Talk:Classical music/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

The term again

I think that the term "Classical music" is totally ridiculous. Let's say someone ask a composer, "what do you write?" He says, "I write classical music." So what he writes automatically becomes classics??

Can you imagine someone making an "Art Film" and people call it "classical film" immediately??

It's a total disrespect for the living composers. Classical music means Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert etc. and that is it.

Sigh, this controversy just won't go away. The line I would take is: "classical music" is a conventional term, not necessarily to be taken literally. So, for example, it's what a record store uses to label the bin containing Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, etc. The record store's staff hasn't evaluated every CD in the bin to make sure it's a "classic"; they just want to make it clear that this is the classical music bin, so that the classical music fans can find it.
English has many conventionalized terms. Lots of suitcases never carry a suit, monkey wrenches have nothing to do with monkeys, many kindergartens lack plants. It's really best just to accept this conventionality, and not start pointless crusades to change the English language. Especially not on the Wikipedia, where our job is be as clear as possible by using standard terms. Cheers, Opus33 20:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
As I noted below, there shouldn't be any controversy. Just check a dictionary. Mine says: "Classical 3. Music a. Of or relating to European music during the latter half of the 18th and the early 19th centuries. b. Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera, as opposed to popular or folk music." That's what the phrase means. So the following statements are accurate:
  • The Bach Brandenburg concerti are examples of classical, rather than popular music.
  • The Bach Brandenburg concerti are examples of baroque, rather than classical music.
  • John Williams' film scores may not be immortal art, but are in composed in the idiom of classical music.
  • Dave Brubeck's Take Five is a jazz classic, but is not classical music.
Dpbsmith 23:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


Baroque

I think it's odd to think of separating the Baroque (or any other) era without considering other forms of art from that era (sculpture, archetecture, etc), because they all were influenced by the same forces of those times. As such, I am wondering if we shouldn't organize the eras more generically, link to the generic eras, and within the generic eras describe more specific issues per field of art. Something like this is already starting to take place in Baroque.

Doing so could help tie the various arts together, and avoid duplications of effort in helping someone understand how the arts were influenced by elements within history.

Anyone else with me on this?

-- Fleeb

A problem with an overarching 'Baroque' entry that includes Baroque politics and Baroque religion and Baroque science as well as Baroque jewelry design is that even if you're quite brilliant, b.s. is always only a hair's-breadth away. The fact is, a style is scarcely ever completely in control of a work of art (or culture), making for more interesting approaches, such as 'Baroque influences on Brahms' etc. It's hard enough to define what is 'classical' about 'classical music': at least it hasn't been done well enough yet here (it will be it will be...) User:Wetman

Should their be a section for Film Music or Soundtracks (yes, I know not *all* film-music is classical, but there is lots of it and some distinguished composers have composed for it - eg Vaughn Williams)

This is absolutely a great idea. It should have a link here. There should be a highly-selective List of film soundtracks that have succeeded as concert music or a better title. But a genuinely selective list. Wetman 15:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Certainly needs a section on the use of original classical music in films, not just film scores that succeeded as concert pieces. There is a brief mention of the use of previous-composed classical music in films that could porbably use some more/better examples. Rmhermen 16:13, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
I think we should include some discussion of Fantasia, Silly Symphonys and John Williams. Who/what else? Rmhermen 18:03, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguating "classical"

'Classical' is used in two senses: classical music including romantic and baroque and classic music as opposed to romantic and baroque. This article mentions the distinction, but doesn't make it clear enough. When a word or phrase has two closely related meanings, they should be distinguished in the first paragraph or so. -- SJK


I added the synonymous term "serious music." It means the same thing, but also refers mainly to the works of living composers who currently write "classical" music as an artform. "New music" is also used, in the academic sense, to refer to such music recently composed.

I can't believe that anyone could be so pompous as to say "Important points from a music graduate". I don't care what your degree is in, or whether you've got one at all - just whether your work on this encylopedia is any good. Please!

I was not trying to be pompous! A contributor of this article, whether that is you or someone else, asked, "Is anyone a music major?" I was merely trying to indicate that yes, I majored in music in college. I was not implying that I'm better than anyone else. If I've offended anyone, or caused a misunderstanding, I apologise.

In which case I in turn will apologise for very clearly having overreacted. Sorry.

I changed sax for sitar, hope no-one minds. It was this bit: Instruments invented in the twentieth century or outside western musical traditions which then goes on to give B.gtr, synth and sax as examples. Since the sax was NOT invented in the twentieth century or and was NOT invented outside western musical traditions, I thought it rather weakened the point - in its present form anyway. Sitar is maybe a bit of a feeble example but I hope it helps make the point better. Nevilley 22:25 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

I agree with you (also, of course, composers like Debussy, Rachmaninov etc used the sax). As the article stands, there is so little talk of non-western classical music that the sitar is probably fine - however, the sitar is used in Indian classical music (as opposed to Indian folk music), so I'm going to change it for the didgeridoo. --Camembert
Rachmaninoff composed for saxophone? What? That would interest me... Malbi 15:47, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
He didn't write any solo pieces for it, but there's a prominent part for a sax in the first of his Symphonic Dances. --Camembert

Denouncing vulgar errors

The stuff about Beethoven, etc, not being known until long after their lifetimes is nonsense. All three had international reputations in their lifetime. Why did a London music organisation commission a major work from B. if he was not already highly regarded. Haydn was also well known in London and Paris.

Agreed. In my arrogant opinion, this sort of thing was a mythology created in the 1950s and 1960s in order to deflect criticism of twelve-tone music. Very few concertgoers liked the stuff, and orchestras were forced to program Bach/Schoenberg/Beethoven sandwiches in order to avoid having people walk out, but the argument always was that this stuff was destined to become beloved and popular Real Soon Now, and the fact that nobody liked it was something it had in common with Beethoven. Gee, Stravinsky's Rites of Spring caused a riot on its first performance, etc. etc. Incidentally, I notice that the apotheosis of twelve-tone composers seems to have eased off considerably, and it is now much easier to indulge an appetite for diatonic music without being forced to "eat your Webern-spinach, it's good for you." Dpbsmith 19:21, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't share your "arrogant opinion", i.e. I don't believe that this myth has been created to defend dodecaphony or serialism. Besides that there is some truth in it: Beethoven's late piano sonatas or string quartets were very hard to understand for his contemporary audience (why, they still are for many people ...). And, oddly enough, Mozart had a bad reputation as being a "Dissonanzenjäger" (hunter for dissonances). --- Utis 11:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Haydn's father was a wheelwright and Beethoven's a musician but not a composer.

All this should be altered.

If you count B as a Classical composer, it is absurd to say: "Classical music was written specifically for the sake of music; there is no grand design or no emotion built into it." This is untrue of Haydn and Mozart, too. Both wrote music that is intensely emotional.

Beethoven is a classical composer sometimes and a romantic composer sometimes. To be really good, the entry must distinguish what is 'classical' in Beethoven. User:Wetman
Doesn't that go a bit over the scope of this article? It amounts to a discussion about the subtle aesthetical differences between two closely related artistic movements/principles/aeras. That classical artists have strong, sometimes very strong romantic elments in their works is far from being uncommon (cf. Goethe). I don't know about music, but in literature it is up to today an open debate, whether some writers, e.g. Hölerlin, are classical or romantic. So I'd say: leave it there. Beethoven is commonly reckognized as "classical". [As an aside: I tend to think that "the classical" includes "the romantic" as a subset ... I formed this conlusion based on the works of Goethe.] --- Utis 11:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BevRowe 18:06 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Do I assume that the lack of response to my comments indicates agreement or that no one is reading this page?

BevRowe 08:16 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

I'm reading it! I think you are probably right. You could always change it to how you think is correct and see if anyone protests. :) Nevilley 20:36 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Denouncing the article

For this to be an encyclopedia, the page would have to be accurate. In my teaching profession, I write my own curriculum for music theory and ran across this page in preparation for a lesson on compound ternary form. I am astounded at the lack of knowledge of music involved. I recommend to anyone who visits this site to go to www.grovemusic.com or go to the library and consult the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians to get a true account of what they should know.

I'll check to make sure http://www.grovemusic.com is linked from this site as an External link Wetman 15:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this page needs work. Feel free to edit the article and improve it. See Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers if you're interested. --Camembert
By the way, see ternary form. --Camembert

I reverted the paragraph break between the "snobbery" paragraph and the music lessons paragraph. Without the break, the article seems to imply that anyone who signs up Junior for music lessons is a snob, which I don't think we want to say.

169.232.226.5 06:36, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Odious paragraph on sexiness of classical and popular performers

I removed the following paragraph which is nowhere near being NPOV. I don't think its a valid or true observation, so I'm not willing to NPOV it to death and add it back in, but feel free.-Hyacinth 17:13, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC) "One last difference between classical and popular music is worth observing. New performers entering the field of popular music are expected, virtually without exception, to be young and sexually attractive. Older performers are sometimes successful, but typically their following consists largely of fans who encountered them when they were young. In the case of classical music, it is likewise a professional advantage for beginning performers to be attractive, but there is no rigid requirement in this regard. Older performers continue to attract new listeners, and indeed, artists such as Vladimir Horowitz and Artur Rubinstein performed before enthusiastic audiences in advanced old age. Further, a number of opera singers attract enthusiastic followings despite being quite stout or even obese."

Thank you. UninvitedCompany 23:53, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Glad it's gone. Good riddance. Antandrus 17:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Classical music for beginners?

In the coming days, I want to start adding some suggested repertoire for the new listener. Not sure the best way to organize it, so I'm open to suggestions. UninvitedCompany 18:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This seems rather, ummm, unencyclopedic, but if you insist, why not start a new article? -- Viajero 18:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The answer I was looking for was whether it should be by era and style, by instrument, or both. There are some sample pieces listed here are there already. I don't think putting the material off by itself would be especially helpful.

People with limited exposure to classical music often ask where to start listening to learn what such music is like. The answers are fairly standard, so I can't imagine why we wouldn't include them. UninvitedCompany 19:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Uninvited--I'm a little daunted by the size of the task; there are so many nice pieces. I myself wouldn't feel capable of giving "standard answers," since anything I would recommend would reflect my own taste.
I agree with Viajero that if you do make such a list, it ought to be a separate page, since it's likely to grow a lot as people add their favorites (tastes are so diverse...). I would also suggest organizing by the major eras, and within era by composer. Organizing by instrument is better done by letting people visit the article for the relevant instrument. Be sure to cross-link works that already have Wikipedia articles. Cheers, Opus33 19:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The value in such a list is to avoid having it become exhaustive. Some works are such staples of classical music -- Beethoven's 2nd symphony, Hadyn's "surprise" symphony, the Brandenburg concertos, Mass_In_B_Minor_(Bach, Handel's Messiah that they are worth mentioning. Then there are some works that are so characteristic of particular instruments and periods, e.g. Bach's d minor toccata and fugue (Baroque organ), Beethoven and Mozart's piano sonatas for classical piano (pick any of about two dozen). We have a list of famous operas already. There are other forms, of course, but I'll stick to what I know. The romantic era does pose more of a challenge than earlier times because there are so many more composers and works but I think we could still pick some.

While I suppose there are those who will not be satisfied unless their particular favorite is on the list, they miss the point, which is to help the novice reader get their bearings in an unfamiliar world. In the olden days, record stores were intimidating enough for newly-minted classical music enthusiasts, and amazon.com is worse because their is so much from which to choose.

UninvitedCompany 20:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A good idea that needs a good title that shows how brief the list is. It needs to be well linked to from here. Personal experience shows that concert music over 20 minutes long exhausts the three-minute attention span of pop fans-- a cue from the "Great Baroque Mood Music" type of CD. This entry should be the next step from one of those CDs. Familiarity helps: Satie's "Gymnopedies" and Holst's "Planets" and Orff's "Carmina Burana"? Bach's "Mass in B-Minor" will scare 'em off. How about that suite for unaccompanied cello? "Less than twenty minutes long" might even be in the opener.

Hi Rh--I enjoyed your remarks but have to say I agree more with Uninvited. Why would someone with a musical attention span of three minutes want to take up classical music at all?
I think the Wikipedia could be more helpful to beginners who come to it with the question, "Which classical works would I enjoy very much if I listened to them enough times to get to know them well?". On that basis, the B Minor Mass is definitely in contention, or so I believe.
P.S.: Rh, please add four tildes ("~") after your discussion contributions so we know who's talking. The software translates the tildes into your Wikipedia handle. Thanks, Opus33 02:14, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do think that such a list of typical works is a good idea. If somebody seriously wants to explore a new field, such recommendations are invaluable. It should be by aera and it should strieve to do treat each aera equally (i.e. not 30 pieces for "classic", two for "early baroque" and none for "contemporary". Ideally the number of pieces for each aera should be fix. So if one wants to add a (favourite) piece, he or she has to decide on removing one already listed. "Typical" would be more important than "advanced". (E.g. Beethoven's late piano sonatas are probably not typical for "classic", great as they are.) Separate listings for genres (opera, concerto ...) might be a good thing, though I am not sure whether that is feasible. --- Utis 11:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Marsalis's Haydn

"[The Marsalis Haydn trumpet concerto recording] on the strength of Marsalis' jazz notoriety, became a classical best-seller." ~ Richard S. Ginell, All Music Guide

There would be no point in including the Haydn Trumpet Concerto in this section were it not for Marsalis's recording--otherwise, it wouldn't be an example of crossover, right? So anyone who wants to delete should delete the concerto, too.

Opus33 22:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry. It was a very bad example of a crossover and the point about Marsalis is wrong (the Ginell quote can be no more than conjecture), so I have removed it entirely as you suggest. Nevilley 00:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Move this Article to "Art music"

This article is not about classical music - it is about art music in its entirity. A redirect from "classical music" can either go directly to the art music page - or serve as a disambiguation page (for both Art music and the Classical period).

How do we go about deleting the current content of art music so as to move the page there? --OldakQuill 10:26, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, please do not move the article. People will find it under "classical music" which is where they will look first. The term "art music" is MUCH less used. We are supposed to put things where people can find them. There is plenty of room on the page itself for something about the terminologies. The business of the loose term "classical music" vs the Classical period in music is something which we can live with and is no reason to move the article to somewhere less obvious. Nevilley 11:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We have the opportunity to end the perpetuation of mistakes and falsitudes. It would be no harder to find as there would be an automatic redirect/disambiguation page. I feel it is important, as an encyclopedia (and hence authority on information) to be CORRECT.--OldakQuill 12:07, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Your ambition is laudable, OldakQ, but the Wikipedia can't change the English language! We're stuck with the terminology we have, and unfortunately some of it is ambiguous. "Classical music" really does mean "art music" and not just "music of the Classical era."
A more realistic goal is to serve our readers, and, as Nevilley said, they are most likely to look for classical music under "classical music." Moreover, the current article does explain the "classical/Classical" distinction, so I think we've already done what feasibly can be done for clarification. Cheers, Opus33 23:22, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nev and Opus. "Classical music" is by far the most common term for this kind of music, and so it's right that the article is called that. I'm not sure that "art music" is such a good substitute in any case, since it's virtually never used in reference to music written before 1900 and might just as well be applied to something by Jacques Brel as Jacques Ibert. --Camembert

I strongly agree with Nev/Opus/Camembert. The dictionary says: "Classical 3. Music a. Of or relating to European music during the latter half of the 18th and the early 19th centuries. b. Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera, as opposed to popular or folk music." Lay readers in an everyday context understand it to mean b; scholars and musicians in a technical context understand it to mean a. The distinctions are properly explained in Classical music and Classical music era. This is not a case of "mistakes and falsitudes" or "making things CORRECT." The use of the word to mean "music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera" is perfectly correct, though some might wish it otherwise. It's like the question which once appeared on College Bowl: "If a cat is a carnivore, then what is a kangaroo?" A contestant, knowing that kangaroos have an herbivorous diet, replied "herbivore," and was scored as wrong because the intended correct answer was "marsupial." In other words, it was a trick question, resting on the technical meaning of "carnivore," not as "meat-eater," but as "member of class order Carnivora"Dpbsmith 16:21, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Concert music

Partly because its the terminology I use, and partly for completeness, I propose Concert music over classical music when refering to Eastern Asian (European) music of the middle to upper class and its descendents. It nicely avoids the vaguries of art music, while it avoids the double meaning of classical music. Sure, almost all music is "concert music" in that it is performed in concerts (while some (much) classical music is not), but this works to the terms advantage in that there isn't any other kind of music designated "concert." Hyacinth 22:41, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

That's certainly one of the terms I have tried out, but I find a lot of my non-classical-music friends don't know what I'm talking about when I say it. Unfortunately, though I still feel like I'm chewing gravel each time I say it, it seems that "classical music" is the most widely understood. I have to admit I have a hard time labeling Terry Riley, Philip Glass or John Zorn, to grab a few random names, as "classical," though, so I usually perform contortions to avoid using a label at all. Blame Aristotle for making us think we need to label everything. Antandrus 17:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"concert music" seems plain wrong to me, unless you stretch the meaning of "concert" so far that it is not a differentia specifica anymore. Why should performance of chamber music in a small private circle be a "concert", while a "rock concert" should not be one? I think "art music" is the proper term. If it does, taken properly, exclude some now forgotten works, say, of the classical aera, while it includes, taken properly again, some very advanced Jazz pieces ... so what? The point is that this kind of music does not accompany social practices but is meant to provide an aesthetical experience sui generis. That's art. (Well, yes, there is a use of "art" to accompany social practice. The boundaries are a bit blurry---they almost always are.) I am content acknowledging the artistic qualities of certain advanced pieces not commonly considered to be "classical music". That said, it is right that this article is named "classical music", for that is the term most people know. --- Utis 11:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Piece "Taxobox"

Anyone think we should have a common table for classical pieces? For reference purposes. Other fields for other genre - key, movements, famous from (for the more populist fans (Volvo advert, etc.) etc --OldakQuill 17:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don Giovanni
Composer: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Libretto writer: Lorenzo da Ponte
Composition Period: 1787 (Classical)
Instrumentation: Symphony Orchestra, Voice
Sub-genre: Opera
Catalogue number: K. 527


Hi OldAkQ,

I certainly admire your technical skill with tables, but nevertheless I'd like to make a case for not doing this.

I mostly write about pieces that mean a lot to me personally, and the table you propose seems just too vulgar to fit the subject matter. It's sort of like seeing your favorite pieces advertised in huge letters on a sign in Wal-Mart; there's a certain feeling of desecration. I think we'll attract more and better articles on classical music if potential contributors aren't made to feel that the standard article format demeans the composer's work.

I also feel that making hundreds (ultimately: thousands) of tables is not necessarily a good use of your own time. There are so many great classical pieces the Wikipedia has no article about--why not pick your favorites and start writing about them? Cordially, Opus33 15:56, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Query for classical music editors

I've posted a query about policy concerning classical music articles at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven. Your input would be very welcome. Opus33 18:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Art music and popular music

When discussing the relationship between art music and popular music, it might be worth mentioning that some pieces especially of the classical and romantic aera have become folk music (in the actual sense of that term.) This is at least true in Germany for pieces like Schubert's "Das Wandern is des Müllers Lust" from "Die schöne Müllerin" or his "Am Brunnen vor dem Tore" from the "Winterreise". It is probably also true for the Papageno songs from the "Zauberflöte" or for "Freude, schöner Götterfunken" from Beethoven's 9th. --- Utis 11:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, the principal melody of the largo movement of Dvorak's 9th symphony was adapted to an American spiritual called "Goin' home." --Herschelkrustofsky 12:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Classical_music/Archive_1&oldid=952129315"