Classical music genres if classical were subdivided as finely as some other music is today

glennmagusharvey

* Trio Sonata da Camera
* Trio Sonata da Chiesa
* Baroque dance suite
* * Allemande
* * Courante
* * * French Courante
* * * Italian Corrente
* * Sarabande
* * Gigue
* Passacaglia / Chaconne
* Baroque toccata
* Oratorio
* Mass
* Aria
* Recitative
* Opera overture
* Arietta
* Concerto
* * Keyboard concerto
* * * Piano concerto
* * Violin concerto
* * Multiple concerto (i.e. multiple soloists)
* Sonata
* Classical symphony
* Chamber sonata
* Sturm und Drang
* Theme and variations
* Lied (German art song)
* Waltz
* Minuet
* Classical scherzo
* Romantic scherzo
* Mazurka
* Polonaise
* Polka
* Miscellaneous instrumental short form
* Virtuoso
* Étude
* Programmatic music
* Tone poem
* Romantic symphony
* Bulgarian dance
* Modern toccata
* Atonality
* * Free atonality
* * Serialism
* Non-functional tonality / Non-common-practice tonality
* Film score
* Aleatoric music
* Electronic music

and much more

(incidentally this is why i think some of the finer genre subdivisions i see these days are kinda bunk)

Tachyon

but this is more or less how i would subdivide classical music genres!

how is it 'bunk'?

Tatterhood

* viking classical

Tachyon

Chicago funk recitative
nu aria
sludge sonata
East Coast math mazurka

glennmagusharvey

Tachyon said:

but this is more or less how i would subdivide classical music genres!

how is it 'bunk'?

lol

serious answer: consider that "uplifting trance" has basically the same specificity as "a stereotypical major-key Mozart piano sonata, complete with cadential trills and rondo finale".  "trance" itself is roughly at the same specificity as "classical period piano sonata".

so it really doesn't make good sense to use the genre term "classical" side by side with a genre term like "trance".  "classical" these days basically serves as a catch-all for "all that music that was written by people who are currently dead, and doesn't involve electric guitars or drum sets".

glennmagusharvey

Tachyon said:

Chicago funk recitative
nu aria
sludge sonata
East Coast math mazurka

early-avant-garde/late-Romantic Russian math mazurka:

(the piece is written entirely in fourths)

Klinotaxis

I think tachyon means that it would make more sense to adopt these divisions in normal discussion than it would to drop the now common ones like "unblack post-metal" as bunk. If not that still makes sense to me

glennmagusharvey

Klinotaxis said:

I think tachyon means that it would make more sense to adopt these divisions in normal discussion than it would to drop the now common ones like "unblack post-metal" as bunk. If not that still makes sense to me

fair enough, that makes sense

though it has the possible downside of making classical music seem more inaccessible
the same way i feel when people talk around me about stuff like "unblack post-metal"

Calica

doesn't "classical" just mean "anything older than X years old" basically though?

Haven

in the not too distant future, dubstep and country will be lumped together as "oldies", then eventually "classic"

Sredni Vashtar

Pretty much.

And yes, a lot of modern subgenres and microgenres are exceedingly specific, but that's because they are as much describing a form and its content as they are the general style and mode of performance, in the same way that "Late Romantic sonatas and tone poems" might a given composer's output. To whit, the instrumental palette available to modern musicians not working with a huge orchestra is much larger, so there is more sonic variety in general.

Also, there are zillions of subdivisions of serial composition. By modern standards, Boulez and Barraqué might be different performers in the same genre, but Stockhausen, late-period Stravinsky, early John Cage and Schönberg's Moses und Aron would be entirely different ones.

Tachyon

glennmagusharvey said:

Tachyon said:

but this is more or less how i would subdivide classical music genres!

how is it 'bunk'?

lol

serious answer: consider that "uplifting trance" has basically the same specificity as "a stereotypical major-key Mozart piano sonata, complete with cadential trills and rondo finale".  "trance" itself is roughly at the same specificity as "classical period piano sonata".

so it really doesn't make good sense to use the genre term "classical" side by side with a genre term like "trance".  "classical" these days basically serves as a catch-all for "all that music that was written by people who are currently dead, and doesn't involve electric guitars or drum sets".

Correct.  Indeed, people who are serious about classical music tend not to do this; at the very least you will very often hear them specify the era or artistic movement it belongs to and the form or style of the composition.  The popular use of "classical" is informal and inaccurate.  Pretending that the entire Western classical tradition belongs to a single genre is a bit like lumping together all Western popular music, from sea shanties and music hall through to hyphy, euro disco and powerviolence, under the single genre label of 'pop'.

glennmagusharvey said:

Tachyon said:

Chicago funk recitative
nu aria
sludge sonata
East Coast math mazurka

early-avant-garde/late-Romantic Russian math mazurka:

(the piece is written entirely in fourths)

nice, and well found

Tachyon

Calica said:

doesn't "classical" just mean "anything older than X years old" basically though?

Kinda but kinda not?

In the context of Western music it usually specifies art music rather than traditional folk music of unknown authorship, or music produced in the styles associated with the contemporary entertainment industry.  It's a tradition, one which has historically been very much tied to the concept of the score, to which innumerable contemporary pieces of music may also be considered to belong.

(Somewhat confusingly, 'Classical' also denotes a specific historical period and cultural movement within that tradition, as opposed to 'Romantic' or 'Baroque'.)

Tachyon

Anyway yeah, what Klinotaxis said.

Although 'unblack post-metal' is extremely niche so it's not really surprising it's not the most accessible term (i wasn't aware it existed before today, though i know what 'unblack' and 'post-metal' would imply and a quick google suggests it's real).

Sredni Vashtar

Tachyon said:

Although 'unblack post-metal' is extremely niche so it's not really surprising it's not the most accessible term (i wasn't aware it existed before today, though i know what 'unblack' and 'post-metal' would imply and a quick google suggests it's real).

I am now imagining what this nonsense would sound like and I am so confused and amused.

Klinotaxis

If I named a real genre it was wholly unintentional

I just think unblack metal is fucjing hilarious

INVERT THE INVERTED CROSS

glennmagusharvey

I've occasionally come up with genre names myself.

The one I can think of off the top of my head is "demonic pop" (something I use to describe the Symphogear first season ED "Meteor Light" and the Madoka Magica ED "Magia").

Tachyon said:

The popular use of "classical" is informal and inaccurate.  Pretending that the entire Western classical tradition belongs to a single genre is a bit like lumping together all Western popular music, from sea shanties and music hall through to hyphy, euro disco and powerviolence, under the single genre label of 'pop'.

This is basically the entire point of my OP.

Haven

Klinotaxis said:

INVERT THE INVERTED CROSS

Tachyon

Then we are in agreement, except i don't think modern genre names like 'trance' are bunk.

According to Aquarius Records, this track is unblack post-metal.

MadassAlex

Calica said:

doesn't "classical" just mean "anything older than X years old" basically though?

"Classical" was an anachronism in its own time, denoting influence drawn from premedieval (i.e. Classical or literally antiquated) concepts. The issue here is that there are obviously no recordings of such old music, and any musical notation left to us by Classical civilisations is impossible to objectively interpret. All the same, Classical music was attempting to be to hearing as the Renaissance was to sight; a revival of Classical concepts and theory moreso than a literal imitation. 

This is why "Classical" music (and its subdivisions, as so helpfully provided by GMH) is so preoccupied with theoretical measures of quality and perfection. It was a movement (or series of movements) that took it as true that musical elements could be quantified, based not only on the phantom of true Classical music, but on the virtues of Classical civilisations on the whole. Classical music is Pythagoras, but retroactively recast as a rock star. 

All that said, Classical music probably sounds nothing like Classical music. 

Klinotaxis said:

"unblack post-metal" 

Frostbitten prog punk

Acousticore

Brutal scat pop

Neotraditional dubfolk

MadassAlex

Technophilic kazoo prehistoria

glennmagusharvey

Tachyon said:

Then we are in agreement, except i don't think modern genre names like 'trance' are bunk.

According to Aquarius Records, this track is unblack post-metal.

"trance" is not really bunk, but I'm looking at the label "uplifting trance", and as much as I personally DO enjoy uplifting trance, I feel that it's basically a subcategory of trance based on its emotional reaction -- so basically it'd be like making a separate sub-category within piano sonatas for Mozart's A minor piano sonata called "angry piano sonata".

then again, there is "Sturm und Drang"...

glennmagusharvey

MadassAlex said:

Calica said:

doesn't "classical" just mean "anything older than X years old" basically though?

"Classical" was an anachronism in its own time, denoting influence drawn from premedieval (i.e. Classical or literally antiquated) concepts. The issue here is that there are obviously no recordings of such old music, and any musical notation left to us by Classical civilisations is impossible to objectively interpret. All the same, Classical music was attempting to be to hearing as the Renaissance was to sight; a revival of Classical concepts and theory moreso than a literal imitation. 

This is why "Classical" music (and its subdivisions, as so helpfully provided by GMH) is so preoccupied with theoretical measures of quality and perfection. It was a movement (or series of movements) that took it as true that musical elements could be quantified, based not only on the phantom of true Classical music, but on the virtues of Classical civilisations on the whole. Classical music is Pythagoras, but retroactively recast as a rock star. 

All that said, Classical music probably sounds nothing like Classical music.

Source or explanation on the bolded statement?

Because that doesn't apply to what we popularly call "classical music" today.

Your statement is somewhat more true if we're talking about the approach to composition that some composers of (western art music's) Classical Period (~1750-1800) took, but even then, there are other composers who quickly and easily broke that mold.

Tachyon

glennmagusharvey said:

Tachyon said:

Then we are in agreement, except i don't think modern genre names like 'trance' are bunk.

According to Aquarius Records, this track is unblack post-metal.

"trance" is not really bunk, but I'm looking at the label "uplifting trance", and as much as I personally DO enjoy uplifting trance, I feel that it's basically a subcategory of trance based on its emotional reaction -- so basically it'd be like making a separate sub-category within piano sonatas for Mozart's A minor piano sonata called "angry piano sonata".

then again, there is "Sturm und Drang"...

Well yes, because there is no singular principle which determines what constitutes a genre of music, it can be on the basis of instrumentation, timbre, compositional structure, mood, lyrical subject matter, tempo, rhythm, key signature . . . you get the idea.  Or any combination of the above.

This is fairly typical for cultural categories, like genres.  They're not academic categories, they're cultural ones.

Tachyon

[ignore this post, reading comprehension fail]

Obā-san

very specific electronic music subgenre labels generally exist for the convenience of DJs and ravegoers

i.e. you see a flier for "uplifting trance party" or w/e you know exactly what you're gonna get

and if you're a DJ browsing beatport or w/e for stuff for future mixes, a label like "uplifting trance" will let you sort through stuff much faster than just going through every trance track at the BPM and key you want

glennmagusharvey

Today is Tomorrow said:

very specific electronic music subgenre labels generally exist for the convenience of DJs and ravegoers

i.e. you see a flier for "uplifting trance party" or w/e you know exactly what you're gonna get

and if you're a DJ browsing beatport or w/e for stuff for future mixes, a label like "uplifting trance" will let you sort through stuff much faster than just going through every trance track at the BPM and key you want

true

Tachyon

Tachyon said:

new wave bluestocking rapcore

old-time folkedelic jazztronica

neo-carnapian tin whistle cow metal

Tachyon said:

traditional Cornish ska metal

progressive speedgaze

symphonic post-dubstep hair-jazzcore

TitleName

Classical Hip hop Icecore

MadassAlex

glennmagusharvey said:

MadassAlex said:

Calica said:

doesn't "classical" just mean "anything older than X years old" basically though?

"Classical" was an anachronism in its own time, denoting influence drawn from premedieval (i.e. Classical or literally antiquated) concepts. The issue here is that there are obviously no recordings of such old music, and any musical notation left to us by Classical civilisations is impossible to objectively interpret. All the same, Classical music was attempting to be to hearing as the Renaissance was to sight; a revival of Classical concepts and theory moreso than a literal imitation. 

This is why "Classical" music (and its subdivisions, as so helpfully provided by GMH) is so preoccupied with theoretical measures of quality and perfection. It was a movement (or series of movements) that took it as true that musical elements could be quantified, based not only on the phantom of true Classical music, but on the virtues of Classical civilisations on the whole. Classical music is Pythagoras, but retroactively recast as a rock star. 

All that said, Classical music probably sounds nothing like Classical music.

Source or explanation on the bolded statement?

Because that doesn't apply to what we popularly call "classical music" today.

Your statement is somewhat more true if we're talking about the approach to composition that some composers of (western art music's) Classical Period (~1750-1800) took, but even then, there are other composers who quickly and easily broke that mold.

It was about relative rather than absolute adherence to theoretical ideals, especially compared to modern music; it uses the same theory, but is indifferent to the ideals of that system. Different (broadly) Classical composers will adhere to notions of compositional idealism to different degrees, but consciousness of and investment in this musical system are widespread.

glennmagusharvey

Tachyon said:

progressive speedgaze

blast processing

glennmagusharvey

MadassAlex said:

glennmagusharvey said:

MadassAlex said:

Calica said:

doesn't "classical" just mean "anything older than X years old" basically though?

"Classical" was an anachronism in its own time, denoting influence drawn from premedieval (i.e. Classical or literally antiquated) concepts. The issue here is that there are obviously no recordings of such old music, and any musical notation left to us by Classical civilisations is impossible to objectively interpret. All the same, Classical music was attempting to be to hearing as the Renaissance was to sight; a revival of Classical concepts and theory moreso than a literal imitation. 

This is why "Classical" music (and its subdivisions, as so helpfully provided by GMH) is so preoccupied with theoretical measures of quality and perfection. It was a movement (or series of movements) that took it as true that musical elements could be quantified, based not only on the phantom of true Classical music, but on the virtues of Classical civilisations on the whole. Classical music is Pythagoras, but retroactively recast as a rock star. 

All that said, Classical music probably sounds nothing like Classical music.

Source or explanation on the bolded statement?

Because that doesn't apply to what we popularly call "classical music" today.

Your statement is somewhat more true if we're talking about the approach to composition that some composers of (western art music's) Classical Period (~1750-1800) took, but even then, there are other composers who quickly and easily broke that mold.

It was about relative rather than absolute adherence to theoretical ideals, especially compared to modern music; it uses the same theory, but is indifferent to the ideals of that system. Different (broadly) Classical composers will adhere to notions of compositional idealism to different degrees, but consciousness of and investment in this musical system are widespread.

MadassAlex said:

glennmagusharvey said:

MadassAlex said:

Calica said:

doesn't "classical" just mean "anything older than X years old" basically though?

"Classical" was an anachronism in its own time, denoting influence drawn from premedieval (i.e. Classical or literally antiquated) concepts. The issue here is that there are obviously no recordings of such old music, and any musical notation left to us by Classical civilisations is impossible to objectively interpret. All the same, Classical music was attempting to be to hearing as the Renaissance was to sight; a revival of Classical concepts and theory moreso than a literal imitation. 

This is why "Classical" music (and its subdivisions, as so helpfully provided by GMH) is so preoccupied with theoretical measures of quality and perfection. It was a movement (or series of movements) that took it as true that musical elements could be quantified, based not only on the phantom of true Classical music, but on the virtues of Classical civilisations on the whole. Classical music is Pythagoras, but retroactively recast as a rock star. 

All that said, Classical music probably sounds nothing like Classical music.

Source or explanation on the bolded statement?

Because that doesn't apply to what we popularly call "classical music" today.

Your statement is somewhat more true if we're talking about the approach to composition that some composers of (western art music's) Classical Period (~1750-1800) took, but even then, there are other composers who quickly and easily broke that mold.

It was about relative rather than absolute adherence to theoretical ideals, especially compared to modern music; it uses the same theory, but is indifferent to the ideals of that system. Different (broadly) Classical composers will adhere to notions of compositional idealism to different degrees, but consciousness of and investment in this musical system are widespread.

I've heard of something vaguely like this in regards to the western art music tradition of the Classical Era, specifically, but nothing as strong as what you are implying. Of course every composer would like their works to be perfect, but the primary goals of composition often were not thought of the way you say they were (i.e. with an aim toward some notion of artistic perfection/ideals), as opposed to something else like personal or cultural expression.