William Walton

My favourite classical composers mostly were composing in the 20th century, as well as Walton think Elgar, V Williams, Barber, Finzi, Copeland, Glass, just a few of my personal music composers...........

I love his first symphony, especially the Virgin release conducted by Leonard Slatkin, the timings are incredible.


I also plan to have 'Kiss her sweet lips and part' from the Henry V Suite played at my funeral, or whatever celebration there is when the world is rid of me.

The timings throughout Walton's compositions are incredible, there is a hint of jazz in there. As well as that he has the English love of strings, but also is not afraid of using the brass section with a force rare in 20th Century English music.

It is a pity he did not leave more work to celebrate him by, apparently he was not the most dedicated of workers. Still what we have is some quite fantastic and moving music.

(I would still call much popular music classic in the sense of quality and how it will last, but there is room for both popular and orchestral in that cannon).

His Cello, violin & viola concertos are where its at for Walton. 1st symphony is good but suffers from an unconvincing finale.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
With all this talk of modern music and how we should call this or that piece of pap - sorry pop - music classic ...

George, with that one snide remark, you invalidate the integrity of your views, and that's unfortunate because you clearly know something about certain things. I don't know why you find it necessary to disparage outright one genre of music in order to bolster praise for another, but it's unseemly.

By the way, I love Walton's music, especially his Touch Her Soft Lips and Part, which, your edict aside, I absolutely do consider to be a classic.

Regards,
Fred

Dear Fred,

I have become increasingly impatient with this general view that we can call any thing -including Walton's music - classic!

Yes my post was intemeprate. Short of temper, and liberalsm.

My mistake...

... but what am I to do?

I see the Universal dumbing down.

I expect the Beatles, Bob Dylan, some of Simon and Garfunkel, Elvis Presley, Miles Davis, to become the classics, but they are not yet!

Cannot be in my life or yours!

I am feeling very alone here.

I appreciate your criticism as being honest, in good faith, and perfectly aimed.

Sorry Fred, for in a one to one we would hit it off, I certainly would hope!

ATB from George

George

You are overdoing it old son! Calm down or really leave ( and don't weaken and come back like you have in the past)

OR BETTER STILL

Accept like most of us do that there IS a big wide world of music and many of the shallow musics that don't fit your high and mighty defenition of classic are valid and enjoyed by a vastly larger number of people in this life.

Meant as a friend

PS Went to a concert by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra last night and heard some beautifull Ravel, the Elgar Cello concerto and Dvorak's New world. Pretty much 20th Century music, but to my mind Classic. You are responsible for that through your illumination of music for me.

Geoff

Geoff,

Your critique is just as well aimed as Fred's.

Leaving is the obvious solution and by no means ruled out ...

I think the solution does look inevitable actually. But that is tomorrow's decisison ...

I expect that you can see that our personal very severe friction in real life was inevitabler as well ...

quote:

I expect that you can see that our personal very severe friction in real life was inevitabler as well ...

OOH ERR...does that mean what I think it does. I hope not. That would be a shame and not at all inevitable.

regards
Geoff

Dear Geoff,

I don't really know what you think it means, but life is certainly inevitable!

I know that I am not gentle enough to accomadate your your directness, and I see no reason why you should accomodate mine.

I love music, and I have a certain fascination with mainly recording technique and secondly replay once I get past music as such. I see no reason now why we should agree on any of this. And we don't seem to! Mostly I hope I never stood in the way of music.

ATB from George

I seem to think that looking at this thread some form of light needs to be shed on the exact wording and the way they are intended to be understood.
For me - there is a great amount of 'classical' music that is anything but 'classic'. Maybe I just dont get it, have time to understand it or I just find it plain boring for my attention span.
Does 'classic' music have to have an orchestra and a conductor? Or is that just classical. What happens when you have an orchestra and a conductor and they play symphonic Yes? Does that make Yes classical? Went to the concerts and had a great time - but it was still Yes music being played.
This probably needs thread on its own - with each person naming just one piece of classical and one classic. I bet it would hit a huge amount of posts.
I can think of 'classics' (to my mind) from as diverse as The Sex Pistols to the Beates to Pink Floyd - and non of those are 50 years old yet (well the music isn't) and yes - they are classics in every sense of the word as far as I am concerned.
Classic or Classical - maybe clarification is needed?
I have Cds in my collection as recomended by you and others, and good they are to, but music for me has a far greater diversity and I get enjoyment from a greater variety than you seem able to. That is not a worry or a problem and certainy shouln't be, but I wouldn't call the non 'classical' I have pap?
Is listening to 'classical' some form of weird snobbery thing as it is more difficult to get into / understand at times?
It does come across as that when spoken about in terms as these.

George, you may have misread or misunderstood my message. This is the key phrase which rankled: "this or that piece of pap - sorry pop" ... that's what the gist of my message was addressing.

The issue of when something becomes a classic is much more open to debate than you allow, but is beside my main point. Most people in the world have a broader definition of classic than you do. The film Citizen Kane, just to take one example of many, is universally considered to be a classic. In fact, broad consensus is one of the absolute requirements for a work of art to be deemed a classic, not just its age, and often, despite its age.

Regards,
Fred

I have had some really great times on the Naim forum with George, Geoff and Fred.

The WTC has provided damn near endless entertainment and pleasure, and the Barenboim Beethoven DVDs Fred put me onto still seem fresh and full of newness six months later.

I had been hoping George would go into the St. Matthew's Passion.

I hope things work themselves out.

George, please e-mail me and let me know what's on your mind. My ears are open.

A personal perspective on commenting on orchestral music, or classical as many people call it.

At work I occasionally play pieces by Walton, Vaughan Williams, etc. Working in film and TV and not surprisingly often asked 'What film is this music from?'

I have found that if I reply
'Oh, it is not from a film, but the first symphony by ????',
what people often hear is
'I know classical music by its actual name, and not just pieces from adverts and films, and am better than you for that.'

It is a problem, as many people are intimidated by those who know, even a very little in my case about classical music.

The answer for me, is often say say, 'It is funny you say that, I am sure it was used in "random film name", but I was actually given this by a friend, and then offer the title.'

Not so much the case here, but possibly still a part of that.

As for the word classic, it is difficult, for instance the E Type Jaguar would be called a classic car, and that only started being manufactured during the 1960's. Perhaps classic is relevant to the age of the genre it is applied to, and that might be where the term is a problem in music.

Music as a whole has existed for centuries, if not aeons. Orchestral music for several centuries, and popular music for a few decades.

If classic is a term applied in terms of the age of the genre, then the Beatles are as old in terms of popular music, as Tallis is in terms of 'classical' music.

Perhaps I am talking 'dog years', but it might explain how age and time, and the ability to stand the test of each is a very relative term.

George I hope you do not leave the forum, although you might find it frustrating at times, you certainly do enlighten some of us who are somewhat limited in our knowledge of music beyond the popular. All the best, wherever you choose to appreciate your music.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

I see the Universal dumbing down.

I expect the Beatles, Bob Dylan, some of Simon and Garfunkel, Elvis Presley, Miles Davis, to become the classics, but they are not yet!

Cannot be in my life or yours!

I am feeling very alone here.

I appreciate your criticism as being honest, in good faith, and perfectly aimed.

Sorry Fred, for in a one to one we would hit it off, I certainly would hope!

ATB from George

I'm sure we would, George, although I would still argue vigorously.

First of all, in the excerpt I've quoted above, you're conflating two different issues. Regarding a general dumbing down of society, in many respects I think that's true. But one of those respects is not the existence of popular music, ipso facto. I do agree that too many folks simply use the set of works of art that they personally like as a standard for "classic" or even "masterpiece." Some of those works may or may not be classics or masterpieces, but suffice to say that no matter how much one likes the brand new Mariah Carey album, it is likely neither a classic nor a masterpiece. In that sense, I agree that there has been a dumbing down of certain standards.

But to conflate the acceptance of the possibility of popular music achieving classic status with the dumbing down of culture is a mistake. If songs by Irving Berlin, Rodgers and Hart, the Gershwins, Hoagy Carmichael, et al are not classics, then nothing is. If Woody Guthrie's This Land Is Your Land and Bob Dylan's Blowing In the Wind are not classics, then nothing is. If Miles Davis' seminal Kind of Blue is not a classic, then nothing is.

The problem with using a fixed time frame against which to measure classic status is that different art forms have different time lines of development ... Western European classical music has a time line of roughly six centuries (depending, of course, on where one begins marking time ... in this case the dawn of the Renaissance, 14th century). But jazz has a much more compressed time line of roughly one century, during which its rate of development is likewise compressed. If one considers the art of American popular song, beginning with the dawn of the so-called Great American Songbook, its time line is even more compressed. And inherent in that general compression of time is the compression of time needed for a particular work, or body of work, to achieve classic status.

The same is true for general eras of artistic expression. It is widely accepted that the world has sped up through the centuries ... the increasing speed of transportation from horse-drawn carriage to supersonic jet is a metaphor for the exponential acceleration of development in the sciences, the arts, etc. If general cultural development is constantly accelerating, it would naturally follow that the amount of time needed for something to be deemed a classic has likewise been compressed.

To be sure, this exponential acceleration has limits ... I'm certainly not suggesting that in the future works of art will be judged to be "instant classics." But the one constant in the equation must be broad consensus. The world at large agrees that The Beatles' Yesterday is a classic, so I'm afraid, George, that in this, yes, you are probably alone.

All best,
Fred

And in a way isn't it great that we can be exercised so much by music?

Certainly without George, ROFT,Fred, Stefan and many others here my musical collection would be missing some wonderful music.

Some are classics in their genre, some classics in any genre, others I just really enjoy but can appreciate that they are not necessarily classics.


Tonight I listened to these 3 :









are any of these classics?

As Christy Moore said in his wonderful "Lisdoonvarna"

quote:

This is heaven, this is hell.
Who cares? Who can tell?
(Anyone for the last few Choc Ices, now?)

OK I'll get my coat..........



SJB

Just trying to continue my discussion with George regarding a definition of "classic." I think he's been away for a bit, but seems back now, so may not have had the chance to respond to my post two above this one, which I spent some time thinking about and composing! (insert emoticon here)

All best,
Fred

Dear Fred,

It is very kind that you would want to exchange views and ideas with me.

I wish some people [not you of course] would use a broader vocabulary sometimes!

What is so often called classic with respect to rock [and surrounding genres of] music would in my view be better styled seminal, or hugely significant, or some such!

Now I know I did dig in on this, because in my view far too much classical music is also called classic. Quite a lot of classical music is far from classic in reality, and even now the ongoing rarification of the performed repertoire is still thrashing out some less than wonderful music that will eventually fall away, as chaff, completely.

I am grateful that you took the trouble to make the post several up.

It gives me a great pause for thought, because it comes very close to succeeding in arguing me into the view that the period before something may be aptly called classic is actually different according to perhaps the genre or class or art [or even human creative activitiy ofman such as making cars for example], but it does not quite convince me for all that, for exactly the reason that one can still point out the true peaks of more modern music without the need to use hyperbole, which in my view classic, or work of genius, and so on actually are when applied too soon or too liberally. Now of course this does remain a matter of personal opinion, but essentially my point is about preserving the power of language, quite as much as about the question of the quality of the art in question. It seems to me that in Brahms' time Haydn's works [some of them] may have respectably been regarded as classic, but none of Beethoven's, however great it must been clear that Beethoven's inspiration was, and actually that there would have been very little doubt that Beethoven would morph with certainty in a composer of classics!

I reckon we would indeed debate vigorously! But certainly refrain from anything beyond agreeing to disagree!

ATB from George

Surely "classic" is about popularity and respect. A Bob Dylan song can be considered "classic" if enough people like and respect it - value it - accord it greater worth than other songs.
Someone unversed in Dylan's material should be able to understand why other people regard the song as a "classic" even if he/she isn't in a position to decide one way or the other.

"Classic" is about relative assessment based on personal response. It's a sort of group decision. It may not be consensus, but there's a sense of the majority about it.

I don't think "classic" has anything to do with quality at all - even assuming that that has any meaning as a concept.

GFFJ Senior Member Posted Wed 14 October 2009 22:05

Surely classic means tested by time and still of interest to new generations. [Not the first generation that knew the music as fashionable and new].

Surely no popular recorded music yet falls into this category?

.....

GFFJ Senior Member Posted Wed 14 October 2009 23:36

The only people interested in the old pop recordings of the fifties and sixties are those who were there!

This is simply reliving a lost youth - not a definition of classic status!

...

No one here will ever live to see what is classic pop music, because by defrinition we would have to outlive another generation to be sure.

That is called the judgement of time. [It may or may not be a mark of quality, in reality quality is a subjective issue, and arguable in every case - Rossini had it right when he commented that there were two sorts of music only, the boring and the interesting].

It is why we can call Beethoven's Missa Solemnis a classic ... [It is still relevant to generations who certainly are not influenced by th fashion of Beethoven's time].

I think you will find I am right on this. Indeed I would not even guarantee with absolute certainty what the next generations view of the Beatles might be ... Classic or simply a footnote in pop music history. No one knows yet!

...

ATB from George

Additionally, I am fairly sure that the status of classic is actually brought about by a serious interest of a minority rather than general popularity. Or else we would regard Bruch's famous Violin Concerto as a greater classic than the Missa Solemnis or the B Minor Mass ...

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

Surely classic means tested by time and still of interest to new generations. [Not the first generation that knew the music as fashionable and new].

Surely no popular recorded music yet falls into this category?

.....

The only people interested in the old pop recordings of the fifties and sixties are those who were there!

This is simply reliving a lost youth - not a definition of classic status!

...

No one here will ever live to see what is classic pop music, because by defrinition we would have to outlive another generation to be sure.

I think you will find I am right on this. Indeed I would not even guarantee with absolute certainty what the next generations view of the Beatles might be ... Classic or simply a footnote in pop music history. No one knows yet!

No, George, actually I do not find that you are right on this.

First of all, there have already been successive generations genuinely interested in the popular music of the preceding generation. Irving Berlin, Gershwin, Porter, Rodgers and Hart, et al, wrote the music of my parents' generation, yet their music is cherished by millions who were not alive when it was new.

The same is holding true for the music of The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Burt Bacharach, Jimmy Webb, Leonard Cohen, et al ... there are legions of young'uns for whom this music has great significance.

Further, it's facile to claim that continuing interest in the popular music one grew up with is due strictly to nostalgia. Of course one bonds with the music of one's youth, but many find that its resonance expands to provide enrichment decades later. I'm fully capable of discerning between my nostalgic affection for the music of The Beatles, and my objective appreciation for its enduring quality. I can indeed all but guarantee that future generations will agree, in part because they already have done so. I wouldn't swear to it, but I think only someone who refers to pop music as "pap" would fail to understand how this could be true.

Further, you have glossed over, or even simply ignored, the crux of my argument, which is that the march of time is speeding up, and time is relative. If one considers how far jazz music has evolved in the mere 100 years of its existence, in comparison to European classical music it would take several hundred years of development to be equivalent.

Finally, I think something needs to be said about the definition of the word classic, which is generally thought of by most to mean of the first or highest quality, class, or rank; serving as a standard, model, or guide; definitive; of or adhering to an established set of artistic standards; of enduring interest, quality, or style. Only the last of these touches upon the passage of time, which can indeed factor into the assessment, but is certainly not its only criterion. And, as I've pointed out, much recorded popular music already has unequivocally endured, beyond both its initial audience and its creators.

I mean, really ... how much more time needs to pass before even you would accept that My Romance, Cheek to Cheek, or even Blowin' in the Wind are bona fide classics?

Best,
Fred

Dear Fred,

We are not going to come close to agreeing on this.

It does not matter, as I am moving to another [post playing] phase of my musical life, and my views are so completely out of tune with the modern Forum, that this really is my last post here.

Best wishes to you from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dear Fred,

We are not going to come close to agreeing on this.

It does not matter, as I am moving to another [post playing] phase of my musical life, and my views are so completely out of tune with the modern Forum, that this really is my last post here.

Best wishes to you from George

I dont understand George. Why do you always leave, or threaten to leave just because people have different views to yours? And we are not talking about people being rude here. Do you find it so hard to stomach a counter, or dare |I say it, better argued viewpoint?

Sister xx

I actually enjoy a proper disagreement, but it is no longer possible to have a sustained proper conversation here, or so it seems, so a reasoned disagreement is indeed rarer than it used to be.

I did intend to pack in on the 13K, but overshot.

In terms of this particular issus it is more about the erosion of the English language, which is apparently justfied by such comments that we are living faster nowadays when the opposite is demonstrable. We are living longer and the generations are on average more spaced out [the average age of mothers is increasing], so what might have once have qualified as a classic might arguably need to be left longer, not shorter, to account for extra life expectancy and longer time between the generations.

As I have said before, perhaps one might describe some pop music as seminal, quite likely to eventually be seen even as a classic, or some such.

I care more about the erosion of English than to debate musical points on an internet board ...

Best wishes from George

quote:

Originally posted by Sister E.:

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dear Fred,

We are not going to come close to agreeing on this.

It does not matter, as I am moving to another [post playing] phase of my musical life, and my views are so completely out of tune with the modern Forum, that this really is my last post here.

Best wishes to you from George

I dont understand George. Why do you always leave, or threaten to leave just because people have different views to yours? And we are not talking about people being rude here. Do you find it so hard to stomach a counter, or dare |I say it, better argued viewpoint?

Sister xx

Sister E.

Dear George has been a little 'Up&Down' of late, i put it down to his - giving up smoking a few months ago - hence his mood swings, but i'm sure he will swing back and once again we will enjoy his posts.

This IMHO of course, i wish no ill will towards George and look forward to reading his posts in the future.

Kind regards,

Chris N

I'd like to throw my 2 cents in on the issue of what is "classic". I use a simple rule of thumb for New Orleans music.

If a third generation (a span of 30 years or so, but could be less) takes up a particular style, I call it a "classic" New Orleans style. It's important that succeeding generations pick up a style to call it "classic", at least for New Orleans music, in my view.

This is similar to what George believes, but not identical.

The same rule could be applied to sustained listener interest in any type of music across generations.

No one could reasonably claim a brand new release was a "classic", rather, people might say a new release is destined to be a "classic".

Only time can tell.