8 ms·

What is their criteria for selection? Are they working from the idea of a published piece of music that could be performed by any symphony, quartet, choral gro

by dwd 7y ago

What is their criteria for selection? Are they working from the idea of a published piece of music that could be performed by any symphony, quartet, choral group, etc? Or is about what instruments it is for? I'm just not clear on what their definition of "classical" music is.

eeronen 7y ago
Classical music as a genre is quite hard to define. Especially if you try to find some clear boundaries of where classical ends and jazz begins. That is the case for basically every genre. Personally I would try to approach it like this: If it needs the particular band/artist to play it live, it's not classical, if it can be played by anyone with the notes and still be considered the same as hearing the original, it's classical. I think the free dictionary puts it well: > In technical musical usage this means music composed during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, characterized by the development of the sonata by such composers as Mozart. In popular use, however, the term is used to mean any serious art music as distinct from jazz, pop, or folk. Looking at the article, I think their definition is based on the instruments used and the form of the piece (there's a whole lot of operas there).
- analog31 7y ago
  I think this raises a good point about separating the composer and performer. It's almost like a symbiosis. If you're a composer, and you want there to be any chance of someone performing your work in a live setting, then you have to stay within certain parameters. If you're a musician, you're looking for interesting material that you can play on your instrument without getting killed. There are other practical concerns such as being able to hire from a pool of musicians who can all do similar work. So it leads to a large repertoire that is hard to define in a formal sense, but develops similarities out of practical necessity. There are other examples as well. The string quartet and the "big band" of jazz, where a particular instrumentation and performance setting guarantees a limitless supply of repertoire for the musicians, and a hope of getting performed for the composer or arranger. I play in a "big band."
sammorrowdrums 7y ago
Your confusion is completely right. The genre classical has an almost insanely wide meaning. It originally only meant music from the Classical Period of 1720 to 1820, then Romantic music after that, and thus everything you describe above ought to be termed contemporary music (and is usually called something like that as a sub-genre). There is a marketing explanation which is often the easiest definition to use, which is that labels have to box music into genres to sell and so they do, and get to decide if music should be pitched as classical. Beyond using vaguely reminiscent ensembles, forms and orchestration then I guess the focus on the composer is probably the next main thing. It is not a consistent definition though, where film composer John Williams gets called classical because of the aesthetic and influences and orchestration but then show music is not counted because for some reason its use of song forms and aesthetic is just not right, despite using mostly classical music orchestration... Although there are classical pieces that are quite like show music. Like "The Trout" by Schubert (which comes under Programme Music which is also frowned upon as low tier by many music snobs). So I can only really conclude that it's essentially the domain of marketers, critics and snobs to determine which artfully composed music deserves to be acknowledged as "classical" in the modern day and I think essentially the definition is "something that somebody collating new classical music for the Guardian / anyone bold enough to claim they define it thinks deserves the title". Classical music is in the eye of the beholder.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Your confusion is completely right. The genre classical has an almost insanely wide meaning. To pundits, not to the common man, for which it means "mostly artsy stuff done with acoustic instruments by conservatory trained composers and performed and their like". Heck, for the common man even the distinction "classical", "romantic" etc doesn't mean anything, Bach and Mahler is all classical, and even for my brother and their folks (classically trained professional orchestra musicians), the term "classical" is thrown around for all this repertoire. It's just anything with "serious" trained composers, and (mostly) real instruments by conservatory players. Jazz and experimental works, like Xenakis or Stockhausen are excluded from called "classical" though, where e.g. a Phillip Glass piece would be included (but in that case, there's the "minimalist" branding which prevails). In any, case since the article talks about modern works (21st century or so), it has probably this meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_classical_music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_classical_music
coldtea 7y ago
>I'm just not clear on what their definition of "classical" music is. It's the casual definition of classical music. Music played by musicians trained in classical repertoire, with mostly conventional instruments (violins, cellos, pianos), choruses, etc. The criteria is that they suggest some pieces (there are no objective criteria, like "it has to be German" or "it has to have the viola"), and that they're modern works. The established term for the kind of music they include (for works from early-mid 20th century and upwards) is usually "contemporary classical music". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_classical_music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_classical_music No jazz, pop, electronica, funk, swing, salsa, afrobeat, hop jop, and so on.
guiriduro 7y ago
Good question - I doubt there is a complete formal definition of what 'classical' music is. I remember an analogous explanation of the "institutional" theory of art - as being whatever someone of the artworld offers for consideration as art[1]. Same for the subject of (generally regarded) aficionados of the modern "classical music"-world I would guess; or indeed, any genre. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art
em-bee 7y ago
i once listened to a talk where the speaker argued that classical music per se does not exist. and i believe he is right. what we think of as classical music is very much defined by how it is played. the choice of instruments etc. many film scores sound like classical music, but they surely aren't. heck even heavy metal sounds like classic if played by a string quartet. and i bet you wouldn't immideately recognize a classical piece if played by a rock band.

by dwd 7y ago

eeronen 7y ago

Classical music as a genre is quite hard to define. Especially if you try to find some clear boundaries of where classical ends and jazz begins. That is the case for basically every genre. Personally I would try to approach it like this: If it needs the particular band/artist to play it live, it's not classical, if it can be played by anyone with the notes and still be considered the same as hearing the original, it's classical. I think the free dictionary puts it well: > In technical musical usage this means music composed during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, characterized by the development of the sonata by such composers as Mozart. In popular use, however, the term is used to mean any serious art music as distinct from jazz, pop, or folk. Looking at the article, I think their definition is based on the instruments used and the form of the piece (there's a whole lot of operas there).

analog31 7y ago
I think this raises a good point about separating the composer and performer. It's almost like a symbiosis. If you're a composer, and you want there to be any chance of someone performing your work in a live setting, then you have to stay within certain parameters. If you're a musician, you're looking for interesting material that you can play on your instrument without getting killed. There are other practical concerns such as being able to hire from a pool of musicians who can all do similar work. So it leads to a large repertoire that is hard to define in a formal sense, but develops similarities out of practical necessity. There are other examples as well. The string quartet and the "big band" of jazz, where a particular instrumentation and performance setting guarantees a limitless supply of repertoire for the musicians, and a hope of getting performed for the composer or arranger. I play in a "big band."

sammorrowdrums 7y ago

Your confusion is completely right. The genre classical has an almost insanely wide meaning. It originally only meant music from the Classical Period of 1720 to 1820, then Romantic music after that, and thus everything you describe above ought to be termed contemporary music (and is usually called something like that as a sub-genre). There is a marketing explanation which is often the easiest definition to use, which is that labels have to box music into genres to sell and so they do, and get to decide if music should be pitched as classical. Beyond using vaguely reminiscent ensembles, forms and orchestration then I guess the focus on the composer is probably the next main thing. It is not a consistent definition though, where film composer John Williams gets called classical because of the aesthetic and influences and orchestration but then show music is not counted because for some reason its use of song forms and aesthetic is just not right, despite using mostly classical music orchestration... Although there are classical pieces that are quite like show music. Like "The Trout" by Schubert (which comes under Programme Music which is also frowned upon as low tier by many music snobs). So I can only really conclude that it's essentially the domain of marketers, critics and snobs to determine which artfully composed music deserves to be acknowledged as "classical" in the modern day and I think essentially the definition is "something that somebody collating new classical music for the Guardian / anyone bold enough to claim they define it thinks deserves the title". Classical music is in the eye of the beholder.

coldtea 7y ago
>Your confusion is completely right. The genre classical has an almost insanely wide meaning. To pundits, not to the common man, for which it means "mostly artsy stuff done with acoustic instruments by conservatory trained composers and performed and their like". Heck, for the common man even the distinction "classical", "romantic" etc doesn't mean anything, Bach and Mahler is all classical, and even for my brother and their folks (classically trained professional orchestra musicians), the term "classical" is thrown around for all this repertoire. It's just anything with "serious" trained composers, and (mostly) real instruments by conservatory players. Jazz and experimental works, like Xenakis or Stockhausen are excluded from called "classical" though, where e.g. a Phillip Glass piece would be included (but in that case, there's the "minimalist" branding which prevails). In any, case since the article talks about modern works (21st century or so), it has probably this meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_classical_music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_classical_music

coldtea 7y ago

>I'm just not clear on what their definition of "classical" music is. It's the casual definition of classical music. Music played by musicians trained in classical repertoire, with mostly conventional instruments (violins, cellos, pianos), choruses, etc. The criteria is that they suggest some pieces (there are no objective criteria, like "it has to be German" or "it has to have the viola"), and that they're modern works. The established term for the kind of music they include (for works from early-mid 20th century and upwards) is usually "contemporary classical music". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_classical_music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_classical_music No jazz, pop, electronica, funk, swing, salsa, afrobeat, hop jop, and so on.

guiriduro 7y ago

Good question - I doubt there is a complete formal definition of what 'classical' music is. I remember an analogous explanation of the "institutional" theory of art - as being whatever someone of the artworld offers for consideration as art[1]. Same for the subject of (generally regarded) aficionados of the modern "classical music"-world I would guess; or indeed, any genre. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art

em-bee 7y ago

i once listened to a talk where the speaker argued that classical music per se does not exist. and i believe he is right. what we think of as classical music is very much defined by how it is played. the choice of instruments etc. many film scores sound like classical music, but they surely aren't. heck even heavy metal sounds like classic if played by a string quartet. and i bet you wouldn't immideately recognize a classical piece if played by a rock band.