Music Chat: Why "Classical" Music Is Greater Than All Other Kinds

[@lovettboston]

I like the attempt to dissociate a purely musical model from social prestige, and it's hard to imagine any kind of music, whether popular or esoteric, without some allegiance to formal conventions. All music has to seem intelligible in some way, even if intuitively and hard to verbalize or "resolve" by rules of tonality. Another distinction that can be used is music for a function vs. music for engaged listening. In addition to great symphonies and chamber works, Mozart wrote background music for wedding celebrations. When radio audiences were larger, there was programming of music for certain activities, such as driving to work, feeling energized at the office, or decompressing on the way home. A classical host with a morning slot on a public radio station in Boston even limited his playlist to pre-Beethoven, so as to avoid creating stress in rural areas for cows. Though Mozart had his weddings and Bach his worship music, classical composers are mainly processed through engaged listening. The same goes for jazz, with its own trajectory from dance music at clubs to engaged listening at concert halls. As we admire in Beethoven, form is less an inflexible pattern than a keen sense of to go from beginning to middle to end--in other words, a dynamic. Are the best examples of form in Charles Mingus any less classical than what you can admire in Janacek, Stravinsky, Debussy's "Jeux," the Ives 4th Symphony and Concord Sonata, or Schoenberg's "Five Pieces for Orchestra" and String Trio? Since when is Ellington's "Tone Parallel to Harlem" less classical than Gershwin's "An American in Paris"? Another distinction can be made between music that stays within bounds of a single convention, as opposed synthesizing multiple conventions or cultures. Bach was a German who drew from Italian and French models, with a Polonaise here and there. Haydn, Schubert and Brahms had their own demographic cocktails, as did Dvorak. Another kind of cocktail is the mixing of musical elements from different eras, as in Beethoven's late quartets, or the mix of high-brow and low-brow elements in the 9th Symphony. It would be snobbism to call this musical superiority, but it's hard to deny the greater breadth. All definitions have their limits. Engaged listening can still mean intently following a printed score and those increments of absorption that come with practicing and rehearsing for a performance. For all the advantages of "pure" listening, music cannot be fully enjoyed or understood without the context of an audience. Stretching the boundaries of "engaged listening" beyond your own ears is the kind of synthesis that defines classical, not just by what is played, but by how it is processed.

[@Johnwilkinsonofficial]

if you are inclined to doubt this: read schoenbergs fundamentals of musical composition. if you understand it you will see (and hear) that it does indeed capture the way that tonal music is organized. he is not teaching a style, he is showing _how things work_ when they do in fact work.

[@robertvavra414]

Yes. Years ago, I had read snippets from Schoenberg's 'Structural Functions of Harmony' from the college library. I need to obtain my own copies of both books.

[@dominikclarke6545]

Have to confess it is an incredibly dry book... reading it as a handbook for learning composition. Perhaps if I read it more as an academic commentary it might be more enlightening.

[@WesSmith-m6i]

Thank you, Dave. I am particularly taken with your characterization of classical music as a bigger universe. Perhaps that would make an even more apt title: Classical Music: The Bigger Universe. Thanks as always for stimulating my thinking. Wesley

[@blackmoom]

I absolutely love classical music!! But there have been many albums over the years thaht have been so important to me, too, other than classical music. Tommy, by The Who, is one 👍. The Wall, by Pink Floyd; Rumours, Fleetwood Mac; the White Album and Sgt. Pepper, the Beatles. Amongst others! Love the channel ❤

[@blackmoom]

And if anyone here hasn't heard of Steve Reich, look him up and give his music a try. Six Marimbas, Drumming, and especially, Music for 18 Musicians. Have been listening to his work for decades.

[@mikesmovingimages]

Style vs form. The music you cite is in the style of rock, which is primarily a rhythmic definition wrapped in a blues harmonic pattern. The albums, however, use the larger structures of song cycle, opera or oratorio, or some hybrid of those, which is what Dave is getting at. Just as operas have been composed in a variety of styles from early Baroque to serialism and beyond.

[@davekeyes5589]

Great commentary on the unification (instead of compartmentalization) of musical forms. I’d be very interested in your thoughts on one area that distinguishes “classical” music (along with jazz) from other genres: it conveys the emotional intent of the writer/composer largely without the use of lyrics.

[@VuykArie]

This is your GREATEST talk EVER!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you so much!!!

[@michaelpetkovich5058]

How about a "special case" for improvised music, such as Indian classical music and jazz? The great musicians of India must master many complex forms, and this requires years of practice. Of course, jazz is a more recent development, and it has been influenced by classical music. (For example, see the direct link between Ellington and Dvorak.) However, jazz musicians such as Ellington, Charlie Parker, Cecil Taylor and John Coltrane went on to expand the vocabulary of improvised music with unique innovations. Analyses of these innovations are readily found in the writings of musicologists and jazz musicians. Perhaps the best way to make my point is to view music as divided into two categories: the "composer-performer" of the improviser and the "composer-interpreter" division of labor in classical music. I've listened to great music for over 50 years, and I still find John Coltrane to be as wonderful as a Beethoven symphony

[@robertvavra414]

Yes; but remember that Coltrane was also a fine composer (as was Django Reinhardt, btw) .

[@davidstrumsky7012]

It's such an elemental topic that it bears discussion and consideration often, preferably before we get too carried away with our sloppy biases. I'm always needing to stress agreement of terms first - what does this use of the word "great" mean - something qualitative or quantitative? That the length of a compositional forms is an important distinguishing factor, that "length" is one thing, "listenability" is another, "popularity" is another... Other points you've brought up before, that we need to make sure we're not talking about styles of music, that we need to figure in market success versus all other forms of compensation for composers and performers, or the point someone else made here that vocal music implies words and that implies poetic form: meaning. Love that here is a place I can consider in community what hasn't happened for me since university days. I need to reign in some bad habits of thinking. Thanks, Dave and others here.

[@Stilicho19801]

I like your description of modern, popular music as individual, tuneful songs. It remind me, too, that classical composers incorporated folk melodies into their works, so that they are not lost.

[@johnmarchington3146]

What I love about classical music, perhaps more than any other aspect, is the way its composers make use of harmony. One can go back to the age of polyphony, to Gregorian chant, to hear some of the most sublime use of harmony, but it continues through to the present day. That's the reason I love a composer like Vaughan Williams so much.

[@johnmarchington3146]

@@SO-ym3zs I love jazz. I've been collecting a lot of rare and recently released Chick Corea albums recently. What a pianist that man was! I'd say he would have given a lot of classical pianists a run for their money as far as virtuosity is concerned. Having said that, I am somewhat disappointed with the "Sardinia" album.

[@jimslancio]

This is one of your best essays. I agree with the other commenter, that I'd like to hear more of your thoughts regarding Mahler and the Beatles. People who love country music say that it's "about real people." I think country music is more a poetic genre that a musical genre. "What is music about?" is another way of asking Bernstein's question "what does music mean?" In his third Norton lecture, he argues that music has an abstract level of meaning, but that can be analogized to rhetorical figures of speech. So in evaluating music I would try not to get drawn into poetic meanings, but rather would look to his musical figures, and to the way they relate to the classical forms you mentioned. I'm just texting on a phone. I hope that came out coherently.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

I really know nothing about Mahler and the Beatles specifically. I was told, by someone I respect, that they enjoyed Mahler's songs (some or all of them?). That was good enough for me for a casual mention. I'm not prepared to go into it further, unfortunately.

[@jimslancio]

@@DavesClassicalGuide Thank you for replying. My first, instantaneous reaction was to think of certain Mahler fingerprints, such as slightly varying multiply repeated statements, such as "Um Mitternacht" or "Dunkel ist das Leben, ist der Tod." I'd have to research Beatles song lyrics to look for comparable variations. Another Mahler fingerprint is his innovative ability to capture a sense of stillness. Leonard Bernstein commented on it, and Aaron Copland used it in works such as Our Town and Appalachian Spring. Stillness is not something you'd expect to find in rock music, but later Beatles songs were innovative enough that I wouldn't prejudge that. Mahler used vernacular elements, but so did so many other composers that I'm not sure what might be distinctive of his use of them. Again, I'd want to research vernacular in Beatles songs to see what might be comparable. In connection with groundbreaking rock albums such as Sergeant Pepper and Pet Sounds, the term "concept album" started to come into use. I'm not sure exactly how to define the term, but I wonder whether a song cycle such as Das Lied, or even Winterreise, might be a pioneer concept album. Just a few initial thoughts. But further thought and research might turn up more. Thanks again.

[@ilunga146]

Interesting assertion, Dave. Which Beatles songs remind you of Mahler?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Many of them.

[@barrygordon5323]

As a professional pianist for 60 years,I have to agree with the gentleman here,,,,,I have played and written both jazz and classical compositions,,,number one,,,training, classical musicians are just generally better and more rigorously trained musicians, especially,,,on technique,,,the classical techniques I learned didn't just help my classical playing but helped my jazz playing.....that said most classical player are poor improvisers,and don't swing much,but then these things are not important in the music they play ...but this is important.. .great artists in music are rare,,,but in classical music,the composers that are great artists and not rare....the best composers are generally great artists...in jazz their is no shortage of great players....but great artists,composing wise,not as many.....I will say this,I have written and played many really difficult stride rags and difficult classical etudes,,,for shere technical difficulties,,I find the virtuoso stride pieces to be harder..... mainly because with all the hard figuration,I have to keep a great rhythm and a difficult counterpoint stride bass going at the same time .....

[@russellbaston974]

That’s an excellent point about the, let’s say reluctance, of classical performers regarding improvisation, many- most cadenzas are ‘standard’ written versions, whereas originally they were improvised by the soloists. It’s a process which does contain a degree of risk and maybe with the ubiquity of recordings performers are shy of taking the chance. In Mozart’s time he was a ‘star’ performer because of his improvisational talents and improvisation “contests” were extremely popular with audiences.

[@SoiledWig]

Great perspective, i hadn't thought of it that way. The last thing i ever want to do is be a snob when i try to spread my love of classical music to others, and this is a great way to present it that won't insult anyone.

[@philippecassagne3192]

Dave, I think it might be interesting that, one day, you make a comparison on Occidental music versus non Occidental ones. I think in particular of Indian music which has a long tradition too but is very different.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Actually, the musical world DOES in fact revolve around Europe. You may not like it, but it's indisputably true.

[@zionfortuna]

I wonder if the heavy metal composers that deal with long compositions (say 8+ minutes) have ever created new forms other than the classical ones. Have any of you in the comments ever looked into it?

[@LyleFrancisDelp]

Glad you cited Tommy by The Who. Great music in opera form. Another great album side is Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon by Chicago.

[@leestamm3187]

Good call. Most folks know something about Tommy, but BFAGIB is a great suite, largely unknown these days, except to old geezers who remember Chicago from their early days.

[@robertvavra414]

I agree, this is a very good call! BFAGIB is a wonderful suite (ignored by critics), which included the songs 'Make Me Smile' and 'Color My World'. By that time, the 'rock album' was vaguely becoming a form unto itself. If memory serves, the first several Chicago releases were double albums!

[@janektreiber9457]

A common misconception about classical music, often held by those who do not listen to it, is that being a fan of cm means one must enjoy or listen to all of it. As if there were no distinction between Handel's Messiah and Shostakovich’s final viola concerto, or Haydn’s first and Bruckner’s ninth Symphony. This leads to the point being made here: classical music is so 'great' and diverse that one can always focus on the parts they enjoy. For some, this encompasses a great deal of repertoire, for others, much less.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Shostakovich never wrote a viola concerto.

[@janektreiber9457]

@@DavesClassicalGuide Oops, I mean sonata of course :D

[@WMAlbers1]

Only very few composers have actually written about this subject, a singular exception being Nicolai Medtner with his assay "The Muse and the Fashion". Although it is mainly a pamphlet against the Modern trends in his time, it does for the largest part describe the various aspects of creation of "serious music" in a very profound way. It can be found on the internet and I can highly reccommend it!

[@strangeitude1]

It's always fun to me when Mr. Hurwitz mentions rock bands from time to time, The Who, Pink Floyd, ELP...love them all. Right on, Deep Purple have their Concerto for Group and Orchestra, which I find very amusing.

[@ОлександрКрестін]

Dear Mr.Hurwitz, thanks for this video. There is an excellent criterion for the estimation of Greatness: it is the durability of the public interest. What about the popularity of the greatest pop-singers of the 50th. How many pop songs of that time are retaining it? Young people still discover for themselves late Shostakovich or Poulenc, and the next generations will follow them, but I am not sure of the most pop idols of the epoch.

[@robertvavra414]

People are still nuts about Elvis!

[@ОлександрКрестін]

@robertvavra414 Yes, it's true. But look at the charts of his epoch, young people have never heard those names and don't want.

[@gjs9366]

Spot on Dave.

[@robertvavra414]

Wonderful video. Actually Pete Townsend had listened to classical music, including opera; and agreed with critics that complained "Tommy wasn't really an opera". I think the Who's manager came up with the term 'rock opera'.

[@dexblue]

Pete could not have programed his Baba O'Riley without JS Bach ...

[@richardwills5780]

Yes. Most excellent point of view!

[@1-JBL]

A very fine explanation. I've said for years -- decades! -- that most fans of "popular music" are not fans of music at all, but of poetry -- and since most popular music lyrics are doggerel at best, they're fans of BAD poetry. Not music. The proof of that is the first question they ask when a piece spends more than 30 seconds as an instrumental: "Does anyone sing?" And if there is no singing, they disengage from it. In the USA, this is where we are after years of killing music courses in public schools, and of that strange American attitude that classical music is only for pretentious gits with IQs of 900 or something. That said, Stockhausen OFTEN reinvented the wheel without realizing it, as he purposely avoided other people's music in that mad avant-garde quest for the New and Uninfluenced -- which this video warns against, perhaps a tiny bit obliquely, but still clearly enough. When I first heard his LUZIFERS ZORN, I thought "The Residents!" and his KINDERFANGER sounded like it wandered in off the first White Noise album, "An Electric Storm" from...1968, 69, 70, somewhere around there.

[@jppitman1]

All right….The Residents!! There is all other music and then there is….”The Residents”. I am so glad that I witnessed a few of their performances, “Cube E” being my favorite.

[@WestVillageCrank]

One sizable element is missing from this level-headed analysis: non-western music. The frames of reference here-described are exclusively from a European tradition, and there is marvelous, thrilling, beautiful, essential musics from non-western sources.

[@PaulBrower-bw4jw]

Music from non-Western cultures (Andean, Japanese, Indian, African, and Indonesian) can be incorporated into Classical forms. This also applies to hybrid folk traditions -- African-American and Caribbean, as examples. This is before I even mention Roma (a/k/a Gypsy) and Ashkenazi Jewish music which have been fully incorporated into Western music.

[@Cherodar]

@@PaulBrower-bw4jw Western classical music can also be incorporated into other kinds, so I'm not sure what this is supposed to be saying.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

I would never deny that there are wonderful non-Western musical traditions. I love many of them. However, I would point out that as soon as artists working within those traditions decide they wish to preserve their work via some system of detailed musical notation, they will almost invariably begin to think in terms of musical forms normally understood to be "Western," if indeed they haven't been inspired by Western models in the first place. As others have pointed out, there is always a degree of cross-fertilization going on, and one of the major elements contributed by the West is standardized musical notation, and with it, "form."

[@stayoutofmyhouse]

​@@DavesClassicalGuide​ There are many non-western musical traditions that have existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years before western classical music, and never once needed western notation. The suggestion that western classical music could be superior, because of its notational system, to musical systems that are centuries older, can only be the product of a white, eurocentric worldview. Not all music needs to be notated like an Elliott Carter piece to be preserved for a long time, something non-western traditions figured out a long time ago.

[@dexblue]

@@stayoutofmyhouse Is anything western superior to anything? What about assertions that are products of brown or black eurocentric worldviews ... are they OK in your book? And what's so great about old/ancient music? Inert cultures playing the same scales across the centuries ... good because old and unchanging? Not eurocentric and therefore superior to anything euro? Just curious ...

[@mr-wx3lv]

Interesting. We have been spoilt with a myriad of different music genre from the outset of the 20 th century onwards. Not only that but the recording media has made it possible for us to access this vast body of classical music, that the majority would have never had any contact with. Your statement of classical music being superior to any other genre, is because it has been around for far longer than any other. Centuries longer. Which means that modern pop/rock/jazz just wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for classical. I notice that the baroque masters seem to rub off so much on rock guitarists and alike. So it's not even an argument. Classical music has been around for centuries, jazz maybe 120 years, rock and roll, 70 years maybe. Already waning. Losing freshness and originality, whilst Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Tschaikovsky, will be around till the end of humanity, possibly. Thanks David. Interesting chat...

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Not just because it has been around longer, but because it represents the natural development of musical forms that still function as "go to" models for anyone wanting to write in genres other than songs.

[@WilsonWatt-q2e]

I think the best example of this is neither McCartney nor The Who [both very good ones] but Keith Jarrett's classical form works in jazz.

[@dickwhite977]

Keith plays on King Crimson’s Lizard, which has classical and jazz elements. Thanks

[@i.m.takkinen]

I guess what you are trying to say is that classical music is the most voluminous with a more encompassing grammer of any western genre of music. I would tend to agree with that statement but also with others that non western genres of music are often not particularly assimilable to classical music in terms of tuning and tonality (Indian, Balinese, West African, Arabic to name a few). Some of the more unusual rythmic approaches of African, Indian, Balinese etc. music may be somewhat more capably if awkwardly notated though. These traditions operate often by a fairly different logic than the norms of the classical tradition and as such are to a greater or lesser extent able to integrate meaningfully with classical forms (if so desired).

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

One aspect of classical music's greatness is its ability to integrate just about anything within its larger formal frameworks--and that is something that cannot be said about many, if not most, "world" musics, whose limited vocabulary (however fascinating or rewarding it may be) precludes a similar openness to foreign ideas.

[@peterwooldridge7285]

Says it all !!!

[@davidemach1613]

A better understanding of this phenomenon would be to see the different types of music in terms of the listener's participation. In "popular" music, the listener becomes part of the musical experience. In "classical" music, the listener experiences the music as something to be appreciated as something separate from one's self. As you said in your video, classical music is a "thing."

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

That's a very interesting perspective, although I disagree with it.

[@leestamm3187]

​@@DavesClassicalGuide I also disagree. To judge from the smiles, laughter, and tears I have shared with other listeners over the years, I think classical music can be quite deeply appreciated at a personal level.

[@scotttisdel138]

It's certainly true that progressive rock and jazz musicians have looked to classical music to expand their forms. The most successful rock "epics" use classical forms, and thematic development as well. The less successful "epics" are just suites of songs strung together, or lengthy improvisations. For those that might be interested in exploring great progressive rock & jazz (including Dave), there is no better place to start than Yes, with "Close to the Edge", and "Awaken" (there are many others). "Awaken" in particular has a spiritual quality that allies it with Bruckner. Genesis achieved absolute formal perfection with "Firth of Fifth", among others. In the jazz realm, I cannot recommend highly enough Pat Metheny's "The Way Up", which is heavily influenced by Steve Reich and John Adams. And this is just the beginning!

[@m.l.pianist2370]

On your definition, a rock opera isn't rock music, but classical music since it uses a classical form. But this is an idiosyncratic definition of "classical music" - virtually everyone would classify a rock opera as rock music, not classical music. It seems what you want to say is that music in classical forms (whether classical music or not) is greater than music not in classical forms. Personally, I'd say the paradigmatic works of classical music are greater than the paradigmatic works of popular music because the former tend to (I say "tend" because this isn't an exceptionless rule) deal with experiences closer to the core of the human condition. Just as great literature deals with great themes, great music similarly deals with great experiences, and the paradigmatic works of classical music tend to do that more than the paradigmatic works of popular music. (I focus here on *paradigmatic* works, since there are obviously classical works that are more superficial than some popular works.)

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

No, you've got it wrong. A "rock opera" is an opera in the "rock" idiom, just as baroque opera is opera in the baroque idiom. Both are opera, a classical medium. The idiom is irrelevant to the fundamental definition of what "opera" is.

[@m.l.pianist2370]

@@DavesClassicalGuide I see where you're coming from, I guess I just doubt that most people would categorize a rock opera as classical music. A rock opera would probably be placed in the rock music section of a music store, reviewed by rock music magazines, attended by mostly rock music fans, recorded by a rock music studio, etc. The point of the example is that labels like "classical music", "rock music", etc. mostly function as labels for musical styles, not forms. Perhaps your point is that, even if this is how those labels are commonly used, it's more musically instructive to use them to refer to forms?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Yes, exactly. Where something would sit is a record store is merely a function of marketing and labeling. It has nothing to do with how the work operates musically. We label things by style, not by function.

[@jeffheller642]

Great essay. Crucial thesis with fresh illuminating examples. However you say that acquiring knowledge is not the same as being cultured. I disagree. I would argue that acquiring knowledge is its very essence.

[@leestamm3187]

I agree with Dave. One can be highly knowledgeable without being "cultured." Knowledge is the raw material from which being "cultured" can be constructed in one's mind, or not, as the case may be.

[@dem8568]

Classical music implies a deliberate structure, and that structure emerges convergently whenever music becomes large enough to accommodate it.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Bingo!

[@leestamm3187]

Well encapsulated.

[@ahartify]

I had an argument (sorry, discussion) with my cousin, who is an architect, when I told her that Chopin didn't (as far as I know) write songs but wrote for the piano. She thought that all pieces of music were 'songs,' and it surprises me how many people think that this is the only available musical form out there. To her the greatest musician of the 20th and 21st centuries was Bob Dylan! There is no Nobel Prize for music, but Dylan got one for literature, even if his lyrics would not, in my view, stand up as 'literature' without his music. Complete confusion here!

[@stephenc6648]

I've noticed purely instrumental music being referred to as 'songs' recently. I'm not sure if this is an American phenomenon or if it's a recent development everywhere. A song is just a form of vocal music; anything without words isn't a song, unless perhaps it's one of Mendelssohn's Lieder ohne Worte. I wonder if 'song' has come to be used for any form of music because of computer software such as iTunes, Spotify etc which use the term regardless of whether it's a piece of vocal music.

[@bbailey7818]

Chopin did write some songs actually, though they are a minor part of his output. Of course, that doesn't really affect your argument.

[@jonathanhenderson9422]

I wouldn't call Dylan the greatest "musician," but absolutely one of the greatest artists; arguably the best songwriter. Whether Dylan's lyrics alone would be enough to rank him with the great poets is debatable. Christopher Ricks, who was (maybe still is?) the Oxford Professor of Poetry, has a book-length study on Dylan and has argued he belongs with the great poets. As a lover of poetry myself I'm more ambivalent, but what I don't dispute is his genius as a songwriter. Dylan had a rare, intuitive knack for knowing how to write lyrics that would be then be meaningfully malleable by his music, and that's a distinctly different art than writing poetry in which the language itself has to do all the work.

[@ahartify]

@@jonathanhenderson9422 This is what I tried to tell my cousin, and I said I thought Dylan was a great songwriter and lyricist, but the point is that so many have no idea of musical forms, of the difference between a song (with words) and music which doesn't need words for its effect. Calling him a great artist is probably more accurate.

[@hilde45]

Really interesting video and I am going to show it to my college class in aesthetics. It’s very hard to talk about musical forms with younger generations and I think you gave an excellent introduction into just how to think about the differences between the types of music, which people have too many prejudices and assumptions about.

[@jpbarbagelata4842]

@@hilde45 Are you a professor or student?

[@eliasmodernell3348]

Hi dave. Great beatles / prog rock fan and for a few years and in part thanks to you classical fan. Really glad you mentioned macca, Floyd and elp. What do you think of other prog rock band like Jethro tull and their 40 min songs?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

I find them fascinating, often as not.

[@edwardcasper5231]

You're definitely a "form" guy. Based on the talks I've heard, it seems you believe that form is the most important aspect of music. This comment isn't meant to be critical. It's merely an observation. Rhetorical question: Who came up with the term "Classical" (as opposed to Baroque, Renaissance, Medieval, Romantic, etc.) when it comes to all of the various types (or forms) of historical, non-song musical genres?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

I don't think form is the most important element, but it depends on the type of work you're considering. As to who invented the moniker "classical?" I have no idea. It's a 19th century academic construct.

[@edwardcasper5231]

@@DavesClassicalGuide I'm not so sure the record industry didn't invent, or at least magnify the term "Classical" as a simple way to market the product. I truly enjoy your insights. Thanks for your excellent work.

[@tarikabbas2702]

Western music is at its best when it is classical. No other music tradition/form can create drama like classical music does, thanks to its developed polyphony. On the other hand, non composed, improvised western music like jazz sounds meager to my ears in comparison to Arabic or Indian music with their rich modal traditions.

[@gregorycollins6561]

Good job avoiding "greater" meaning "better." Nice citation of prog rock in the argument. "Liverpool Oratorio" was awful. The Beatles were a great example of the sum being greater than the parts.

[@rameau6577]

This video is pure gold. I hope that teachers will pass it on to their students.

[@philidor-hm6tw]

The “only two kinds of music” quote is logically meaningless since everyone disagrees as to what falls into each category. I’d suggest that there is music that people continue to want to hear and that musicians continue to choose to perform..and then there’s everything else. Less than 0.001% of music written down in the last eight centuries has had a public performance anywhere in the last 10 years.

[@dennischiapello7243]

Very good point about long forms. I guess we have to say, though, that Webern is the exception that proves the rule! Additionally, I've long thought that classical music covers a larger expanse of emotional expression, particularly of the, let's say, ineffable kind. It covers the extremes, it seems to me. When it comes to jazz, however, the sense of "cool" seems absolutely unique--even the concept itself, actually.