[SanAntone]

I suggest that people read the Wikipedia article on classical music. It provides some objective information about how the term came into use and the various issues associated with it, as well as its limitations.

 

[HansZimmer]

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've adressed the problem in my post 3'359: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?

Like rock music, classical music contains different styles.
I recognize all the pieces above as classical music because I know the different styles.

Now, the fact that classical music contains more styles doesn't change the fact that the CPP style (Common Pratice Period), which is indisputably the core of classical music, has an internal coherence, which makes it a musical genre.

That said, the question is quite simple:

• If you write CPP style music for a film score, it's classical music
• If you write serial music for a film score, it's classical music
• If you write avant-garde music for a film score, it's classical music

• If you write pop music for a film score, it's pop music
• If you write rock music for a film score, it's rock music

and so on....


Now, if I said that a film score is romantic-style music instead of saying that it's classical music, what does it change to you? You can change the words, but the substance remains the same.
Don't you want to call "classical music" the film scores in romantic-style? Fine, but it's not that by refusing the categorizazion you cancel the common denominators between the film scores and classical music.

 

[mmsbls]

I've adressed the problem in my post 3'359: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?

I was suggesting that it would be extremely hard if not impossible to determine a set of intrinsic properties of all classical music. Your post linked above does not discuss intrinsic properties at all.

 

[Luchesi]

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.

The logical approach is to know what the composer intended to compose. Read as much about the composer as you need in order to find out. Is it difficult? Maybe there will be mistakes, but I don't believe there will be many.

If you're stumped, look at the score. Learn music, analysis. Compare scores.

 

[Aries]

I was suggesting that it would be extremely hard if not impossible to determine a set of intrinsic properties of all classical music. Your post linked above does not discuss intrinsic properties at all.

Art music should have a rather open definition.

It could could be defined in a way that music has to fullfill specific properties to be art music.
Or it could be defined in a way that music is art music by default unless it fullfills specific excluding properties.

I think the second aproach is better because "art" should not be stylistically limited.

However some music rather fullfills the function of simple entertainment instead of high art. This is true in the case of the various forms of popular music and folk music.

So imo a good definition is that music is art music unless it has the intrinsic properties of popular music.

Now the difference between classical music and art music is that classical music is older/more traditional. "Classical" suggests that classical instruments are used instead of modern electronics.

 

[Forster]

Art music should have a rather open definition

Look, if classical music can be defined by "how it sounds" then that is defeated by the idea of an "open" definition, where too many variations can be allowed that actually don't sound anything like each other.

And in any case, "how it sounds" to whom? Your refusal to allow electric instruments rules out for example Messiaen's Turangalila (and I'm sure umpteen other already well-established pieces from the canon that I don't know about) even though it "sounds" to me like classical music. In this case, how it sounds is irrelevant to the definition.

What mmsbls has been trying to get at is what the features of "an aesthetic" might be, but neither HZ nor you have been able to come up with one single feature that even describes what the most similar compositions are like, never mind the most different. Big labels like "CPT/CPP" are, IMO, not precise enough.

I don't suppose a formula can even be agreed for what a "symphony" sounds like, never mind the entirety of CM.

 

[Forster]

@Aries Which of these is classical music?

or

 

[Aries]

Look, if classical music can be defined by "how it sounds" then that is defeated by the idea of an "open" definition, where too many variations can be allowed that actually don't sound anything like each other.

"How it sounds" can be missunderstood, and I don't like this expression. The point is that the music is defined by intrinsic properties instead of extrenal circumstances. Is this possible? Yes there is more than one approach.

You can look at what classical instituations are playing and derive characteristics of the intrinsic properties of the music, and the define classical music as the sum.

Or you can just exclude music that have the intrinsic properties of other genres from classical music.

In both cases you don't have a describtion like classical music is in C major and 10 minutes long. But that you don't set up such specific requirements doesn't mean that it is not about intrinsic properties.

And in any case, "how it sounds" to whom? Your refusal to allow electric instruments rules out for example Messiaen's Turangalila (and I'm sure umpteen other already well-established pieces from the canon that I don't know about) even though it "sounds" to me like classical music.

It is easy to allow a single electric instrument in classical compositions, without giving a free pass for infinite electrification of music.

Turangalila is still performed by a classical orchestra. Turangalila is not Techno.

What mmsbls has been trying to get at is what the features of "an aesthetic" might be, but neither HZ nor you have been able to come up with one single feature that even describes what the most similar compositions are like

I think classical music aesthetics are rather a set of aesthetics. Maybe define it as the sum of the classical subtype aesthetics. Or you don't define classical aesthetics, and define it just as deviating from or exceeding popular music aesthetics.

I don't suppose a formula can even be agreed for what a "symphony" sounds like, never mind the entirety of CM.

A real symphony is at least a work for at least an orchestra.

 

[HansZimmer]

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.

If you want to speak about ORIGIN, it's clear that the so called cinematic classical is rooted in classical music.

 

[HansZimmer]

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.

Not sampled orchestras, but electronic, artificial sounds. If you want to bring your work in the concert hall it's obvious that a real orchestra will play the score.

I don't know what does Aries think, but sampled orchestras IMO can be forgiven if used for "recordings", but only if the quality is high enough that it sounds like a real orchestra and as long as there are not electronic artificial sounds which flagrantly show that it's not authentic. Of course no one would accept to go in the concert hall to listen to a "recording", this is why if you want to bring the work in the concert hall at the end you will have to work with a real orchestra.

 

[mikeh375]

^^^You miss the subtler point of how DAWs limit the compositional reach for a composer and define certain aspects of composing and orchestrating in an adverse way.

 

[SanAntone]

^^^You miss the subtler point of how DAWs limit the compositional reach for a composer and define certain aspects of composing and orchestrating in an adverse way.

Exactly right. I found that when I was using a DAW I would write for what the DAW could do since it was too hard, boring, and time consuming to force the software into places it wasn't really designed to enter.

It is an example of the tail wagging the dog, i.e. technology curbing creativity.

 

[Luchesi]

If you want to speak about ORIGIN, it's clear that the so called cinematic classical is rooted in classical music.

Yes, think about its recent origin and why it's different than CM. Why it needs to be different than CM.

If you think it sounds like CM to you, learn the intention of the composer. They should know.

I don't know, but do any decriptions of film composers say they're writing CM for films?

 

[Forster]

"How it sounds" can be missunderstood, and I don't like this expression. [etc]

I'm using shorthand for "intrinsic properties". What are intrinsic properties to music if not the way it sounds?

Turangalila is not Techno.

Er...no...but noone is arguing that Techno might be CM. You wanted to rule out electric instruments. I pointed out a case where this rule would fall. Doubtless there are others that would also fail. You can't make up a rule and then start making exceptions one at a time.

I think classical music aesthetics are rather a set of aesthetics. Maybe define it as the sum of the classical subtype aesthetics. Or you don't define classical aesthetics, and define it just as deviating from or exceeding popular music aesthetics.

But what aesthetics? Get specific, please.

A real symphony is at least a work for at least an orchestra.

Again this doesn't work. Alkan wrote a Symphony for Piano. So did others.

 

[DaveM]

..Again this doesn't work. Alkan wrote a Symphony for Piano. So did others.

He also wrote what he called a Concerto for Solo Piano. He was playing with semantics to express something about the works. He wasn’t redefining what we all know to be a symphony or concerto, which involves an orchestra.

 

[Forster]

what we all know to be a symphony or concerto, which involves an orchestra.

I was offering the simplest example of a variation on the aesthetic of "what we know to be a symphony", which has evolved in various ways over the years. If Haydn were to hear Sibelius 7th, he'd wonder where the other three movements were. There are organ symphonies and symphonies for a band. Some require voices too.

It's not so much the specifics of the symphony that I'm highlighting as the fact that it is better described than defined (and therefore limited). Rather like CM itself.

 

[Aries]

I'm using shorthand for "intrinsic properties". What are intrinsic properties to music if not the way it sounds?

WIkipedia:

"Sound is an audible mechanical wave propagating through matter, or the perception of such waves by the brain."

Sound can be understand as music in a moment. This misses the temporal change within music, the horizontal structure.

Er...no...but noone is arguing that Techno might be CM. You wanted to rule out electric instruments. I pointed out a case where this rule would fall. Doubtless there are others that would also fail. You can't make up a rule and then start making exceptions one at a time.

I gave various possible definition of classical music.

Definition by derivation from classical institutions: A work for classical orchestra is still a work for classical orchestra when you include one non-classical instrument. So one non-classical instrument does not change the overall classical charcteristic. But if you substitute everything with electronic instruments it would not be a work for classical orchestra anymore.

Definition by 2 out of 3 criteria. When I said that music must fullfill 2 out of 3 criteria to be classical and one of them was non-electronic sound generation, this means that non-electric sound generation is no problem as long as the other two criteria are fullfilled.

Open definition: If it is not Techno or another specific form of Popular music, than it is Art music.

You could also just count the portion of electronic instruments. If 5% are electric, then 95% are non-electric. You could say it is 95% classical.

But what aesthetics? Get specific, please.

Medival, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern, Opera, Orchestral, Chamber, Lied, Chruch, Ballett, Solist, Film etc.

Again this doesn't work. Alkan wrote a Symphony for Piano. So did others.

That is a symphony just by the name or idea but not a real symphony. I posted earlier the pop song Little Annie Rooney. It also has a 10 second section called "symphony":

This is a symphony in a different sense, and not a symphony in the sense of Beethoven.

 

[Forster]

Medival, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern, Opera, Orchestral, Chamber, Lied, Chruch, Ballett, Solist, Film etc.

Modernist, Post-modernist, Contemporary, Avant-garde...

But that wasn't what I thought was meant by "aesthetic". Those labels tell us nothing about the sound of the music, so we're no nearer getting any kind of definition of CM based on intrinsic properties, as you and HZ promised.

 

[jojoju2000]

I will borrow a concept from architecture: "form follows function."

Some here dismiss the idea that the function or purpose music is written has a determining factor in what kind of music 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.

I have friends in L.A. who work in the film music world. If a guy who went to music school and got a composition degree has a knack for networking/schmoozing, has the right politics, wears the right clothes, and doesn't mind sublimating his own artistic vision to the demands of whatever project is is hired for - he can use his education as a composer to write for an orchestra.

He can make a living a lot easier than as a straight classical composer trying to get commissions. Sometimes he can make a very lucrative living. But he knows he is not writing classical music.

Having an independent artistic vision was never the basis for Classical Western Art Music however until the rise of Beethoven. Bach would write Masses for the Lutheran Church. Even Mozart was Composer for the Salzburg Court.

Beethoven changed the dynamic by basically becoming a Indie Artist unattached to the court system/aristocracy.

 

[jojoju2000]

Exactly right. I found that when I was using a DAW I would write for what the DAW could do since it was too hard, boring, and time consuming to force the software into places it wasn't really designed to enter.

It is an example of the tail wagging the dog, i.e. technology curbing creativity.

Well there's only one Composer in the Film World today, who writes exclusively by hand.

I won't mention his name, because well it's been repetitive. That one guy who has far more autonomy than most of his peers....

Oh wait a minute.........