What is classical music?

i'm very confused about term 'modern academic music'. for me greatest modern composers are three: scelsi, feldman and xenakis. none of them were academical and none of them followed principles of modernity considered as some political stance towards tradition and following some rather narrow way of composing. yet, they are modern composers in that their indvidual choice of way of composing was not derived from traditon nor from anti-tradition. in this sense, they are trully 'modern' to me, and this is not a matter of epoch or time one's living in. take off from point of single atom of experience of rupture - listening to a sound as such in case of scelsi, reconfiguring spacetime of feldman and taking music out of any musicall academism and making it alive through math and architecture in case of xenakis - this is what is modern to me. tradition/antitradition is not 'modern' relation at all, it is old as a world and only serves as a continuation of same principles and modes of creation the tradition is built on. modern is what has neither tradtionalist/nor antitraditionalist stance, but simply goes for primitive atomic point of experience of 'new' - which is not negation of old, traditon and habit, but a rupture in it, and if it takes some elements from traditonall body it is not because in any sens it follows/denies tradition, but only to constitute a new body of art from elements that might have been practically inexistant (marginal, forgotten, denied) in traditonal work of art, but it is not matter of politics and being 'modernist', no, it is matter of 'new'/renewed/refreshed sensibility in art. sensing form or form of sense.

I refuse. Modernism was the bane of my existence in academia.

By that do you mean you don't like modern? If so...I would think that would be your reason for having your name be Antiatonality, no?

Dead, that's what classical music is.

...says the person posting in a predominantly classical music forum :P

I didn't know this was a zombie forum :o!!

...says the person posting in a predominantly classical music forum :P

I didn't know this was a zombie forum :o!!

A "zombie" forum?

I don't get it.

Classical music isn't DEAD... in some places it's still more common than rock. Europe, especially. Though it has been more common in the US... it should be more common!

By that do you mean you don't like modern?

No. It means I don't have an interest in writing what some would call "modern" music.

There are several pieces I would call "modern" that I like, but writing one "modern" piece after the next gets really old to me. REALLY old...

If so...I would think that would be your reason for having your name be Antiatonality, no?

No. First, Atonality is not "modern." Second, I oppose the -term- atonality for the same reason Schoenberg did...

"The word 'atonal' could only signify something entirely inconsistent with the nature of tone. . . . [T]o call any relation of tones atonal is just as farfetched as it would be to designate a relation of colors aspectral or acomplementary. There is no such antithesis" (Schoenberg 1978, 432).

Why do I feel like you're -heckling- me, Heckel?

Classical music isn't DEAD... in some places it's still more common than rock. Europe, especially.

As much as I really wish this was true... it's not.

No. It means I don't have an interest in writing what some would call "modern" music.

There are several pieces I would call "modern" that I like, but writing one "modern" piece after the next gets really old to me. REALLY old...

No. First, Atonality is not "modern." Second, I oppose the -term- atonality for the same reason Schoenberg did...

Why do I feel like you're -heckling- me, Heckel?

:o

I wasn't trying to... but your name always...well let's say it confused me. I was wondering WHY it was antiatonality. Just wondering.

:dunno:

DJ Fatuus: Some places in Europe DO have a lot of classical music going around. Not here in the US, no... rock and such is more common. I tend to think it's because people are to 1-point so to speak on classical music. They think, "Classical music...like Mozart and Bach and Beethoven". They don't think out of that. Modern classical, which is what I tend to like more, is out of their picture. I wonder what would happen if they knew about MORE than Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven.

DJ Fatuus: Some places in Europe DO have a lot of classical music going around. Not here in the US, no... rock and such is more common.

I must be walking around with my eyes closed then :happy:

WALL OF TEXT

Mozart wrote more like an Italian than a German/Austrian, so suck on that.

P.s., it's 'musique concrète' with a grave.

The term "classical music" is, frankly, half responsible for the fact that many people, like that poster above, call classical music dead. The very term implies that it exists in the past, that it's stagnant, that it's something to be "preserved." In every other genre, with perhaps the exception of jazz (which in itself is sadly half dead), the majority of its listeners focus on the present, on what music is being made now. Now be honest, how many of you, supposed fans of "classical music," have actually listened to a piece composed in the last year, five years, decade, even the last fifty years? Not as much, I would say, as how many people have listened to music more than two centuries old.

See this great article by possibly the smartest music critic alive, Alex Ross:

I hate “classical music”: not the thing but the name. It traps a tenaciously living art in a theme park of the past. It cancels out the possibility that music in the spirit of Beethoven could still be created today. It banishes into limbo the work of thousands of active composers who have to explain to otherwise well-informed people what it is they do for a living. The phrase is a masterpiece of negative publicity, a tour de force of anti-hype. I wish there were another name. I envy jazz people who speak simply of “the music.” Some jazz aficionados also call their art “America’s classical music,” and I propose a trade: they can have “classical,” I’ll take “the music.”

For at least a century, the music has been captive to a cult of mediocre élitism that tries to manufacture self-esteem by clutching at empty formulas of intellectual superiority. Consider some of the rival names in circulation: “art” music, “serious” music, “great” music, “good” music. Yes, the music can be great and serious; but greatness and seriousness are not its defining characteristics. It can also be stupid, vulgar, and insane. Music is too personal a medium to support an absolute hierarchy of values. The best music is music that persuades us that there is no other music in the world. This morning, for me, it was Sibelius’s Fifth; late last night, Dylan’s “Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands”; tomorrow, it may be something entirely new. I can’t rank my favorite music any more than I can rank my memories. Yet some discerning souls believe that the music should be marketed as a luxury good, one that supplants an inferior popular product. They say, in effect, “The music you love is trash. Listen instead to our great, arty music.” They gesture toward the heavens, but they speak the language of high-end real estate. They are making little headway with the unconverted because they have forgotten to define the music as something worth loving. If it is worth loving, it must be great; no more need be said.

http://www.therestisnoise.com/2004/05/more_to_come_6.html

This is an interesting thread... and its interesting to see a lot of people question what it is they compose. Myself, I spent the better half of 5 years trying to figure out where my music fits in the vast quilt around us today. Neo-classical? Post-modern? Post-Minimal? Neo-Romantic? Certainly, in my music and in the music of MANY on this site one can find traits that fit each and every category of contemporary art music. The thoughts that went through my head as I read many of the other posts were many. My works fit comfortably in Neoclassicism - as many here have commented when viewing my works. However, even with that in mind... there are many classical conventions that I do not follow. I think the idea of ascribing a particular category to our musical output is best left to those who will view are works and not ourselves. I highly doubt that the great masters of compositions past sat down and thought of these topics.

Classical music isn't DEAD... in some places it's still more common than rock. Europe, especially.

Really? Europe? Hmmm...I really doubt it's more popular than rock there. Just look at how popular Radiohead, Phoenix, and Rammstein are, just as a few examples from different countries.

I don't know why we are all discussing this, as there will NEVER EVER be an ABSOLUTE linguistic definition of ANYTHING, save what one generally may mean by "classical music." Instead of asking to define a label, why don't you ask a more specific question, such as, why are certain pieces of music seen as "classical" vs others, and what, IN GENERAL does it mean to be "classical"? Asking this kind of question however is just like asking what is classical music, except without the music part. So again, why can't you be honest with what you really want to know?

Why is that you ask what is classical music? Do you want a definition from a musicological source? If so, why go here? Do you want a discussion?

What do you really want? Do you want to listen to music by composers during this period?

What is your intention behind this question? What are you trying to really answer? Are you trying to reflect upon what kind of music you write (as if needing a label for it is that important)?

OR was it just a simple question that you didn't know, approximately, what time period has most been considered "classical" and what does this period define?

I would like more specific questions, so I can discover your real question and answer that.

Classical music isn't DEAD... in some places it's still more common than rock. Europe, especially. Though it has been more common in the US... it should be more common!

Well, there is something common here in Middle Europe. I don't think it's rock and it definitely is not classical, art, serious or whatever you want to call it. I live in Slovakia, and would say that I also know the Czech ''scene''.

Where classical music REALLY prevails over everything else is the area of music education. I'm sure we don't have a single college-level music school that teaches jazz (I'm almost sure Czech Republic doesn't have either, but I know Poland has one) and I don't know of any such conservatory. There are relatively few elementary music schools that teach jazz. The same goes for rock, in fact, it has even weaker position. Classical music clearly prevails.

But moving outside this area to common public, it doesn't have a strong position. I don't think any stronger than in any other country. On the other hand, neither does rock or jazz. It's all pop here, sadly.

Well, there is something common here in Middle Europe. I don't think it's rock and it definitely is not classical, art, serious or whatever you want to call it. I live in Slovakia, and would say that I also know the Czech ''scene''.

Where classical music REALLY prevails over everything else is the area of music education. I'm sure we don't have a single college-level music school that teaches jazz (I'm almost sure Czech Republic doesn't have either, but I know Poland has one) and I don't know of any such conservatory. There are relatively few elementary music schools that teach jazz. The same goes for rock, in fact, it has even weaker position. Classical music clearly prevails.

But moving outside this area to common public, it doesn't have a strong position. I don't think any stronger than in any other country. On the other hand, neither does rock or jazz. It's all pop here, sadly.

Well, euro-jazz is usually Western europe, since they got a big blast of it in WWI and WWII. But even then, it's not necessarily the same thing as what Americans were doing with it, even if the notes were the same, tu sais?

Really? Europe? Hmmm...I really doubt it's more popular than rock there. Just look at how popular Radiohead, Phoenix, and Rammstein are, just as a few examples from different countries.

Okay okay...not MORE common than rock, but certainly more common than it is in the United states!

Slayertplsko: That's an interesting way of putting it. It is true that in some places classical is only for education, but nobody actually listens to it.

But even then, it's not necessarily the same thing as what Americans were doing with it, even if the notes were the same, tu sais?

Ehm, je ne sais pas. I'm sorry, I'm missing your point.

Well, euro-jazz is usually Western europe, since they got a big blast of it in WWI and WWII.

True. There indeed was jazz played quite a lot before WWII even in Czechoslovakia (and I believe in other Middle European countries as well), we had our own genuine bands and singers. But after the WWII, the whole Eastern Bloc was under communist rule. And those guys didn't fancy anything western - that means jazz, later rock. They tried to rid of any western influence and saw it that a unique, yet stupid form of folk-pop emerged (they didn't mind drum kits and saxophones though). So every musician who didn't fall in their ideological standards had a pretty tough time making the music he wanted to.

Classical music on the other hand had never been seen as something dangerous, and that's why it has such a strong position in music education (almost a monopoly).

Heckelphone224: I didn't mean that nobody listens to it (I'm guilty thereof at least), just that it doesn't have as strong a position among non-musicians as you said. Sure, older people listen to it and those who study music sometimes do, too. But I would say it's just as overlooked, if I may put it this way, as in other countries.

I get that. It is true, and kind of sad how it's just the geezers and people studying classical music who actually like it.

I think the main problem with everyone else is that they think: "Classical..you mean Mozart and Bach and Beethoven. I don't like them, so I must not like clasical music." However, I do think that if more people heard modern classical music, with weird harmonies and such, they would like it more

I get that. It is true, and kind of sad how it's just the geezers and people studying classical music who actually like it.

I think the main problem with everyone else is that they think: "Classical..you mean Mozart and Bach and Beethoven. I don't like them, so I must not like clasical music." However, I do think that if more people heard modern classical music, with weird harmonies and such, they would like it more

As much as I hate to break it to you, I can't imagine people liking Schoenberg, Webern or Stravinsky (no, I don't even dare mention Varèse) more than Mozart, Chopin or Bach. In fact, just from my accidental observations, I would imagine this as something that people might like:

People are scared when they hear weird things, sadly. It must be quite consonant and smooth for them to like it (OK I'm not saying the Liszt piece doesn't have chromaticism in it, but it's all kind of smooth, you know). I think the problem lies elsewhere. Perhaps in those labels given to it ''classical music is music for old people and snobs'', ''classical music is dead'' and so on. The author of the article that Morty posted calls the term 'classical music' a 'masterpiece of negative publicity'. There might be something to it.

Part of the problem could be music education (or lack thereof) at public schools. In my country, kids aged 6 to 14 or so (ie. 1st to 8th grade) do have a subject called 'music education'. But this is another masterpiece of negative publicity. The first 5 or 6 years they just sing Slovak folk songs, and then there is some very brief introduction to art music. I know that there is no mention of jazz and other genres that emerged in the 20th century, which is a big problem. I believe the main goal of public schools should be to let kids know that other alternatives to radios and charts exist. But they fail to do so and they even do the contrary.

What about education in your countries?