What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?

[doversoul1]

Lat
I know this is a bit of a discussion stopper, but we need to decide why/for what purpose we want to discuss the definition and to draw a line, or we’ll be cross-arguing forevermore. Are you thinking of, as ff says in her first (I thing) response, what might be ‘acceptable’ on Radio3? Or you might have been thinking what should be taught as classical music at school, or you might have been thinking about what could be publicly funded as classical music, etc..

[Ian]

How to explain how much the quiet concentration differed from...

Most, if not all, your list of differences relate to performance style - and that is not surprising - the difference in vocal delivery is perhaps the most obvious difference between pop and classical. However, it wasn’t always so. Pre-amplification, singing styles in popular music were pretty similar to the standard classical - which developed the way it did largely to enable volume and projection. The introduction of microphones and amplification, however, freed up the voice from the duty of having to project at all costs and allowed the development of alternative and (in my view) equally expressive and certainly more individual, vocal styles.
In other words pop music vocal styles grew out of the classical style in conjunction with taking advantage of new technology.

In the past, what we now call ‘classical‘ music was also very open to new instrument technology - a point of continuity.

It seems at least possible to me that the sort of music that might in the future be seen as continuing/contributing to the Western tradition is music that responded to and utilized contemporary technology - even if the use of that technology changed the sound of music (and the way we react and associate with it) beyond recognition.

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat
I know this is a bit of a discussion stopper, but we need to decide why/for what purpose we want to discuss the definition and to draw a line, or we’ll be cross-arguing forevermore. Are you thinking of, as ff says in her first (I thing) response, what might be ‘acceptable’ on Radio3? Or you might have been thinking what should be taught as classical music at school, or you might have been thinking about what could be publicly funded as classical music, etc..

Well I think the question "what should be played on R3?" is probably unhelpful here. I'm never very keen on "shoulds".

The question started in my head because, just out of interest, I sat down one morning and thought "what do I know about classical music and how would I like to take my listening forward?". Nothing radical. It was a case of finding bearings and some sort of fairly subtle new musical direction. A bit of broadening, mainly building on what I like.

At that point, I began to consider what was being played on R3 and what had been discussed on this forum. I went to quite a few relevant websites too. Beyond the obvious Bach, Berlioz and, erm, Boulez, the same slightly eyebrow raising names kept cropping up.

A lot of Cage, for example, and Gershwin. Morricone far more than I expected. It was as though a panel had decided who is and isn't a classical composer which led to the question "why this consensus?" and then "why have similar people been left out?".

[MrGongGong]

It seems at least possible to me that the sort of music that might in the future be seen as continuing/contributing to the Western tradition is music that responded to and utilized contemporary technology - even if the use of that technology changed the sound of music (and the way we react and associate with it) beyond recognition.

Same as it ever was ........... Berlioz, Chopin, Palestrina, Cage, Stockhausen etc etc


A small point of information

Radio 3 is NOT a "Classical Music" station , it does play a lot of "Classical" music though

[french frank]

Most, if not all, your list of differences relate to performance style

I don't think I agree with that. It leaves Schubert's contribution out of the equation entirely.

In the past, what we now call ‘classical‘ music was also very open to new instrument technology - a point of continuity.

It seems at least possible to me that the sort of music that might in the future be seen as continuing/contributing to the Western tradition is music that responded to and utilized contemporary technology - even if the use of that technology changed the sound of music (and the way we react and associate with it) beyond recognition.

The interesting thing about classical music is that it has 'progressed' both ways in recent decades - forward with the new electronic technologies and back to HIPP. The various stages of its evolution illustrate how it has always looked out into the contemporary world and composers have been magpies for whatever attracts their attention. And if there's any reason to reject 'classical' as a label, I think that's it.

Classical - for me - has been at times as revolutionary as any musical form and the extraordinary thing is that little along the way in that (r)evolution completely dies out. Individual works or composers may be lost, but representative works are being performed somewhere all the time. Compare the musical changes between 1900 and 2000 in classical music and in music theatre.

I think this is to do with commercialism and popularity: forms that attract mass audiences and make lots of money don't give any incentive to introduce change because audiences want more of the same. That also affects classical music in that concert promoters put on the familiar, well-loved pieces, but it's a different phenomenon in that what is being composed now is radically different.

Popular music theatre seems to me to be one of the slowest evolving musical genres - or am I wrong?

[Ian]

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.

Firstly, thanks for your generous appreciation of my contribution.

FWIW, here's a link to some 30 year old pop music that strays rather dangerously close to sounding like some types of classical music. Even the backbeat sounds more like an orchestral snare than a pop snare and the bass guitar part sounds more a part of the string arrangement than the usual 'rhythm section' component.

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

[Ian]

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'?

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.

[MrGongGong]

FWIW, here's a link to some 30 year old pop music that strays rather dangerously close to sounding like some types of classical music. Even the backbeat sounds more like an orchestral snare than a pop snare and the bass guitar part sounds more a part of the string arrangement than the usual 'rhythm section' component.

Since when did the sound of music have anything to do with whether people think it's "Classical Music" or not ?

[Ian]

Since when did the sound of music have anything to do with whether people think it's "Classical Music" or not ?

I suspect I might not be understanding the meaning/purpose of this question, or if it is indeed an actual question. Sorry about that.

[Lateralthinking1]

Firstly, thanks for your generous appreciation of my contribution.

FWIW, here's a link to some 30 year old pop music that strays rather dangerously close to sounding like some types of classical music. Even the backbeat sounds more like an orchestral snare than a pop snare and the bass guitar part sounds more a part of the string arrangement than the usual 'rhythm section' component.

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

Ian - Thank you. I agree. I really like the first album by The Blue Nile, particularly "Easter Parade", "Heatwave", "Automobile Noise" and "Tinseltown in the Rain". From memory, the innovation in approaches to sound was combined with the use of groundbreaking technology at Linn Records. In the context of this discussion, it is quite interesting to look at the website of what started as such a small enterprise. The recordings seem to be mainly classical. http://www.linnrecords.com/catalogue...ate&order=desc .

[MrGongGong]

I suspect I might not be understanding the meaning/purpose of this question, or if it is indeed an actual question. Sorry about that.

It IS a real question.
There are many pieces of Rock, Pop, Jazz etc etc that SOUND like "Classical Music" and tracing their relationship with the "Western Classical Tradition" is often very interesting (hence the Rammstein : Schubert thing etc ). Cage's music is very much in the "WCT" yet can sound like other things for example

Just because something SOUNDS like something else , doesn't make it that thing. The great Patrick Gowers used to play us pieces of "atonal" music and then play the bit before his excerpt to show how Bach didn't follow the "rules"........ historical definitions are often retrospectively made (though not always).

People often assume that because "Jazz" often contains improvisation that ALL improvised music is therefore "Jazz" (we've been here before Bryn )

[Ian]

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).

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’, which leads you to conclude that there must be significant, genre changing, differences between the musical materials of his songs and concerto.

The problem with that tactic is that pre ww2 the raw materials of jazz and show tunes were largely interchangeable, for example, many jazz standards are in fact show tunes. I know that the piano concerto is usually labeled 'jazzy' but it is just as accurate to describe it as 'showtuney'. You go on to justify the ‘classical‘ status of the work by pointing out the ‘across the board‘ influence of Jazz. But the Gershwin concerto is not merely a showtune/jazz influenced concerto it actually sounds like showtune/jazz music. So I remain wondering why it's ‘okay’ for the concerto to use that sort of material but not the songs?

[Ian]

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.

Yes, his concerto, follows enough of ‘classical’ norms regarding structure and instrumentation for you to be happy. But then so do the songs!

This business about self-orchestrating seems a bit of a flimsy notion, though. I guess that because it is well known that film composers and pop musicians do not always orchestrate their own music, and because you want to exclude film and pop from standing with various other genres that constitute classical music you choose to make orchestration a deal-breaker. The problem with this is you would have to chuck out the version of Pictures at an Exhibition that most people know (and before any clever-cloggs interrupts, I’m not talking about ELP) and presumably you would have to admit pop music if the composer has orchestrated/arranged everything single-handedly.

[MrGongGong]

It is in the niches and at the edges where often the most engaging and interesting music can be found............

[Ian]

It is in the niches and at the edges where often the most engaging and interesting music can be found............

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