What is Classical Music??

[comme_le_vent]

Could anyone enlighten me with the correct definition of classical music?

[Shagdac]

As defined by Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, 4th edition by Michael Kennedy and Joyce Boune:

Classical. Term which, applied to music, has vague rather than specific meaning: music composed roughly between 1750 and 1830 (i.e. post-Baropue and pre-Romantic) which covers the development of the classical symphony and concerto, music of an orderly nature, with qualities of clarity and balance and emphasising formal beauty rather than emotional expression (which is not to say that emotion is lacking).  Music generally regarded as having permanent rather than ephemeral value.  "Classical music" is used as a generic term meaning the opposite of light or popular music.

Hope this helps!

Shag

[pskim]

the term is too broad to really define.  To me, "classic" is anything that has withstood the test of time.  Anything that isn't dies off and disapears without notice.

[comme_le_vent]

yes i know about the classical era, but the word classical is used to describe music from before the classical era through to rachmaninov , and right through to music being composed now.
i have also seen classical music defined as 'music based upon an established tradition' - which means practically nothing.
any other ideas?

[bernhard]

yes i know about the classical era, but the word classical is used to describe music from before the classical era through to rachmaninov , and right through to music being composed now.
i have also seen classical music defined as 'music based upon an established tradition' - which means practically nothing.
any other ideas?

Classical (erudite) music is to music in general as:

1.      Chateau Petrus is to wine
2.      Haute cuisine is to cooking
3.      The tea ceremony is to tea
4.      Martial arts is to fighting
5.      Brazilian football team is to football
6.      An olympic athlete is to sports practitioners
7.      Muhammed Ali is to boxers
8.      Lamborghini is to cars
9.      Anthony Gatto is to jugglers.
10.      Tantra is to sex

It is a question of superlative quality. But to truly appreciate it you must have reached a certain level of being. This superlative quality is not immediately apparent to ignorants (in a non demeaning sense of the word). The majority of the population would rather eat at MacDonalds than have a five course meal at the Manoir aux Quatre Saisons. The majority of the population would rather listen to Britney Speras than to classical music. But that is not only all right as it is as it should be. If everyone wanted to eat at the Manoir, there would not be enough, and soon standards would drop.

If you want anything more precise, just compare normal cooking to haute cuisine:

-      More complex.
-      More beautiful
-      More attention to detail
-      You are not just after nourishment, but after pleasing the senses (and not only taste), the mind and the spirit.
-      More creative.
-      The aim is never short of perfection.
-      Mediocrity is unacceptable.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Daevren]

Classical music is not the most complex music on earth.

Indian music is more complex. Its more 'high art' then classical music. But classical is close behind.

[bernhard]

Classical music is not the most complex music on earth.

Indian music is more complex. Its more 'high art' then classical music. But classical is close behind.

Assuming you mean by that "classical" Indian music, I completely agree. But then I would include it in the general category of "classical music".

[comme_le_vent]

so where does classical music end , and all other music start?
some so-called classical music is just as simple as a pop song - and the quality of each is purely subjective.

so bernhard your opinion is interesting, what your basically saying is your definition of classical music is 'great music'. - the better the music - the more classical it is? if there are are any other factors - or if im wrong - correct me....  

[bernhard]

What I am saying is that classical music is like wine and other music is like coca cola.

I am saying is that the motivation to do classical music and the place where it comes from is completely different from the place where other music comes from.

Consider wine:

1.      It is good for your health.
2.      It is complex (and there is an art I combining it with superlative food).
3.      Superlative wine demands superlative food, voth demand a superlative environment to be appreciated. It all goes into an ever increasing spiral of quality.
4.      Superlative wine makers do not produce it for commercial gain (or at least not solely for commercial gain). They belong to a tradition going back several generations. There is pride in producing superlative wine to exact standards. They do it mostly for the good of mankind.
5.      Inferior wine exists – and it is usually made for all the wrong reasons (commercial gain and encouraging drunkenness being the two most flagrant – think Maksim and you get the correspondence in classical music)

Now consider coca cola:

1.      It is bad for your health
2.      It is just some sugary concoction.
3.      You drink it with junk food in dirty joints.
4.      The only purpose of coca cola is to make some huge corporate business ever more powerful.
5.      And even at such low level there are inferior colas being marketed (how low can you get).
6.      It goes into an ever increasing spiral of non-quality.

Now consider the top wines in the world (Chateaux Petrus, Chateaux Rotschild, Chateau Margaux, etc.) We are talking Bach, Beethoven , Chopin, etc. Now consider that tiny French state producing superb wine that very few people know about. We are talking Alkan, Scarlatti. Now consider the stuff you buy in boxes in supermarkets: Maksim. Or the ones that they added antifreezer to make it taste better: Ali Wood.

And then of course you have coke and pepsi (Brtiney Spears, etc.)

But let us not forget the high quality aged whiskeys – that would be jazz.

So just as wine is not great coca cola, classical music is not just great music. It is something altogether different. We are talking good and evil here!

You get the idea.

[Daevren]

I kind of agree with you. I also like and want to think some music and some art is more complex and therefore one can express more complex emotions with it that can move someone more deeply.

But I have a hard time convincing other people... Which is not strange.

"I am saying is that the motivation to do classical music and the place where it comes from is completely different from the place where other music comes from."

I like many kinds of music and what I like in classical music, that which you describe, is also something I can find in many other kinds of music.

[dinosaurtales]

Bernhard! I love your analogies!  Spot on!  But I am afraid I can't speak to the Tantra item.

Bummer, eh?

Mindy

[comme_le_vent]

your analogys are entertaining, but not wholly enlightening - at least not to me.
can you define classical music in MUSICAL TERMS - any hard and fast MUSICAL definitions?

[faulty_damper]

Maybe "classical" mean the style in contemporary speech?

For example, Kevin Kaska composes in the sytle similar to Beethoven.  He composed a triple concerto for the Eroica Trio in 2001 in a manner what we would consider "classical".  It didn't sound all that bad either.  If you didn't know when it was written, you'd probably think it was composed two centuries ago.

But by "contemporary" I mean the masses.  We, being more exact, would describe Bach as baroque, Chopin as Romantic, Vabern as ......, Glass as late 20th century,.... etc.  And Mozart and Haydn as classical; Beethoven sorta gets his own mix of classical-quasi-romantic.

So by classical, the definition is pretty personal.  I guess when the term is used, you have to state which definition: the mass definition (classical FM), and the non-ignorant (us).

So there you go!  I think we can sorta answer your other question in that other thread.

[bernhard]

your analogys are entertaining, but not wholly enlightening - at least not to me.
can you define classical music in MUSICAL TERMS - any hard and fast MUSICAL definitions?

Your question cannot be answered in simple musical terms/definitions, because what makes classical (erudite) music transcends purely musical definitions and theory. Now I will try to explain not only why it is so, but also why it must be so.

This explanation will also explain why certain popular pieces/songs become classics. Why we regard certain works of literature as “classics” and why certain works of art are highly prized over others. In short, I am going to provide an answer to the elusive question of what makes quality in art.

For this explanation to make any sense you must accept certain assumptions that to me seem completely obvious, but you would be surprised as to how many people ignore or even disagree with them.

We start with reality. Perhaps the most shocking fact about reality is that it consists of many levels. Nothing is as it appears. The simplest statement about reality can easily be proven incomplete (or even false) once you start to investigate it further. So the earth may appear to be flat but on further investigation we find that it is actually spherical. It appears not to move and yet it moves. And when you think you have figured out the way it moves, it happens not to be that way at all. And if you look at the whole thing from a different point of view (e.g the fourth dimension) the earth is not spherical at all, but looks more like a doughnut.

Then you have a person who appears to be someone. And yet on close investigations they turn up to be quite different. Some may surprise you so much that it will floor you.

People like to deride the occult and praise science, but what is science if not the ultimate occultism, since everything in science is explained by resort to things that are not apparent at all. Gravity, electricity, radioactivity, ultrasound, infrared, etc. are all occult. They belong to a different level than the level we are used to in our daily life.

And behind these levels there are other levels.

All this seem obvious to me. And yet there are people who will deny this. They wish to take everything at face value. For this people the earth is flat, because that is the evidence of their senses. They are literalists who can only experience the superficial and are satisfied with the very first level they can access. If there are other levels beyond the first one they are not interested, they don’t want to know.

Now consider a map of a town. The map is not the town. There are many more levels to the town that are not represented in the map. In fact they cannot be shown in the map. This is one of the limitations of models of reality (a map is a model of a town/territory). Models cannot show everything, they cannot show all the levels. Models also distort reality (for instance, a map is not the same size of a town). So if there are deletions, and if there are distortions, we are not dealing with the real, but with models of the real.

What few people realise (even though this information is freely available in any basic textbook of philosophy) is that we, human beings do not have direct access to reality. We experience reality through our senses, and our senses do not provide us with reality per se, but with models of reality. This is easy to demonstrate: all senses have deletions (we do not hear all sounds, we do not see all wavelengths), and all of them have distortions (vision is bidimensional – perspective is a distortion). So people who ultimately rely on their senses are relying on limited, distorted models of reality.

Then we have language, which is a model for what we experience through our senses, a model of the model. When we talk about reality, we are so far from the real product as to make the whole enterprise meaningless (but it is fun  - which is why we persist).

Now if you followed so far, you are ready for the explanation.

Great works of art (which are necessary models of reality) are those who can reproduce the multi-level nature of reality. A great piece of music will have many levels. A poor piece of music will have a single, perhaps two levels. It is exactly this multitude of levels that allows one to listen to certain pieces of music over and over again and never tire of it, while other pieces will quickly overstay their welcome.

This is true of all the classics of literature: you can read them for the plot (one level), for the skill in language use (another level) for the implicit philosophy (yet another level), for the political message (one more level), for it power to evoke places/people/situations (yet another level) and so on and so forth. The author may have achieved this following  plan, but I doubt it. Usually such superb multileveled works of art spring straight from the unconscious – itself a multilevel entity – and the author himself may marvel at his/her own work. Needless to say such authors do not just appear: they usually have worked hard on themselves, and at observing and encouraging their own multiplicity of levels. Their work is then a reflection of what they themselves are. Publishers may try to follow up the success of a legitimate classic by aping it. Usually it does not work, because publishers will believe that the success of the book is due to one single level (its political message, or its plot) and produce a single level imitation.

The same can be seen in Hollywood movies. Imititions fail because producers being usually literal people are unable to perceive the multiple levels and insist in picking one amongst many levels to reproduce in the imitation.

Likewsie with wine. Superior wine may have up to 30 different levels of taste.

Likewise with music. The music we call “classic”, high quality, superior, and the like, owes its superiority not to any musical principle, but to this single characteristic: to be able to convey many levels, sometimes  - it could be argued – infinite levels.

Many of these levels may act in ways that are completely outside our sensual perception (think radioactivity: you cannot see or hear or feel it, but you will die of cancer if exposed enough to it). Music is vibration, and we are 90% liquid. Music may well reorganise our molecular orientation without us ever being aware of it and this is just one out of many possible levels). If such reorientation is positive we may experience the music as being superior and be inexorably drawn to it without being ever able to quite put our finger on the why. But even if this was proven as “the” reason for musical superiority (a certain vibrational pattern), to pursue this course would be to completely miss the point of multi-levels. Like the Holywood producer you would be reducing music to one single level again.

And how can one composer/interpreter create music in a way that it displays this multilevel characteristic? By continuously becoming yourself a multi level person. (This may explain the interesting case of Dr. Jekill and Mr. Hyde ).

What Faulty Damper is talking about (composing in the “style” of classical music) is actually a different thing altogether (the technical term being “Invention” – as in J. S. Bach 2 voice inventions.) Invention can be learned and applied but there is no guarantee that it will result in superior multi-level music. Yet invention is also very important.

Incidentally this is also one of the reasons why Charles Rosen in correct when he says that the composer may not know of his own intentions. There will be levels in a superior piece of music of which even the composer is unaware, but that a performer may notice and bring forth. In fact, Rachmaninoff used to say that Horowitz played his music better than himself. And he was not talking about technique. He was referring exactly to that: Horowitz could highlight aspects and levels of his music that came as a (pleasant) surprise to Rachmaninoff himself.

As with everything, this is just the tip of the iceberg (the other levels being occult ).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[faulty_damper]

So, Berhard, what you are saying is that classical does not refer to a style of composition but to the timelessness of the piece.

So the definitions are:
1. Classical is the timelessness of something
2. Classical as a style of work, a genre
3. Classical as a time period in which such works were created

Any others?
And what definition should be specified as the one which we are refering to?

[bernhard]

So, Berhard, what you are saying is that classical does not refer to a style of composition but to the timelessness of the piece.

So the definitions are:
1. Classical is the timelessness of something
2. Classical as a style of work, a genre
3. Classical as a time period in which such works were created

Any others?
And what definition should be specified as the one which we are refering to?

Yes, you are correct. The word "classical" can be (correctly) used in all three meanings.

However, I believe that the original question was not about pieces of a particular period in history, or of a particular style, but rather of a particular quality (which is why  I prefer the term "erudite" when opposing it to say, pop or jazz).

And I am suggesting that the answer is not related to music rules but rather to multiplicity of levels (of meaning, of perception, of enjoyment, etc.)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[comme_le_vent]

To quote Ralph Wiggum - 'My brain hurts!'  

very interesting.
one thing that has nagged me for a long time is the actual word 'classical' it implies traditional and old to most people.

i do prefer your word 'erudite', but it still seems a little offputting and slightly offensive to people who dont listen to it.

by your definition i would suppose that SOME pop and jazz could also be termed erudite.

[bernhard]

by your definition i would suppose that SOME pop and jazz could also be termed erudite.

Absolutely

[Ed Thomas]

Bernhard,

I was really trying hard not to post here as I am not a student, teacher or professional... just a middle-aged lover of playing the piano.  But I just had to say: "Thank you" for that beautiful description of classical music -- and by extension, generalized art.  I am quite inspired on several fronts, and have been absorbing the implications since you wrote it.  I might add that it goes a long way to explaining the value of your posts on specific instruction, for which I also thank you.

Ed Thomas

[Daevren]

The multiple intellectual levels in art is also my theory! I will read your whole big post later... Its just something I scanned over.

[tommy]

I think we all just have to admit that any definition of what makes for quality in art, let alone what art is itself,are doomed to failure. It is simply futile to try to separate popular from classical,ancient from modern music in qualitive terms.
p.s. I used to drink plonk myself bernard but never thought of comparing it to music..but used to like drinking it while I listened to music!
Tommy

[comme_le_vent]

yeah this is what i thought, bernie seemed to tell us what makes a piece classical, but he gave no hard and fast musical rules to define objectively what is or isnt classical.

to most people, classical music will remain - 'that borin crap played by symphonies in those elevators'

how can some of satie's music be called classical?
when it is simple as hell, and has little musical depth...to me...

[amanfang]

I apologize for bringing this from out of the abyss, but I have saved the link for a while, and have recently been thinking about these things. 
Question - Are there specific musical characteristics of greatness?

[Bob]

Some thoughts... Not necessarily complete.  Random! (in the true sense of the word) Random thoughts.  Take it all with a grain of salt -- It's not meant to start an argument.


Classical music


Usually is not swung and the weight is on the downbeat.

Tends to favor tone over other elements, possibly including expression (like the gravely voice of a jazz singer) or rhythm (like the steady beat of more pop styles).

May be complex and work on more than one level.  Has enough depth that the

listener can find new things with repeated exposure.  Has some kind of plan

on these different levels.

Takes time to create, time to prepare.

Meant to be listened to as a centerpiece -- Onstage, not background music.

Stands test of time.

Tends to be profound.

Not ordinary.

Has an intellectual level.  It's not all sensual.

Now it tends to be composed and practiced, as opposed to improvised. 

Generally all composed presently.

The forms that are used -- more complex than pop songs usually.

All the theory "rules" that are generally followed.  Pop doesn't have

those.  Jazz has its own favorites -- II V I.

Presently, not "popular" in terms of numbers.

Probably has some kind of innovation in it.  A new form, new change of

phrase, new use of the instruments -- that could help explain Satie, the

new use of color and breaking of the older theory rules.

Acceptance by the classical music group.  Everyone says its a great piece,

so people listen to it, analyze it more, appreciate it more.  Old enough

that no one is arguing about its greatness.  It was "great" well before you

were born so people aren't questioning it as much.

Because its in the "classical" music section of the music store.

[emmdoubleew]

Bernhard, I have tremendous respect for your knowledge, but your analogies are the biggest load of elitist crap and snobissism, and I am greatly offended by them.

What do you have to say for the period in which Classical was by far the predominent music, when, somewhere during the 18th century, even peasants abandoned their folk songs to see Operas in the poorer theaters?

So did they all have superior taste than the majority of the population today? Maybe that explains why Mozart's contemporaries bathed once a year, peed out the windows and had rotten teeth.

I listen to classical because I enjoy the music as much as some other young teen may enjoy Linkin Park (which I hate, but is none of their business). I don't listen to classical so I can be bunched with others who contemptuously beleive they trenscend a higher level of humanity because they can appreciate Beethoven or Rachmaninov. And you know what, that ends up happening an aweful lot because of people who say things like what you just said.

Sorry if I'm being harsh,

Martin W.

[stevie]

HAHAHA, DA REZURRECTION OF A LEGENDARY RELIC

true

[rc]

Hey, I don't mind these ancient threads at all

Bernhard, I have tremendous respect for your knowledge, but your analogies are the biggest load of elitist crap and snobissism, and I am greatly offended by them.

What do you have to say for the period in which Classical was by far the predominent music, when, somewhere during the 18th century, even peasants abandoned their folk songs to see Operas in the poorer theaters?

So did they all have superior taste than the majority of the population today? Maybe that explains why Mozart's contemporaries bathed once a year, peed out the windows and had rotten teeth.

I listen to classical because I enjoy the music as much as some other young teen may enjoy Linkin Park (which I hate, but is none of their business). I don't listen to classical so I can be bunched with others who contemptuously beleive they trenscend a higher level of humanity because they can appreciate Beethoven or Rachmaninov. And you know what, that ends up happening an aweful lot because of people who say things like what you just said.

Sorry if I'm being harsh,

Martin W.

Well, I don't see why anyone should be so offended by the idea of some music being superior to others. In the case of classical it's all been time filtered - the crap has been long forgotten, so what we have left is the cream of the crop. Compared to the present where we can hear a lot of the derivative crap, music as an image, marketing, and all that nonsense that will sell records in the present and be forgotten as soon as a year later. A friend used the term 'disposable pop-culture'.

We have to look at things in context. We all probably have superior hygiene to Beethoven, but he devoted his life to music and in that area is superior.

Those who like their Linkin Park probably aren't so deeply involved with music as someone who's found their way to classical. Which is fine, it makes sense.

You're assuming that by saying classical music is superior to 'disposable pop-culture' is implying that classical fans "transcend a higher level of humanity". But it's true that classical is superior musically, it's not entirely subjective, opinions aren't all equal.

[emmdoubleew]

Those who like their Linkin Park probably aren't so deeply involved with music as someone who's found their way to classical. Which is fine, it makes sense.

I think this is where your argument falls apart.

I know a linkin park fan who joined a choir group and walks around playing his guitar and writing songs 24/7.

I don't think you can objectively say any music, any art for that matter, is superior to another. I think classical is a more complex form of music, but I don't think that's a quality that could make it superior as music.

I think us classical listeners get so caught up  in Classical that we define music in relation to it. For me, good music is anything people can enjoy listening to, regardless of how many people actually like listening to it, and regardless of how many notes it has.

People get really fanatical about their music. There must be a whole generation of young rockers with the mindset "rap is crap" and one of youg rappers calling rock sh*t, but why can't we just leave ach other alone and accept that if someone else likes it, there must be something to like about it regardless of what one or another defines as "musicallity."

Let's not sink down to that level.

[Derek]

I mentioned this in another post but I think it is a good point and bears repeating:

First off, let us all agree that classical music is a general term which refers to music as far back as the renaissance and up to and including a lot of 20th century music. It may also include some non Western music such as Indian sitar music.


Now, if one were to compare all this classical music to such things as rock and pop, and probably a lot of jazz and blues, there is one fundamental difference:

The classical composer approaches writing music with the fundamental assumption that there one can find Truth and Beauty in sound. His goal is similar to that of a mathematician, believes there is something there, and he is the discoverer of it.

Composers of more popular genres may at times be unwitting pursuers of Truth and Beauty in their music, but in general this striving for ideals is absent from popular music but very present in Classical music.

So, sometimes music of popular genres is just as transporting, beautiful and complex as classical music but it isn't quite as common.

::edit::  I take that back. Yes, it does mean classical music is better. Much better. What is so wrong with the word better? So many people these days think it is taboo or something.

[rc]

I think this is where your argument falls apart.

hmmmmm... I think my arguement fails in that it didn't consider how people can value music for different reasons. Which could be all kinds of things, that's where the subjectivity is. and this place has it's clear bias

We also don't seem to be making quite the same comparisons. My post was referring to 'product' music, and yours seems to be more about good music in every style, which I agree with. Do you think there is disposable, less valid music, or that so long as someone enjoys it everything is equal? I mean, I once saw a music video that was selling shoes...

I still think you can be objective (to a degree) with art, it just seems obvious to me that there exists such a thing as quality. The difference between something that's haphazardly thrown together and a work that was given a lot of thought. Some friends once showed me a song that someone mixed together on their computer out of half a dozen other songs, and I couldn't help but think of mass produced car parts.

People get really fanatical about their music. There must be a whole generation of young rockers with the mindset "rap is crap" and one of youg rappers calling rock ***, but why can't we just leave ach other alone and accept that if someone else likes it, there must be something to like about it regardless of what one or another defines as "musicallity."

hahah, nevermind the young rockers, it's the old curmudgeons who are the worst! That's the ever-present story of the parents who can't stand their childrens music. The reasons such people say things like "rap is crap" is usually because rap is not "rock. like they used to make in the good old days. The world is going to hell in a handbasket... etc." (or whatever style said curmudgeon prefers). They're angry at the apple because it's not an orange .

Ya gotta take things for what they are. But I say there's such a thing as good rap and bad rap. I've been shown some hip-hop that made me go "wow, that was clever!", and I've heard others that were, well... Selling shoes (good marketing though, I suppose).

[Derek]

---

[emmdoubleew]

Hey RC, you seem to understand my point, and I think I understand yours, I think it's just a matter of differing opinions. So, agree to disagree? 

[rc]

Hey RC, you seem to understand my point, and I think I understand yours, I think it's just a matter of differing opinions. So, agree to disagree? 

Yeah that's cool. Thanks for the civility.

[quasimodo]

An interesting exercise (maybe ?) would be to try to assess what will be considered "Classical Music" in 100 years from the music composed in, let's say, the last 5 decades...

[m1469]

An interesting exercise (maybe ?) would be to try to assess what will be considered "Classical Music" in 100 years from the music composed in, let's say, the last 5 decades...

Actually, I think about this quite often.  I wonder how people will view all of the "popular" music in 100 years from now.  Will they think more of it ?  Appreciate it more ?  It is interesting.


m1469

[pekko]

Actually, I think about this quite often.  I wonder how people will view all of the "popular" music in 100 years from now.  Will they think more of it ?  Appreciate it more ?  It is interesting.

I think they will appreciate it less. I mean, how you can appreciate anything if you don't know it even exists. Most of people don't have *any* clue about what kind of music ragga is , for example. Many old "stars" will be forgotten because their listeners simply die.

On the other hand, revivals of old music propably do happen, because of nostalgia. Believe me, in 2020 everybody listens 50's rock'n'roll in their flying cars. Rock'n'roll will be remembered as the music of those people with cool hair, or something similar.

[pianorama]

What I am saying is that classical music is like wine and other music is like coca cola.

I am saying is that the motivation to do classical music and the place where it comes from is completely different from the place where other music comes from.

Consider wine:

1.      It is good for your health.
2.      It is complex (and there is an art I combining it with superlative food).
3.      Superlative wine demands superlative food, voth demand a superlative environment to be appreciated. It all goes into an ever increasing spiral of quality.
4.      Superlative wine makers do not produce it for commercial gain (or at least not solely for commercial gain). They belong to a tradition going back several generations. There is pride in producing superlative wine to exact standards. They do it mostly for the good of mankind.
5.      Inferior wine exists – and it is usually made for all the wrong reasons (commercial gain and encouraging drunkenness being the two most flagrant – think Maksim and you get the correspondence in classical music)

Now consider coca cola:

1.      It is bad for your health
2.      It is just some sugary concoction.
3.      You drink it with junk food in dirty joints.
4.      The only purpose of coca cola is to make some huge corporate business ever more powerful.
5.      And even at such low level there are inferior colas being marketed (how low can you get).
6.      It goes into an ever increasing spiral of non-quality.

Now consider the top wines in the world (Chateaux Petrus, Chateaux Rotschild, Chateau Margaux, etc.) We are talking Bach, Beethoven , Chopin, etc. Now consider that tiny French state producing superb wine that very few people know about. We are talking Alkan, Scarlatti. Now consider the stuff you buy in boxes in supermarkets: Maksim. Or the ones that they added antifreezer to make it taste better: Ali Wood.

And then of course you have coke and pepsi (Brtiney Spears, etc.)

But let us not forget the high quality aged whiskeys – that would be jazz.

So just as wine is not great coca cola, classical music is not just great music. It is something altogether different. We are talking good and evil here!

You get the idea.

Where do you get your ideas and analogies? Do you buy them at some groovy organic health store? I'm putting that in my signature! 

Though one thing: Wine, especially red wine, is good for you in small to moderate amounts, i.e. 1-3 glasses over a period of at least 2 hours and a meal. Too much wine, no matter how fine, will eventually damage your liver.
Though you most likely already know this. I'm just arguing cause I like arguments. (especially online when you can choose your words carefully without sounding like a stuttering moron)

[pianistimo]

you cannot be defined as a classical musician unless you come down with an illness that no one has heard of in our day.  take this one for instance.  only classical musicians came down with this:  "brustwassersucht" (or chest dropsy) a very frequent wind instrument musician illness at that time (too much circular breathing?)

if you want to know more about rosetti - and how his music influenced mozart - look at some of sterling murray's writings.  he is a famous classical music scholar and often ties in the art and architecture of the times to explain the classical music concept.  i have lots of notes from his classical music class - but not sure where to start.  maybe with a long list of lesser known composers to us - but very well known at the time.

[pianistimo]

ok - bernhard probably already made most of this list, but here's a list of classical era composers (will go into the details as why they are considered classical later ):
MOSTLY LONDON
carl friedrich abel
thomas a. arne
johann christian bach
francois-hippolyte barthelemon
william boyce
muzio clementi
william crotch
william herschel
antonin kammel
william smethergell
giovanni viotti
samuel wesley

SALZBURG
anton cajetan adlgasser
johann e. eberlin
johann michel haydn
leopold mozart

VIENNA
johann georg alrechtsberger
franz asplmayr
carl ditters von dittersdorf
anton eberl
joseph eybler
florian gassmann?
franz anton hoffmeister
leopold hoffman
johann mann
georg monn
carlo d'ordonez
antonio salieri
franz x. sussmayr
jan vanhal
antonin vranicky
georg wagenseil

BERLIN
carl philip emmanuel bach
carl heinrich graun
johann gottlieb graun

PARIS
felix bambini
etienne-bernhard barriere
jean-baptiste breval
giuseppe maria cambini
jean-baptiste davaux
francois devienne
francois-joseph gossee
louis-gabriel guilleman
simon le duc
etienne-nicolas mehul
etienne ozi
ignaz pleyel
anton reicha
henri-joseph reigel
le chavalier saint-georges
johann schobert
jacques widerkehr

MANNHEIM
franz beck
christian cannabich
anton filtz
ignaz franzl
ernst eichner
ignaz holzbaur
franz xaver richter
carl stamitz
johann stamitz
carlo toeschi
peter von winter

MADRID
luigi boccherini
giuseppe brunetti

ITALY
antonio brioschi
niccolo jommelli
padre giovanni b. martini
josef myslivecek
giovanni pergolesi

PRAGUE
frantisek brixi
georg druschettzky (bohemia)
jan ladislav dussek
frantisek dusek
antonin laube
vicenz masek
wenzl pichl
anton zimmerman

DRESDEN
johann g. haumann
jan neruda
joseph schuster


placius von camerloher (freising)
fanz danzi
johann lang
franz c. neubauer
andreas romberg
bernhard romberg
louis spohr
freidrich witt

franz ignaz von beecke (wallerstein)
joseph fiala
joseph reicha
antonio rosetti
paul winnerberger

franz x. pokorny (regensburg)
joseph riepel
joseph touchemoulin

johann hartmann (copenhagen)
joseph martin kraus
johann berwald
johan wilmanson

earl of kellie (edinburgh)
johann georg c. schetky

ok.  that's the list i have.

[pianistimo]

i wrote two different papers (not knowing which we'd be tested on) as practice papers for a final exam.  here's an excerpt from notes for the first one which may contain quotations from books:

'classic' is a term, when applied to music, that carries with it certain universal meanings.  it shows balance and order.  it doesn't imitate nature for the sole purpose of imitation, but it is a 'symbolic expression of the highest order.'  this concept was also held by some philosophers of antiquity.  the idea of dialogue was picked up by mozart, and used in his operas, concertos, and quartets and grows with contemplation just as the masterworks of greek and roman art grow on us with repeated study and contemplation.  there is a combination, and a balance of technical skill, grace, charm, and form and content.  classic art has a simplicity and silent grandeur...'

second paper notes:

'in the eighteenth century, the aesthetic determinations were first made by royal patrons and their courtiers.  the monarchy and the church determined what would be pleasing for entertainment adn what would be appropriate for liturgies.  classical composers strove to create a balance between emotion and intellect.  the baroque music is more intellectual, and while js bach was composing his masterpiece 'the art of the fugue,' his sons were composing symphonies in the early classical style.  this style could be said to have a clear homophonic texture, stress emotional restraint, perfect forms, and balance of quick-changing dynamics.  classical music has uncomplicated, clear, singable melodies that are supported by chords.  it has a much heavier orchestral sound than baroque orchestration, but this homophonic texture is lighter than the heavy polyphony of the baroque era.  classicism is based on the artistic principles of the ancient greeks and romans, emphasizing and idealizing beauty, clarity, simplicity, and balance.  compositions contain a very well defined sense of proportion.  the dramatic changes in dynamics came from the fact that the harpsichord was replaced by the fortepiano. the possiblities of changing dynamics added something new to classical composition.

(if you want more - i've got a lot more)

[pianistimo]

amanfang asked about greatness in classical music.  maybe the greatness was accorded to the times.  they didn't know the future - so they simply gleaned from the past to make something 'better.'  now, we consider classical music 'old hat.'  i personally think the greatness was in making a unified and integrated whole out of a piece of music.  i think barber's nocturne is as classic as anything - and yet - is completely 20th century music.

('organic' is another term - i believe i heard from dr. sterling murray)  we were supposed to compare beethoven's eroica symphony to haydn's creation.  i have more on that.  of course, this (at their time) was STRETCHING the idea of classicism to it's boundaries.  lengthy codas, reiteration of themes in fugato style, themes and variations that exceeded what had been heard before.  phrases became extended through use of chromaticism, new melodies interspersed with old, varying rhythms, inverting fugal themes, rearranging themes, using motives and elongating them.  haydn used a lot of neopolitan 6ths much as beethoven liked to use german augmented 6ths.  there is no normal resolutions of harmonies, no leading tones, neopolitan or german 6th relationships, lack of REGULAR PULSE, and motives sprinkled throughout. 

so you can see we started with the roccoco era (everything light, playful, orderly) - and moved through the classical to the darker areas of shadings.  implied meanings instead of classic, directly singable melodies.  btw, dr. sterling murray is quite a scholar on the classical era - so buy any of his textbooks (that he has helped to make correct).  he studied autographs, too, in his spare time - making sure they are authentic and comparing them for studies of various composers.  and, most recently he has studied the works of rosetti. 

[pianistimo]

as composers and writers began to break away from the classical ideals into 'romanticism' they started picking at catholic or church doctrine in sneaky ways.  for instance milton, in paradise lost (whom haydn used for the oratorio 'the creation' via da ponte's libretto) hails wedded love and makes the claim through the aria 'by thee with bliss' that after adam and eve praised God for the creation of the heavens, the earth, the seas, the birds, the animals,a nd himself and his wife, that he then entered the 'bower' or wedding chamber and enjoyed the 'bliss' of wedded life before the fall.  thus, detangling wedded sex from sin - as all sex was thought to be conceived in sin (or evil) in the catholic doctrine. 

ps milton was actually jailed for awhile because people back then thought he was heretical in his writing.

[pianistimo]

so as not to offend anyone, i might add that these things are speculation on milton's part and not really documented one way or another in the bible.  for milton's idea read gen 2:24 where God is blessing their union and telling adam to 'cleave' to his wife.  against the idea would be their innocence and after the fall their knowledge of their nakedness.  chpt. 4 is the first place that mentions them 'having relations' and that was not just after the fall, but also after they were banished from the garden.  so we have to just be content to go along with additions in the creation story (by milton) as it unfolds predictably by milton as an english heroic verse without rhyme.  not necessarily the last theological word on everything, but a sort of guess as to what happened.

[pianistimo]

something else has come to mind.  the liberettist lorenzo da ponte was a quite interesting figure in the classical era.  he actually came to america after working with mozart - and had a corner store or something on the east coast (nyc)?  he wrote an autobiography which would be most interesting to read.  will look on project gutenberg for any info. 

also, in my study notes (preparing to compare haydn's creation with beethoven's eroica) i have these short paragraphs on classicism:

'concert programs from the classical age impress us by their length.  audiences must have had substantial musical appetites and endurance, considering that concert halls were inadequately, if at all heated.' (quote from reinhard pauley's book)

'the 1805 concert during which the 'eroica symphony' was first performed must have lasted at least four hours.  it is interesting to note that when it was announced (a grand new symphony in D-sharp) that it was in D# instead of E-flat.  the announcement is in the austrian national library in vienna.' (i think i got that quote from 'the creative world of beethoven' by paul henry lang)

before the classic period, when composers were chiefly in the employ of secular rulers or the church, their works normally were considered their employer's property, and there was little concern about protecting the authors' rights.  haydn signed a stipulation for prince esterhazy that he should not compose for anyone else or let his compositions be copied.

the discomfort of fitting the creation and eroica into the classical period is probably due to the lessened need of haydn and beethoven to write at breakneck speed (haydn taking up to two years to compose 'the creation') because of being composed to order.  there was a closer relationship at the end of the eighteenth century between the composer and the audience.  music was usually separated from the personal life and external conditions of the  artist.

beethoven's 'new way'  was described in his 'heligenstadt testament' written oct. 6, 1802.  the eroica was written in 1802.  it is heroic and filled with grand gestures and extra features.  using symphony form, beethoven reached out to the largest mass of humanity that he could.  he embodies the power of will in the work of art.  the symphony listener must be able to concentrate for the length of the movement and recall salient features.  (the symphony is not designed by beethoven as a communication to an elite unless that elite is chosen by virtue, and the particular means to virtue is the ability to listen reflectively.'  (from 'beethoven's new way and the eroica' by philip g. downs)

tension is an issue that comes into play as we get closer to the romantic era.  the passionate feelings that overcome the 'rational.'  hope this helps to clarify just a little.  sometimes it's not 'cut and dried.'

[pianistimo]

more about da ponte's personal story here:
www.pzweifel.com/music/lorenzo_da_ponte.htm

i believe his autobiography can be purchased at amazon or barnes and noble.  it is called 'memoirs of lorenzo da ponte' by himself and edited by charles rosen.  probably a must read for those interested in the classical era.

[amanfang]

Pianistimo,

Quite a plethora of interesting information.  However, I was not speaking of classical music in the sense of Mozart and Haydn.  I was speaking of the general term of classical music that includes music from the Classic era, as well as Baroque, Romantic, modern, etc. 

[pianistimo]

the generalized term classical music is deceptive because what one person considers 'classical' another considers 'avante gard' or 'jazz.'  the wider your repertoire, the more the public comes to appreciate all these different styles and types of music.  why classify them all as 'classical'  unless you are talking about a 'classical' radio station?  that is where people expect to understand the term classical music as anything that's not pop, jazz, rock.  and, yet, on the classical station i listen to there are sousa marches in the morning, jazz at night, and a plethora of new music at times.  i like to narrow it down a bit more - and say - it's something that people will still like 50 years from now (hopefully!).  guess that includes all of the above that is well written, that moves people, and that generally engages a whole audience and not a select few people.  (although the length of listening concentration does come into play - unless it's 'background' music).  i've never wanted music to become 'background' music and would back away in horror if one of my cd's was suddenly played in a grocery store or shopping mall.  i don't tend to think of music as cheaply and would prefer a 'setting' more appropriate.  can you imagine pianists like us going shopping and having to sit down and just listen and not be able to think of the shopping list due to distractions of a piano concerto played by a pianist we like.

*i don't have a cd yet, but would  like to get one going soon.

[jason2711]

can you imagine pianists like us going shopping and having to sit down and just listen and not be able to think of the shopping list due to distractions of a piano concerto played by a pianist we like.

That almost happened to me in an Athens underground station... pictures at an exhibition was playing (the fourth movement, which is one i particularly like)

Earning a fair amount of my money from playing music in a background setting (i 'work' as pianist in a hotel foyer), i can't really say that a difference between classical and popular music is that one can be played in the background while the other is a showpiece.  Just look at the millions who attend rock/pop concerts each year.

Yeah, sometimes I feel like I want to burst out of the piano when I'm working, particurlarly since its not a terribly good one, I sometimes think I need to 'prove myself' because the sound isn't too great.  It makes my night having someone come over and say they enjoyed my playing... I guess the attention-seeking performer's trait resides in me Anyway, I earn three times the amount per hour that most of my peers get, for doing monotonous dead-end jobs.  At least I get to earn my money on a piano stool

[pianistimo]

hey, i'm not putting down playing publicly in hotels or restaurants.  after all, classical musicians did that a lot - except not for the general public.  i suppose you are helping them appreciate classical music (along with popular) - and yet, don't you just hate the little girl that comes up and chews bubble gum right near your ears?  pops bubble and walks away while you are in the middle of a difficult piece.  or, better yet, twinks on the treble keys to see what you will do.  or the middle aged man that stands there expectantly - waiting for some piece that hasn't come to your mind yet.  yet, in some hotels, they actually keep the pianos under lock and key - so they are playable and not covered with cigarette burns (and who knows what else?)

[jason2711]

haha yes you depict the scene nicely.  The hotel I play at does keep it locked (usually), although I think the main problem is a tuner has never looked at it