Alright, maybe it's been a while since I posted a new blog. But let's put that behind us now and move on, yes?
A while ago, I got a voicemail from a listener who was displeased with a particular selection on midday classical. The piece was from Ludovico Einaudi's album Divenire and it featured piano, loops and cello. The listener (who, sadly, did not leave a phone number) said that just because a piece has cello and piano doesn't mean it is classical music. I wish I could have called that listener back because I wanted to ask what makes classical music. I find that question to be endlessly fascinating and probably impossible to answer fully--at least for me.
What do you think? Do the limits of classical music lie in instrumentation? Form? Structure?
Plenty of music we now call "classical" was "popular music" when it was written--or at least based on popular music. So when does it become classical music? Is this a temporal issue? Does a piece have to be a certain age before it becomes classical music if it evokes or includes a popular idiom?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think it's kinda like the color spectrum. We divide the spectrum into distinct colors (ROY G. BIV), when in fact it is continuous. Music is the same. There is new music coming out every day, yet its 'sound' triggers a specific period of time in our minds- 70's disco, 80's rock, etc.
There is an episode of The West Wing in which Charlie Sheen goes on about "how can a piece of music that was written ten minutes ago be classical". Likewise, there are kit cars one can buy which look like vintage cars and six figure cars, but they only look like the real thing.
I think a songs place in time has some bearing on whether or not it is "classical" by definition. But like the color spectrum, it's not a yes or no answer.
I find popular music heavy in emotional content, whereas in classical music there is a striving to achieve musical purity. So, I see a difference in intent.
Now it is clear that classical music is full of moods. Yet there is a restraint somewhere, which is not easily found in popular music.
Since I do not have musical training, I only have this broad demarcation.
Thanks,
Mohit Sharma
According to music history, the term "classical" refers to the period spanning from approximately 1750 (the year of J.S. Bach's death) to approximately 1800-20 (when Beethoven's late works represented something much different from his contemporaries). "Classical" also refers to the emphasis on balance and symmetry in art of the time, a reference back to the ancient Greeks and Romans and their art and architecture. Now, this is purely a textbook definition, and is not all-inclusive of what every artist/composer was doing at the time.
I think that if we call some piece of music "classical," it should refer to the epoch discussed above. Nowadays, we call any music that is performed in a concert hall by an orchestra, chorus, or some chamber music ensemble "classical" music, when in the strictest sense of the term, it is not. Mahler was by no means a "classical" composer; "romantic" or even "post-romantic" are much better terms to describe his music. Perhaps it would be beneficial to listeners if we referred to music by its stylistic tendencies, such as Baroque, Classic, Romantic, Modern, avant-garde, etc. This might prevent some confusion and also serve as a way of distinguishing these various styles of music.
Hello Karen – I stumbled in here quite by accident. I was looking for the play list for this morning, looking for a baroque piece (sonata or suite) for flute and harpsichord well played on a traverso. (could not find it by the way)
As someone with a DMA in flute performance and 30 years of teaching music history, music literature and “music appreciation” courses in addition to flute I feel I am qualified to answer the question about “what is classical music”. And the answer is: There is no answer. Yes, as has been expressed earlier true classical music is music from the classical period. Things have taken on a much broader meaning. What that meaning is, that is our dilemma. I have always been looking for a better term and have toyed with “art music”, “music intended to be listened to in a serious manner” and a few other ones. None really work.
It probably comes down to individual taste. For instance, I do not consider most music written for movies to be what we call “classical”. It was written for the purpose of enhancing another art form, not for serious listening. All you have to do is to listen to request day and you will see that MANY folks disagree. A number of years ago I used to joke that people must think if music has French horns it is “classical”. This can go on and on. I will say that yes, Mozart’s serenades, Mendelssohn’s incidental music to “A Mid Summer Nights Dream” and other things were first written as “background” music Because of value they have found there way into the concert hall.
I have never written to a blog before but could not resist this.
Keith
Yes, "classical" has what Webster's would call a usage problem, where many people equate anything symphonic to classical. Now where is Karen Hearn? I used to hear a gorgeous voice, but now it's gone. Is she on vacation? It's not the same, Karen. Back to work, you!
Keith--I usually say "Classical music" so casual listeners, as they are (insultingly, perhaps) called, will know what I'm talking about. I sometimes use the term "academic music" but that doesn't quite fit, either. You're right, it's tricky. I consider film score a valid form of classical music because it's a natural progression out of program music. Not all film music is great, mind you, but there are plenty of really nice scores out there. It's comparable to those opera without words records, no?
Aldiecakes--I'm back! I'm back! I was v ill last week and banished from the building, sadly. But I'm back and ready to rock out, classical (or whatever) music-wise 8)
I happened to be listening today and wanted the title of the last piece played, which was cut short. Looking for the play list, I stumbled upon your blog and found the post very appropriate. As a poor college student living on Ramen and cheap coffee, I'd never donated to NPR, though I can't think of the last time I didn't listen at all in a day. I heard a piece during the pledge drive from Divenire and called, in part, because you were offering a copy as the gift. I find it to be an extremely compelling album with a great deal of beauty and intricacy. It's absolutely a fascinating question in art in general as to where the lines are drawn. I think that when it comes to what the average person would refer to as classical music it is doubly so.
The reason I think "classical music" is doubly problematic is because you not only have the philosophical and technical aspects of the question "what is classical(in the broad, vernacular sense) music?", but you also have all of the unfortunate baggage that classical music carries with it. The amount of elitism and attempted erudition of so many "avid enthusiasts", though possibly unintentional, sends bad messages to the general population. There is no reason why people need to dress up to go to the opera, make vulgar comments about the vacuousness of all "popular music", which you pointed out most "classical music" was at one point, or try and associate a "refined classical palate" with intellectual superiority; all of which alienate a large number of people from music they might have otherwise discovered and found beautiful or compelling. I think it is a great tragedy that today classical music is so closely tied with notions of refinement and intellectualism because it makes it seem more alien to most people when many of the great men who wrote these pieces hoped they were expressing something beautiful in a way that people, regardless of class or musical education, could appreciate it.
Time, which "michaelhorsley" brought up, doesn't seem to work to define it because I don't think there's any problem with calling Adams, Golijov, Part, etc classical (again, broad sense) composers. Musical purity, which was brought up anonymously, was certainly a part of the classical (specific sense) period, but Beethoven and the romantics seemed to rebel against that and attempted to bring strong emotion and passion into their music. What "BrianKauth" brought up is interesting. If there is a definition problem with using classical in a broad sense, then maybe another term should be created to try and describe the musical tradition of Europe over the past five or six hundred years that continues today and seems to fit certain broad criteria; the defining of which unfortunately is problematic in itself. I think "Keith Pettway" is wrong about film scores and you're dead on, but I hope we aren't left with anything but individual subjective preference to determine what is or isn't classical music.
I'm sorry if this is long-winded, I've never read or responded to a blog before but just have such an appreciation and respect for what you do and such an interest in the topic of your post that I couldn't resist.
I simply must comment. As an avid international listener of your show Karen I do wish you would keep your blog up to date. I have now been waiting for 15 months for the next installment. This will not do.
Yours 'the distant brit' <3
Post a Comment