Thread: In a 100 years time...

To be an 'antique' an item needs to be at least 100 years old so I'm wondering how long does it take for a contemporary composer to become a 'classical' one. Following on from that, the death of John Barry's got me thinking about which post-WW2 composers might become as highly rated as say the next tier below LvB, Bach, Mozart and whoever else you reckon ranks alongside them. Might 'classic' film scores become as celebrated in their own right as the great Classical and Romantic symphonies?. And while I'm here what do you reckon of Einaudi, Karl Jenkins etc.

are you talking about Ludovico Einaudi? Lady Gaga is better

haha.

I quite like Telephone and Dance in the Dark by Lady Gaga but nothing else, but that probably does beat Einaudi right now. Admittedly I haven't heard that much Einaudi but I haven't really felt the need to.

I don't think anyone probably ranks alongside the 3 you mention in the 20th century. But that's ok as it hasn't been about big individuals for me so much as the large number of different composers from all over who have done good music.

The age an object needs to be to be considered 'antique' varies according to the object concerned. Sometimes as little as 50 years old is old enough.

Age has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a composer can be considered classical. 'Classical' music ('western art music' would be a more useful term, perhaps) is music that is written according to norms, conventions and traditions dating back a thousand years. This is sometimes referred to as 'common practice'. The genre of a piece of music has NOTHING to do with its age or the instruments it is played on; it is the STYLE of the music that matters.

John Barry wrote film and TV music. Very good film and TV music, I admit, but it will NEVER be classical - even in 200 years from now. Why? Because 'classical' music relies on the complex and ordered manipulation of its musical material. By its very nature, film music can never achieve this (short clips composed to suit the action of a film, with little or no musical 'development'). A composer might arrange their film music into a symphonic context (such as Vaughan Williams' Sinfonia antartica, Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky or John Corigliano's Red Violin), but that is a different matter.

Ludovico Einaudi is a purveyor of cheap, cynical instrumental pop, despite his very impressive musical pedigree, and this music will also never be 'classical' - even if Classic fM broadcasts it.

Let's not mix-up the words classic and classical. Those two extra letters make a world of difference. There are jazz, rock and pop songs which are considered 'classics' of their genre that are only 30 years old or less. However, they are not and will never be classical.

There are some film composers that may be worthy of such thing but youre unlikely to see them in hollywood.

IMO this it the top-tier pantheon of post-war music:
Varese
Ligeti
Xenakis
Stockhausen
Boulez
Nono
Berio

Im sure there are composers I dont know of who will one day eclipse these much as Schubert did.

Some people would say I suppose that classical music develops and changes over time, so we have to look at it in a broader context including cross-over works. I would say Einaudi is more new age than classical though, and even then I've probably heard better new age.

Originally Posted by emiellucifuge

IMO this it the top-tier pantheon of post-war music:
Varese
Ligeti
Xenakis
Stockhausen
Boulez
Nono
Berio

My list of predictions would be quite similar. I may be tempted to detract Varese and possibly Stockhausen.

Film scores aren't classical compositions. Besides the fact that film scores only some of the time have classical influence (other times they're more influenced by jazz, pop, electronic, world etc), there is one huge factor the divides the two: money. Film music is (usually) written with the intent to sell a product, classical music is (usually) not. Classical composers are usually given a large amount of creative control, film composers are seldom given that. Nowadays the two genres have little relationship with each other, except that they sometimes use the same instruments, and film scores like to steal melodies from classical.

Also, for the people mentioning Varese, he isn't really a post WWII composer.

Well classical can mean music or something that is iconic.

Classical Music means any music composed in a classical style or using classical instruments. That is the common definition. Some people say it is only a certain era but this is usually being overly pedantic and out of context.

Since the film composer is already classically trained (or not) he is already a Classical Composer.

If his music is remembered, defining or innovative than it could become a classic.

100 years is a bit much. Classics are made well within a year. Look at the modern pop artists they come from no where and are known as classics.

Originally Posted by LordBlackudder

\
Since the film composer is already classically trained (or not) he is already a Classical Composer.

How would a film composer not being classically trained make him a classical composer? Either way I disagree. Often times when a pop artist says they're 'classically trained' it means they once played a Mozart sonata on the piano when taking lessons.

Originally Posted by Nix

How would a film composer not being classically trained make him a classical composer? Either way I disagree. Often times when a pop artist says they're 'classically trained' it means they once played a Mozart sonata on the piano when taking lessons.

The one thing that constantly baffles me on this forum is how the word 'pop' seems to be used to describe just about anything that isn't strictly "classical music."

I'm not accusing you of anything here, but what specifically do you mean by 'pop'?

Originally Posted by Nix

Film scores aren't classical compositions. Besides the fact that film scores only some of the time have classical influence (other times they're more influenced by jazz, pop, electronic, world etc), there is one huge factor the divides the two: money. Film music is (usually) written with the intent to sell a product, classical music is (usually) not. Classical composers are usually given a large amount of creative control, film composers are seldom given that. Nowadays the two genres have little relationship with each other, except that they sometimes use the same instruments, and film scores like to steal melodies from classical.

Why does classical music have to be defined so strictly? If that's the definition agreed upon by most classical aficionados, then that's fine I guess... <shrug>

...but I just don't understand why it matters so incredibly much.



Most aficionados of other genres don't seem to care nearly as much about where the exact borders of those genres are necessarily drawn. In the classical world is it vitally important for some reason to keep as many others out of the club as possible?

A "small-tent policy", so to speak?

Is it working?

Not a small tent, just quality control

Originally Posted by emiellucifuge

Not a small tent, just quality control

Exactly my thoughts.

And 'pop' means popular. Not all pop music is popular, but it's mostly all written with the intent to be popular. Often times written to sell, regardless of quality. And anything thats written to make money (in this day and age) probably isn't classical.

Originally Posted by Nix

And 'pop' means popular. Not all pop music is popular, but it's mostly all written with the intent to be popular.

But how? "Sell" as in "be appealing enough for people to pay to see concerts" of such music?

How many people is too many? How much does something have to sell (or have the "intent" to sell) for it to be considered 'pop'? Where do you draw the line?

Originally Posted by Nix

And anything thats written to make money (in this day and age) probably isn't classical.

But in previous eras, classical music was certainly written to make money, so when did that change, exactly? Where do you draw that line?

I'm hearing a lot of certainty from you, but I'm not hearing a lot of specificity.

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer

In the classical world is it vitally important for some reason to keep as many others out of the club as possible?

Classical, with a capital "c" refers to a specific period, just like Baroque and Romantic. That much is not ambiguous. Often else, classical, with a lower-case "c" without getting down to writing a thousand words by what that means exactly, is referred to by many, at least as far as the general public is concerned, to that whole bunch of music that sound ancient. It is a word I try not to use as often as possible in a forum like this. I much prefer to use "Classical" to describe the unambiguous period just like "Baroque", "Renaissance" etc.

As for whether the two hundred plus symphonies by Leif Segerstam (born 1944) or Justin Biber's songs are classical or not, I really couldn't care less because I don't have much interest in them. In short, I can say I love and listen to Classical music, which is meant to refer to that unambiguous period.