response 26 of 49:

Nov 15 18:53 UTC 1997

What a coincidence. We went to the Ursula Oppens performance at Rackham
last evening, in her Beethoven series, and she performed two Beethoven
piano sonatas, and one by Carter. I had never heard of Carter before.  The
sonata did have a lot of variety, but I would not have called it
"dissonant" - just...rather free with tone, rhythm and harmonics (part of
the sonata has consecutive measures made up of "different numbers of 16th
notes"....can't say I really noticed, since what's wrong with "13th
notes"?

response 28 of 49:

Nov 18 11:31 UTC 1997

Rane, Carter's Piano Sonata might be a relatively early piece from
the 1940s.  He was composing large-scale tonal works through the
mid-1950s (the Variations for Orchestra).  But some time around
1950, I think, he spent a year in the Arizona desert doing some
soul-searching, and emerged with his First String Quartet.  His
first major orchestral work in his new style is called "Double
Concerto for Piano and Harpsichord with Two Chamber Orchestras."
I wish he'd called it something else.  Starvinsky hailed it as
a "masterpiece," which Stravinsky didn't do often.  My favorite
Carter composition, from the moment I first heard it in 1970, is
his Concerto for Orchestra.  The British composer and conductor
Oliver Knussen recently wrote (liner notes to his CD of Carter's
music) that Carter's Concerto for Orchestra occupies for his
generation of composers the same place Stravinsy's Sacre occupied
for Carter's generation.  

response 30 of 49:

Feb 20 03:18 UTC 1998

la.

response 32 of 49:

Feb 22 03:26 UTC 1998

(Yeah, I can see that going against the grain)

response 34 of 49:

Feb 25 18:39 UTC 1998

Certainly "the march king" is more rightly classified as "classical" than any
other genre I can think of.  "Popular" doesn't seem right.  Sousa wrote [music
for] operettas also.  I guess most people would consider Jacques Offenbach
to be "classical" as well, though he wrote "popular" music for his day.  What
about modern day composers John Williams & Andrew Lloyd Webber?  Besides being
*famous* for writing film scores and musicals respectively, are they not best
considered "classical" as well?

response 36 of 49:

Feb 26 12:06 UTC 1998

Sullivan counts as "classical", and definitely wanted to be remembered for
writing something more serious than that musical-comedy stuff. 
_The_Gondoliers_  gets quite a ways along before there's any spoken dialogue;
my memory is that this play (Italian setting, etc.) was to some degree a sop
from Gilbert (& Carte) to Sullivan's insistence that he was going to do grand
opera instead.  (Queen Victoria, among others, kept telling him he ought to
write serious music.  But he gambled heavily, & always needed money.)

IMNAAHO, Rogers and Lerner (I *think* Loewe was the lyricist) and Webber are
all more clearly related to pop music than classical.  Ditto Gershwin.

For what it's worth, I'd definitely include Sousa as "classical" myself; but
when I was in junior high & high school, playing in band & orchestra (this
is 1960s), I noticed that people like Sousa were much more apt to turn up in
things labeled "pops concerts" than otherwise.  I kind of think Williams and
Webber are in that position now, to a degree.

response 38 of 49:

Feb 26 21:20 UTC 1998

IMHO, almost all comnposers of "art" music (I'm using that term for composers
of what we've been terming "classical" music for the sake of the distinction
I'm about to make) through out most of history, into the presnet, to an
extent, were the popular artists of their time.  Mozart's operas were
exceptionally popular in his lifetime, and Beethoven was something of a star
in many ways.  It has only been in the last 90 years or so that popular music
has departed from "serious music", and that seperation stems from the reduce
in cost of pianos, and the increase in disposable income in the genearal
population-- there was suddenly a large demand for music that was relitively
easy for the masses to sing and play.  (Tangelntally, there was a similar need
for easy vocal music in the mid-Renisceance, which resulted in a lot of
madrigals)
        So because a composer appeals to the popular masses doesn't nessicarly
mean that they aren't a composer of serious music (despite wht the snobbier
musiclogists might say).  All one needs to do is look at hte music of
Copeland, Britten, or even some of Lloyd Webber's music to realized that it
is serious, complex music. 

response 40 of 49:

Feb 27 03:20 UTC 1998

Well, the classical/popular split has always been around, to the extent that,
for instance, the gigues and gavottes that Bach was composing and the gigues
and gavottes that the local peasants were dancing were different in character.
But, from what I can tell, the idea of a classical pantheon in opposition to
'vulgar' popular music has only really taken off in the last century or two.

response 42 of 49:

Feb 27 09:28 UTC 1998

However, "those that liked such things" was a much broader audience than one
would see liking Steve Riech or John Adams.  It isn't that much narrower,
however, than the appeal that Gilbert & Sullivan's opperettas held, or Lloyd
Webber's music holds right now.  
        There was a definate "popular" music tradition aside from that,
certianly-- a primarrily oral tradition, with occasional renderings of the
music, though these aren't always terrible reliable.  
        However, most of Mozart's German operas (like _The Magic Flute_), were
written for the "off color" opera house in the lower class section of Vienna.
(If I remember my history right)  The upper classes were interested in Italian
opera in the spirit of Handel.  

response 44 of 49:

Aug 31 22:44 UTC 2000

The practical definition of "classical music" - i.e. what gets put in 
the classical bins in record stores - has been broadening a lot over the 
years.  Forty years ago, J.P. Sousa would have been just barely 
considered classical: by twenty years ago, he definitely got in.  I 
think I've seen Kenneth Alford in the classical bins, too.  And, of 
course, a fair number of unquestionably classical composers, including 
Hindemith and Vaughan Williams, have written works for concert band, if 
not marching band.

The latest accretions to what's practically considered "classical" are 
some musical-show composers who flourished especially in the 1930s: 
Jerome Kern and Cole Porter.  Their predecessors, Sigmund Romberg and 
Victor Herbert, et al., are what used to be called "semi-classical", and 
I suppose they'd be in the classical bins today if their music wasn't so 
thoroughly "out" that I rarely see it.  Next up, I'm sure, are Richard 
Rodgers and Fritz Loewe: indeed, a few years ago Kiri Te Kanawa sang 
Eliza Doolittle.

response 46 of 49:

Nov 13 12:30 UTC 2003

I love baroque, and almost anything Bach does which is pretty much Baroque.
I'm not really into any other kinds of classical music especially like romatic
music, etc.  All in all my fav compser is definitely Bach and I love to listen
to his Organ works and the Brandenburg concertos they are my favorite.  Also
since I play piano I'm slowly trying to learn some pieces from the 21 preludes
and fugues, and believe you me that takes alot of effort.

response 48 of 49:

Nov 13 17:46 UTC 2003

Aren't there 24 Bach preludes and fugues, not 21?  Two for each note
of the scale - one major, one minor.  In any case, I wrestled with a
number of them myself during my "harpsichord" period and agree that
they're not easy.