[fbjim]

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.

i mean i'm on one other big classical music discussion group (it's on Discord so it probably trends younger) and the only composer they seemingly talk about regularly is Scriabin. Go figure.

 

[mmsbls]

..."Quality of music" is the least falsifiable criteria that you can use to classify music, so it's ridiculous. It's a bit like if the scientists say that Pluto is not a planet because it's not nice.

The refusal of categories based on INTRINSIC PROPERTIES is basically the refusal of the scientific method and it signals the will of embracing dogmatic views.


Which are the INTRINSIC PROPERTIES which make classical music so? It's debatable and there is not necessarily an easy answer, but some users want to escape from this debate, so I'll go on with it with @Aries and @YusufeVirdayyLmao. Anyone who wants to contribute to this is welcomed: maybe the discussion will arrive to some sensible conclusions.
And no, don't tell me that classical music has not INTRINSIC PROPERTIES: if people are able to recognize it when they hear it, it means that it has INTRINSIC PROPERTIES.

Romantic music and baroque music have a connection, despite the differences.

Good luck determining a set of intrinsic properties that include all the following classical works and exclude works that are not considered classical.

Machaut - Messe de Nostre Dame
Mozart - Symphony No. 41
Stravinsky - The Rite of Spring
Boulez - Sonata No. 2 for Piano
Stockhausen - Stimmung

These works are included in Dubal's Essential Canon of Classical Music, the Naxos Music Library, and the Classical Net website. I would be shocked to learn of any music department that did not view these as classical. Incidentally, you've mentioned that you recognize classical music once you hear it. Do you think most people would recognize all those works as classical music?

You repeatedly use words like ridiculous, dogmatic, senselessness, snobbery, wishful thinking, and irrational to describe those who do not agree with your view. You have suggested that some opposing views would kill classical music and question the intelligence of the classical music world. I'm curious. Is there a minimum number of times you feel you must disparage your "opponents' " ideas before you will convince everyone of your view?

 

[composingmusic]

i mean i'm on one other big classical music discussion group (it's on Discord so it probably trends younger) and the only composer they seemingly talk about regularly is Scriabin. Go figure.

Interesting. I mean, this will shift depending on who you're hanging out with I suppose. Different groups of people that I come across enjoy different types of discussions, and this can be stimulating. However, I can't think of many people I've come across in real life who would insist that contemporary classical music somehow isn't classical music.

 

[Forster]

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.

For the avoidance of doubt, that is not my purpose. I wanted to explain that I know what I mean by the term CM because I know what l like to listen to, and I doubted there would be any disagreement over my choices. That doesn't mean I don't recognise as CM, umpteen other composers, most particularly from, say, the 1950s onwards working in the "avant-garde" and "modern" or "post modern" traditions (if that isn't a contradiction in terms). It's just that I choose not to listen to it, or to much of it on a regular basis.

 

[YusufeVirdayyLmao]

So, please, don't tell us that aesthetic is not important in classification: it's the fundamental point!

If the fifth symphony of Beethoven was composed as rock piece, and not with the aesthetic we all know, it wouldn't have attracted my interest.

Well aesthetics obviously includes "the way the notes were put together", at least in this context of contrasting it against "when and where was it created" or "what is known about the process behund it";

in this case that's a "classicism-->romanticism transitional work played by rock instruments (+characteristic expressions and drum figures etc.)", saying anything less than that would probably be reductive and miss some vital piece of basic info.

These instruments and figures/textures hadn't been invented at the time these notes were composed and their style was being formed, however they've been used to play notes of that style after they were invented.

As I stated, my point of objection is that a) "Sounds like classical music" isn't a term which makes a lot of sense past a very superficial level, and b) 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. In fact, in years past, this has gotten bad enough that people were posting about how it should not be discussed at all on this forum.

a) Ah well yeah, sure - unless there's very specific parallels between specific works that one can point out.

b) Well definitely not part of that whole thing lol

 

[YusufeVirdayyLmao]

Good luck determining a set of intrinsic properties that include all the following classical works and exclude works that are not considered classical.

Machaut - Messe de Nostre Dame
Mozart - Symphony No. 41
Stravinsky - The Rite of Spring
Boulez - Sonata No. 2 for Piano
Stockhausen - Stimmung

These works are included in Dubal's Essential Canon of Classical Music, the Naxos Music Library, and the Classical Net website. I would be shocked to learn of any music department that did not view these as classical. Incidentally, you've mentioned that you recognize classical music once you hear it. Do you think most people would recognize all those works as classical music?

Idk, many probably would?

However in case you're saying there isn't such a set, then I guess the definition is arbitrary, or stylistically irrelevant.

 

[mmsbls]

Idk, many probably would?

However in case you're saying there isn't such a set, then I guess the definition is arbitrary, or stylistically irrelevant.

I'm not sure either. Maybe the Boulez would be because people would not know where else to place it, but I wonder how many would view the Stockhausen as classical. I actually wonder how many would view it as music. The first time I heard it, I thought the singers were warming up well after the work began.

I believe there is no good definition based on intrinsic aspects of the music since those aspects are so incredibly varied. I agree that any such definition would be stylistically irrelevant.

 

[Luchesi]

Thanks for this assist.

Taxonomies in science are normally based on the INTRINSIC PROPERTIES of the objects.
The question regarding pluto has been put on the table different times in this discussion, but pluto has been expelled from the category of "planets" because a new definition of "planet" based on INTRINSIC PROPERTIES of astronomical objects has been created and Pluto doesn't have the INTRINSIC PROPERTIES which make it a planet.

The same is true for the example of tomatoes (an other one which has been put on the table in this discussion): are they fruits or vegetables? The scientists say that they are fruits and they can say so because the definition of "fruit" is based on determined INTRINSIC PROPERTIES which tomatoes have.

There are reasons if in science taxonomies are usually based on INTRINSIC PROPERTIES:
1) It's the most logical approach
2) It's falsifiable, because you can analyze the object to confirm that it's true that it has the INTRINSIC PROPERTIES which make it fall into the category XY

Now...



"Quality of music" is the least falsifiable criteria that you can use to classify music, so it's ridiculous. It's a bit like if the scientists say that Pluto is not a planet because it's not nice.

The refusal of categories based on INTRINSIC PROPERTIES is basically the refusal of the scientific method and it signals the will of embracing dogmatic views.


Which are the INTRINSIC PROPERTIES which make classical music so? It's debatable and there is not necessarily an easy answer, but some users want to escape from this debate, so I'll go on with it with @Aries and @YusufeVirdayyLmao. Anyone who wants to contribute to this is welcomed: maybe the discussion will arrive to some sensible conclusions.
And no, don't tell me that classical music has not INTRINSIC PROPERTIES: if people are able to recognize it when they hear it, it means that it has INTRINSIC PROPERTIES.

Romantic music and baroque music have a connection, despite the differences.

The tomato example should be about genetics and fossil evidence filling in the questions about the story of the evolution of tomatoes. Origins.
Helpful intrinsic properties (which ones or whatever you mean by that) are included later when the natural history is better understood (genetics and fossils). This is very interesting in the search for the early progenitors of angiosperms, because flowering plants were so rapidly successful and the earliest ones weren't successful/abundant so they left very little evidence comparatively. Fossilization is very rare. This angiosperm problem is being solved finally, but the 'intrinsic properties' mislead the research before genetic studies became available.

 

[Aries]

Good luck determining a set of intrinsic properties that include all the following classical works and exclude works that are not considered classical.

Machaut - Messe de Nostre Dame
Mozart - Symphony No. 41
Stravinsky - The Rite of Spring
Boulez - Sonata No. 2 for Piano
Stockhausen - Stimmung

Maybe like this:

Classical music fullfills at least 2 of the following 3 requirements:

• complexity
• non-electric sound generation
• no backbeat

 

[Forster]

Good luck determining a set of intrinsic properties that include all the following classical works and exclude works that are not considered classical.

Machaut - Messe de Nostre Dame
Mozart - Symphony No. 41
Stravinsky - The Rite of Spring
Boulez - Sonata No. 2 for Piano
Stockhausen - Stimmung

[...]

I'm sure someone must have made this point already and I had overlooked it but...

What these pieces have in common is not intrinsic, but they were all written by composers who had already been trained in, performed and written music in the "classical tradition". In other words, we've not paid sufficient attention to who did the composing.

In the case of Stimmung, for example, it was not written until 1968; Stockhausen had been studying and writing music since the late 40s/early 50s. By 1968, he had an established reputation as a composer of "classical music", even though it was at the more experimental end of the CM continuum.

Consequently, musical compositions that might not "sound like" CM have nevertheless been accepted as such (not necessarily by audiences) because the composer has an established pedigree in the CM world.

That prompts the question, are there any now-established composers of the avant-garde who have not come through the hallowed halls of the musical establishment?

 

[mikeh375]

That prompts the question, are there any now-established composers of the avant-garde who have not come through the hallowed halls of the musical establishment?

Yes, although Zappa learnt enough from a mainly autodidactic approach. He did not enter a conservatoire, nor did he need to.

 

[mikeh375]

Maybe like this:

Classical music fullfills at least 2 of the following 3 requirements:

• complexity
• non-electric sound generation
• no backbeat

....your second requirement eliminates one of the most influential institutes of the 20thC lol. Good luck with using that as a defining trait for a wider, encompassing definition of classical music.

L'Ircam

 

[Aries]

....your second requirement eliminates one of the most influential institutes of the 20thC lol. Good luck with using that as a defining trait for a wider, encompassing definition of classical music.

L'Ircam

I said it should only fullfill 2 of the 3 requirements.

Electric sound is not classical sound. It is the opposite. However if someone wants to make classical music with a deviating trait, that alone is probably not enough to detect it outside the genre, but it should still be counted as deviating. And if too many deviating traits come together, than we can state that it is not classical anymore.

Classical music is supposed to have high artistic ambitions, that is why simplicity is deviating.
Classical music is supposed to have a classical sound, that is why electric sound is deviating.
Classical music is supposed to focus on more than entertaining, that is why backbeat is deviating.

Maybe this can be refined more and more criteria could maybe be added, but the concept works imo. It is more problematic to have fix requirements which must be fulfilled under all circumstances.

 

[mikeh375]

I said it should only fullfill 2 of the 3 requirements.

Electric sound is not classical sound. It is the opposite. However if someone wants to make classical music with a deviating trait, that alone is probably not enough to detect it outside the genre, but it should still be counted as deviating. And if too many deviating traits come together, than we can state that it is not classical anymore.

Classical music is supposed to have high artistic ambitions, that is why simplicity is deviating.
Classical music is supposed to have a classical sound, that is why electric sound is deviating.
Classical music is supposed to focus on more than entertaining, that is why backbeat is deviating.

Maybe this can be refined more and more criteria could maybe be added, but the concept works imo. It is more problematic to have fix requirements which must be fulfilled under all circumstances.

Well thanks for further defining things. I now disagree with point one and two. Simplicity is sometimes desirous even in the most complex, not to mention Mozart. Ignoring IRCAM's ongoing achievements puts you hopelessly out of touch if you are after a wider, more encompassing definition.
Oh, a sudden thought, are you referring to a DAW with point 2? In that case, I agree, sampled orchestras have no place in the concert hall but are essential, vital and musically defining in film composing.

 

[Forster]

Yes, although Zappa learnt enough from a mainly autodidactic approach. He did not enter a conservatoire, nor did he need to.

Thanks. Presumably Paul McCartney is another example? Would we describe these as outliers?

 

[Forster]

Classical music is supposed to have high artistic ambitions, that is why simplicity is deviating.
Classical music is supposed to have a classical sound, that is why electric sound is deviating.
Classical music is supposed to focus on more than entertaining, that is why backbeat is deviating.

All of these are debatable requirements - with the second being particularly circular. If we're trying to define what "the classical sound" is, we can hardly give the criteria that it must sound classical! 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

 

[Aries]

Well thanks for further defining things. I now disagree with point one and two. Simplicity is sometimes desirous even in the most complex, not to mention Mozart.

In the case of simplicity in complexity I count the overall complexity. But there is also overall simple classical music like this:

So simplicity is probably just a bad criterium. It is about high artistic characteristic in comparison to low artistic, entertaining characteristic. Backbeat is a good indiactor for superficial entertainment music. But another criteria might be the ability to sing along. Popular music is made in a way, that everyone can sing along. This is untypical for classical music.

Updated criteria (2 out of 3 required):

• non-electric sound generation
• no backbeat
• no adequate possibility to sing along for laypersons

Ignoring IRCAM's ongoing achievements puts you hopelessly out of touch if you are after a wider, more encompassing definition.

Avant-garde classical music is not the core of classical music anyway. The core of classical music should be used to extract criterias of classical music.

Oh, a sudden thought, are you referring to a DAW with point 2? In that case, I agree, sampled orchestras have no place in the concert hall but are essential, vital and musically defining in film composing.

I refer to a lot of modern music like Pop and Techno, but also to DAW.

All of these are debatable requirements - with the second being particularly circular. If we're trying to define what "the classical sound" is, we can hardly give the criteria that it must sound classical! 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

In this case I mean timbre with "sound".

 

[HansZimmer]

Yes, what would Beethoven or Brahms think of film music, and what would they think of composing film music?

I read in this forum that Beethoven advocated absolute music (infact he composed only one opera and one ballet, Fidelio and The Creatures of Prometheus).

On the other hand, Wagner mostly composed opera.

What's the point of brining the personal views of composers in the discussion? They don't agree between each others, because art is not science.
If you want to support XY, you should give logical arguments, not use the Argument from authority.

 

[HansZimmer]

If the point is to conclusively and scientifically determine whether or not film music is classical music, then yes.

As I stated, my point of objection is that a) "Sounds like classical music" isn't a term which makes a lot of sense past a very superficial level, and b) 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. In fact, in years past, this has gotten bad enough that people were posting about how it should not be discussed at all on this forum.

Yes, infact it's possible that some people who like contemporary classical music reject definitions based on aesthetic because they are afraid that we conclude that some modern compositions are not classical music... but is this true? Not necessarily, because if you say that classical music contains more different styles like rock, you can say that compositions which follow the style X are classical music as well as compositions written in the style Y. I support this point of view.

So, film music written in the style of baroque/classical/romantic music can be considered classical music as well as film music written in more modern styles.

There is also an other possible view, the one adopted by the italian wikipedia: Musica colta
Inside this view, classical music is not a synonym of "art music", but a subcategory of art music together with avant-garde music.

See the table here below.
In this table we have: musica colta (which means "smart music"... in english you call it art music, but in italian is "smart music"), popular music (which means "industrial music") and folk-music (which means "traditional music of local cultures").
Under "musica colta", classical music is listed together with avant-garde music.

Under this point of view, classical music is music based on determined compositional practices, while avant-garde doesn't have defined compositional practices because its purpose is to try new techniques/aesthetics which break the rules of all existing genres of music.
That said, it's not true that in contemporary music all compositions are unlinked to the tradition of classical music. Some of them are clearily rooted in classical music, but they use an expanded language (atonality here and there and other modern techniques), some of them are 100% traditional or close, while other are so much revolutionary that they have little to nothing to share with traditional classical music.
Only the latters would be put in the category of avant-garde music. It's not that a musical composition is not classical music, but avant-garde music, only because it uses atonality.

 

[fbjim]

The English term that sometimes gets used is "art music" or "serious music". I think this term doesn't really work as a genre in a few ways primarily that it has little uptake which- genres only exist as conventions because they are accepted by the public.

Additionally this doesn't really solve the "problem" assuming one exists, as shoving everything under an overarching genre doesn't really do anything, since the question is "can film music be classical music" or "is orchestral film music generally classical music", not whether or not the two belong under the same umbrella.

This also implies separation of "non serious" classical music from this category which raises issues in itself.