Can non-classical music be consider Classical nowaday?

[Carlo Gesualdo]

I'm thinking of one album I.e

GORE from The Netherlands
album: Wrede the cruel peace
release in 1987 I have the double LP on megadisc, also in CD format.

People claimed it's noise-rock but it's proggy & instrumental almost orchestration movements, to me noise-rock is more like the Velvet Underground thus said whit vocal.

This puzzle me, this record is almost classical music?

I'm asking because I want your opinion, this album singular?

What you're cue on this, because a lot of so called noise-rock is toss in the kitchen sink labeling of genre?

Do you have other album that could be non-classical but in a way closer to classical genre than whatever.

[North Star]

I suppose it depends on what we mean by 'Classical'/'classical' - there certainly is rock music with artistic merit and/or ambitions similar to classical music, itself a heterogeneous umbrella term to a degree that makes it almost meaningless - much of 'classical music' is less artistically ambitious, or good, than a lot of art/prog/other rock/pop. One might be tempted to say that if it won't be continuously interpreted by other musicians, groups, orchestras etc, it can't be considered 'classical' music, but that criteria has surely flown out the window since the electronic music created by composers whose music is undeniably a continuation of the classical music tradition. I suppose the most reasonable definition, if we try in vain to define this chimera, is that it is something that has stood the test of time, or a part of a stylistic group of music that has done so collectively. In other words, maybe I have a slightly less bad answer in 50 years' time.

[some guy]

The term "classical music" covers a lot of different types of music, it's true. But there are a lot of types of music that it has never covered, and there are a lot of types of music that have arisen since "classical music" was coined (which was in 1810, you'll recall) that it does not cover.

While there are a few things, like opera and songs, that were not included at first but came to be included later on, I don't think it's much of a stretch to claim that there are many things, like rock and c & w, that will never be included.

The question that raises, in my mind at least, is why the question in the subject heading even arises. That it does arise from time to time is clear. I've seen it arise many times over the years, most usually (if not always) under the assumption that "classical music" has a certain cachet to it that this or that person wants to confer onto a type of music or onto a particular album that is clearly not "classical" in any sense of the word.

Keeping categories distinct is certainly a good thing for record stores. Not sure how useful it is for anyone else. But regardless, we do all perceive that there are categories, and we do all find them more or less useful for talking about things, with the emphasis on "more or less."

[TMHeimer]

There was a thread somewhere citing someone who said 1975 marked the end of classical music. This confused me. I prefer to use the term to mean Haydn, Mozart and others of that time with it ending with Beethoven bridging the gap to Romantic. I prefer contemporary (non "popular") music to be referred to as "modern serious music". They're all just terms though.

[San Antone]

"Popular" music is not and never will be "classical" music.  But those are simply arbitrary labels used to distinguish different styles or genres of music: rock, jazz, classical, folk, etc.  There is no reason to assume that popular music cannot be of the same quality as classical music.  The priorities we use to rank music are also arbitrary, and I believe the evaluation of art is subjective.

My point is to enjoy the music you choose and not worry about labeling.

[Kaga2]

"Popular" music is not and never will be "classical" music.  But those are simply arbitrary labels used to distinguish different styles or genres of music: rock, jazz, classical, folk, etc.  There is no reason to assume that popular music cannot be of the same quality as classical music.  The priorities we use to rank music are also arbitrary, and I believe the evaluation of art is subjective.

My point is to enjoy the music you choose and not worry about labeling.

As a long time classical guy who owned zero rock albums friends were disbelieving when I tanked up on techno years ago.  Machaut, Bach, Bruckner, New Order — all good stuff.

[steve ridgway]

The Prog Archives site started off cataloguing 1970s progressive rock but the members' interpretation of "progressive" got stretched to the point where it now includes all sorts of artists including Miles Davis and Throbbing Gristle. We wouldn't want that to happen to Classical .

[steve ridgway]

Of course if GORE had got their music degrees they would have been Classical composers just like John Cage, Iannis Xenakis and Pierre Henry .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MKBxocD4Qw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omtbbs0QBWE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiwyZtR6Pk4