"Intrinsic" when applied to a category to me implies that a) these factors can be identified purely by observation of the work itself (i.e. without taking into account external factors such as country-of-origin or composition time), and b) without these factors, a work wouldn't belong in this category.
I also want to make it clear that music composed in the same period by composers working with a similar set of influences are likely to show significant stylistic similarities - but my position has been that calling these "intrinsic factors" is mixing the cause for the effect. They show these similarities because (to simplify things) we identify a period of interest and study music from it - we don't try to seek out all music which "sounds" a certain way and shove them all together - at least not as far as classical music is concerned.
I also think that the whole "shove everything before Bach into a big 'early music' box" thing is based less on musical analysis (because it's fairly obvious that pre-Bach music has an extraordinary amount of variety), and more based, as genres frequently are, on questions of marketing and demographics, i.e. if someone likes Palestrina records they might be interested in Josquin records, etc.
Um, modality vs. tonality and the intended and purposeful "new simplicity" of the galant style / classicist composers ARE intrinsic factors.possibly off-topic but also wanted to mention - while you can potentially identify certain genres of music which are based on intrinsic factors (such as electronic music), what you can't identify is why that genre exists in the first place. genres aren't just arbitrary things scholars make up - they can occur because there is an external reason to categorize music in such a way, be it sociological, historical, or even marketing-based.
"Electronic music" and "Music written in the key of C Minor": are both categories of music which are based on intrinsic properties of the music. Only one of these is a relevant genre, though, and that's because there are a number of reasons that "electronic music" is identified as its own category of interest, with its own history, set of cultural influences, culture of listeners, etc - and "music in C minor" is not.
No not quite - huge difference between "oh f, I need to complete this for my count boss - uh, I can get influenced by guy x and guy y then" and "this is our new artistic philosophy which we'll incorporate into music and adhere to in these following ways".Being conscious about adhering to the aesthetic ideals of your time is the definition of being influenced by your contemporaries, I would think.
I don't think the difference is as relevant as you make it to be. Also to be more clear, when I say "influenced by contemporaries", that might read better as "By peers", as one thing composers historically, and currently, love to do is comment on each other's music - including discussions about aesthetics.No not quite - huge difference between "oh f, I need to complete this for my count boss - uh, I can get influenced by guy x and guy y then" and "this is our new artistic philosophy which we'll incorporate into music and adhere to in these following ways".
The latter is a self-conscious adoption of a style, and "baroque" for one is primarily a stylistic definition - the word started out as a derisive term for the "convoluted" aesthetics of that period; also see the alternative term "basso continuo era".
Dude "your side" can't even make up your minds about what it is.What I get from those arguing that music composed for film can be classical is a superficial understanding of what classical music is.
You mean like Gesualdo or something?The implication of identifying stylistic similarities in a genre and taking these to be intrinsic identifiers of the genre I take is that if we identify a composer with strange ideas about aesthetics who didn't strictly adhere to the musical forms of their period, then it would be incorrect to call their music "baroque"/"Renaissance"/"medieval" et al, which I don't think I can support.
Sure there's inbetween-things on that spectrum - however the War of the Romantics, for instance, evolved into a much, much more organized tribal conflict between two factions, each with different ideals.I don't think the difference is as relevant as you make it to be. Also to be more clear, when I say "influenced by contemporaries", that might read better as "By peers", as one thing composers historically, and currently, love to do is comment on each other's music - including discussions about aesthetics.
It's genre. It can be defined by any which way, and is often poorly defined because they are socially constructed categories where the boundaries are frequently (though not always) not clear. This isn't localized to academics, or you've never heard a tedious argument about whether the Clash are "real Punk" or not.And as I just kept saying 3 times, you need separate terms for period / style anyway - if you pick "baroque" to be one of those, you still need another term for the other.
Or you'll end up with lots of confusion and miscommunication.
"discussion about each other's music" can include "totally trashing each other's music", which composers sometimes seemingly liked to do even more than composing itself. Plus ca change etc etcSure there's inbetween-things on that spectrum - however the War of the Romantics, for instance, evolved into a much, much more organized tribal conflict between two factions, each with different ideals.
It wasn't just a "oh, today I'll get influenced by this Progressive peer, and then maybe have a relaxed aesthetics discussion with that Conservative one, it's all so interesting!", certainly not during its peak.
Well jeez, nobody's forcing you to post.Jesus Christ what a pointless debate
Function is part of the equation, but so is artistic control and formal concerns. A composer writing a classical work writes differently than if he were writing music for a film.The problem I have with "it's not classical because it's subsumed to a function" is that this identifies a great deal of classical music, from liturgical music, to operas, to baroque tafelmusick, and even dance music.
Right!There is the inescapable fact that, assuming I'm not in some unique category, we know what classical music is because we listen to it, and we know that what we tchoose to listen to is, broadly speaking, called classical music.
I listen to it because I like how it sounds, not how, where or when it was written, or whether it is studied in music schools. I include under this label, Bach's organ music, symphonies by composers from the 1700s to the 1970s and piano works from Beethoven to Debussy (though that's obviously not all...I'm posting in a hurry).
... however I don't see what is the problem if we use the word "classical film music". @SanAntone asks me why is it so important for me to use this word (the reason is explained here above), but I relaunch with an other question: why is it so important for you that we don't use the word "classical film music"?However, I would still call film music, film music, not classical, regardless of whether it is composed in jazz, pop or classical styles.
Hm ok, if your point is that all these category labels aren't clearly defined in terms of whether they're based on style or instruments or place/time of creation, then the conclusion is that "this is a fruitless debate with no clear answer" isn't it?It's genre. It can be defined by any which way, and is often poorly defined because they are socially constructed categories where the boundaries are frequently (though not always) not clear. This isn't localized to academics, or you've never heard a tedious argument about whether the Clash are "real Punk" or not.
The objection I have isn't that someone might say the Vienna Philharmonic playing the theme to Star Wars is "classical music" (in fact, I think it is). It's that I don't think the idea of "this sounds like classical music, so it is" makes much sense because "sounds like classical music" isn't a concept that makes much sense under a slight amount of scrutiny.
Sure, although again I was talking about the difference between random acts of trashing, and organized, collective conflicts between sides that rally around particular sets of ideals or stylistics, and consciously see themselves that way."discussion about each other's music" can include "totally trashing each other's music", which composers sometimes seemingly liked to do even more than composing itself. Plus ca change etc etc
It was an observation - the impression was that things were going in circles.Well jeez, nobody's forcing you to post.
I like discussing the context of art because I find it a fascinating topic but if you don't want that, there are many other threads to post in.
The term "classical" has very little meaning to me except as a general orientation (such as when finding this forum) - there's a general conception of "things written between the Middle Ages and the early 20th century", particular traits they share, and various things created since then which have various common traits with those vs. differences;There is the inescapable fact that, assuming I'm not in some unique category, we know what classical music is because we listen to it, and we know that what we tchoose to listen to is, broadly speaking, called classical music.
If the point is to conclusively and scientifically determine whether or not film music is classical music, then yes.Hm ok, if your point is that all these category labels aren't clearly defined in terms of whether they're based on style or instruments or place/time of creation, then the conclusion is that "this is a fruitless debate with no clear answer" isn't it?
What's interesting is that this seems to be a phenomenon specific to this forum. It's not really something I've encountered in my circles, either outside or inside of the contemporary classical music world.Attempts to define classical music by aesthetic grounds have a habit (as they've done in film music threads in the past) of being used as an attempt to reject modernist classical music as not being classical music.
Yes, what would Beethoven or Brahms think of film music, and what would they think of composing film music?Function is part of the equation, but so is artistic control and formal concerns. A composer writing a classical work writes differently than if he were writing music for a film.
