What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?

[MrGongGong]

Seargeant Pepper? (And probbly a few others from the '66-'67 era, tho I'm not that up on this particular subject)

Nope
no sampler on that one

(you could say The Pines of Rome was the first )

[Serial_Apologist]

Nope
no sampler on that one

(you could say The Pines of Rome was the first )

Samples, but no sampler.

[french frank]

Quote Originally Posted by french frank View Post
What specifically classical norms do the songs follow? Would you call them art songs? The criterion that they are not usually 'part of a staged work (such as an opera or a musical)' might rule Gershwin and Porter out.

I would call them show songs, in the same way that I might call other songs 'operatic' 'arias' 'lieder' 'troubadour' 'songs without words' (not really!)

All right, but those who dislike the label 'classical music' suggest 'art music'. And so songs in the classical tradition are called 'art song'. And the definition of 'art song' seems to exclude 'show songs' because the 'art song' is an independent composition.

If you are claiming that a show song is the same as an operatic aria, duet, trio or quartet, you might begin to have a real argument. Though I would move on to the suggestion that opera is written for classically trained voices and makes vocal demands which show tunes don't. Show tunes may, of course, have different demands.

They are certainly not folksongs

I agree.

- we are talking about music written by professional composers for a paying audience - just like classical music!

Is that your definition of classical music?

The question to what extent we as individuals accept show-songs as part of the classical family, in the same way we can accept operatic songs as being part of that family, is hardly relevant given what is actually happening.

What is actually happening? Are Elaine Paige and Michael Ball being booked to sing show songs in a concert with Mark Padmore singing Schubert and Felicity Lott singing Duparc?

I've got to go now and annoy people at my local pub quiz (i'm really hoping we'll get a question on indian classical music)

Well, you can always give an answer on Indian classical music. It may be wrong but it will impress people

[Ian]

No
When I read your initial question I didn't assume you just meant in the Western Classical Tradition

At some stage, perhaps after 100 or so messages, one has to make the judgement whether one can risk not reiterating the context for the nth time. Obviously in this case I overestimated a section of my readership.

[MrGongGong]

At some stage, perhaps after 100 or so messages, one has to make the judgement whether one can risk not reiterating the context for the nth time. Obviously in this case I overestimated a section of my readership.

IS that YOUR context ? or the original question ?

[Ian]

My understanding was that classical music - no matter what the tradition - was composed/performed for a social and educated elite: court music, for example. I suspect this is what some people feel instinctively about Western classical music and why they think of it as 'elitist' - regardless of the fact that the context in which it is performed is now quite different.

That was the sense in which it was distinct from the music of the people - folk music.

The working definition of ‘classical’ has obviously been extended since then. For example, there is a lot of music written by the Likes of Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, Sibelius, Mendelssohn and countless others for performance by amateurs in a domestic setting.

During the 19th there was an explosion in piano sales - particularly among the new ‘middle classes‘. I’m sure people of a certain age will remember the extent to which pianos used to be found even in the most modest of circumstances. It was the entertainment system of choice.

The music written for this ‘sector’ tended to be either solo piano music or songs, but could also include chamber music. Choral music was also very much a non-elitist, big-market sector (and still is)

[Ian]

IS that YOUR context ? or the original question ?

You wouldn't like to rejoin the rest of the class would you?

[MrGongGong]

You wouldn't like to rejoin the rest of the class would you?

I think maybe you should read some of the textbooks first !

[Ian]

I think maybe you should read some of the textbooks first !

Why would I want to do that. I'm writing my own.

[MrGongGong]

Why would I want to do that. I'm writing my own.

Well making up what "Classical Music" is , is a bit of an odd way to start.
You can't ignore the rest of the world ................ unless you are discussing Music in the Western Classical Tradition only , and even then it's never been in isolation from other musics ...................

[Ian]

Well making up what "Classical Music" is , is a bit of an odd way to start.

You obviously haven't been listening to a word I've said. And besides, what else can you do with the subject except make it up. Is there a God of classical music I haven't been introduced to yet?

[Ian]

All right, but those who dislike the label 'classical music' suggest 'art music'. And so songs in the classical tradition are called 'art song'. And the definition of 'art song' seems to exclude 'show songs' because the 'art song' is an independent composition.

In that case operatic songs are also excluded.

It doesn’t matter what the wording of the label is as long as it refers to the same concept/and or same body of work. (As it happens I think its best to have labels that don’t carry any baggage - something that classical music is spectacularly bad at.)

If you are claiming that a show song is the same as an operatic aria, duet, trio or quartet, you might begin to have a real argument.

I think show songs are different but related to other forms of song that make up the world of ‘classical‘ music. But no different in the respect that these other types are also different but related.

Though I would move on to the suggestion that opera is written for classically trained voices and makes vocal demands which show tunes don't. Show tunes may, of course, have different demands.

I wonder if your 'show-tune' label somehow limits your expectation of what some music from musicals can actually be like. A couple of month ago I went to see an excellent musical called Floyd Collins by Adam Guettel. The vocal parts were demanding very much in the same way that opera vocal parts are demanding. Although I would say there wasn't the same amount of gratuitous vocal showing off - but for me that is a good thing. Here is youtube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB5hafiKjtA .

Although the singer here is not as classical sounding as the performance that I attended it might give you an idea.

I agree. Is that your definition of classical music?

What do you think? Of course not, but it’s not completely irrelevant either. At least it puts musicals in the ‘professional’ (elite?) category rather than purely a amateur or ‘folk‘ setting.

What is actually happening? Are Elaine Paige and Michael Ball being booked to sing show songs in a concert with Mark Padmore singing Schubert and Felicity Lott singing Duparc?

Doubt it, but I’ve got recordings of musicals performed by, amongst others, Josephine Barstow, Thomas Hampson, Kim Criswell, John Mark Ainsley, Della Jones, Christa Ludwig, The London Sinfonietta, LSO etc. etc. Increasingly some musicals are more likely to be produced by Opera companies in Opera houses.

[Ian]

you can always give an answer on Indian classical music. It may be wrong but it will impress people

Didn’t do too well.
Did better a few weeks ago when we had a round on classical music. The only time this has happened - and was I shocked at the level of ignorance. The team I marked put Mozart as the answer to all the questions - including the one about which instrument Chopin mainly wrote for.

Even I only scored 8/10 - I managed to mix up Weber and Wagner (so you can see how I manage to mix up musicals with anything classical!) and for some reason I didn’t realize that Mussorgsky wrote The Golden Cockerel - apparently the quiz book is always right.

[french frank]

In that case operatic songs are also excluded.

But 'opera' isn't. Music theatre may in its less typical (or perhaps more contemporary) forms merge with opera but those examples don't drag mainstream music theatre out of the 'popular' genre of music theatre into opera.

I think show songs are different but related to other forms of song that make up the world of ‘classical‘ music.

Could you give one example of each to illustrate what you mean? (Not a 'challenge' - just asking for clarification.)

I wonder if your 'show-tune' label somehow limits your expectation

Did I say 'show tune? I meant to quote from your Msg #130: "I would call them show songs." Your label, not mine.

The vocal parts were demanding very much in the same way that opera vocal parts are demanding. Although I would say there wasn't the same amount of gratuitous vocal showing off [ - Ed.] - but for me that is a good thing.

Here is youtube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB5hafiKjtA

You don't like opera? I don't think it's in any way dismissing the work to pick out, for example, the piano part and say it could come from a pop song - albeit from one with perhaps a smidgen of classical influence (like A Whiter Shade of Pale in olden days). You can have jazz- or rock-influenced classical music, and classical-influenced jazz or pop (or music theatre): there is no dispute that genres merge and overlap. But at the centre of the genre the disinctions are obvious.

At least it puts musicals in the ‘professional’ (elite?) category rather than purely a amateur or ‘folk‘ setting.

??? I don't think there's any implication that I was doing that. See below ..

Doubt it, but I’ve got recordings of musicals performed by, amongst others, Josephine Barstow, Thomas Hampson, Kim Criswell, John Mark Ainsley, Della Jones, Christa Ludwig, The London Sinfonietta, LSO etc. etc. Increasingly some musicals are more likely to be produced by Opera companies in Opera houses.

You could add to the list (work is work, after all). But that's no different from listing classical players who record jazz. The aficionados think the classical musicians/singers aren't as convincing as the 'experts'.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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.

This has been nagging my subconcious for the past few days.

When I've heard teenagers talking about their Musics, they have no problem "fragmenting" the different styles that they listen to and/or avoid: Rap, Drum & Bass, Dub, Math(s) Rock, Gothic Grunge - they love being able to hear and identify the different genres.

Adults have no problem "fragmenting" different Art movements, happily following documentaries on Art Noveau, Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Hogarth and Hockney and being able to distinguish each syle without having to worry about umbrella terms like "classical".

And I wonder if that's the point: by lassooing such an enormous menagerie of styles into the single term "classical Music", it encourages the non-cognoscenti into thinking the words BeethovenTchaikovsky and imagining people playing violins whilst somebody sings in a noisy way. No wonder there is wide-spread confusion and hostility to the Music: it's perceived as a single, homogenized mush of sound. By not being specific, by being scared of putting off the non-cognoscenti with what we worry might be "elitist" terms, we put off the non-cognoscenti.

In addition to pestering the BBC to make more programmes of and about these repertoires, I suggest the next best thing we can do for "classical Music" is to stop calling it "classical Music", but to make "19th Century Russian Nationalism", "Late Classicism", "Mediaeval Isorhythm" and "Post Serialism" as familiar as "Delft Pottery", "Dystopian Fiction", "Georgian" or "Arts & Crafts Movement". The popularity of programmes which revel in "fragmenting" the movements of History is evidence that this is what a significant number of people want and enjoy.