What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?

[Ian]

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?

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.

I don’t think I would define a musical lingua-franca by anything as concrete/limiting as the 'techniques' in your list.

Clearly contemporary pop songs don’t sound anything like Berlin or his contemporaries - the harmonic language is completely different. The language has changed so much that for most people pop songs from the thirties don’t work emotionally in the same way they probably once did. Of course pre war pop songs are still enjoyed immensely but, to a greater or lesser extent, the listener has to provide a (historical) context for the music to make sense. In the same way, Der Freischutz can clearly be enjoyed by a specialist audience particularly interested in music of that period but it’s hard to imagine music with the same harmonic and melodic language being used in a modern werewolf/horror film. The conventions of Weber’s musical language just wouldn’t work in the same way anymore for a ‘civilian‘ audience.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But "the Music of the 21st Century" is "post-WW2", frenchie. I don't mean this facetiously, but to point out that there are huge numbers of composers writing in very different styles that they see and hear as being part of the "Western Classical Tradition" (to borrow a term from the GCSE Exam.Boards): does the fact that some/many/most members of the "Classical Music" audience don't yet recognize this debar these composers from being "qualified to being called a classical composer"? The "splintering" of the "ingredients" that make a piece of Music recognizably part of this Tradition began in the 19th Century, and this is what makes the OP so interesting a subject of discussion now.

[Panjandrum]

Why bother with labels?

To qualify as a classical composer one has to have been active between 1750 and c1820. End of.

[Serial_Apologist]

I don’t think I would define a musical lingua-franca by anything as concrete/limiting as the 'techniques' in your list.

Oh I think if you are speaking of a "lingua franca" they do; what, after all, constitutes "music" other than the techniques that make it up?

If one wants to go wider and argue as to what constitutes the different genres in which music is presented, I would agree that we have to go wider than speaking of "lingua franca", and consider the different audiences, classes and categories of music making up the makers and consumers, and the given protocols surrounding said genres. These are the people, the supposed experts and non-experts, and the purportive lovers and haters of different genres, who define what they are, or should be.

[french frank]

But "the Music of the 21st Century" is "post-WW2", frenchie. I don't mean this facetiously, but to point out that there are huge numbers of composers writing in very different styles that they see and hear as being part of the "Western Classical Tradition" (to borrow a term from the GCSE Exam.Boards): does the fact that some/many/most members of the "Classical Music" audience don't yet recognize this debar these composers from being "qualified to being called a classical composer"? The "splintering" of the "ingredients" that make a piece of Music recognizably part of this Tradition began in the 19th Century, and this is what makes the OP so interesting a subject of discussion now.

Erm, well, I thought it was the contemporary composers who often objected to the label 'classical'. I have no objection to it at all.

What I meant was, up to WW2 there is something that most people (not Panjandrum, I see ) who go to concerts and buy records would not dispute because that far back it's established canon. After WW2 (I'm just using this as a convenient moment, not to be interpreted prescriptively) people start to scratch their heads, wonder, reject, go off in all sorts of directions. I'm just saying it becomes less clearcut when discussing music composed from the latter part of the 20th c. I don't think that degree of vagueness should invalidate the use of the term 'classical music' when referring to the music of earlier periods.

And I do think that categorisation is useful and fascinating as a pursuit. But categories aren't pigeonholes and they allow for all sorts of permutations of characteristics.

Why bother with labels? To qualify as a classical composer one has to have been active between 1750 and c1820. End of.

You've just used a label.

[Ian]

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"?)


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.

none of these composers write music that sounds like that written in the era of Berlin - or any other past era. (they have that in common). Together, to greater or lesser extents (and along with innumerable others), they contribute to a lingua franca.

A mass becomes critical when it is large enough to replicate/renew itself. It’s not fixed amount!

No, composers don't have to be dead to have written stuff that becomes 'classic', and clearly, the two Johns have both written 'classics'

[Ian]

Oh I think if you are speaking of a "lingua franca" they do; what, after all, constitutes "music" other than the techniques that make it up?

How it makes you feel.

[Ian]

Why bother with labels?
.

Composers and musicians have to bother (i.e. be concerned) about labels, because how their music is labeled defines how that music is received and what opportunities/funding is made available.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Although labels are often difficult to define, their use can be both menacing and useful - menacing because in some circles, the term "classical music" is used with derision. Children at school will say "I don't like classical music", and then when I list several pieces I know they do like, they say "Oh yeah".
On the other hand, the trendy teaching method of not having barriers and treating all music as "simply music" has led to a massive downturn in the awareness of classical music by young people.

[Serial_Apologist]

How it makes you feel.

Then we disagree on what we mean by a "lingua franca".

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Erm, well, I thought it was the contemporary composers who often objected to the label 'classical'.

Depends how the "label" is used.

"Classical" refers strictly to the Music written in a period of history roughly stretching from the time of Bach's sons and their contemporaries to Schubert. It is no wonder that any "contemporary composer" would "object" to being called "Classical" by this definition.

"The Western Classical Tradition" is a more nebulous phenomenon, with its origins in the religious Music of the pre-Christianic Middle East. Techniques developed over centuries which enabled composers to create large-scale, multi-voiced Musical structures - techniques which included the incorporation of popular material (to the outrage of the Church authorities). This fusion of "learned" technique with ideas and materials from "outside" scholastic learning is what has motivated Musical developments throughout the history of "The Western Classical Tradition", and I don't know any composer working in this Tradition who is not as keen to demonstrate his/her indebtedness to some figure from it as s/he is to show what they do differently.

And I do think that categorisation is useful and fascinating as a pursuit. But categories aren't pigeonholes and they allow for all sorts of permutations of characteristics.

Quite so. Nor do the categories guarantee quality, which is why I share your bemusement Why would anyone wish to have it included in 'classical' other than some misconceived idea that it will give it increased status? I'm sure everyone reading this has a number of "classical" (and maybe even "Classical") composers whose entire oeuvre they would happily dump in favour of just a handful of Berlin numbers.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Get real everyone - "classical" is anything wot gets filed under Classical in yer local HMV, or on the Amazon classical bestsellers listing

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Get real everyone - "classical" is anything wot gets filed under Classical in yer local HMV, or on the Amazon classical bestsellers listing

Oh! I never knew you were an Exam. marker for Edexcel, LMP!

[french frank]

"The Western Classical Tradition" is a more nebulous phenomenon, with its origins in the religious Music of the pre-Christianic Middle East. Techniques developed over centuries which enabled composers to create large-scale, multi-voiced Musical structures - techniques which included the incorporation of popular material (to the outrage of the Church authorities). This fusion of "learned" technique with ideas and materials from "outside" scholastic learning is what has motivated Musical developments throughout the history of "The Western Classical Tradition", and I don't know any composer working in this Tradition who is not as keen to demonstrate his/her indebtedness to some figure from it as s/he is to show what they do differently.

I agree with that entirely. What I would ask is, if you are not going to call that music of "The Western Classical Tradition", if you're not going to call it 'classical music', what will you call it?

Nomenclature is important because there is a sense in which if something can't be named, it doesn't exist. You cannot discuss it. At all.

The label 'classical music' covering the chronological span which you describe is a convenient one. No one has come up with a 'better' one - 'better' in that no one questions it. The alternative is to fragment "The Western Classical Tradition". And? Well, it seems to me that you end up talking about medieval, Renaissance (polyphony), early Baroque, late Baroque, Baroque-Classical transitional, Classical, Classical-Romantic transitional, Romantic and then whatever you like up to contemporary classical. The labels are only meaningful to the cognoscenti. They exclude the rest of the music loving public. That's why (I guess) we stick to 'classical music' - because it means something (even if only a partial meaning) to the widest audience.

Oh! I never knew you were an Exam. marker for Edexcel, LMP!

Never the same after it changed from ULSEB

[Lateralthinking1]

I take the point about 1750 to 1820 but in modern terminology surely Tchaikovsky, Wagner and Debussy couldn't be anything other than classical composers?

Because there is a distinct shift from Irving, the writer of popular songs, to Berlin, Radio 3's Composer of the Week, might that obscure how perspectives change more generally over time? Butterworth is easily seen now as always having been in the Western Classical Tradition but was he really thought of in those terms a hundred years ago?

Instinctively I feel that if post war writers are identified very closely with mass consumerism, they are likely to place their chances of being on Radio 3 in jeopardy. John Williams as COTW in 2112? I doubt it. That though has not been a stumbling block for Bernstein who might have been helped by being in the infancy of markets.

I did think that contributors might write about symphonies, concertos, etc. Without those in the CV, no chance. It seems though that they are not essential. Here is one summary of Paul McCartney's ballet score "Ocean's Kingdom":

Paul McCartney may not have the conservatory credentials or technical mastery of the great modern composers, but the strength of his simple tunes could merit entrance into their ranks.

An alternative view is that it will not be enough to distinguish him sufficiently from Lennon.