There was a group of tenors singing something on the programme on Wimbledon yesterday afternoon (sorry, I only caught a glimpse of it so I'm not sure who they were, but they were in the Russell Watson mode of popular tenors) and I wondered whether what they were singing would fit the category of "classical music" and what in fact defined classical music.

But you don't need to have seen the programme to have a view on what defines classical music - I'd be interested to know.

The period between baroque and romantic...

At my old school, it seemed that anything other than the latest rock music was dismissed as "classical". It made me cross! I think some of these "Il Divo" types could be considered "popular classical" or "contemporary classical".

or possibly just "cr*p"

It doesn't make me cross per se, but it is confusing.

There's classical music and there's Classical music and I can never tell which is which.

Classical, in the sense of the musical period, is 1750 - c.1810 (or 1820 or sometime around then - different people define it slightly differently).

Classical, in the sense it's commonly used by the general public, is also called Western Art Music which sounds a mite tautologous but avoids the confusion.
Of course, the general public give you funny looks if you call it that, so we're kinda stuck with "classical" whether we like it or not.

Classical music = mozart. haydn etc... Very structured and different from other types.

some people would say anything other than popular stuff was classical

Just to clarify, I don't mean "classical" in the sense of differentiating it from "romantic" - I mean "classical music" generally. What components/characteristics does classical music have which defines it as classical music as opposed to other forms of music?

Perhaps a suitable definition might be one of music which is not of the idiom of 'folk', 'popular' or 'vernacular' music, is learned, and belonging to a written tradition - in Western culture, of course.

Features such as use of accoustic instruments with no artificial amplification or digital enhancement, absence of constant beat from drum kit, increased tendency to change tempo and/or key, will generally be performed in the same way whether live or recorded, played from a score rather than by ear... (I realise there will probably be exceptions to all of these characteristics, but the more that apply the more likely it is that the piece is classical.)

Most classical music has the focus on the relationship between chords I and V, whereas it would be I and IV for a lot of non-classical music.

The great disaster area known as Edexcel have come up with a new description to avoid any confusion, they refer to it as 'Art Music'.

In the same way, perhaps they would define a difference between 'painting' (ie your front room) and 'painting' (of the Picasso type).

but that's not exactly a new description, the term 'art music' has been around for a while.

"Art Music" to describe all Classical (not the specific period) music?

Well the Wikipedia entry looks worth a read (if you've got a couple of hours). But I think this quote sums it up:

"Given the extremely broad variety of forms, styles, genres, and historical periods generally perceived as being described by the term "classical music," it is difficult to list characteristics that can be attributed to all works of that type".

I also note the article differentiates between "classical" music and "classical period" music.

Post #8 might be a good start, though...

I can see you might think so.

Nah! Post 7 is much better....

Western Art Music is the term of choice in much postgraduate/research literature. Therefore EdExcel are correct to adopt this nomenclature.

skylark, in posing this question, you are attempting to capture smoke in a pair of fishnet stockings. Perhaps an interesting pursuit, but ultimately a fruitless quest.

You can't define a genre simply by saying it's not one of a list of other random genres, without first establishing a definition of those listed genres. In much that same way that there's no point telling me that blue is a colour which isn't red, green or yellow, without first ascertaining whether I have any idea what red, green or yellow look like.

Yes, you can. In the case of something such as 'classical' music where no definition can really exist, probably the best way of defining it is by stating clearly what it isn't.

Only where there is a clear definition of what isn't. If you want to say 'It's not pop or folk', for that to have any meaning there needs to be a consensus as to what 'pop' and 'folk' are.

Ok, what are they, then?

They're not classical. See post #8.

But, to quote a certain forumite, 'You can't define a genre simply by saying it's not one of a list of other genres'!

IMHO classical music doesn't have a strong drum keeping the pulse - that is usually left to the orchestra or chamber musicians. Dance/pop music has a lot more drum in it and is more dancable. Of course you are all going to pile in now with lots of exceptions, and of course there are lots of dances that could go under the broad heading of classical such as in baroque music (gigue, gavotte etc) but have you actually danced to them? I have.

What I don't understand is how the Scots Guards can get into the Classic FM chart, but there you go. What do I know?

How very sage of that person.

I was being facetious! And I have at least attempted to define what classical means...


I would agree with your point about the drum beat (see post #8!) but there are thousands of 'classical' dances in all sorts of different styles (and not just from the baroque).

If you think 'classical' is a hot potato, how about 'crossover', dreadful term much loved by Clasic FMites.

I didn't realise this would be such a difficult question to answer! Thank you to those of you who've given some pointers

Minuets and Gavottes and so on (when they're written by Bach or Haydn or somebody) aren't actually dances though, in the sense that they're intended to be listened to, not danced to - they're stylised dances. I think this is one of the defining characteristics of art music (and therefore of 'classical music', which just means European Art Music): music which is intended to provide music for dancing is not art music.



These are all just general characteristics which you can say apply to most classical music though. You can come up with countless examples of classical pieces which do not fall within these boundaries, and you can come up with plenty of types of music which meet all or most of these criteria but which definitely fall outside of classical music - they are not defining characteristics.

You really can't define what 'classical music' is in terms of specific musical elements, it's a cultural definition. The term just means European, or Western Art Music. By extension this would also include composers who work outside Europe but work mainly from the WAM tradition.

A definition which is fine, apart from the fact that it excludes most ballet scores...

Ah, good point. That's not really normal dancing though.

Music which is intended for social dancing is not art music.

And to clarify, that's not a definition, it's just a single defining characteristic.

I agree with point #8. I promise to pay more attention in future.



Uh, oh. I think you are going to into trouble for that one. Get out your hard hat

Yes, I'm aware of that, Tiddles! I'm being facetious too!

But, of course the term 'classical music' is one which can't really be defined as it doesn't have strict boundaries, and there's considerable overlap in genres. That being the case, isn't it valid to think outside the box and to try to define classical music - if one must! - by helping to clarify what it isn't, if one is unable to clarify what it is?

I've just been reading what Wikipedia has to say about it, and they throw into the melting pot things like choice/mix of instruments, tonal relationships, structure, complexity etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_art_music

Of course, this is a defining characteristic, whereas everyone else's points are merely general characteristics.

Well, yes. What is it about that that you disagree with exactly?

You can talk all you like about how classical music has a lot of violins in it or that it's sometimes quite complex or whatever but at the end of the day these are all just generalizations. They may or may not be common features of classical music, but they are not defining characteristics, because you can't define classical music (in it's general sense, ie all WAM) in terms of terms of specific musical elements such as these.




Why do you say that?

I am reminded of what Lord Beaverbrook said when one of his reporters asked why a certain item was news: He said "because I say it is", He owned several of Britain's daily newspapers at the time: He was the expert so if he said it was news then it was news.

Similarly why are certain usages in English grammar considered correct and others incorrect? Because acknowledged experts say they are!

So, as for what makes a given piece of music Classical (or, if you prefer, Western Art) Music? An expert says it is! The expert will take into account the style, form, instrumentation, arrangement, rhythm, notes and method of production etc. but, as has been pointed out, any individual characteristic will have exceptions:

No drums? I think you might check the syllabuses for DipABRSM to FRSM under percussion.
Orchestral instruments? How about the piano and organ? How about the vacuum cleaner or typwriter (c.f. Hoffnung).
Concentrating on the I and V chords? What about Chromaticism?
Not for dancing? Ever heard of Swan Lake?
. . . and so on - whatever you say there will be exceptions.

Consequently there is no "Definition" of Classical music - it either is or it isn't, or people argue about it.

I would also point out that attempting to define it inevitably means that some excellent music will be outside the resulting definition. What about Jazz? Gerswhin? Ravel? Shostakovich? Glen Miller? Going further, maybe Flanders and Swan's " At the Drop of a Hat" isn't Classical music, but it is certainly a classic. What about Elvis singing "Blue Suede Shoes" or the Beatles "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" (or almost anything else they did!)

My point is not that Elvis is (or isn't) Classical music: It's that Classical music is a huge, heterogenous entity and ANY division within that entity is artificial and false: Ultimately . . .
Classical music is what Classical musicians say it is!

Because I thought you were implying that ballet dance was not normal dancing. It was only meant in fun.

True, but it is also what non-musicians say it is. A word means whatever people use it to mean. I personally would not classify (say) a film theme as classical music just because it's played by a symphony orchestra, but Classic FM apparently would. Who am I to say that they are wrong?

Sorry, I thought you were referring to my other statement you quoted (about 'art music' vs 'dance music').

Don't worry, I wasn't offended!

The Classical period in music combines what was best in the preceding Baroque era and the following Romantic Era, whilst avoiding the excesses of both.

Methinks you have possibly not read the question properly...

No ... just could not resist posting a potentially inflammatory opinion

...to the wrong question - the OP was trying to define the term "classical music" as a catch-all, not as a period.