What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?

[LeMartinPecheur]

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

fgh: I confess I had to google that one but I'm very flattered

I don't have any musical qualifications at all so I guess that probably makes me a tad overqualified: what's the pay like?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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?

Yes, in the term of convenience sense that frenchie mentions in #29 - and this "modern terminology" also includes Handel, Bach, Monteverdi, Dunstable, Machaut and a lot of "Anon". And Bartok, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Babbitt, Carter, Boulez, Birtwistle, Ferneyhough and a lot of "Etc"!

[Ian]

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

Possibly, but lets check.

In this context, the term ‘Lingua-franca’ alludes to the elements of all musical activity that acquire (at least in the context of a society with shared values and history) a generally agreed ‘meaning‘. To illustrate this, take my previous example of Der Freischutz. I would maintain that the musical language of that piece is, to put it controversially, 'past its sell by date'. Diminished chords just don’t have the same meaning any more they probably tend to sound more corny than scary. On the other hand Holst’s Mars probably still works for most people as a convincing musical portrayal of War. As such I would claim that Holst’s music forms part of the current ‘lingua-franca’.

In other words lingua franca isn’t some ‘approved‘ contemporary style by which the ‘relevance’ of all contemporary music is judged but a rather nebulous fuzzy cloud that emerges from everything that is around as musically meaningful in a general (as opposed to individual) sort of way.

[french frank]

Because there is a distinct shift from Irving, the writer of popular songs, to Berlin, Radio 3's Composer of the Week

That doesn't (I think) indicate a change of perspective on various composers, merely the station policy that non-classical composers should also be covered by CotW. I've already mentioned Mingus as CotW. Then there were the programmes about bebop. They were included because they were Irving Berlin, Mingus and bebop, not because they were viewed differently as now 'fit' to be on Radio 3.

McCartney is (was?) a very good songwriter. It's not clear how limited a musician he is, with composers like Richard Rodney Bennett and Carl Davis working on his orchestrations.

[cloughie]

That doesn't (I think) indicate a change of perspective on various composers, merely the station policy that non-classical composers should also be covered by CotW. I've already mentioned Mingus as CotW. Then there were the programmes about bebop. They were included because they were Irving Berlin, Mingus and bebop, not because they were viewed differently as now 'fit' to be on Radio 3.

McCartney is (was?) a very good songwriter. It's not clear how limited a musician he is, with composers like Richard Rodney Bennett and Carl Davis working on his orchestrations.

And indeed George Martin's influence and arragements in the Beatles days - would Yesterday or Eleanor rigby have happened without him?

[LeMartinPecheur]

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.

Never the same after it changed from ULSEB

The challenge ff sets us is to find a proper synonym for 'classical music' in its wide general sense. The only one I can come up with is the hoary old 'serious music' and that's never going to be acceptable in its clear relegation of all pop, rock, world, jazz musics (etc etc) to some unserious/ trivial category

While the purist sense of 'classical = c.1750-1820' will be understood on these boards, it really ain't the meaning of the word in the wider world. And it's that wider world that dictionary-makers look to, otherwise linguistic purists will still be saying they're correct in saying 'an ewt' and 'a nadder', and maintaining that 'black' properly means 'white' (cf bleach)!

I thought i was joking earlier in my references to HMV and Amazon, but we're obviously on a slippery slope here. To my way of thinking the deciders of the issue in the OP won't be our generation: it's about whether the great 'serious music' performers of the 22nd century are playing the works of McCartney, Gershwin, etc in their original scoring. I think that sticking to the score is a key issue - and that does perhaps put Berlin and McCartney outside the pale as they couldn't write down their own stuff and relied on others to do the orchestral scoring. But hmm, that tips some of Gershwin over the edge too and that can't be right! No simple litmus test even here I guess...

How do French and German manage this problem of nomenclature in the early 21st century?

[french frank]

How do French and German manage this problem of nomenclature in the early 21st century?

Consulting my Petit Robert, the current meaning of 'musique classique' is 'musique des grands auteurs de la tradition musicale occidentale (opposé à folklorique, légère, de variétés'). Example: Préférer le jazz à la musique classique.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Consulting my Petit Robert, the current meaning of 'musique classique' is 'musique des grands auteurs de la tradition musicale occidentale (opposé à folklorique, légère, de variétés'). Example: Préférer le jazz à la musique classique.

Thanks ff. Though it does seem to beg a few more questions

[Ian]

The only problem here is not seeing the various types of popular music as part of the classical tradition, but why not? The reasons offered here to justify exclusion seem pretty trivial to me.

Are genre novelists - crime writers, science fiction writers, for ever excluded from being part of general ‘literary‘ tradition?

[french frank]

The only problem here is not seeing the various types of popular music as part of the classical tradition, but why not?

Is it because the definitions of classical music are designed to distinguish it from popular genres? What's the point of having a definition (albeit fluid) if anything else can arbitrarily be included?

The onus is on those who wish to include popular music to say why. To me there seem to be conflicting views: on the one hand we're told 'classical music' isn't 'better' than other kinds of music; and on the other hand, there is mild indignation that other kinds of music aren't included - as if that lowered its status. The other contradiction is in saying that the 'best' of any particular genre should be considered 'classical', while other people will say that 'classical' isn't better than other genres.

One thing I agree with in what LeMartinPecheur said is that it won't be our generation that decides. It could be that 'classical music' will be the term used to describe orchestral music and smaller ensembles using traditional instruments.

The reasons offered here to justify exclusion seem pretty trivial to me.

Are genre novelists - crime writers, science fiction writers, for ever excluded from being part of general ‘literary‘ tradition?

Possibly not, but there is no distinctly recognised genre as 'general literary tradition'. Crime fiction and science fiction seem like good, understandable categories. Why would you want to bundle them in with every other kind of fiction?

[MrGongGong]

The onus is on those who wish to include popular music to say why.

This is an interesting area and glad that we aren't going down the whole "serious" music dead end ...........

this is popular music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm6SHAXvQ2Q

this is in the same tradition (sonically, harmonically and lyrically )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XP5RP6OEJI

whereas this

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

is less "Classical" in some senses
than this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwdOX19_ETI

which isn't an arrangement of a piece of "Classical" music at all


so it is more complicated than one might first imagine


Genre based approaches to music education and understanding are very lacking IMV

[Ian]

Is it because the definitions of classical music are designed to distinguish it from popular genres? What's the point of having a definition (albeit fluid) if anything else can arbitrarily be included?

The onus is on those who wish to include popular music to say why. To me there seem to be conflicting views: on the one hand we're told 'classical music' isn't 'better' than other kinds of music; and on the other hand, there is mild indignation that other kinds of music aren't included - as if that lowered its status. The other contradiction is in saying that the 'best' of any particular genre should be considered 'classical', while other people will say that 'classical' isn't better than other genres.

One thing I agree with in what LeMartinPecheur said is that it won't be our generation that decides. It could be that 'classical music' will be the term used to describe orchestral music and smaller ensembles using traditional instruments.

Possibly not, but there is no distinctly recognised genre as 'general literary tradition'. Crime fiction and science fiction seem like good, understandable categories. Why would you want to bundle them in with every other kind of fiction?

But the definition of classical music is constantly expanding to include music that previously wouldn’t have been considered part of said tradition. It could have been argued that Chopin wasn’t a proper classical composer because he only wrote for the piano (a relatively new instrument) and tended to specialize almost exclusively in short forms.

Of course by all means use labels to differentiate between different types of contemporary music but we a really talking about ‘non-classical‘ composers whose music seems to be exhibiting the essential (defining?) characteristic that makes ‘classical‘ music a proper tradition - and that is a critical mass of people are still interested in hearing it even after the style of that music has ceased to be lingua- franca.

[Ian]

A classical composer isn't something you are, it's something you become - and in the process help redefine what 'classical' music is.

[Ian]

...but there is no distinctly recognised genre as 'general literary tradition'. Crime fiction and science fiction seem like good, understandable categories. Why would you want to bundle them in with every other kind of fiction?

but 'classical' music isn't a genre either. If 'the classical tradition can house Vivaldi, Schumann, Satie I don't understand why it should have such a problem with Cole Porter (for example)

[EdgeleyRob]

What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?

I've no idea.