What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?

[Guest]

It appears that:

Gershwin is but Berlin isn't and Milhaud is more of one than Gershwin

Morricone is but Vangelis isn't, Frankel only might be and Bernstein is more of one than Morricone

Moondog isn't but Messiaen and Thoreau are

De Hartmann is but Gurdjieff isn't

Rodrigo and Villa-Lobos are, Segovia isn't and with Yepes it is debatable

Hutter and Schneider aren't but Varese and Boulez are

Cage is and Zappa might be but Beefheart isn't and Birtwistle and Stockhausen are more so than Cage and Zappa

Why?

[french frank]

Not sure that I would quite agree with all those statements . Nor, indeed that things are so clear-cut that you can say 'this is classical, that isn't'.

This doesn't just apply to classical music either: I'd say it's pretty much the same with jazz.

[cloughie]

Not sure that I would quite agree with all those statements . Nor, indeed that things are so clear-cut that you can say 'this is classical, that isn't'.

This doesn't just apply to classical music either: I'd say it's pretty much the same with jazz.

Who cares? Why is there such obesession with pigeonholing music?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Who cares? Why is there such obesession with pigeonholing music?

... 'tho' I suspect that Lats shares this view and is merely/really wondering aloud what "qualifies" a composer for inclusion on R3?

In answer to the Thread title:

"Writing Music between c1760 - 1830" works for me (if the "c" is Upper Case).

[Lateralthinking1]

... 'tho' I suspect that Lats shares this view and is merely/really wondering aloud what "qualifies" a composer for inclusion on R3?

Yes I think so. There is also a scale whether we like it or not. I was surprised to see that Berlin was the Composer of the Week. Some would be pleased and others very much against. What will the reaction be when they choose Lennon and McCartney?

Much as I quite like Morricone, he isn't a Bernstein and even Bernstein doesn't seem quite as firmly placed as, say, Copland to me. Some eyebrows were raised when Bernstein became the second most frequently performed American composer by US orchestras whereas Copland's first position attracts little controversy.

Segovia substantially reworked classical pieces and yet there is no suggestion that he is a composer whereas Yepes is often described as a composer although it is doubtful whether he wrote "Romance".

Moondog was as innovative with the use of environmental sound as Messiaen and Thoreau. Kraftwerk were electronically innovative but are not seen as classical like Varese. Milhaud is pretty jazz at times, as is Gershwin, but his inclusion at the Proms wouldn't get people hot under the collar. With Gershwin there, you can sense the mutterings.

I could have included examples of light operetta too. Are Gilbert and Sullivan fortunate to have been British?

[french frank]

I was surprised to see that Berlin was the Composer of the Week.

But that's because CotW is no longer devoted to 'classical composers', not because Berlin is regarded as 'classical'. Charles Mingus was also on CotW.

I think 'pigeon-holing' is a bad image. It suggests that people/subjects fit into a tightly defined box and there are no connecting links with other boxes. In music that's clearly untrue: there are all sorts of cross influences. But I also think that most recognisable genres have a core which distinct. No one is forced to make any kind of intellectual study of music/musicology if they don't want to. If all you want to do is engage with it, wallow in it - that's fine.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Perhaps the best qualification to be classed as a classical composer is to be someone who composed between 1750 and 1828.

[vinteuil]

Perhaps the best qualification to be classed as a classical composer is to be someone who composed between 1750 and 1828.

or as ferneyhiccup said [ #4 supra ] -

"Writing Music between c1760 - 1830" works for me (if the "c" is Upper Case).

[cloughie]

I could have included examples of light operetta too. Are Gilbert and Sullivan fortunate to have been British?

Was Gilbert fortunate to have met Sullivan? If you're asking if Sullivan was classical - yes, but Gilbert & Sullivan?
What is a) Opera, b) Operetta c) a Musical?

Is Elvis Costello a punk rocker or a serious composer, Previn and Bernstein jazz or classical or film - as I say why the need to categorize?

[Serial_Apologist]

there are all sorts of cross influences. But I also think that most recognisable genres have a core which [is] distinct.

I think that summarises it.

Another way of looking at the question surrounds the protocols and formalities surrounding classical as opposed to other sorts of music performance. Outside jazz and classical my experience of other genres is pretty limited, apart from the free summer rock stage in the municipal park or the odd Mardi Gras; but it does seem that audiences turn up to even experimental/avant-garde concerts in art galleries and the like in some kind of hushed awe that only started coming into jazz when jazz musicians like John Surman began concentrating on performances in like places, where subtleties and nuances wouldn't be wiped out by pub chatter and background distractions. Some of that reverence has transferred back into the nichier jazz clubs - I wrote last year about being told off by another audient at The Vortex for "moving about", ie my body as well as my head and heart getting in sync with the music, which had "ruined" her first half. I had to move my bodily unpleasance to the back of the room.

S-A

[Ian]

I think a open-minded, and logical definition of ‘classical’ (apart from its separate use to define a particular period) is to refer to music that is no longer the current lingua-franca but never-the-less survives through having an audience large enough to form a ‘critical mass’

Berlin, to my mind, is clearly now ‘classical’ (i.e a classic) because his music is obviously not contemporary but despite that, however, there is a critical mass of people keen to hear his music and keep it alive.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think a open-minded, and logical definition of ‘classical’ (apart from its separate use to define a particular period) is to refer to music that is no longer the current lingua-franca but never-the-less survives through having an audience large enough to form a ‘critical mass’

Berlin, to my mind, is clearly now ‘classical’ (i.e a classic) because his music is obviously not contemporary but despite that, however, there is a critical mass of people keen to hear his music and keep it alive.

But, is there a current lingua franca? In 1000 years it has been monody, modal polyphony, diatonic homophony, diatonic polyphony, sonata and variation forms, expanded tonality, atonality, serialism, aleatory, postmodern, minimalist, neo-tonal and reactionary. If so, to what does it apply?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think a open-minded, and logical definition of ‘classical’ (apart from its separate use to define a particular period) is to refer to music that is no longer the current lingua-franca but never-the-less survives through having an audience large enough to form a ‘critical mass’

We-e-e-ll;
1) Is there a "lingua franca" in the early years of the 21st Century? (Ferneyhough? Saariaho? Aaron Cassidy? Karl Jenkins? Evan Parker? Goldie? ... ) and(2) How "large" is "large enough"? (When does a "mass" become "critical"?)

Berlin, to my mind, is clearly now ‘classical’ (i.e a classic) because his music is obviously not contemporary but despite that, however, there is a critical mass of people keen to hear his music and keep it alive.

Okay, but do composers have to be dead to be classical? And what about Cage, or John Lennon about whom much the same comments could be made?

I don't intend to "rubbish" your generous description, Ian; these are just the points that occur to me to be the ones that refuse to allow Lat's opening question to be answered easily.

[Lateralthinking1]

Was Gilbert fortunate to have met Sullivan? If you're asking if Sullivan was classical - yes, but Gilbert & Sullivan?
What is a) Opera, b) Operetta c) a Musical?

Is Elvis Costello a punk rocker or a serious composer, Previn and Bernstein jazz or classical or film - as I say why the need to categorize?

I do genuinely agree philosophically with the "why need to categorize, pigeon holing is a bad image" line.

However, in practice, serving up a Breakfast on 3 full of West Side Story and My Aim is True might just trigger the political revolution Britain has so far avoided.

Broadcasting House would be taken over by the well dressed sooner than Sara could play the 12 inch version of "Computer Love".

[french frank]

1) Is there a "lingua franca" in the early years of the 21st Century? (Ferneyhough? Saariaho? Aaron Cassidy? Karl Jenkins? Evan Parker? Goldie? ... )

Doesn't that simply imply that the term 'classical' has no clear meaning when applied to the music of the 21st century? It doesn't mean that it has no meaning for the music of previous centuries - which is the music which most people who are interested in that music mean by 'classical music'. It's the music which provides the core repertoire, what in the largest numbers those people listen to, what they buy.

I would suggest that concert hall and chamber music is recognisably 'classical' (small 'c') until post-WW2. I don't see that any music can retrospectively join that category (whatever you call it) simply by virtue of being no longer contemporary but still having a real audience. Berlin is much more associated with the Great American Songbook repertoire. Why would anyone wish to have it included in 'classical' other than some misconceived idea that it will give it increased status?