Talk:European classical music/Archive-02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

On the "Development" paragraph

Re. this new paragraph:

"The feature which absolutely distiguishes Classical music from other genres, is what is loosely termed "development," which is the process by which certain germ ideas are repeated in different contexts, or in altered form, so that the mind of the listener consciously or unconciously compares the various incarnations of these ideas. This process enables the composer to generate various kinds of irony or paradox, revealing a dimension of meaning in the musical idea that goes far beyond the affective or emotional content of the melodies, harmony and rhythm. This can lend Classical music a quality of profundity which is unique among musical genres."

I had a little bit of an "oh dear" reaction, for three reasons.

  • I think that some popular music fans will squawk. Not all classical music has development (think of Mozart and Schubert's dance music), and some popular music (jazz) arguably does. It's more a matter of degree.
  • Call me an oaf, but I really don't perceive much irony or paradox in classical music--or at least when I do, it's not related to development. Might the author of the passage give some actual examples?
  • "Profundity" is awfully subjective; the word is often used as a rhetorical club, and to me it seems a little over the top in an encyclopedia, perhaps even an NPOV violation.

In general I think it is correct to mention development as a prominent trait of classical music, but I'd like to see it done less contentiously than in the above paragraph. I will ponder what might be the right way to proceed and encourage other editors to do so. Cheers, Opus33 18:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First, see: Musical development. Second, cut all comparisons with words such as "absolutely" and "unique".
Perhaps what makes you pause is the non-neutrality of the paragraph, not its inaccuracy. It was obviously written by someone who wishes to privilege classical music at the expense of popular music, and this crap, uncited and without context, does not belong on Wikipedia. Hyacinth 20:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't expect that paragraph to be so controversial. I will do my best to address the concerns of Hyacinth and Opus33:

  • Irony: there are various definitions and applications for the word, "irony." On the simplest level -- double meaning -- you find countless examples of a musical theme that is introduced in a context that evokes a delicate, pensive feeling, and later reintroduced in a surprisingly different context that may be very bombastic -- I'm thinking of movement one of Dvorak's 7th Symphony. Another example, to my mind, of irony in music, is where a theme is introduced and made familiar to the hearer, and it is not until the end of the composition that the composer reveals that it this theme can be overlaid contrapuntally on another theme, for example, at the end of Mozart's string quintet in D, K 593.
  • Paradox: J.S. Bach perfected the technique of introducing what appears to be a really shocking dissonance, and having it resolve contrapuntally in a way that is totally convincing and satisfying to the ear. This is a use of dissonance that is a paradox, because, analyzed vertically, it is indeed dissonant, but viewed over time it is in fact something else. Compare the use of dissonance in jazz or modernism; it is usually employed for shocking sensual effect, or to express emotions of rage or anxiety.

The Musical development article is a stub, which I may expand, after hashing these issues out a bit on this talk page.

I more or less acknowledged in the paragraph that not all Classical music undergoes development, by including the phrase "This can lend Classical music a quality of profundity..." Perhaps it were appropriate to include a disclaimer that some music that is called classical is intended only as entertainment -- but that may mean that the Mozart and Schubert dances were really popular music. As far as jazz is concerned, I have played it professionally, and it is true that improvisers will play around with motives, in a way generally thought of as "witty." However, that is not the same as the sort of sustained, rigorous development that you find in a Bach fugue, where each tiny modification is calculated toward achieving the final effect. It may be arguable whether this is completely unique in Classical music, but I am familiar with many genres -- Indian classical music, for example, as well as jazz -- and I can think of nothing comparable to the Bach fugue example, or the late quartets of Beethoven, which Norbert Brainin of the Amadeus Quartet once described as unique not only in the realm of music, but in all art.

Finally, I don't think that many people who are deeply familiar with music in general will argue that there is no qualitative difference between Classical and various other genres. Attributing it to "complexity" is obviously unsatisfactory. There are numerous pieces by Frank Zappa or the Mahavishnu Orchestra that are considerably more complex than Mozart's Ave verum corpus, but the latter is more poetic, and yes, profound. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, HK. This little brouhaha illustrates one reason that it is so frustrating trying to put together a good classical music section on the Wikipedia. Lots of people want to put in their opinion, and they feel justified in doing so because:
  • their opinion is a cultivated and thoughtful one
  • their opinion is based on extensive listening
  • their opinion is tied into their sense of what is noble, beautiful, and important (see HK's remark on Ave verum corpus)
Nevertheless, other people do recognize such writing as opinion, and when they do, they get a sense of betrayal--they wanted an encyclopedia article and got an opinion piece instead. I would venture to say that it was this sense of inappropriateness that led Hyacinth to call HK's contribution "crap". Hyacinth was being uncivil, but I do understand where he's coming from.
I feel that a workable classical music section requires us to do what the New Grove does--stick largely to the facts, and go into opinion only with great reluctance. Moreover, if we do state opinions, they should be other people's, and given with appropriate scholarly citation.
Re. irony and paradox: I could see a place for these in Musical development, but they're probably too outré for this article, which, after all, is meant to be very general.
I will try to do some NPOV-oriented changes after pondering further and girding my loins, if no one else does first. Yours very truly, Opus33 00:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think Opus replied well... but you know what? I agree with HK about profundity and "qualitative differences." But I also recognize that my feelings about this are my opinions, and I have been trying to keep them out of the articles I write. So therefore I say--have at an edit of the paragraph about development (it's a very important distinguishing feature of "classical" music, after all) and try to source the bits about profundity (even though I say under my breath, "but it moves!") Antandrus 02:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While I also agree, personally, on the "profundity"; I definitely see the point in Opus33's and Hyacinth's replies. In addition, while I can understand the desire to find something which explains the obvious difference between classical music and other music, I don't think that "musical development" is it. I may be wrong, but I don't think that this is the outstanding distinguishing feature of a lot of great contemporary works (say, the later works of Luigi Nono, for example.) And, for what it's worth, Adorno critisized Wagner for his lack of musical development.

I think the problem arises from the fact that there are two orthogonal criteria for what is "classical music" (in the broad sense of the word): (1) music coming from a specific musical tradition which is socially practised in a particular way (musical performances where the audience remains sitting quiet). (2) music with certain inherent aesthetical qualities that require a particular mode of individual perception (i.e. music as an art).

The problem is that (1), being the "hard" distinguishing feature, is dissatisfactory, because it fails to explain the inherit qualities typical for this type of music as expressed in (2). Unfortunately, (2) is not necessarily confined to (1) and vice versa. (Frank Zappa has already been mentioned. No, personally I don't like Zappa at all, but I have to admit that there is some validity in some people's claim that some of Zappa's works are to be acknowledged as art. He crossed the border, anyways.)

So what? I think it's perfectly o.k. to live with this ambuigity and explain it rather than looking for an absolute criterion that forces both together. Such a criterion (as "musical development") is always bound to fail at some point, because art, being art, may always at some point transcend any such criterion.

-- Utis 10:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have re-written the paragraph in a way that I hope conforms to NPOV. I think that there must be an effective way of indentifying the distinction between Classical and other forms of music, but I agree, it is very tricky because it enters into territory which, correctly or not, is considered very subjective, such as, "what is Art?" In the process of rewriting this paragraph, I visited a lot of Wikipedia pages that I had hitherto not been to, such as Art, Idea, and Aesthetics -- and I found them all highly unsatisfactory. I suppose that these concepts may be inherently "encyclopedia-unfriendly."

Incidentally, although I'm the one who brought up Frank Zappa, I disagree that his music should be acknowledged as art. I do think that it should be acknowledged as complex.

Also, I linked the paragraph on development to the sub-heading on Classical music and folk music, because the relationship between the two helps to clarify the role of musical development. Although I didn't say so in my edit, all Classical music has its roots in some sort of folk music -- Classical music listeners are accustomed to German folk music as transformed by centuries of German composers, and a bit less so to Czech, Hungarian or American folk music similarly transformed. --Herschelkrustofsky 12:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First, I apologize to User:Herschelkrustofsky for my above "crap" comment.
Second, the beginning of the paragraph is greatly improved by the addition of "an emphasis on". I feel no need to avoid "irony or paradox". Indeed, User:Opus33, I believe they were far better than the super-vague "poetic".
Third, Herschel, I feel your re-edit is not an improvement. "Art" obviously equals the previous "quality of profundity". The consequence of this is that instead of saying that popular and folk music is of bad quality and incapable of being profound, you now say that they are so because they are not art. This is more insulting.
Fourth, though once again, opinions such as these, uncited and without context, do not belong on Wikipedia. we are not aiming for the one-true-viewpoint. I know for a fact that others than yourself and the above contributors hold this opinion. I encourage you to find sources to voice this opinion. You may check wikiquote, List of themes#M.
Lastly, I apologize again to Herschel and I thank you and the other editors for not raising the temperature in response to my "uncivil" "squawking".

I didn't actually avoid "irony" -- I moved it to Musical development. "Paradox," on the other hand, I avoided, coming to agree with Opus33 that it was probably too outré for an encyclopedia -- it may constitute original research. I replaced the super-vague "poetic" with a specific quote from Schumann (although, to my mind, "poetic" ought to be a rather precise term, connoting mental activity in a higher mode than the merely logical or symbolic, such as, if I may indulge my POV, Wagner.)

I'd like to disagree with Hyacinth on equating "profundity" with "art." I think most readers would disagree that there is a greater degree of subjectivity in the definition of "art" (that does not mean that I personally would agree.) I think the operative phrase here is "a more complex relationship between emotions and ideas," which I do not think is necessarily insulting to pop music. I believe (having been there and done that) that most practioners of pop music believe that their main objective is to express emotions of a personal sort, rather than to make universal and world-historic observations about Man and Nature. Of course, there is plenty of music defined as Classical that is rather pedestrian as well -- but the exceptions are, well, exceptional. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First, notice the distinction between pop music and popular music.
I realized, and your above comments confirmed that another problem is that these claims are out of place. They do not belong in the "Classical music and popular music" section, but in "The nature of classical music" section. The boldest of claims made there would have much less chance of being insulting, privileging, and belittling because they would not be in comparison to something made to seem lesser. Rather than saying, "Classical music is more profound than popular music", which is insulting, try "Classical music is profound."
Whatever the opinion of "pop" musicians, or even "popular" musicians (to the contrary see Selling out and Credibility), these opinions must be verifiable, and thus cited. This is much preferable to a supposed summary of those opinions by someone who identifies themselves as not being one. Hyacinth 21:24, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely that this ought to be moved into the "nature of classical music section" -- although, part of the nature of classical music would be found in that which distinguishes it from other kinds of music. It's a subtle and contentious question, perhaps roughly analogous to the distinction between poetry and prose (an analogy for which I apologize in advance to anyone who finds it offensive). Incidentally, the Schumann quote, in context, is where he is complaining (privately, to Clara) about the mundane nature of much of what passed for classical music in his day, as opposed to his own attempts to compose something more meaningful.

One comment on Opus33's edit: I don't see posing modulation as one of the "other differences in complexity," since it usually takes place in the service of development.

This is an interesting editing task that will hopefully be a successful team effort. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


FWIW, the day before yesterday I had a discussion (one of those evening discussions) with a friend of mine about a related issue. The discussion started with that we both stated "Music is very, very important for me." and then continued to investigate the differences (she only listens to popular music). I stated that for me music does not accompany a practice (social or other), but that regarding music as art means for me that I regard a musical piece as something standing for itself which asks for being explored, examined and interpreted (note that the question of emotionality is orthogonal here!). I compared it to reading a book: I sit down to listen to a musical piece, in the same way and in the same mode as I would sit down to read a novel or a poem. This mode of perception of music was novel to my friend; and my way of putting it seemed unproblematic to her, probably because I put an emphasize on the fact that I don't regard this mode of perception (where art is something that is regarded as außeralltäglich, even if it happens daily) as superior to one in which music is integral and indissoluble part of a form of life (which is true. I don't.)
Of course, this is just one example from a discussion with one particular person and it may by no means be typical. But maybe it hints at a way of expressing the artistic character in classical music that is not insulting. Especially if we make clear that this artistic quality and such a mode of listening is by no means confined to classical music, but just typical.
I think that part of the problems we encounter here is that we are looking for a definition based on absolute criteria -- which is not possible. This is a known issue in philosophy since Wittgenstein. In some cases you can explain terms and concepts (the classical example being the word "game") just by explaining family resemblances. I am preparing an article about that ("family resemblance" in philosophy) because I hope that this might shed some light in to this discussion.

-- Utis 09:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excellent: I think you're on the right track. (I wish we had that word "außeralltäglich" in English--if I understand it correctly, outside-of-the-trivial-daily-commonplace, it's quite precise). As I see it, this is one of the essential defining differences between classical and popular—not universally true by any means but usually true. I know some people who listen to popular music with full attention while not doing anything else, and I know some people who listen to "classical" music in the background, but I think they're relatively the exception. So instead of focusing on an impossible-to-defend value criterion as a distinction, maybe we should focus on the usual approach to the music as the distinction. Interesting ... Antandrus 16:26, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I liked Utis' comments as well, but took them differently. My sense of the "Außeralltäglichkeit" is that the emotional content of the best Classical music is an exception to the kind of emotions that one might experience on a day-to-day basis. Popular music often dwells on romantic or sexual yearnings, frustrations associated with relationships or growing up, and so forth -- whereas the emotional content of Classical music may, one hopes, aspire to more universal, philosphical emotions on the plane of what Schiller calls "das Erhabene" or the Sublime -- the kind of emotion that makes us human in the best sense. I think it may be possible, although not easy, to present this in the article. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inaccurate generalizations

The article discusses Western classical music as if everything that were true about it were also true of all classical musics. To fix this, I think that this article should be split, so that whats true of most classical music is under 'classical music', and that which is specific to Western classical music is described under 'Western classical music'.

--Johnkarp 08:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that the disclaimer at the start of the article is quite adequate:

This article is about the broad genre of classical music in the Western musical tradition. For the period of music in the 18th century see Classical music era, for articles on classical music of non-Western cultures, see: List of classical music traditions

--Herschelkrustofsky 14:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have two concerns here: ethnocentric bias, and practical issues.

Ethnocentrism: if a user looks up 'classical music' and comes away with the idea that its only a Western phenomenon, I think we'll have failed in giving information on 'classical music'.

Practical concerns: now where does one put info about classical music in general, now that 'classical music' is taken up? There's a similar problem for 'algebra'. What most people think of as 'algebra' is actually only a certain kind of algebra called 'elementary algebra'. Possible solutions they could have done:

  • 'algebra' for elementary algebra and 'algebra in general'/'what mathematicians call algebra'/etc. for algebra
  • 'elementary algebra' for 'elementary algebra' and 'algebra' for algebra

The second way was chosen. For similar reasons, I think the article on classical music should be called 'classical music' and the article on western classical music should be called 'western classical music'.

--Johnkarp 16:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Hyacinth 21:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree totally. This article on Western classical music has a "conflict with the names of other people or things" -- classical music traditions in general ('classical music'), and ought to be fixed. Classical music as defined by the Grove dictionary of music: "(i) formal discipline, (ii) model of excellence" -- note no references to the Western tradition. Or the Oxford English Dictionary: "‘Classic’ is used in two senses. In the one it means, having permanent interest and value...In the second sense...music written in a particular style, aiming at the embodiment of a certain ideal, the chief element of which is beauty of form...In classical music, in this sense, form is first and emotional content subordinate; in romantic music content is first and form subordinate." -- ditto, no references to the Western tradition.
So, to sum up, not only is it inaccurate, POV, and against naming guidelines to say that classical music equals western classical music, the Grove Dictionary of Music and the OED share support my definition.
--Johnkarp 22:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please note I did not express an opinion, but simply pointed all interested parties to an applicable policy/guideline. Hyacinth 22:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can go either way. Fair amount of redirect work to be done if consensus is to change the name of the article, but I see the point about "classical music" being ethnocentric. Btw, I think the OED definition does implicitly refer to western classical tradition in that "second sense" definition Johnkarp quoted because it contrasts "classical" with "romantic" which is specifically a western stylistic dichotomy. Antandrus 22:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the OED does appear to mistakenly call European influenced classical music "classical music", the same "mistake" wikipedia currently makes. Hyacinth 23:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK. Do people agree with the Grove definition then?
It was actually that definition which caused me to bring this up... originally I was just going to insert that def at the top of the article.... but it struck me as odd to give that definition but then go on to discuss only part of what was implied. Then I thought why not say that this article was about only Western classical music, if you wanted info on anything else you should click through to another article. Then that struck me as blatantly ethnocentric -- why should the other great traditions be relegated to secondary pages.
I'm sorry about coming across as combative, I feel like I'm entering hostile territory here :) I do like Western classical music, and I'm willing to fix any links that could be broken in doing what I suggest.
--Johnkarp 00:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So how do people feel about it now? --Johnkarp 05:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I support and propose a move to "European influenced classical music". Hyacinth 06:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why do like that more than 'Western classical music'? IMHO, 'European influenced' isn't very precise... Indian and Arabic classical music have been influenced by European/American classical music, and visa versa. --Johnkarp 08:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think there is a need for further disambiguation here. The "Classical" in the European/Western tradition is not just a reference to "serious music with a long formal tradition," but also a specific philosophical reference to the Greek classical period, one might say to Socrates. Perhaps this should be incorporated, carefully, in the "nature of Classical music" section. The same does not apply to art music of other cultures. I think it would be misleading to say that European/Western/etc. Classical music is simply one among many classical traditions. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I am not convinced that, say, Chinese or Indian or Arabic music don't have their own accompanying philosophical traditions. So I don't think that this claim is valid.
Nevertheless "Western classical music" is not accurate. That specific musical tradition has its origins in Europe, of course, but nowadays it is not just European or "Western" anymore. By that I am not only thinking of performers, but of composers. The works of people like Toshio Hosokawa or Toru Takemitsu clearly belong into that musical tradition commonly known as "classical music", but to call them "Western" seems ... very inappropriate.
But "European influenced" isn't it either. After thinking about it twice, I think I know what Hyacinth meant, but it sounds awkward and people will be puzzled and wonder what this is supposed to mean.
Actually, all this is a new version of the discussion at the top of this talk page. It springs from different uses of the word "classical". "classical" meaning either "3 a: of, relating to, or being music in the educated European tradition [...]", "4a: authoritative, traditional" (Merriam-Webster for "classical") or "serving as a standard of excellence : of recognized value" (Meriam-Webster for "classic"). It is not the same usage of the word "classical" in "classical music" (without further specification) compared to "classical Chinese music". One could circumvent that by talking about "art music" like it discussed (and rejected for the right reasons) at the top of this talk page, or by talking about "music, the art of", like the Britannica does. "Classical Western music" could redirect to that page. Anyways, when people are looking for "artistic music in that tradition which has its origins in Europe" they will look under "classical music".
How about just leaving it as it is and state even more clearly at the top of this page what it is about and what the problems using that term are?
--- Utis 15:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course Arabic, Chinese and Indian music have their own philosophical traditions. But the philosophies of say, Ibn Sina, Confucius or the Vedas are generally not called "Classical philosophy" -- that is usually (but not always -- see Classical) reserved for Greece (and probably should extend to the Egyptians who paved the way for the Greeks.) So, I am referring to a definition of "Classical" other than the ones you cite from Merriam-Webster -- although I agree with your proposal. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But classical music isn't Classical Greek at all. Where are the panpipes, lyres and frame drums in classical music? The characteristic odd meters? If you mean influenced by classical Greek philosophy, then all music of Europe is classical, and then what about the Japanese composers mentioned above?
About calling it 'art music' or 'the art of music': if you think defining classical music is hard, try defining art :). --Johnkarp 01:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree, the Classical music era (big C) attempted, like the "eras" directly preceeding it, to align itself with the Classicism of Antiquity, but this does not apply to all classical music (little c). This confusion, between "classical music traditions", "classical music" and between "classical music" and "Classical music", is one of the reasons I support Johnkarp's or my own proposal (how quickly "classical music traditions" becomes the western one, and how quickly western classical music becomes the Classical era, or at the least each is used to typify or be exemplary of the last).
Also, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading (For example: "tidal wave" would be a misleading title since these phenomena have nothing to do with tides), then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative (tsunami, for example)."
This would appear to be an exemplary case. Hyacinth 07:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hm, maybe. I am not convinced about the latter, but I don't want to start nitpicking. It's not as if I particularly liked the term "classical music", it's just that I find the alternatives worse (including "art music", much as I'd prefer that term myself). "European influenced classical music" or "The classical music tradition which started in Europe" would be precise, but I don't think that people would easily find it, if they are just vaguely looking for "Like Mozart or Prokofiev. You know. With orchestra, or with strings or piano. Stuff like 'the spring offering'"

"Western classical music" is the least worse option in this respect. But I am really a bit concerned about Eastern composers here. Would it be appropriate to say "Toshio Hosokawa writes Western classical music, but he does not write Western music."? If so, then I think "Western classical music" might be o.k.. It sounds rather awkward in my ears, though.

--- Utis 14:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Intro

Why is there no introduction? There was one once. Hyacinth 01:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It was vandalism; I'm trying to fix it but the database is being difficult tonight. Antandrus 02:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Still not a proper introduction. Hyacinth 00:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)