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?).

88 responses total.

In the case of Strauss' waltzes, there is the utilitarian aspect of providing
music for people to dance to.  Most dancing is a polular thing to do, as
opposed to the few that do it for art.  So is dance music "popular" by
association?  Perhaps.  But much dance music, and Strauss' waltzes in
particular, is also listened to just for listening sake.

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.

In my experience, pop sheet music consists of arrangements based (sometimes
closely, usually loosely) on performances.

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 ;-)

We should distinguish between how these styles of music were defined at
the time, and how they're defined now. It would be fascinating to hear
Bach's definition of Baroque music, or his contemporaries' explanation of
why this newfangled "Classical" stuff is so different and exciting; but
"classical music," as a blanket term covering anything from the birth of
music notation to the present day, is a modern word that needs a current
definition.  And currently, classical music is almost always written out.

Of course, even that isn't really true.  People are still willing to call
Terry Riley and Whatchamacallit Stockhausen "classical" even though they
call for a good deal of improvisation.  And no matter how anal-retentive
Frank Zappa got about writing out all the notes, nobody called him a
classical composer until he put out an orchestral album with no guitars.  

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?  

One difference between most classical and most popular music may be
complexity.  Classical music tends to repeat with variations in melody,
harmony, and rhythm, whereas popular music just changes the words, and is
therefore possibly easier to understand on the first try.  Is there popular
music that requires knowing how to go about listening to it?

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. 

There was a distinction between folk and aristocratic music before 1900, but
that's not quite the same as the distinction between classical and popular,
since there are poor folk who like classical and rich folk who like pop music.

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.)

Thank you for disagreeing.  I have learned something.  Is there anyone reading
this who can link the item to nonclassical music conf?  So how would one
decide just by hearing a piece of music if it can be classified as classical?
Sacred and secular music used to borrow tunes back and forth (L'homme arme
mass, on a popular tune).  Is there much of that done nowadays between
classical and popular?  

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

There's no single definition of classical music that could conform to 
what's being asked for in #11-12.  There certainly are ways to 
distinguish, in pure sound, between, say, 19th century Germanic 
orchestral music and punk rock, of course, and one of them is 
instrumentation.

But here's a thought experiment.  How do you distinguish between lush 
classical orchestral music of the late Romantic diatonic tradition, 
like Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff, from lush orchestral muzak?  The 
instrumentation is the same.  It sometimes takes me a few seconds to 
tell which one I'm listening to, but I usually can.  The differences 
lie in structure, in development of material, in uses of instruments, 
and in styles of harmony.  Just to pick a couple things that come to 
mind, I guess you'd hear a lot more suspensions and passing tones, and 
a lot fewer doubled thirds, in the classical music than in the muzak.

Improvisation (like cadenzas) and ornamentation have always been part 
of the classical tradition, but it's a relative thing.  A lot of 
Baroque ornamentation was written into the score in a shorthand way.  
And the improvisationary part is a relatively small part of the whole.

I didn't know anything about Zappa's compositional practices, but if he 
did write down all of the notes, that would explain why I've seen him 
listed as a modern classical composer even outside of the context of 
his works for orchestra.  So that exactitude is relevant.

Did the Beatles write and perform classicl music?

I like dbratman's thought experiment in #13.  I've had the same 
experience.  It does get a little blurry around the edges, which I 
think is the problem we have in coming up with an objective 
definition.  Ravel's sugary orchestrations of the four movements from 
Le tombeau de Couperin could easily pass for contemporary elevator 
music.  Some of John Adams' music sounds like New Age, or movie music.  
Pachelbel's horrid Canon *is* New Age.  Vaughan Williams turned his 
background music for the movie Scott of the Antarctic into his 7th 
symphony.  Prokofiev's movie music is presented in concert format all 
the time.  If you want a disorienting experience some day, listen to 
John Williams' music for the famous Ewok "Forest Battle" scene: it 
sounds exactly like the scherzo movement from some Soviet symphony -- 
but by whom?  Prokofiev?  Shostakovich?  

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

s/horrid/delightfully ubiquitous

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.

I agree - good piece, but overdone, and frequently done badly.  (It
was probably intended to be played at twice the tempo that it's
usually performed.)

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?

The quarter note = 63 beats per minute. 

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?

Didn't Paul McCartney write some sort of cantata a few years ago?  Has 
anyone heard it?

Good point re movie music. Some of it isn't classical at all.  (A 
century ago, it might've been called "incidental music.")  In movies 
you have people like Bill Russo (I think it is) who cribs from 
classical composers all the time.  His music for Victory is an 
imitation of Shostakovich's 5th symphony.  For The Right Stuff he 
borrowed from Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto.  It works the other way, 
too, nowadays: John Adams based his Chamber Symphony on cartoon music.

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?

Heh.  It's because Schubert's aren't "songs", they're "lieder" ...   8-{)]

Re #20 and #21:  Actually, Baroque music doesn't have "original
time signatures."  The metronome wasn't invented yet.  Any numerical
tempo marking in a published edition was added much later by some
editor.

Re #24, Leonard Bernstein was comparing the Beatles to Schubert back in 
the 1960s.  When you listen to a song like "Penny Lane," there's a 
traditional form (something like ABABA, I believe), economy of melodic 
elements, an instrumental interlude, all that classical stuff.  Why 
is "Penny Lane" pop music but "Erlkonig" (composed when Schubert was a 
teenager) is classical?

Erlkonig is disturbing.

I think the Beatles music is slowly becoming classical.  I hear orchestral
arrangements of it.  How about Simon and Garfunkel?  Ballet music from
musicals?

What is Erlkonig and why is it disturbing? I heard a song Schubert wrote
at the age of 17 today (as part of my piano teacher's group class in
preparation for a mostly-Schubert recital) "Gretchen at the Spinning-Wheel"
was the English translation she gave of its name. I don't suppose it's the
same piece...

Erlkonig is a Danish poem translated by Goethe, making it very famous in
German speaking countries, and set to music by Schubert. It is a ballad
about a very sick boy being carried by his father (by horse) to seek
medical help, when the boy starts to hallucinate about seeing the "Elf
King". The father tries to allay the boy's fears, but fails and the boy
dies. 

"Wie reitet so spaet
 Durch Nacht und Wind
 Es ist der Vater
 Mit seinem Kind."

The music reflects the terrible ride through the night and the wild
images the boy sees and his father's terror. 

(I learned the poem in high school German, and can still recite most
of it.) 

Of course, anything written by Goethe is now "classic" (except maybe
"Wasser und Wein"), and set to music by Schubert....well, it is "classical"
from the start! 8^}

To say that Schubert's lieder are classical music while Beatles songs 
are not is not to pass judgment on their quality.  It is merely to 
observe the style and medium in which they were written, and the 
context in which they were issued.  One striking difference that may 
not be obvious is that the music of the Beatles' songs were never 
written down by their composers.  (Any sheet music of Beatles songs was 
prepared by arrangers, and there exists a large book of painstakingly 
detailed transcriptions of every note of Beatles recordings.)

I've heard some of Sir Paul's reputed classical music.  (That's one ex-
Beatle, so I didn't realize this music was what was meant by "the 
Beatles writing classical music," or one of the things that was 
meant.)  My personal judgment is that it hovers on the edge of 
classical but doesn't really belong there.

Arguments in favor: the instrumentation; the fact that classical 
musicians have played it, and not in an "arranged pops" context; the 
fact that McCartney thinks it's classical; that record stores shelve it 
there.  These are not trivial points: they are all part of medium and 
context.

Arguments against: that McCartney doesn't do his own orchestration, or 
even all his own composition, relying on his arrangers to pull his 
musical thoughts together; that at least some of the shorter works (all 
I've heard in full) have an entirely episodic structure without the 
kind of development and variation universal in classical music; 
harmonic writing characteristic of orchestral muzak and not of 
classical, even light classical pops.  These, to my mind, are stronger 
arguments, but the definition of "classical" may change in the future 
to include these works.

It's worth noting that George Gershwin, a supreme master of jazz 
composition, wanted desperately to be a real classical composer too.  
He started at the beginning, took lessons in classical composition, 
learned to orchestrate his own works.  He wasn't very good at 
orchestration or structure, but he followed all the rules and was 
getting better at it when he died, still very young.  Sir Paul hasn't 
yet reached the point that Gershwin was at when he started.

There are a couple of possibly true stories about Gershwin's quest for 
a teacher.  Ravel and Stravinsky both turned him down, Ravel with the 
explanation that he was already a first-rate Gershwin, so why risk 
turning him into a second-rate Ravel.  According to Stravinsky, he  
asked Gershwin how much money he made the previous year.  Gershwin gave 
him a number that would be staggering even by today's standards.  
Stravinsky said, "Then *you* should be giving *me* lessons."

Are Sousa marches classical?  Is anyone still writing marches - maybe for
football games?  Any classical marches written since Sousa?  Is all music
written recently for use in churches classical?  Has there been any classical
religious music written recently?  

A lot of classic gospel music, and even some early examples of what we'd call
rock and soul now, were written for religious use.  None of these are
classical.

It occurs to me that there cannot be a rigid distinction between popular
and classical music because, if there were, someone could write music
that included the properties of both, and hence there would not be. 
(An example of reductio ad absurdum.)

So...what are we talking about? Grays. I think that a number of responses
here have touched upon musical properties that lead music to tend to 
be considered toward the classical or popular, but we will never have
a clear distinction. (Ravel's classical Bolero is certainly popular!)

(Well, in theory, there could be mutually exclusive descriptions that prevent
someone from writing a piece that fit in both categories.  In practice, that's
just not going to happen.)

If all music *must* be classified as classical or popular, that cannot
happen. Nothing prevents a person from satisfying both criteria. You
would then have to invent a third category - but that would only be
defined by not being a or b, and would itself have no specific definition,
so you could not tell how to identify music fitting the "neither" category
without reference to the others. You would also have to specify what
a piece must NOT have in order to be classical or popular. I don't
think this whole mess is feasible. 

There are grays, lots of them.  That doesn't mean that there's no difference,
or that the distinction is useless, or anything like that.  The criteria
dbratman considered in #32 sound pretty good to me, on the whole and off hand.

Re #34 (and #35), most churches today use very little classical music.  Not
only music for congregational singing and performed vocal music, but also
"service music" (music, normally instrumental, played essentially as filler
while something else is happening - prelude, postlude, offertory, etc.) is
typically pop.  It ranges from generally light-classical-muzak-style
arrangements to rock, depending on the church.  (This is less true in highly
liturgical churches - fairly high-church Episcopal, Catholic, Lutheran, but
even there classical is far from universal & may not be the norm any more.
My impression is that Orthodox churches still mostly use what would have to
be called classical, but I have no direct experience there.)

Of course, there are lots of gray areas there, too.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss