What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?

[Lateralthinking1]

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

I note Boilk's and Mr GongGong's comment about Kraftwerk.

I now feel a bit confused by the rest. This sentence from french frank stands out. I am wondering how it could develop and if it developed whether it would become something else that already exists.

[MrGongGong]

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".

indeed
and it was a shame that this book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fear-Music-People-Rothko-Stockhausen/dp/1846941792

was so disappointing .............


I do think that in the area of music we are sadly lacking in language to talk about the music itself , aside from the technicalities , i mean.
If one thinks about visual art

this



is obvious and an interesting comment on what art is

yet we still have endless discussions that seem to confuse live and recorded sound ........

I think that the two fields of music that are most illuminating in this respect are

Electroacoustic music and it's theoretical and philosophical context....... some of the most interesting thinkers about music are working in this field and as it has a recent history (compared to church music, for example) it is still very much in the process of defining itself....

and

Ethnomusicology , we live in a whole world of musics which constantly interact on both a sonic and ideas level, studying other traditions gives us great insight into our own...

[aeolium]

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.

I agree. The only possible downside of that sort of approach is in looking at a particular episode in musical history in isolation from its past, or from other extraneous influences (which I think tends to happen in some of the history or arts programmes).

[amateur51]

Can I just thank MrGG and ferney for their most recent posts; they really opened up what had become a rather arid ding-dong argument for me

I'm an amateur - I don't play an instrument (I whistle!) but music is a vital element of my life. Also having a hearing impairment (hearing loss and tinnitus since 4) I am aware that often what I hear and what others hear is different. For example I am less agonised by a swishy, crackly recording of a great performance than I am by an over-processed recording of a passionless performance.

I've had that book on my 'list' for ages Mr GG and I'm sorry to read that it's disappointing because it's such a provocative title - I certainly fall into that category

[MrGongGong]

I've had that book on my 'list' for ages Mr GG and I'm sorry to read that it's disappointing because it's such a provocative title - I certainly fall into that category

I'd give it a go. When I read it I thought it was too much a potted history of 20th century music with a few interesting observations thrown in rather than having something new to say about the subject. But that might be because I have read and studied lots of the music he talks about so it was old ground for me.

[amateur51]

I'd give it a go. When I read it I thought it was too much a potted history of 20th century music with a few interesting observations thrown in rather than having something new to say about the subject. But that might be because I have read and studied lots of the music he talks about so it was old ground for me.

You're a generous soul, MrGG - I'll see if it's going cheap somewhere - thanks!

[MrGongGong]

You're a generous soul, MrGG :

No i'm not , i'm a miserable partypooper with no idea of how great Elgar was

[Ian]

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.

I agree with that completely and wonder if my instinct to include rather than exclude is a sort of attempt to render the concept of classical (umbrella version) meaningless. That is, to no longer have any sway on perception.

Having said that I do tend to make a distinction between music that is current - music that contributes something to the ‘lingua franca‘ and music that is historical. Of course this is complicated by at least 2 elements. Firstly, baroque music (for example) does contribute something to the ‘lingua franca‘ but for a lot of people that would most likely be a time and place in history - But, secondly, to the specialist listener the music works as a sophisticated language that conveys a range of feelings free from any association with time and place. So it gets messy.

I can just about see a point in an umbrella term that groups those types of historical musics together - and to a point ‘classical’ does just that -and what's more the name of the label makes some sort of sense given that role. However, as it is, certain genres of historical music are kept out of the rain, and certain kinds of contemporary music are let in without a moments thought. The term, for me, is pretty useless and possibly damaging if it has any sort of negative effect on perception.

I know that FF rationalizes R3 playing Berlin as R3 playing music other than classical music. While I rationalize the same thing by perceiving that the umbrella of classic music has just got that little bit bigger. What has actually happened of course is exactly the same irrespective of how either of us perceive it. I would claim, however, that my perspective is more historically consistent, more useful, as well as fairer - if that actually matters to anyone.

[Lateralthinking1]

Amateur51 - For example I am less agonised by a swishy, crackly recording of a great performance than I am by an over-processed recording of a passionless performance.

Many of us would agree.

Ian - I agree with that completely and wonder if my instinct to include rather than exclude is a sort of attempt to render the concept of classical (umbrella version) meaningless.

Shakespeare was performed to the masses. Early classical music wasn't. I think definitions often develop historically from the less than informed scrutiny of outsiders. Ethnomusicologists, the gatherers of folk songs, those with literacy in jazz - probably middle class in the main and initially onlookers. None of that necessarily implies there was a conscious closed shop. Why self-scrutinize? I prefer to see no rights and wrongs in the setting of borders - it is as it is - but it would be nice to know where they are.

[Ian]

But 'opera' isn't. ...

FF. When I read your replies I’m left flummoxed because often I don’t really understand why you’re saying some of the things you’re saying. I guess it’s exactly the same you regarding my replies.

Others have referred to this exchange as having become arid, and I think they are right. So even though I’ve got this massive list of things I would ideally like to clarify and resolve, that list is getting longer with each message -so I can’t see anything satisfactory emerging.

I do feel a bit frustrated with my self for not being able to share my perspective with you, and I’m sure that’s entirely my own fault.

What did you actually think of the Floyd Collins. In performance I found it incredibly moving and touching.

[amateur51]

What did you actually think of the Floyd Collins. In performance I found it incredibly moving and touching.

I heard about it first from an Edward Seckerson review, I think, in Gramophone and on the basis of his enthusiam I bought the CD (this is when I was working) and with the help of the detailed booklet I grew to enjoy it - strange subject for a 'musical' though.

I wish I'd known that it was being performed - where did you see it, Ian?

[Ian]

Shakespeare was performed to the masses. Early classical music wasn't.

I know this is often said, but I wonder how true is it? The main thing that doesn’t seem to stack up is that the composers and musicians involved in this music weren’t, typically, from the upper classes - they tended to come from the lower classes. It's hard to see how this could this have come about if the music they made was only ever heard by the upper classes?

[MrGongGong]

I know this is often said, but I wonder how true is it? The main thing that doesn’t seem to stack up is that the composers and musicians involved in this music weren’t, typically, from the upper classes - they tended to come from the lower classes. It's hard to see how this could this have come about if the music they made was only ever heard by the upper classes?

Is it also hard to imagine how the lower classes never tasted fine wines even though they grew the grapes ?
or
Is it also hard to imagine how the lower classes now never go salmon fishing on the Tay when they drive the cars that take people there ?

[Ian]

Is it also hard to imagine how the lower classes never tasted fine wines even though they grew the grapes ?
or
Is it also hard to imagine how the lower classes now never go salmon fishing on the Tay when they drive the cars that take people there ?

But it's not the same thing - you can't actually provide the music without spending decades listening to it yourself. (not to mention the neighbours) Whereas you can be made to grow grapes without ever being given the opportunity to taste one.

[Ian]

I heard about it first from an Edward Seckerson review, I think, in Gramophone and on the basis of his enthusiam I bought the CD (this is when I was working) and with the help of the detailed booklet I grew to enjoy it - strange subject for a 'musical' though.

I wish I'd known that it was being performed - where did you see it, Ian?

I went to see it earlier this year in the vaults at the Southwark playhouse.

Very strange subject for a musical - less so for an Opera perhaps...

It was recommended to me by one of the musicians in the band. I was nearly put off by reading about the bluegrass influence but I’m really glad I made the effort - I thought it was marvelous.

I’m also really glad I’ve come across someone else who knows this piece, because I do find it frustrating that it seems so little known (the penultimate performance I went to wasn’t exactly full)

I felt that this was exactly the sort of thing many R3 listeners would value, but, because of the labelling, would be unlikely to come across. I’m glad to find that perhaps I needn't have been so pessimistic.