William Walton

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

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.

If it's the English language you're concerned about George, rest assured that the definition I provided above of the word classic is from a genuine English dictionary. You seem to be interested in only one of the four components of that definition.

But if it's only the passage of time that defines classic for you (never mind billions of others who take a broader view), let me reiterate that generations already have passed since the dawn of recorded popular music, so even by your own narrower definition, enough time has elapsed for assessments to be made about which popular recorded music may be considered classic. How much longer will we wait for you to agree that Louis Armstrong's Hot 5 and Hot 7 recordings are considered true classics?

Regarding the increasing speed of modern life, you may be the only person I know who doesn't acknowledge it (which explains a lot now that I think of it). It's got nothing to do with life expectancy (which has only increased by a few years in the last hundred), but rather, both the perceived, and actual speed of technological developments, the exponential increase of the speed at which we travel, the speed of information, etc. The world is a much smaller place, due in part to the internet, and to globalization in general.

No, it's not human life expectancy that has sped up, it's the development of civilization. We are indeed living faster these days; if you insist that "the opposite is demonstrable," please do demonstrate.

Best,
Fred

I do like Walton's music very much, but to bring this thread full circle, Walton outlived John Lennon and composed the piece linked to in the opening post in 1969.

On what criteria can it, and his other film score music, be described as 'classic'?

quote:

Originally posted by rodwsmith:
I do like Walton's music very much, but to bring this thread full circle, Walton outlived John Lennon and composed the piece linked to in the opening post in 1969.

On what criteria can it, and his other film score music, be described as 'classic'?

Yes, but the Walton piece I cited as a classic, Touch Her Soft Lips and Part, was written in 1944.

Also, I'm not sure what having been written for a film has to do with anything ... there is nothing in film music that makes it inherently of less value.

In any case, this particular piece is a classic because it's of the first or highest quality, class, or rank; it serves as a standard, model, or guide; it's definitive; it adheres to an established set of artistic standards; and it's of enduring interest, quality, and style, 65 years on.

Best,
Fred

I don't understand this thread.

I listened to William Walton piece and can only say I found it to be excellent music - whether it is classic, classical or modern is simply a matter of how we define these terms. Can't we simply agree that William Walton wrote some great music that many of us can enjoy listening to and apply this across other genres. Do we have to try to assess whether Walton is better than Bach or as good as the Beatles? Is it a crime to enjoy all three?

I don't look on music as scholastic pursuit (no problem with those that do - more power to them). To me, it is entertainment of the highest order. In general, it hurts nobody and brings joy to so many.

What is classic(al)? A folk song like Nottamun Town was written before Bach et al were treading the boards, but I don't think of it as classical music - just a great song that surely any composer would have been proud to associated with.

And if anybody knows a better open riff than the one on Beethoven's fifth then I'd love hear it. I think Beethoven would have been in a prog-rock band if he were alive today and a very very very good one - B-E-L-P (?). OK I got that from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, but I never claimed original thought.

I can't be in judgement on what is good and what is bad. My stated opinions on music are simply what I like and what I don't. I don't know any other way to do it without losing the enjoyment factor. I don't want to have a collection of music I admire rather than like.

Walton ... Touch Her Soft Lips and Part - another wonderful piece of music.

ATB Rotf

quote:

Originally posted by rodwsmith:
... and composed the piece linked to in the opening post in 1969.

On what criteria can it, and his other film score music, be described as 'classic'?

The music was composed for the WW2 propoganda film [about RJ Michell's invention if the Spitfire] called The First Of The Few.

I hope you do not mind me pointing this out.

This may be verified by searching amazon.co.uk with the title.



ATB from George

Dear ROTF,

Walton is one of my two favourite Twentieth Century Composers. The other is Sibelius.

For what it is worth it is my opinion that both of them wrote fantastic music.

If you do not understand the motivation for this thread it is intended as a little stand against the watering down of English by sloppy usage.

If you hear a Priest swear, it carries real weight, but if you hear a released prisoner swear it probably has little impact.

I am am trying to point out that classic as a term, [a noun which is clearly defined in any good dictionary], is one that is so over used that the term itself often nowadays means nothing more than mildly intersting in reference to the thing that is being refered to as a classic.

Refering to a Ford Anglia as a classic is an example over-stretching the term to cover mediocrity, whereas if it is reserved for such a car as the RR Silver Ghost or Bentley Speed Six, then one soon understands that the term classic is reserved for designs that are works of genius, rather merely being commonplace.

ATB from George [who may live long enough to see Sibelius and Walton recognised a truly composers of music works that can properly be called classics!].

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

I am am trying to point out that classic as a term, [a noun which is clearly defined in any good dictionary], is one that is so over used that the term itself often nowadays means nothing more than mildly intersting in reference to the thing that is being refered to as a classic.

... the term classic is reserved for ... works of genius, rather merely being commonplace.

ATB from George [who may live long enough to see Sibelius and Walton recognised a truly composers of music works that can properly be called classics!].

Well, I have provided that clear dictionary definition twice now, and most of its components pertain to quality, not the passage of time. George, your assertion that the term is reserved for works of genius rather than commonplace aligns perfectly well with that definition, and therefore we can determine that Miles Davis' album Kind Of Blue is indeed a classic, regardless of whether its principals and initial audience are still alive.

And your hope that you live long enough to see works of Walton's be properly considered classic obviates your contention that generations must pass. So it seems that you now agree with the dictionary (and me!) that the primary criteria of a classic is its quality, (mostly) regardless of the quantity of time that has passed, although I do agree that some amount of time needs to have passed. How much time? That's relative to many factors, and there is no single universal measure. What cannot be relative is the consensus required for a work to be considered a classic, a consensus which is comprised both of scholars and laymen.

All best,
Fred

Dear Fred,

I am not the, or even an arbiter of quality!

I sometimes find that my taste does follow what is accepted by those who are the arbiters of quality, namely, as you note, a consensus which is comprised both of scholars and laymen.

ATB from George

OK, then, what's your argument?

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

quote:

Originally posted by rodwsmith:
... and composed the piece linked to in the opening post in 1969.

On what criteria can it, and his other film score music, be described as 'classic'?

The music was composed for the WW2 propoganda film [about RJ Michell's invention if the Spitfire] called The First Of The Few.

I hope you do not mind me pointing this out.

This may be verified by searching amazon.co.uk with the title.



ATB from George

And what about this: arguably the greatest piece of film music ever

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

OK, then, what's your argument?

Best,
Fred

I have no idea, except that the term classic, just like the term genius is without question used to liberally, if not by you dear Fred.

ATB from George

Still, the notion of classic has something to do with how long it's been around. I don't think of the dictionary definitions as being independent of each other. They sum up the qualities of classic, each of which must be present to some degree to feel "classic". The idea of "an instant classic" comes from marketing, and seems a bit crass.

But I wouldn't want to put any firm criteria to how old it has to be. When listening to a young band play a New Orleans tune from the 50s' that I grew up with, I will tell children it's a classic. It seems counter-productive to
be more specific than that.

Is this a classic though?

Unquiet Grave sung by Shirley Collins, but written by the gretest of all composers Anon in the 15th century and still sung at folk gatherings. Its longevity is without question, but although I love the song I never think of it as classical.

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:
Is this a classic though?

Unquiet Grave sung by Shirley Collins, but written by the gretest of all composers Anon in the 15th century and still sung at folk gatherings. Its longevity is without question, but although I love the song I never think of it as classical.

It may not be classical, but it is a classic.

Well I'm sitting here watching the tv with the documentary of DSOTM on Sky.
Currently the production of great gig in the sky and the chords on the piano / singing.
Can anyone to say it's not an absolute classic as it's cover artwork.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve2701:
Well I'm sitting here watching the tv with the documentary of DSOTM on Sky.
Currently the production of great gig in the sky and the chords on the piano / singing.
Can anyone to say it's not an absolute classic as it's cover artwork.

Quite agree Steve 2701. If the word"classic" can't be applied to a Pink Floyd album then what can it be applied to?

Sister xx

quote:

Originally posted by Sister E.:
Quite agree Steve 2701. If the word"classic" can't be applied to a Pink Floyd album then what can it be applied to?

Sister xx

There are any number of things that come before our time, and from diverse culture. People have the same feelings, generation after generation. But their voices change, according to how life was dealt out ...

There are thousands of classics, and they are the treasure of humanity.

Thanks Mike, true words.
Whatever makes you feel good is your classic. We all have preferences, DSOTM is a good one no doubt. I'd also put Joshua Tree as one of mine. I ordered on Netflix the classic album DVD where they go in and show different tracks and talk with the makers. It should be here tomorrow for JT, I've also ordered the DSOTM.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

OK, then, what's your argument?

I have no idea, except that the term classic, just like the term genius is without question used too liberally, if not by you dear Fred.

On this we absolutely agree, George. I think all too many people simply believe that if they really like something it's therefore a classic and/or work of genius.

And, indeed, I am very careful how I use those words, classic and genius ... always striving to discern between what is strictly my own taste and what is truly universally recognized as classic and/or genius.

And, as I've said before more than once, at least some time does have to pass for those assessments to be made, for the consensus to build to a healthy size. But I sure don't think everyone has to be long dead and gone ... it all depends on eveything!

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by mudwolf:

Whatever makes you feel good is your classic.

You see, here's where I think George has a good point ... what makes you feel good may or may not also be a classic, but it can't be a classic just because it makes you feel good.

I feel strongly that a classic is such because a very broad consensus of scholars, critics, and laymen consider it to be so ... the quality of durable universality. Woody Guthrie's This Land Is Your Land, for instance.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
I feel strongly that a classic is such because a very broad consensus of scholars, critics, and laymen consider it to be so ... the quality of durable universality. Woody Guthrie's This Land Is Your Land, for instance.

All best,
Fred

Why does it have to be universal? A classic may be of specialized interest to a small interested party. If it does in fact exhibit persistence and set a standard which is emulated, it is still a classic, even if not of universal appeal.

For example, the music of New Orleans would fit this specialized profile, as opposed to the Beatles. "This Land is Your Land" would also be something less than universal, along with much of classical music.

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
And, as I've said before more than once, at least some time does have to pass for those assessments to be made, for the consensus to build to a healthy size. But I sure don't think everyone has to be long dead and gone ... it all depends on eveything!

All best,
Fred

I'm with Fred here. Some time has to pass, but not aeons - not necessarily anyway. This because something does not gain the status of 'classic' simply by virtue of its popularity (Dan Brown?) and the converse is also true 'The Rite of Spring', Monet's 'Impression: Sunrise' and even Sydney Opera House were all derided when new. It didn't/doesn't take even one lifetime for the position to be reversed.

I don't see how it can be said that generations have to pass, but on the other hand wait, hang on a minute, we can include this piece by Walton because it is so good/I happen to like it/it's orchestral not 'pap' or whatever. Whatever one's tastes, the criteria need to be applied evenly.

Although the word is without doubt over-used, some things are destined to become classics, and it can ocassionally be obvious from fairly early on for the very best of them (the Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione I would think, for example)

I work with, and teach about, wine, and I can say for sure that a defiantly classic wine style, acknowledged by just about everyone, is "Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc" from New Zealand. No-one could pass pretty much any wine exam without knowing this these days, and recognising its taste at the higher levels.

The first vineyards were planted in Marlborough in 1973. There are areas of Europe that have been (successfully, commercially, with recognition) growing grapes for two millennia, which are not regarded in such a way.

I am sure similar is true for music.

I looked up classic in the Oxfore English Language Dictionary, the acknowledged keeper of good english usage, at AskOxford.com.

One accepted definition of classic is simply "typical", which I take to mean accepted practice in some style of music.

I think persistence and emulation are the two primary qualities of a musical classic, with emulation being an oblique approach, as a composer or singer-songwriter may adapt older materials freely, i.e. heavily modified, as in Stravinsky's use of folk materials in his ballets.

A Google search produced :-


classic [ˈklæsɪk]
adj
1. of the highest class, esp in art or literature
2. serving as a standard or model of its kind; definitive
3. adhering to an established set of rules or principles in the arts or sciences a classic proof
4. characterized by simplicity, balance, regularity, and purity of form; classical
5. of lasting interest or significance
6. continuously in fashion because of its simple and basic style a classic day dress
n
1. an author, artist, or work of art of the highest excellence
2. a creation or work considered as definitive
3. (Individual Sports & Recreations / Horse Racing) Horse racing
a. any of the five principal races for three-year-old horses in Britain, namely the One Thousand Guineas, Two Thousand Guineas, Derby, Oaks, and Saint Leger
b. a race equivalent to any of these in other countries See also classics
[from Latin classicus of the first rank, from classis division, rank, class]

I'm sure every body can find a definition there to fit their criterion , no need for any toy throwing IMO. Otherwise tough titty.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:

I'm sure every body can find a definition there to fit their criterion , no need for any toy throwing IMO. Otherwise tough titty.

No toy throwing, just trying to fill up a little boredom with a post. Pickings are pretty slim on the forum these days :-)

... said the kitty to the moo cow.