Classical versus Popular and other genres

Jan 26 18:35 UTC 2001

How would you define classical as opposed to popular music?  What are the
genres of each?  What have the genres of Western Music been over the last ten
centuries (starting with sacred versus secular)?  Why are the Beatles
considered popular but Strauss Waltzes considered classical (or are they?).

response 2 of 88:

Jan 27 17:22 UTC 2001

Well, within classical we have the subgenres of "light classical" 
or "pops", and what might as well be called heavy classical.  They 
overlap, of course, and it's worth noting that the Boston Pops and the 
Boston Symphony Orchestra are pretty much the same people.

In terms of a strictly formal definition, Leonard Bernstein discussed 
this in one of his Young People's Concerts.  "Classical", he said, is a 
bad term, because strictly speaking that refers to the Haydn-Mozart 
period only; and "art music" is inexact, as it's not a very good 
definition of utilitarian music like waltzes, and much of jazz is as 
much art music as any classical; and "serious music" is just as much a 
misnomer for similar reasons.

He concluded that what most clearly separates classical music from 
other kinds is that it is relatively exact: a performance of the same 
work by two different performers will differ much less in classical 
than in almost any other kind of music.  (Excepting deliberate 
pastiches, of course; and this doesn't stop classical buffs from going 
on endlessly about what subtle differences do exist between classical 
performers.)  This is because it is one of the few types of music that 
is notated: that is, it is performed from a score.  Most other types of 
music are learned by ear, and notations (including virtually all pop 
sheet music) are transcriptions of performances.

One other type of music that fits this definition is musical theatre, 
e.g. Broadway.  And indeed, music by the likes of Cole Porter is 
beginning to migrate to the classical bins.  I'm sure if there had been 
record stores as we know them in the 19th century, Johann Strauss would 
have started out in a different bin from Richard Strauss, and only 
slowly migrated over next to him, which is where he is today.

response 4 of 88:

Jan 28 07:24 UTC 2001

re2: That's an interesting definition, one I'd never heard before...
It runs into a slight problem with Baroque music--for example the prelude,
originally consisted only of a series of chords which the performer
was to embellish in free rhythm, and just about any Baroque piece for
a medium or large-sized ensemble has a "basso continuo" accompaniment
where the bass line is given and the performer improvises chord voicings
in a way rather similar to what jazz pianists do.

And then there are the cadenzas to concertos...and Chopin and Liszt are
both, if I remember, supposed to have been great piano improvisers.
I guess Bernstein only intended his definition to apply to what we consider
classical music *today*...

(I'm not attacking the idea, you understand, just kind of thinking 
out loud...or on paper, or whatever ;-)

response 6 of 88:

Jan 28 19:46 UTC 2001

Was there a distinction drawn between Classical and Popular music before about
1900?  I can think of several genres of music that are now nearly defunct.
Sacred music is still written, but probably less of it.  Does anyone still
write military music or even marches for parades (or weddings or
graduations?).  Does anyone in the US sing music for a group to do
agricultural labor by?  I presume dance music is still being composed.  Is
there any music still composed for any purpose other than simply
entertainment?  

response 8 of 88:

Jan 29 21:38 UTC 2001

I understand classical music better than I understand popular music. I
can distinguish sonatas and canons and various symphonic forms, etc, but
I do not know what *defines* (say) Jazz, Swing, Dance, etc. That is,
what would a computer read in a score for these forms that would lead
to a specific style identification. I have asked Jazz musicians, but
as far as I can interpret their answer it amounts to that they know it
when they hear it. 

response 10 of 88:

Jan 30 16:29 UTC 2001

Sindi, I'd have to disgree, I think.  At least, it's not that simple.  Many
classical forms have repeated sections - and they are apt to be exact repeats,
possibly up to a relatively short ending which varies.  Often within those
sections there is repetition with much variation of thematic ideas, of course.

Commercial popular forms, on the other hand, very often have a good deal of
variation on what are basically repeated sections (say, the successive stanzas
of a song, which is what I take you to have in mind).  In many cases there
are rhythmic variations even in the melody (to adapt to the rhythm of the
lyrics), and variations in the notes of the melody are not uncommon; but
variation is much more common than not in the accompaniment, even in forms
which aren't primarily improvisational.

I don't know that I disagree with your basic statement that classical is apt
to be more complex - I'll have to think about it - but there's so much
variation in each that it's kind of hard to say.  (Variation in degree of
complexity, I mean.)

response 12 of 88:

Jan 30 21:13 UTC 2001

Even better, how would one program a computer to read the score and
decide? There must be objective distinctions if there are subjective ones.

response 14 of 88:

Jan 30 22:50 UTC 2001

Did the Beatles write and perform classicl music?

response 16 of 88:

Jan 31 14:27 UTC 2001

<davel protests description of Pachelbel's Canon as "horrid">

response 18 of 88:

Feb 1 14:10 UTC 2001

I'd even agree if you changed it to "painfully ubiquitous".  The thing's not
the greatest piece ever written, and I'm tired of it too (sometimes, anyway);
but I still like it, and also think that it's not a bad piece.

response 20 of 88:

Feb 1 17:08 UTC 2001

I don't think it can be "overdone". It is your fault for listening
to it too often. Done badly is another matter. But the original time
signature should be available - what was it?

response 22 of 88:

Feb 1 21:11 UTC 2001

Pachelbel's Canon is the exception that proves (not tests, proves) the 
rule.  The Canon as so well known today bears little resemblance to 
what Pachelbel wrote, or intended to be heard.  It's a thoroughly 
reworked arrangement made in the 1960s by a German conductor whose name 
escapes me at the moment.  What remains of pure Pachelbel in it is the 
chord progression, which is the most classical thing about it.

Even more of a fabrication is Albinoni's Adagio, which is possibly 
based on a few notes by T.G. Albinoni, but otherwise bears no relation 
to him at all.  It seems to have been invented from whole cloth by an 
Italian musicologist in the 1940s who claimed to have arranged it.

"Film music," though, is not a different genre from classical music.  
Film music is whatever people write for films, just like "dance music" 
is whatever people dance to.  Some of it is classical, some isn't.  
When classical film music is played in concerts, it's usually arranged 
into suites or other larger entities, simply because in original form 
it's too fragmented to make enjoyable listening.  But it's not 
disqualified from being classical because it's background music.  
Mozart's Serenades were written as background music.  (For aristocrats' 
dinners and parties, though, not for films.  Mozart was precocious, but 
not that precocious.)

C.Keesan writes, "Did the Beatles write and perform classical music?"  
What makes you think they might have?

response 24 of 88:

Feb 2 02:54 UTC 2001

I heard Sir Paul McCartney's Quartet, which sounded rather similar to what
he wrote for four voices.  Short parts that repeated.  Why is Beatles music
not considered classical, but Schubert's songs are?  
Are Straus Waltzes classical?  Ragtime dances?  Swing dance music? 
Contradance music?