paulbailey.us

will the last one out please turn off the lights?

i have been enjoying the very interesting and civil musings on “non-death of classical music” at daniel wolf’s renewable music blog. i wish i had more time to post about this but here is my 2 cents.

is it possible that the definition of “classical music” is more of a description of an musical social status?

i think the space between “art music” and “classical music” has never been wider,

what is classical music? (from the naxos website)

Any attempt to define what is meant literally by the term ‘classical’ music is fraught with difficulty. How does one encapsulate in just a few words a musical tradition which encompasses such infinite varieties of style and expression, from the monastic intonings of Gregorian chant to the laid-back jazz inflections of Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue, from the elegant poise of Mozart’s Eine kleine Nachtmusik to the despairing, heightened emotionalism of Tchaikovsky’s “Pathetique” Symphony? One is treading on very dangerous ground indeed if one pre-supposes that it is simply ‘superior’ to other musical types such as popular, jazz, rock and the like, let alone the music of other cultures.

In general ‘popular’ music may be as clear in expression as the longer examples of ‘classical’ music. One important difference, however, lies in the logical connection that exists in ‘classical ‘ music between the beginning and end, with the latter a logical extension and development of the former. ‘Popular’ music, on the other hand, tends to present its material without development, the music ending when interest is exhausted.

Sadly, whilst ‘classical’ music is socially undivisive in itself, it has unfortunately become associated in most people’s minds with the intellectual elite. Even now, and with certain honourable exceptions, the attending of a ‘live’ concert can be an intimidating (not to say costly) experience for the uninitiated, especially in that most jealously guarded of establishments, the opera house. The wonderful thing about the technological age in which we live, and particularly the advent of the compact disc, is that we can bypass all irrelevant social and intellectual pretence, and enjoy in the comfort of our own home (often at far less cost) some of the finest music ever composed.

i’m not sure that helped? the harvard dictionary doesn’t help much either.

in popular music, art or “serious” music as opposed to popular music.

ok… they take the same tack saying what classical music isn’t, and the best part is they don’t define either art music or serious music.

so what does classical music mean to you?

i bet each of our definitions tells us more about differences than our similarities. over time i think its meaning has shifted to imply a musical social status. its easy to see many examples of classical music being used to anything “upmarket”. i also see parents pushing their young children into piano and violin lessons in hopes of them achieving higher social status through music. it is also interesting to note that my former principal and headmaster’s vision for the music program was to create an orchestra. they both strongly felt (in their own unique way) that the orchestra would bring a certain cachet to the school, even though the student interest was limited and the program would be mostly symbolic.

does the mean “classical music” is dead? maybe it has just lost its meaning as its institutions have become irrelevant?

Be the first to like.

Like

Unlike

Related posts:

1. social networking in music
2. Peering Into Classical Music’s Future
3. What hell is going on with classical music?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 11th, 2007 at 1:27 pm. It is filed under Uncategorized and tagged with art music. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.