What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?

[Serial_Apologist]

S-A - Stevie Wonder wasn't born blind but became blind shortly after his birth. Medical experts think that there is a neurological explanation.

I find Ian's point about a society's conscious decision to keep music forms alive convincing. That, of course, doesn't preclude further development. While many of us grew up to the soundtrack of rock; while it was current and evolved quickly; dance music has in many ways already taken over.

The zeitgeist can seem to be a powerful opposition to history but in the longer term all forms of popular music may simply be seen as small countries in the broader world of classicism. Some will be a part of the latter in the future and others will simply be irrelevant. It is the extent of coverage at any given time that distorts scale.

Thanks for the explanation about Stevie, Lat.

Fwiw my own view is that the way in which with hindsight songs from "The Great American Songbook" have come to be seen as of more worthy consideration for programming alongside Lieder etc is relative to the long period from the 1950s, during which, with very few exceptions, the musical vocabulary of mainstream pop music has failed to evolve much beyond the "three chord trick".

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm shocked that you feel I have not contributed any constructive (relevant?) thoughts to this thread, or indeed have not expressed them with precision.

If it helps I will paraphrase "73 for you:

I don't think Berlin is up for discussion as a 'classical' composer because Gershwin (essentially another songwriter) wrote a small handful of instrumental 'classical' pieces. I think they are where they are because the alternative would be for their music to disappear and I don't think that is what the world wants.

In what sense is that view merely rhetorical, in what sense is it not precise?

Without substantiation, "what the world wants" exemplifies the rhetorical way in which you have approached this whole discussion thread. It's a pattern running right through with you - pose a question, and respond to your respondents with further questions which do not take account of what other people have said, or rhetorically dismissive replies like the above - and I am sure I am not the only person to have noticed this.

[MrGongGong]

But, how does Stevie Wonder manage to have synaesthesia?

Is this a serious question ?

When you see , your eyes (or rather the rods and cones in them) send messages to the brain........if you have an intact brain then you still have the mechanism
I've worked with people in the past who have been blind from birth yet have a highly developed sense of what we would call "visual"

in the same way that I don't think we think in words ..........

the parts of the brain that are stimulated are still there even if you can't actually See or Hear

[Ian]

Without substantiation, "what the world wants" exemplifies the rhetorical way in which you have approached this whole discussion thread. It's a pattern running right through with you - pose a question, and respond to your respondents with further questions which do not take account of what other people have said, or rhetorically dismissive replies like the above - and I am sure I am not the only person to have noticed this.

Ok, change 'what the world wants' to 'a critical mass of people don't want that to happen'. But either way, my view, unsubstantiated though it is, is no less unsubstantiated than the view I was responding to. NB. responding to (taking account of), not dismissing.

I would be glad for you to point out where my view is likely to be unreasonable or incomplete. Because, so far, it seems to me that it is you doing the dismissing without actually responding to anything I have said.

Anyway the enjoyment has gone.

[Serial_Apologist]

Ok, change 'what the world wants' to 'a critical mass of people don't want that to happen'. But either way, my view, unsubstantiated though it is, is no less unsubstantiated than the view I was responding to. NB. responding to (taking account of), not dismissing.

I would be glad for you to point out were my view is likely to be unreasonable or incomplete. Because, so far, it seems to me that it is you doing the dismissing without actually responding to anything I have said.

Anyway the enjoyment has gone.

Fair enough.

I did actually respond to #11 in #12, #16 in #19, #22 in #25.

[french frank]

Gershwin wrote mainly songs.

And I can't think of any that I would say were remotely classical.

Are you saying that songs don't make up part of classical music?

No, I'm saying that songs are part of many genres - various classical styles, jazz, world, pop. Again, it's the idiom.

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?

Well, there's no such tradition as a 'music theatre piano concerto'. Gershwin was deliberately making his own contribution to the serious piano concerto repertoire and there's no reason why his (written in 1925) should resemble Beethoven's than that Shostakovich's 1st should resemble a Beethoven symphony.

In the interests of research I've been listening to Björk and Elvis Costello on YouTube. This is because I received a letter from St George's this morning reminding me that Padmore and Lewis would be there next week touring their Schwanengesang. The website also had features on Björk and Costello, and I thought: 'Ah! Songs! Why should Björk and Elvis Costello not be considered 'classical' if Schubert is? So I've listened to Oh, so quiet, Who is it?, Alison, Everyday I write the book, Veronica, Suspicious Minds. And then I thought back a couple of months to when Padmore and Lewis were here with Winterreise.

How to explain how much the quiet concentration differed from gesticulating youth, how the quality (as in the particular sound) of a trained tenor differs from the 'natural strainings' of the other two, how the focus is on the music not the posing and gyrations of the performers, how one has depth and the other vapidity.

People being diverse, I acknowledge that there's no reason why I shouldn't enjoy Costello's Peace, Love and Understanding or Björk's Moon as much as Padmore's Schwanengesang. But the fact that I don't maybe makes it easier to for me to conclude that the difference between songs can be fundamental. A clue lies in the size, demographic and behaviour of the audiences. I can't believe that anything more than a tiny fraction of Costello's audience would want to be at St George's listening to Mark Padmore. Just as if you go to a performance of Anything Goes many of the audience would just as soon be at The Cunning Little Vixen. We all agree to differ in our tastes. The ability of many people to enjoy both doesn't mean they aren't significantly different, and that just as many - if not more - will opt, every time, for one in preference to the other. And that 'one' will be Björk, Costello, Anything Goes &c in the majority of cases. That's a sign that the manifold varieties of 'popular music' differ sufficiently from classical to be considered in their most characteristic forms as tenuously connected.

[Lateralthinking1]

A thoughtful post ff. However, if I were to look for examples in popular music of strong voices, it wouldn't be to either Elvis Costello or Bjork. Each of their voices is distinctive, which can be an important component of popular music, but each has been controversial. Many have argued that Bjork in particular just can't sing. Actually, fragility is a part of what she does.

I can though understand the sentiment. Any leeway I give to someone depends on what else it is they provide. If there is originality, some depth and the capability of conveying an emotion or atmosphere, I'm generally for it. I'm not necessarily looking there for technical proficiency. In fact, 16 minute rock guitar solos always seem very overblown, possibly because they are grandiose in the context. By contrast, in jazz, solo virtuosity can appeal - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoIvMRdD6jU.

So it is horses for courses. Greater familiarity with material can lead to greater personal access. But we all have a line as individuals where we say "no, I can't go there". You have probably identified yours. I could cite some opera. Some opera is among the best music ever recorded. There is though that moment where they go off into the heavens vocally and it all becomes too operatic for me. A bit too heavy and even hysterical. At the other end of the scale, there is light operetta which I find too flimsy.

Incidentally, Costello's principal strength is in writing lyrics. The studio version of "Alison" is very fine in my view but it is not wholly typical, being deliberately pared down. He tends to be more intellectual for better and for worse. "What's So Funny About Peace Love and Understanding" is another good song but was actually written by Nick Lowe. I like the Holmes Brothers version the best. Their soulful vocals give the lyrics more meaning and depth - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csl-X6F7s0k.

Going back to Bjork, who I love by the way, "It's Oh So Quiet" is not the best place to start. She has for a long time experimented with electronica and incorporated folk themes in her songs. Those things are not of themselves going to turn her into a Boulez or a Grieg but she isn't the norm. As for the parade, that goes with the territory. Here are two versions of Joga where both the uneasy repetition and offbeat timing should be heard as consciously decided, thereby elevating it rather than detracting -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BSMcVRgloY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU_Wx...eature=related.

[doversoul1]

Lateralthinking1
So, what do you think the qualities that are common in the music by/of Bjork and Costello that are different from Schubert's? Or are there no fundamental differences? Other than personal taste, that is.

[Ian]

And I can't think of any that I would say were remotely classical.No, I'm saying that songs are part of many genres - various classical styles, jazz, world, pop. Again, it's the idiom.Well, there's no such tradition as a 'music theatre piano concerto'. Gershwin was deliberately making his own contribution to the serious piano concerto repertoire and there's no reason why his (written in 1925) should resemble Beethoven's than that Shostakovich's 1st should resemble a Beethoven symphony.

I agree with that, in fact it was what I was saying. But for me, if you accept that Gershwin’s piano concerto doesn’t (and doesn’t have to) sound like Beethoven (or, presumably, any other typical classical piano concerto) to be considered classical, then the same rationale should apply to his songs which after all use very similar materials harmonically, melodically and rhythmically to his concerto.

[Ian]

I did actually respond to #11 in #12, #16 in #19, #22 in #25.

Yes, and I really resent those and my further responses being characterized as rhetorical, dismissive and not having anything constructive to say.

I have made over forty points in this thread nearly all of them in direct response to other contributors. Having looked them all again I do not notice anything rhetorical (apart from perhaps the odd bit of shorthand) and certainly not dismissive. Were I have disagreed with a view I’m reasonably confident I have given credible reasons for that disagreement or at least have indicated that I could elaborate on those reasons should anyone be interested. Furthermore, despite your claim that I respond with further questions which do not take account of what other people say’ I notice that I only phrased 3 or 4 of those 40 points in the form of a question and that those questions were directly relevant to the issue in hand. I’m also pretty certain that I have responded to all questions put to me in a reasonable manner.

[Lateralthinking1]

Lateralthinking1
So, what do you think the qualities that are common in the music by/of Bjork and Costello that are different from Schubert's? Or are there no fundamental differences? Other than personal taste, that is.

That's a good question doversoul but I struggle to answer it. My mind goes to the way that they are marketed. They would be together in a different section of a CD shop or a website store or a music magazine. Mostly they would be on different radio programmes although in the case of the former LJ is an exception. The origins of both are in our lifetimes and in genres that it has rarely been argued are classical. Both in becoming older have acquired the label of serious commercial artist rather than being seen as simply throwaway. Neither is simply another rock or dance act, neither trades on model good looks although each has an image, neither principally appeals to teenagers and neither is isolated from tradition in music. With Costello, there have been collaborations with Bacharach and McCartney. He can also be seen more generally as being in the tradition of songcraft. Bjork draws on Icelandic heritage and collaborates with innovators in electronic and dance music. She arguably plays something of a dramatic role as in, say, opera, although the distinction between her true nature and someone in character isn't sharply defined.

Perhaps lazily, I find that the moment a commercial artist introduces an orchestra or a choir, I am more tempted to say that they are beginning to hover on the edges of classical music. Whether right or wrong, it is a common perception. This review of Costello's endeavours with the Brodsky Quartet really sums up the dilemma - "the project was largely ignored by rock fans and scorned by classical critics" - of those who seek to be something else: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009...arbican-review. Here are Elbow at Abbey Road with an arrangement of a song from "The Seldom Seen Kid" that is far removed from the one on their album. Judging by the reception of these rock fans, not all of them are as closed minded. I think it is a triumph but I couldn't bring myself to describe it as classical music, nor could they I would imagine, hence perhaps the reason for the location. If it doesn't link up with classicism, it does at least do so with the Beatles - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX0B9ZpdZEA.

This from John Cale gets even closer in my humble opinion. In both the structure and performance, it reaches to non pop places and feels spiritually like a standard something that has gone before -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3ueIweuUvo.

By 31, Schubert had written 600 Lieder, nine symphonies, liturgical music, operas, chamber music and solo piano music. I can't think of anyone in the popular arena who could match him on volume but that in itself doesn't distinguish him. Witness Granados. It is possible to draw a line from the Lieder to Berlin and onto modern songwriters but which ones? We would have to look at those who have approached songwriting as a craft rather than throwing something together against a drumbeat. I would normally expect a classical composer to write for other people which is not necessarily the way with the pop world. And then there are those words - symphonies, opera, chamber music. That is how most of us think of classical music. This world music album, "Chamber Music", feels instinctively that it has a place on the classical stage - it would make more sense at the Proms than, say, Staff Benda Bilili who are billed - but much is in the packaging - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQTfU...eature=related.

[Ian]

Well, there's no such tradition as a 'music theatre piano concerto'.

I’ve been thinking about what you might mean be this. Do you really mean that if they were a number of fully notated instrumental piano works that (like the Gershwin) sound like jazz rather than classical then those works would constitute a separate tradition that would need a separate label, radio station etc?

The reason why I ask is because there is such a tradition. Apart from Gershwin’s instrumental pieces there are a large number of published transcriptions of originally (improvised) jazz music, some of which has been performed and recorded by non-jazz classical musicians. for example Jean-Yves Thibaudet performing Bill Evans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCANhujTJE0

Also there is now a large, known-about, repertoire of composed notated music that sounds like Jazz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW8miW_PndE
- from the 2011 Tchaikovsky piano competition - she won the silver medal I think.

[doversoul1]

Lat
Thank you for your response. It is a bit hard to follow your post, as I am not familiar with the musicians you mention, but I’ll try listening to the links you have posted.

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat
Thank you for your response. It is a bit hard to follow your post, as I am not familiar with the musicians you mention, but I’ll try listening to the links you have posted.

doversoul - Thank you for your comments. I feel in a way that we have moved a bit from my original intention with the thread. It will go where it will go and that's fine but I had really been thinking in post number 1 of what I at least perceived to be borderline areas. Not everyone will agree of course.

More recently, I have tried to address the points french frank usefully made about Elvis Costello and Bjork, and have brought in a couple of other examples. I wouldn't though wish to argue the case strongly for either of them being classical composers. The nearest argument is that they possibly show some leanings in that direction with particular projects.

I think with Ballake Sissoko and Vincent Segal - the last link on my last thread - there is more scope for debate, and going back to the original post, the same applies to several on the list there including Segovia who Rob is featuring on his programme today. Ian's most recent post seems to me to be one interesting way of taking the discussion forward.

[french frank]

I’ve been thinking about what you might mean be this. Do you really mean that if they were a number of fully notated instrumental piano works that (like the Gershwin) sound like jazz rather than classical then those works would constitute a separate tradition that would need a separate label, radio station etc?

Well, IF that were the case, they would certainly consitute an interesting sub genre, and might well be labelled 'jazz piano concertos'. But to be a tradition they would need to have been composed over a significant period of time. But what is your point about a 'separate radio station'?

As you have quoted, I actually said 'there's no such tradition as a 'music theatre piano concerto' '; the discussion is not between jazz and classical, but music theatre and classical. In the 20th century jazz did have a significant influence on a number of major composers (as folk music had done in the past).

I think Gershwin is a marginal figure, but this probably gives some idea why some of his works have something in common with classical music, being orchestrated - by Gershwin - for a traditional symphony orchestra. In fact, this comes back to Lat's original question: 'What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?'

I wouldn't 'call' Gershwin a classical composer on the basis of his having composed a handful of orchestral works (not all orchestrated by him). The piano concerto (and Rhapsody in Blue) are either classically-inspired jazz works or jazz-inspired classical works. Take your pick. Greeny-blue or bluey-green. At this point it's not worth bothering with taxonomy. The best I would suggest is, in fact, that his concert hall work is neither jazz nor classical but sui generis. Whatever you call it doesn't affect its musical value.