A question about classical music

Cafe Society
1

Ummmmm. . .
What is it?

I’ve been wanting to ask a few questions about classical music but I don’t know enough about it to even form the questions. Things like nomenclature (Beethoven’s 9th symphony, 4th movement vs Beethoven’s 9th choral vs Ode to Joy) and the difference between, say a John William composition and classical. Where do suites and sonatas fit into the overall scheme of things?

So I’ve decided to ask the most basic of questions. What is the definition of classical music.

[sup]Please don’t tell me to look it up. I have. I’ve found some esoteric disscusions on romaticism and modernism that I am too stupid to follow. I’d rather get the straight dope here from my friends than learning about it from the streets

2

“Classical Music” is a catchall term for any art music which is non-popular (in the sense of “people’s” or “folk” music). It applies to symphonic, vocal, and chamber (small ensemble) music.

In a finer, better world, “classical music” would mean the music of the Classical Period, which ranges from Franz Josef Haydn in the latter part of the 18th century to about the time Beethoven composed the Third Symphony, which ushered in the Romantic Era, shortly after the turn of the 19th.

Before the Classical Period you had the Baroque Period (Buxtehude, J.S. Bach, Handel), and the Renaissance before that (musical terms coincide with art history terms). Beethoven bridged Classical to Romantic. Other early Romantics included Schubert, Schumann, Chopin and Berlioz.

After Wagner everything changed…Late Romantics were either heavily influenced by Wagner (Bruckner, Mahler) or rebelled against him. The Nationalists depended on folk melodies and rhythms from their respective countries…Grieg in Norway, Sibelius in Finland, Smetana in Moravia, etc.

By the early 20th Century Modernism arrived, and everything went to pot. Stravinsky went one way (several in fact), Debussy and Ravel went another, Schoenberg started up the Second Viennese School and invented Serialism.

A Sonata is a musical form, a composition in three or four movements (usually alternating Fast/Kinda Slow/Slow/Really Fast) for solo instrument, often accompanied by piano. A Symphony is just a Sonata in Symphonic form.

A Suite is a series of dances, often ballet music rearranged into a piece that can be played in concert.

A John Williams composition would be movie music. That’s a whole nother kettle of fish. Movie music, as you know, started off with a guy banging a piano to accompany silent films. As the sound era started, film composers like Max Steiner and Franz Korngold drew heavily on European music to write mood music to accompany various scenes. As the 20th century progressed, composers like Bernard Herrmann and Elmer Bernstein became more adventurous…composers like Williams are actually reactionary, looking back to the popular film music styles of the '30s and '40s.

3

I’m no expert, but I’ll try to start off with a few things I know.

Symphony - A work involving the full orchestra, divided into a number of “movements”, which are are distinct passages of music which usually come to a close before the next one begins. A notable exception is the transition between the third and fourth of Beethoven’s Ninth, where the ending theme of the third leads directly into the fourth. The movements often have two or more contrasting “themes”, or distinct melodies whose musical possibilites are explored throughout.

Sonata - This is a work involving a single instrument, with no accompaniment of any kind. Also usually divided into movements, with the above applying here also.

Concerto - A work which highlights a single instrument, with accompaniment from the full orchestra.

As far as the definition of classical music: I can’t think of any other genre that can be applied to such varying forms of music, and would suggest you not worry so much about the difference between say Baroque and Romanticism. I think the general definition of classical music is “any work of music written by a formally educated Western European or Russian composer that uses a lot of violins and woodwinds and brass, but of course never any electrified guitars or any instrument you’d see a guy from the hills of Kentucky playing (with the exception of a fiddle, but we all know they don’t play it correctly anyway).” I’d suggest buying a cd of someone you like, and reading the liner notes which are sure suggest others you might like, and not worry so much about the definitions.

4

Thanks Ike! That was easy enough for me to follow.

I guess I’m a Romantic. Beethoven, Chopin, Shubert. . . my kinda music. Oh and Handle’s Messiah kicks ass, so I guess I’m a little Baroque 'n roll too.

I haven’t heard anything from Debussy that I like. John Williams is much more to my liking. I guess I’m just a Philistine at heart.

5

Very good advice notcynical. About not trying to catogorize myself. And after I did such a lousy job of just that in my previous post.

I’m not a Philistine, I’m an individualist!

6

Oops. Of course, Ike is right. Please ignore my definition of “sonata”.

7

“No one can handle Handel the way you handle Handel.”

(Attribution of the quote is left as an exercise for the student.)

8

Sonata form can also be made with “three movements” which are typically played in succession. Usually there is a faster theme to start the sonata then it goes to a single slow section and then ends with a restatement of the theme (with or without variation).

A concerto doesn’t have to be accompanied by a full orchestra either although it typically is. Villa Lobos’s Concerto for Guitar and Small Orchestra has eight orchestral instruments and the guitar. It is meant to be played by nine performers with or without a conductor.

Western classical music encompasses the following periods:
Middle Ages (when the staff and nomenclature was invented)
Renaissance
Baroque
Classical
Romantic
20th Century (aka Modern).

Before the classical period 20th century music was primarily made for the church and nobility. When the classical period came along Mozart broke that mold and went out on his own. He died broke (there are a lot of stories, some say he couldn’t handle money well, others say he was supporting mistresses) and was buried in a pauper’s grave. Beethoveen was the first successful composer. After that, many composers were able to make music without the influence of the church or the court though many of them still had benefactors (Tchaikovsky had a benefactor that according to my reading he wasn’t allowed to speak to or acknowledge).

As for a definition: Classical music is written music that stands the test of time.

We listen to and perform classical music that is several hundreds of years old still and still have the same sense of inspiration when we hear it. Very few pop “composers” have that type of lasting effect. When was the last time you listened to a Run DMC song and thought it didn’t just sound like old boring hash?

I would say classical music is to pop music as classical paintings (Michelangelo, Da Vinci, etc) are to comic strips. Sure both have their entertainment value but one stands the test of time and becomes art. Pop music and comics can both do that, but by and large they don’t.

HUGS!
Sqrl

9

Thanks to Sqrl and Uke for laying out the timelines and general forms so nicely. However, there is one thing…

I don’t disagree with the general sense of this, Sqrl, but I would suggest that folk music is one form of pop music which does often stand the test of time. I’m thinking of songs like “Danny Boy” and “My Love is Red Red Rose”.

Or perhaps I am really saying that even some comic strips become “classics”…?

Anyway, my motto is: if it’s Baroque, don’t fix it.

10

And I’d say this is way to broad a characterization. I’m sure you’re not implying that any form of music written in a classical style automatically will stand the test of time. And I’m also sure the number of mediocre classical music pieces written that are now all but forgotten are many. Thus, the “but by and large they don’t” argument can be applied equally to both types of music. It’s too early to tell if a hundred years from now people will still be inspired or touched by a mere pop song like “Imagine”, but I still know old men who cry whenever they hear “Waltzing Matilda”, and I dare say that song is as important to them as any Beethoven symphony is to a classical music lover.

11

At the risk of making this thread weird (and God knows we wouldn’t want THAT), I’ll argue that certain types of composed popular songs ARE actually “art songs.”

(The term “art song” refers to a melody for a vocalist AND a written-out piano accompaniment…Schubert’s “The Erl-King” is one of the most famous.)

I believe that folks will still be playing and singing certain pop songs like “Imagine” and “Norwegian Wood” and “Waterloo Sunset” and “Lay Lady Lay” and “Stardust” and “Anyplace I Hang My Hat is Home” a hundred years from now.

If anyone still remembers how to play the piano, that is.

12

As the voice of the unwashed (you know, the person who prefers Williams to Debussy) let me just say that popular music withstands the test of time, probably as well as “classical”. If I’m not mistaken-- and I very well could be-- classical music was the popular music at the time of it’s creation.

As was, oh, Amazing Grace and anything written by Cole Porter or Irving Berlin. I think Easter Parade will be with us for a long, long time.
Also, I’d like to make the arguement that some “classical” music could fall under the definition of Pop. William Tell’s Overture and Beethoven’s 5th for examples. And I don’t mean A 5th of Beethoven either (although I like A 5th of Beethoven. Not as much as the original, but you try dancing at Roseland to the original).

I’m off to the record store to get me some classics. But the kind made for us MTV short attention span types. You know, we great unwashed.

13

Notcynical and mjh2. I said that some comics can stand the test of time similar to how some pop music stands the test of time. I did not say nor mean to imply that all classical music does. Both of you take the following conclusion that I do, which is that by and large most pop music doesn’t stand the test of time, but there are some that do.

For what it is worth, common people did not for the most part know how to read or write music until well after the invention of the printing press. Even then, written music was mostly an upper echelon and eclesiastical function which by and large did not include the pop music of the age. You can’t stand the test of time if no one after the first 20 - 40 years of your existence remember you. Classical music has pretty much always been written in some form or another and was easily repeatable. Folk/Pop music of the era wasn’t written down often. Some of the most popular of the era were, but by and large they weren’t so we won’t ever know the full extent of what the common people really listened to. You can further this analogy by doing songs of today as well; although, through copywrite laws and such, more people are writing down their compositions to in turn later make money on them, then they were before. I bet everyone who opens this thread knows someone in some capacity or another that writes beautiful music but he/she doesn’t know how to write it down. Now imagine 400 years ago when most of the people at the time were illiterate but had a good memory and a set of songs that they performed and wrote. You get the idea, even if it was wonderful and marvelous, if they didn’t write it down nor know anyone who was able, it won’t stand the test of time.

Music reading by the general populace didn’t come about until around the 1800’s (give or take 50 or so years) thus a lot of what we currently think of what was formerly pop music didn’t really get included pre 1800’sish. Thus there is not much of any pop music of the time left that wasn’t thus written down by a composer of the era or thereabouts. I could make the same point over and over but I think you guys get the idea by now which is as follows: all music prior to the twentieth century and recording technology that has stood the test of time. Most folk/popular types of songs of the time were not likely ever written down since a lot of folk/pop songs of today aren’t written down because the performer doesn’t know how even when the general education of the populace is significantly higher. That was part of what my original point was. The other part was, that the over simplicity of a lot of pop music and the serialism thus contained does not make it in itself something that can stand the test of time. Really, how many times can you hear a 1 4 5 1 progression and think of it as an original piece?

HUGS!
Sqrl

14

I should learn to preview. Biggirl, classical music was the music of the aristocracy and the church. There was a ton of other types of music of the people at the time most of which that has survived in the form of folk music of some kind or another. For example, flamenco was popular in Spain and Portugal. A lot of the flamenco songs were not written down but passed on by word of mouth with a lot of improvisation. Actually, a lot of early popular music was an improvisation of the sort. Gypsy folk music for a specific example is some basic and extended chords with some really wild melodies.

HUGS!
Sqrl

15

Hey, I just had a thought. What are good classical music recordings for us MTV short attention span types? Is Classical Thunder any good? Any particular recordings I should look for.

16

SqrlCub: I didn’t disagree strongly with your earlier post, concerning the “staying power” of classical music vs. whatever is considered popular music of a given era. Rather I was pointing out that some types of popular music have equal staying power, even if they are less complex musically than contemporary “classical” pieces. Much of what we call folk/traditional music today is really the popular music of some earlier time. So I wasn’t disagreeing with you so much as making a clarification for the benefit of the OP, lest she come away from this thread with the equations: classical = enduring, popular = ephemeral.

However, I’m not certain I follow your argument about music in written/printed form and how it relates to your earlier points. I would think that music which has managed to survive without being written down testifies to its own endurability… is this what you are saying?

Thanks.

17

Biggirl – you are the perfect guinnea pig for my business’ website, www.Allclassical.com. I’d be especially interested to hear your comments on the “for Newcomers” section (one of the buttons on the left hand side), which is intended to give folks just like yourself – interested but not knowledgeable about classical music – a way in to start exploring the music.

Sorry if this seems like spamming --it isn’t meant that way at all (and I stand to gain nothing from anyone visiting the site). But this is exactly what we’ve been working on lately, so your OP seemed very timely.
As to the “where do you divide between popular and classical music” question: I’d say that %98.85 of the time, you know it when you hear it. But there is that small group of composers, many of whom are out there composing right now, who are ambiguous, or who have a foot in both worlds. People like Philip Glass and John Zorn, for instance, have considerable presence in both. There are also “Classical” composers whose music very much revolves around popular culture and its subjects. Check out Michael Daugherty’s Metropolis Symphony, for example, or his Elvis Everywhere. The lines get pretty blurry sometimes. Consider also people like Danny Elfman, who started out as a rock musician, and then became a movie composer clearly aligned in ways with the classical tradition.

But that merely underscores the point that definitions are only so useful.

I think it is almost impossible to make meaningful distinctions between popular art and “art art” along lines of quality, style, or durability, because there is simply too much that falls through the cracks. Also it relies heavily on subjectivity. But regardless of the quality, style, or substance of a work of art, you can often get a sense of what tradition the creator was attempting to align himself/herself with when they wrote or made it. Consider for example the 90s hair band Warrant’s “Cherry Pie” vs. Philip Glass’ multi-media opera “Einstein on the Beach.” Regardless of your opinion of either one, or whether or not you consider either one to be a lasting “classic,” you can see that one clearly makes its home in the realm of popular music and other in classical, even though they both make use of electronics, both are by “popular” artists, and both had reasonably short periods of popularity (I’m glossing over the fact that Einstein is considered a landmark work historically, but the point is that it is unlikely to be on many people’s playlists 50 years from now).
Sqrl While the thrust of your “music for aristocracy/church” vs. “music as a commercial enterprise” distinction is very true and valid, I think your timeline is off by a century or so. The first real commercial composers were the Italian opera composers in Naples, Venice, and Rome in the mid 1600s. Those guys really broke the aristocratic mould – some of them made a fortune.

18

MJH2, it follows perfectly. If people can’t reproduce the music later, the music has no staying power. That is why writing is such a perfect example. They can write it down for other people to play later.

Ashcroft, “The first real commercial composers were the Italian opera composers in Naples, Venice, and Rome in the mid 1600s. Those guys really broke the aristocratic mould – some of them made a fortune.” That directly conflicts with everything I learned in music school. Beethoveen was the first real success without a benefactor. Mozart was the first to try to break out of that. If you give some examples of the operatic composers you mention, I am 99% sure that I can find that the source of their income was the aristocracy somewhere back there.

HUGS!
Sqrl

19

It’s been years since I’ve lived in a radio market that carries his show, but from what I’ve found on the internet, Karl Haas’ “Adventures in Good Listening” is still on the air on some NPR stations. Since a lot of Americans find this music intimidating (sadly, a lot of class issues needlessly come into friction), radio shows like Haas’s do a good job without dumbing the material down.

20

SqrlCub, I can listen to a 1-4-5-1 progession exactly one time and think of it as an original piece, if all I hear played are the chords. Perhaps there is a mathematician/musician who can calculate the number of distinct songs that can be written when you add in melody, tempo, and syncopation. I, too, don’t understand your argument about written music and staying power. Of course, if a song is lost in history, perhaps because no one ever wrote it down, by definition it cannot last. But to imply a song can only last if it is written down is just wrong.