5 ms·

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 t

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
- marzell 7y ago
  I like how there are some standout musicians whose catalogs could put a serious litmus test to any definition of 'classical' that one might suggest. People like Bela Fleck and Chris Thile... Some of their music is definitely classical, and some definitely not, and some in huge grey areas that would defy definition regardless if whether the basis is on compositional style or instrumentation/orchestration.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  Xenakis and Stockhausen definitely count as contemporary classical. It's actually about lineage. Contemporary classical sells itself on the basis that there's a direct academic - sometimes historical - link to Beethoven, who was the prototypical Genius Composer. Which is why you usually get all the stock tropes - concert halls, serious audiences in seats listening very intently, serious clothes for the players, a serious conductor at the front, clapping at the end only, definitely no cheering or dancing - that also apply to traditional classical music concerts. It's also about intellectual content. Pop doesn't usually try to justify itself intellectually. Contemporary classical does nothing but. Which is why it's a long series of "isms" of various kinds, all making more or less convincing claims about their own immense cultural importance. You don't get points for writing interesting music, you get points for creating a new "ism" - preferably an "important" one - and then writing music around it. The committed audience is actually tiny - five figures globally, if that - so "important" is debatable. Even so - the idea that contemporary classical is "important", with the implication that other music isn't, is probably the key to the genre.
  - raptorraver 7y ago
    Former classical music composer here. Your analysis is quite spot on. Some people in classical music scene even call it ”serious music”.
    - sammorrowdrums 7y ago
      Yeah these labels are fascinating. I studied jazz at a conservatoire and also played in the "classical" Contemporary Music Ensemble which played a lot of this difficult to define art music. And there was the amusing rift between popular, jazz and classical students in terms of what music was about and later working as a session player of sorts I used to laugh (internally) playing jazz sets with some function bands because they didn't play any "actual jazz" and didn't play it "properly" and yet nobody else would even notice. It's fun to debate music and genre definition, genre lacking enough nuance to even work effectively for lots of music. If I recall Soweto Kinch (UK rapper and sax player) had difficulties with record stores putting him in jazz, and ideally he'd wanted to be in urban sections also. For musicians and composers I think genre definition is more of a necessary evil than something helpful.
dwd 7y ago
Personally I listen to the likes of Hans Zimmer, Jesper Kyd, Garath Coker, Ramin Djawadi, Michael Giacchino, etc when I'm looking for orchestral/symphonic instrumental music. I don't think you could call them studio musicians - which was how John Williams started out (working for Mancini) but I can't imagine them fitting what is considered "classical" at the Guardian.
- tunesmith 7y ago
  With those composers, I think it depends on if you are listening to music that is intended to stand alone, or if it was originally intended to support a film work. Even there the line can get a little blurry. There is music by John Williams that is definitely on the classical concert circuit, like the Emperor Theme, but even then the form is different than what you hear in the film. I believe Zimmer has some music lifted out that stands alone. But even then, music still might only make it to Pops concerts rather than the standard repertoire. Another example, I used to listen to Elfman's original Batman soundtrack a lot - but you can tell it's much more wandering and moody than standard classical music. But just because a piece of music is programmatic doesn't mean it's not classical. Beethoven's 6th symphony is a great example. If you go back and watch Disney's original Fantasia, that's a good example of the difference between music that supports film, versus music that stands alone - in Fantasia's case, the film was structured to support the music. There's definitely good classical music out there that has a pleasing "sweep" to it like film music. Maybe sometime get out the headphones, sit back, and listen to the first movement of Sibelius' 5th symphony. I like the Bernstein version most.
  - dwd 7y ago
    I think were Prokofiev, Dvorak, Wagner, etc around thee days they would probably be writing film soundtracks. I find William's The Asteroid Field to be the pinnacle of musical storytelling. It hooks into the action (tight and fast through the chase scenes and then soars with the escape) but is also interleaved with each character's motif. The soundtrack version stands alone very well. On the video game side: Garath Coker's Ori and the Blind Forest is quite cohesive and listenable without knowing anything about the game. Spotify can take you down some interesting rabbit holes of discovery.
te_chris 7y ago
You are right, but you're nit-picking a bit, I think, given the widespread popular usage of the term as a descriptor for orchestral and chamber musics. When I was at music school we called it Western Art Music, which I think is a more appropriate term.
wisty 7y ago
The same is true of most genres of music that were really popular during a specific time period. Punk rock arguably was constrained to the late 70s, but you can still find artists who are arguably punk rock. Genres are a fuzzy classification and time periods are not really the best way to nail down a genre. I guess it sort of works to identify the start of a genre (if you ignore a couple of outliers like Gesualdo who was doing Chromaticism waaaay back in the Renaissance period) since artists copy each other (and copy general trends), and technology / theory can also be a component. I guess you can tentatively identify a beginning of an artistic movement. But an artistic movement only really dies when no-one cares about it, at which point no-one really cares when it finished.

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

marzell 7y ago
I like how there are some standout musicians whose catalogs could put a serious litmus test to any definition of 'classical' that one might suggest. People like Bela Fleck and Chris Thile... Some of their music is definitely classical, and some definitely not, and some in huge grey areas that would defy definition regardless if whether the basis is on compositional style or instrumentation/orchestration.
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
Xenakis and Stockhausen definitely count as contemporary classical. It's actually about lineage. Contemporary classical sells itself on the basis that there's a direct academic - sometimes historical - link to Beethoven, who was the prototypical Genius Composer. Which is why you usually get all the stock tropes - concert halls, serious audiences in seats listening very intently, serious clothes for the players, a serious conductor at the front, clapping at the end only, definitely no cheering or dancing - that also apply to traditional classical music concerts. It's also about intellectual content. Pop doesn't usually try to justify itself intellectually. Contemporary classical does nothing but. Which is why it's a long series of "isms" of various kinds, all making more or less convincing claims about their own immense cultural importance. You don't get points for writing interesting music, you get points for creating a new "ism" - preferably an "important" one - and then writing music around it. The committed audience is actually tiny - five figures globally, if that - so "important" is debatable. Even so - the idea that contemporary classical is "important", with the implication that other music isn't, is probably the key to the genre.
- raptorraver 7y ago
  Former classical music composer here. Your analysis is quite spot on. Some people in classical music scene even call it ”serious music”.
  - sammorrowdrums 7y ago
    Yeah these labels are fascinating. I studied jazz at a conservatoire and also played in the "classical" Contemporary Music Ensemble which played a lot of this difficult to define art music. And there was the amusing rift between popular, jazz and classical students in terms of what music was about and later working as a session player of sorts I used to laugh (internally) playing jazz sets with some function bands because they didn't play any "actual jazz" and didn't play it "properly" and yet nobody else would even notice. It's fun to debate music and genre definition, genre lacking enough nuance to even work effectively for lots of music. If I recall Soweto Kinch (UK rapper and sax player) had difficulties with record stores putting him in jazz, and ideally he'd wanted to be in urban sections also. For musicians and composers I think genre definition is more of a necessary evil than something helpful.

dwd 7y ago

Personally I listen to the likes of Hans Zimmer, Jesper Kyd, Garath Coker, Ramin Djawadi, Michael Giacchino, etc when I'm looking for orchestral/symphonic instrumental music. I don't think you could call them studio musicians - which was how John Williams started out (working for Mancini) but I can't imagine them fitting what is considered "classical" at the Guardian.

tunesmith 7y ago
With those composers, I think it depends on if you are listening to music that is intended to stand alone, or if it was originally intended to support a film work. Even there the line can get a little blurry. There is music by John Williams that is definitely on the classical concert circuit, like the Emperor Theme, but even then the form is different than what you hear in the film. I believe Zimmer has some music lifted out that stands alone. But even then, music still might only make it to Pops concerts rather than the standard repertoire. Another example, I used to listen to Elfman's original Batman soundtrack a lot - but you can tell it's much more wandering and moody than standard classical music. But just because a piece of music is programmatic doesn't mean it's not classical. Beethoven's 6th symphony is a great example. If you go back and watch Disney's original Fantasia, that's a good example of the difference between music that supports film, versus music that stands alone - in Fantasia's case, the film was structured to support the music. There's definitely good classical music out there that has a pleasing "sweep" to it like film music. Maybe sometime get out the headphones, sit back, and listen to the first movement of Sibelius' 5th symphony. I like the Bernstein version most.
- dwd 7y ago
  I think were Prokofiev, Dvorak, Wagner, etc around thee days they would probably be writing film soundtracks. I find William's The Asteroid Field to be the pinnacle of musical storytelling. It hooks into the action (tight and fast through the chase scenes and then soars with the escape) but is also interleaved with each character's motif. The soundtrack version stands alone very well. On the video game side: Garath Coker's Ori and the Blind Forest is quite cohesive and listenable without knowing anything about the game. Spotify can take you down some interesting rabbit holes of discovery.

te_chris 7y ago

You are right, but you're nit-picking a bit, I think, given the widespread popular usage of the term as a descriptor for orchestral and chamber musics. When I was at music school we called it Western Art Music, which I think is a more appropriate term.

wisty 7y ago

The same is true of most genres of music that were really popular during a specific time period. Punk rock arguably was constrained to the late 70s, but you can still find artists who are arguably punk rock. Genres are a fuzzy classification and time periods are not really the best way to nail down a genre. I guess it sort of works to identify the start of a genre (if you ignore a couple of outliers like Gesualdo who was doing Chromaticism waaaay back in the Renaissance period) since artists copy each other (and copy general trends), and technology / theory can also be a component. I guess you can tentatively identify a beginning of an artistic movement. But an artistic movement only really dies when no-one cares about it, at which point no-one really cares when it finished.