across a Ballade for solo piano written by one Sydney Smith. I can't help wonder if that was the sort of piece that might have been performed along with your Beethoven Sonata. If so, the juxtaposition of say Bill Evans, Kapustin or even Gershwin and Beethoven seems a lot less stark - despite the genre gap.

[MrGongGong]

My understanding is that the original use of the term 'classical' in music was as reference the ancient classical world - as understood then. And came about because the 'brand' had specific relevance and resonance with the extended structures that were being developed then. However, there have been plenty of developments, innovations that have produced music that is still uncontroversially labeled as classical without relating much at all to that 'starting point' definition.

BTW, surely all labels have a marketing function - what other function can they have?
.

I think your understanding is wrong i'm afraid .......... I think (note THINK) that in the musicology I learnt as an undergraduate the term "Classical" (when not specifically talking about the Classical Period) refers to music that had a historical link to certain types of formalised performance. So Javanese court gamelan is Classical music as is the North Indian raga tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_Classical_Music)

If one only thinks in terms of "marketing" then one misses out much.............

[Ian]

"Classical Music"

well it's Indian classical music - whether it constitutes a genre that falls easily under the classical umbrella I don't know. Yes I do - Probably yes.

Was there a time when Indian music was more closely associated with pop music - 60s. My impression is that it is more closely associated with classical now. but it's not a genre of music i follow, so I would be interested in your thoughts.