What qualifies someone to be called a classical composer?

[french frank]

But I don't think that 'popular music' is used within popular music. It's just music isn't it? And basically that's what we're up against.

No, it isn't 'used' as a label. It's 'just music' because the vast majority of enthusiasts for the high profile 'popular' genres don't know anything else, but they can differentiate their sub-genres pretty well. I added my definition, based on what the word means. I use it as a general term which covers any type/style of music which appeals to large numbers: John Wilson's MGM musicals Prom is popular music, not because it's a sell-out concert but because it could sell out at the RAH, probably for a solid couple of weeks or more.

If the JWO tours regularly, with the 'MGM musicals' label - I'm sure it fills concert halls up and down the country. It doesn't need any other label like 'classical music'. A programme of well-known contemporary film music would probably go down well too, judging by CD sales. If there's a problem with this, I'm not sure where it is.

When I get the new season's programme from the Bristol Hippodrome, practically every week there is some sort of 'music show', either a classic musical or, more often now, shows like the one based round Abba songs (currently: Phantom of the Opera, (Strictly) Midnight Tango, The Lion King, That'll Be The Day, Motown's Greatest Hits ...). They too are popular. There may also be one paltry week (five performances, three operas) of the WNO, there may not, depending on the season (only one visit this year). Should Phantom of the Opera be included as one of the three operas we get, on the grounds that it's 'classical' music, like Mozart and Verdi? One more musical for the music theatre fans, one fewer opera for the opera fans?

In a commercial world 'popular music' - of all kinds - makes a lot of money, if you're among the ones who get on board successfully. What more will it gain by given what - apparently - some people think of as the 'accolade' of being called 'classical music'? [Meanwhile, in another part of the wood, another faction wants to do away with the label 'classical music' altogether ... Could a deal be struck here? How much would Mr Mackintosh or Lord LW pay for it? We can then slope off calling wot we like 'art music'.]

[Ian]

Ok so if Merzbow is a bit middle of the road for you
how about some Gorgoroth ?

(not for the squeamish !!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uk7Rg8RduM

You win. I surrender

I think I've got to the stage where I couldn't tell the difference between the real thing and a piss-take.

[french frank]

If by your imaginary schema, your >s presume some sort of interlinked association - and maybe I've read you wrong - I think that this is a problem that has been around in broadcasting "classical music" than what currently bedevils R3 presentation and scheduling.

Fifty years ago you could mention for example jazz as a peronal interest, and get a response such as "Oh you mean Acker Bilk?". If you then mentioned say Miles Davis, and went on to play some, the listener might then say, "Oh, is that jazz?" The problem is that today's recipient might still posit Acker Bilk as exemplifying what the term jazz signifies!

Imv that perception is a reflection of the paucity of definition accorded by broadcasters, in general, but specifically for purposes of this forum, Radio 3, to different areas of music - be they within "the Western concert music tradition", "the jazz tradition" or wherever.

I am increasingly tending towards Ferneyhoughgeliebte's views on this - his Msg 150 came like a great load off my shoulders this morning.

But I was trying to illustrate how his theory would work with music as with his painting example . The main conclusion I came to was that Fhg's view related to how music is presented - as in a TV programme, with the examples about Delft pottery &c which are purely educational programmes, rather than to actually listening to (classical) music. I agreed with him: programmes looking at the various styles which come under the 'umbrella' of classical music would serve effectively to educate. Classical music, in other words, equates with a succession of styles in painting; indeed the styles are parallel to a large extent.

It does make things clearer if people can say, 'I like French Impressionist paintings, I'm not keen on English 18th century stuff.' And it would similarly help if they knew enough to say, 'I love Baroque music but I'm not so keen on the late 19th c. big orchestral stuff.' But the problem is more complex with music for various reasons: it's now ubiquitous in its various forms in a way that paintings aren't. The visual arts appeal to people who have developed a general interest and want to learn more. I'm not sure that simply dispensing with a label like 'classical music' helps - unless you think that those most likely to be attracted to it are put off. What helps is for the information to be similarly ubiquitous, as the music is. And how do you get people to listen when so little is on television and they won't spontaneously go to a concert, don't want to go into the water until they can swim?

It isn't that I disagree with what you're saying - at all. But it seems to come up against the usual block: how do you persuade the educators (including the BBC) to educate?

I'm sure we could do a much better job than the BBC commissioners and producers: they just don't think it's worth doing.

[french frank]

BUT: It's not the music we're against it's the perception that classical music lies outside 'music' (i.e the term most people use to refer exclusively to pop music)

But what should 'classical' expect if the (unintentional effect) is to position itself outside 'music' (again in the sense that most people use the term to refer exclusively to pop music)

Where does that leave jazz and folk, if most people think 'music' is pop music?

[Ian]

Where does that leave jazz and folk, if most people think 'music' is pop music?

It matter not a jot - because next to Jazz and Folk Classical is huge.

[french frank]

It matter not a jot - because next to Jazz and Folk Classical is huge.

Indeed. Which makes the Amazon listings all the more strange:

http://www.amazon.ca/Styles-Music/b/ref=sv_m_1?ie=UTF8&node=962454

Do you think they could be persuaded to differentiate the various classical styles?

Mind you, would that a) just make the 'classical' label smaller, more precise and initially slightly puzzling?

and

b) would 'Romantic' music be a safe 'label'? Or would you classify under 'piano concertos', 'symphonies' rather than period?.


PS Don't click on the 'classical' link. I mean, just ... don't!

[Ian]

FWIW, I think television is completely the wrong medium for listening to music but a great medium for programmes about music.

There is loads of classical on sky though. (was that the right thing to say?)

[Ian]

No, presumably what you didn't do is click on the classical link - you then are given choices within the classical umbrella.

However, it's true that the advantage of not having the classical label is that this would then have to be replaced by a number of other labels thus increasing classical's footprint.

edit, oops I've just seen that you did click on the link. I think we must have seen different things. Loved the Canadian music category.