What is classical music?

We had what's music, but what makes it classical?

I am very battled with this question, and i came up with a hundred possible answers, but i want to hear yours.

I think there are lot of different interpretations; 'officially' the classical period in music comes between the European baroque and romantic periods, about mid 18th to mid 19th century, or Haydn to Beethoven as it were, but few people use the term in that strict a sense.

I'd use it generally (unless having a technical discussion on say classical vs baroque) to include everything in the Western tradition from the renaissance up to mid-20th century at least, and even later with the possible addition of a 'modern' prefix.

I think most people would probably use the same general blanket coverage?

Of course it's also used as a 'high art' marker - ie as opposed to pop music; it is becoming increasing difficult to justify the division, but the one I use (in my head) is complexity - 'classical' (and not pop) music is generally of a greater complexity, not just in length but in tonality, thematic ideas, harmony etc. Generally I said!

just 2pworth off the top of my head.

Adam.

Today, I'd make a distinction between popular music and art music. "Modern classical" is not a term I'd ever use.

Today, I'd make a distinction between popular music and art music. "Modern classical" is not a term I'd ever use.

A very wide term there... popular music - ok, we know aobut that, but is there something between the popular and art? And are you saying that classical music = art music?

I think the term "modern classical" does have a use. Take the music of Karl Jenkins, for example. Many elements of his music are derived from classical music, yet there are also elements which are derived from popular music and film music. To me, pretty much any composer these days who doesn't compose anything obviously categorised as popular music has to come up with something vaguely "popular", otherwise they won't make any money.

Harking back to the early 20th century, composers like Schoenberg wrote very modern music which was often hated, and more mainstream music which was often loved. Was the latter "popular" music at the time? Despite attracting great praise with his tonal work, Schoenberg was nonetheless saddened that his other more cutting edge compositions were rejected.

I appear to have rambled. Excuse me.

Mozart wrote pop music

Just thought i'd share that

Mozart wrote pop music

Just thought i'd share that

Well, he did but not all the time, you must agree.

If he didn't write "pop" he would have starved (wich is funny cause he practicaly did).

Not that there's anything wrong with writing both art music and popular music. Most of Gershwin's output was pop, but he also wrote some very good art music.

Very interesting question! Wikipedia answers this as "Classical music is the music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of Western liturgical and secular music, encompassing a broad period from roughly the 9th century to present times" Perhaps the term "classical" in my opinion refers to the old orchestral music which uses instruments like piano, violin, flute but not guitar, drums and electronic devices. Although I am not a pro, (I don’t even play an instrument, it's embarrassing), I love classical music, and I always found it a pity that only few people have found access to classical music and the great joy it can bring to our lives. That's why I have recently written an article on how to enable "newbies" an easy access to it. I posted it on my blog and would very much appreciate your comments and ideas on how to make it even easier for beginners to get to know classical music.

<a href=" http://www.spreadinghappiness.org/2009/10/a-guide-to-enjoy-classical-music-23-enabling-an-easy-entry/">A Guide to Enjoy Classical Music </a>

Would be great to hear from you!

Thank you,

Nick

^But, regarding orchestration, Edgard Varese, for example, used drums and electronic effects frequently, and plenty of composers used guitars! Some undoubtedly classical composers even used electric guitars! Now, some may not consider Varese strictly classical, but it certainly fits under art music. There's an exception to every rule, sometimes to the point at which the rules don't matter (considering that now many classical composers use electronics).

I would argue, as would many others, that classical or art music (more generally) is arbitrarily distinguished from popular music as a matter of convenience. In general, what we call classical music has...well, many of the traits listed above!

Well when discussing genres and history, it's important not to discuss and opine about these things in a vacuum; the same can be said about anything in a semi-historical context. I just have to say that cause the notion of "classical v. art v. pop" or whatever is pretty vague.

I just want to clear up misconceptions in this thread...

The Baroque era is generally considered to be from 1600-1750

The Classical era is generally 1750-1820

Romantic era 1820-1910ish?

Modernism 1890-????

Then there are sprouts of Neo-Classicism in the early 20th century in Europe and in the middle 20th century in America.

If you want to learn more about all that stuff, I really suggest reading a good book on the history of Western Music. By the way, I completely left out Medieval and Renaissance because, well, I'm definitely no expert when it comes to Western history pre-Enlightenment - not with music at least.

As with pop music, you can't really use that as a blanket term across epochs, it just doesn't work. It's more precise to refer to folk and dance music if you're talking about music of the lower class in pre-Industrialized Europe, or any other continent.

I'd say that classical music IS music from the historic periods you listed, hova. However, music today that is considered "classical music" is music in the style of that period. There should be a name for the latter: Modern classical, contemporary classical, or ... ?

I'd say that classical music IS music from the historic periods you listed, hova. However, music today that is considered "classical music" is music in the style of that period. There should be a name for the latter: Modern classical, contemporary classical, or ... ?

Depends, people outside of academia haven't really bothered to label any of it since it's so irrelevant to modern society. Modern or contemporary classical aren't very precise terms and people don't really use them. Maybe "modern symphonic" or "modern chamber music" perhaps.

Classical music can refer to music written within the Classic Period (1750, the death of Bach, to ~1820) or to music that is in a classical style. You can read Charles Rosen's The Classical Style for a good overview, but what tends to separate classical music from music of the Baroque is a lack of basso continuo, lack of a constant rhythmic spinning out (more periodic phrasing), and a switch (really an evolution) from ritornello form as the dominant formal structure to the use of the sonata principle. Classical music is separated from romantic music in that romantic music uses far more regular periodic phrases and the emphasis is on melody rather than harmonic development; a transformation of theme in romantic music usually substitutes for the harmonic interest of classical music. With that said, composers today can certainly write in a classical style, but I think many non-musicians make the mistake of lumping all concert music into the category of classical music. There are very few composers who are content to simply emulate the music of a given period, so even if a composer's music contains classical elements, it is unlikely that the music could be accurately labeled as "classical." Neoclassicism, on the other hand, is a phenomenon that began in the middle of the first half of the 20th century and involved composers looking back to classical forms and themes, but this is a term most often applied to some Stravinsky pieces and I rarely hear it used as a label for contemporary music that takes elements from the classical style.

I just want to clear up misconceptions in this thread...

The Baroque era is generally considered to be from 1600-1750

The Classical era is generally 1750-1820

Romantic era 1820-1910ish?

Modernism 1890-????

Then there are sprouts of Neo-Classicism in the early 20th century in Europe and in the middle 20th century in America.

But it should be noted that those numbers are of course not really agreed upon universally. Especially concerning the Romantic and Modern "eras", I've learned some completely different things myself, Romanticism being set to about 1815-1855, and the beginning of Modernism set by some to the early 19th century, by others to a similar time as you mentioned.

It should also be noted that those terms are not primarily based on specific musical developments, but are more based on certain cultural/sociological "mindsets" that are behind this music. I.e. they are not primarily based on what a certain music "sounds like", but rather on the cultural background the music was composed in. Elements like the doctrine of affections and the unity of affects are therefore much more central to the classification of a piece of music as "baroque" than, say, the use of certain instruments or formal patterns. But of course those underlying cultural ideas have a great influence on how the music -sounds- as well, so that of course we often -can- make a relatively clear classification based on "how it sounds". We just have to be careful not to make too quick judgements based on such first impressions alone.

Most of these terms also aren't inherently musical, but came from other areas first (such as literature, architecture, etc.) and were later applied to music as well, which also means that their definitions, when applied to music, are often a bit more ambiguous than in the areas they are originally derived from.

Depends, people outside of academia haven't really bothered to label any of it since it's so irrelevant to modern society. Modern or contemporary classical aren't very precise terms and people don't really use them. Maybe "modern symphonic" or "modern chamber music" perhaps.

Well, personally I've heard "contemporary classical" far more often than "modern symphonic". But you're right of course, there aren't any clear and well-defined terms. In German, that's slightly different, with the term "Neue Musik" (note the capitalised "N") being relatively standardised and widely used and connected to certain prejudices and clichés. Not that I love the term, mind you…

I'd rather not use any such term in the first place, but people ask me what kind of music I'm writing and I have to tell them something.

I just want to clear up misconceptions in this thread...

The Baroque era is generally considered to be from 1600-1750

The Classical era is generally 1750-1820

Romantic era 1820-1910ish?

Modernism 1890-????

Then there are sprouts of Neo-Classicism in the early 20th century in Europe and in the middle 20th century in America.

Correction... I'm just going to put it out there.

Modernism 1890-1980

There's no point in debating whether Modernism is still around... the general census of the forum is that music isn't written to be modern but rather written to be experienced. We're beyond modernism in music at this point, or at least we should be.

There's no point in debating whether Modernism is still around... the general census of the forum is that music isn't written to be modern but rather written to be experienced. We're beyond modernism in music at this point, or at least we should be.

You know, I often feel quite "nostalgically modernist". I think it's about time for Neo-Modernism!

Classical Music= European (Eurocentric) Art and Religious Music.

True revolutions in music history occur it seems every 400 - 500 years.

Since Christianity has had an immense influence on this music we need to consider the reports of Christ's teaching and the rise of the Christ "cult" in the 1st and 2nd century of the Roman Empire as the first revolution.

The second would be the codification of Gregorian Chant 6th and 7th century and the consequences of such codification

The third would be the change from writing generally for human voices to musical instruments and the rise of basso contiuo in the late 16th and 17th century.

So, according to my hypothesis we are undergoing another big revolution - the rise of music for electronics or electronic instruments and the move away from Gregorian Chant (Vatican II) and the reactions to Vatician II.

In sum, changes in our music seem to be influenced far more by technology and geopolitics than how often composers move to a flat VI or employed dominant 7th. The latter are rather the signs of change rather than the source and true nature of the change.

I just want to clear up misconceptions in this thread...

The Baroque era is generally considered to be from 1600-1750

The Classical era is generally 1750-1820

Romantic era 1820-1910ish?

Modernism 1890-????

Then there are sprouts of Neo-Classicism in the early 20th century in Europe and in the middle 20th century in America.

*Modernism is about 1910 and on... and surely it doesn't compete with Romantic?

Also before the Baroque era, they actually wrote "cool" music, so to speak. It sounded more like the music written today, but somehow it isn't. There was a lot of choral music, and they had quite a few drums, recorder type things, and lutes. Also, much of it is in F# major.

I suppose you could say this is the modern era, but there are still some people who like to write in a "old style".. This is quite a mixed era!

You know, I often feel quite "nostalgically modernist". I think it's about time for Neo-Modernism!

I refuse. Modernism was the bane of my existence in academia. I'd be quite satisfied if I never had to write in that idiom again...

Don't take that to mean I don't want others to write in that idiom. If that's what satisfies your musical exploration, have at it. I'm perfectly content writing in my pseudo-incidental idiom, thank you very much :)

Just so there's no confusion, I don't write in that idiom because it's 'popular' or 'marketable'. Quite frankly, I enjoy writing in that idiom as well as listening to my finished products. And if that's why you enjoy writing modernist works (or something to that effect) then I hope that's the reason you want to write in that idiom.

Oh, you are misunderstanding me. I don't wish to compose as if we still lived in 1950 - as much as I don't wish to compose as if we lived in 1700. I find the developments that led to the dissolution of a modernist dogma very important and I consider them developments that have enriched our musical culture a great deal. I certainly prefer the current musical culture to the academia of the 1950s.

I also have no desire to "compose in a modernist idiom". I don't do that and I don't even really know what this idiom would be.

It's just that I can relate very well to certain ideas of modernism and I still find them relevant for my musical endeavors today. Most notably the idea of musical exploration, of discovering aspects of music that are still unknown to me, but also believing in the beauty of structures as inherent values, and the strong desire to follow a directed and thought-through idea/concept throughout a composition, rather than just mixing together "what sounds cool". And while I do appreciate these concepts, I still appreciate being able to follow them today, in today's cultural environment, with all the questions and doubts about certain modernist tendencies being present and accepted. (Because I -do- share a lot of these doubts.)

I also admire certain aspects of a lot of different music, of other times and other cultures. But that doesn't mean I want our whole culture to change to that thing.

Stravinsky composed Neo-Classical music - but I doubt he actually wished to live in Mozart's time.

Simply put, we agree on this, Gardener. I don't think there's any misunderstanding taking place here. We're essentially saying the same thing, we're just using different words.

I personally don't think its the era that makes a piece classical no more then the era makes a piece modern. What we consider classical, romantic, baroque, renaissance, its all just labels, back during those time periods what they wrote WAS the modern music.

However all those eras have one thing in common...voice leading. That's pretty much what distinguishes "classical" from "modern" music. Everything else from counterpoint, to form, to harmony, to melody, every other aspect of music that you can possibly think of, these all exist in the "modern" idiom as well as the "classical. What makes it different from "classical" is the voice leading involved. And that's pretty much it.

I personally don't think its the era that makes a piece classical no more then the era makes a piece modern. What we consider classical, romantic, baroque, renaissance, its all just labels, back during those time periods what they wrote WAS the modern music.

However all those eras have one thing in common...voice leading. That's pretty much what distinguishes "classical" from "modern" music. Everything else from counterpoint, to form, to harmony, to melody, every other aspect of music that you can possibly think of, these all exist in the "modern" idiom as well as the "classical. What makes it different from "classical" is the voice leading involved. And that's pretty much it.

Are you saying that "modern" works contain no voice-leading or that the voice-leading is just 'different'?

I almost agree with you, just need the clarification.

Are you saying that "modern" works contain no voice-leading or that the voice-leading is just 'different'?

I almost agree with you, just need the clarification.

Hmmm...yeah probaly should have clarified that. "Modern" music has different voice leading then "classical" music does. The main difference that most people are familiar with is the rule of parallel fifths and octaves. There are other differences such as how chord inversions are used, but the main one is the rule of fifths and octaves. Also "classical" voice leading tends to be smooth, connected, and coherant, while "modern" voice leading can be, if it wishes, jagged, disjointed, and sparky.