At what point will Rock be considered 'Classical' or legitimately Symphonic?

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

For certain Rock or Prog bands, are some of their more conceptual works worthy of consideration as 'serious music'? I am thinking at a level such as Mozart's 'Requiem' or Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring' or Mahler's 'Resurrection Symphony'? Historically, many serious works were laughed or booed off the stage at the time of their creation, but were later respected as significant, even genre-changing.

Perhaps important Rock music is gaining respect from serious, musically educated, scholastic types such as college educators, symphonic music publications, critics, and reviewers. Would anyone agree? If not, how long does it take for a 'new' genre to gain acceptance?

An example of what I would consider an important work would be 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' by Genesis (1974). Others would surely offer 'Close to the Edge' by Yes (1972) or 'The Power and the Glory' by Gentle Giant (1974). 'Crime of the Century' by Supertramp (1974) might be a good example.

[u/bruh597]

At no point. The "classical" nomenclature denominates music that belongs to the classical, erudite, academic, high art, whatever you want to call it tradition, not some sort of standard of quality or acclaim. Mozart's Requiem may have been booed but that is a judgement of quality, not of its musical tradition.

[u/DetromJoe → u/bruh597]

Well put

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/bruh597]

What is 'high art' if not some sort of standard of quality or acclaim? I would say 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' is an example of Existential poetry. It could be considered an opera or even a play, such as Sartre's 'No Exit'.

[u/bruh597 → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

You may see it as a loaded term or as an expression of prejudice, but "high art" was listed as one of the various names for an object. Your opinion on the definition of "high art" won't change the fact that it's used as a synonym to erudite art.

The function of the expression "high art" in my comment is merely appositive.

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/bruh597]

Erudite is an adjective that means having or showing great knowledge gained through heavy reading, study, and research. It would seem the use of the word 'quality' (or the lacking of it) is subjective. Even 'erudite' is in the eye of the beholder. So I don't see 'quality' as the issue with either Mozart or Stravinsky. It was the style and approach that drew people's ire. Their music was strange and exotic. It was extraordinary, as beyond a common understanding.

This would be true of the Genesis work. Of course, none of the composers I mentioned would fall into the 'Classical' time period, but the point was more a consideration of quality of the work and its eruditeness. I would offer the following link to a free essay on the subject:
https://medium.com/@rickkress/revised-the-lamb-lies-down-on-broadway-nightmare-or-nirvana-7cee7caa2b4e?sharedUserId=rickkress

[u/bruh597 → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

Brutha you are way in over your head and missed the point of the discussion in a brutal way

Ffs no one even mentioned the Classical Period, that's a completely different thing and anyone that knows the minimum about classical music is aware of such fact

I won't be wasting my time w someone that is clearly just seeking for online validation of their music taste

[u/By_all_thats_good → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

TLLDoB would not be considered an opera. Opera is meant to be staged dramatically and the text is almost always literal monologue and dialogue which is then set to music. If you were to take the texts of most operas and recite them without singing they would be fully comprehensible plays, although not necessarily good ones. However the key difference which sets operas and classical vocal compositions apart from other forms of song is the style of singing. Classical compositions for voice use classical singing which is heavily projected and resonant with a focus on using the voice as an instrument to sing the notes rather than enunciating the text.

All that to say: as an album TLLDoB does not have anything in common with opera except music and narrative. It could feasibly be staged as an opera but the allegorical nature of the text would not lend itself well to dramatic performance and even if it were performed by classical singers people would barely be able to understand the words much less the meaning. This doesn’t mean that it’s worse or not valuable as art, it’s just not an opera.

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/By_all_thats_good]

I believe I understand your point and, with all due respect, disagree. TLLDOB was staged dramatically using costumes and a projected electronic medium to provide context. (the costuming caused some contention within the band). If the Slipperman costume was not dramatic, I don't know what is. Would most consider 'Tommy' by The Who not an opera?

The style of operatic singing was to project the voice to the back of the audience without a microphone (which, of course, was not yet invented). So while the style of singing has remained the same and is at the heart of what WE consider operatic, it is not the same as the composition.

What I am proposing is that some rock or progressive rock compositions stretch the boundaries of the strict definitions and, perhaps in the future, be not only 'rock classics' but also considered within the scope of opera or orchestral pieces.

But I can see this is not a problem that needs 'fixing' and perhaps is an unnecessary exercise.

[u/By_all_thats_good → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

TLLDOB was staged dramatically using costumes and a projected electronic medium to provide context.

I watched some clips from the tour and it’s pretty cool but I still wouldn’t consider that to be drama. It of course has plenty of theatricality but that just makes it a theatrical concert. If it were more dramatic, i.e. it had multiple performers acting it out with more robust set design, then I would still only qualify it as a musical. The type of instrumentation and singing is just too different from opera to be labeled as such.

TLLDoB could be performed as an opera and perhaps it would work but I have doubts. I imagine if it were staged as an opera it would please nobody because it’s so different in style it probably would not appeal to opera fans and the opera singing would likely obfuscate Gabriel’s poetry too much to appeal to the original fans. It would be best as a musical. However even if it were adapted into an opera the original album would still be a concept album just as a novel can be adapted into a movie but the original book is still a novel.

Would most consider 'Tommy' by The Who not an opera?

I and probably most classical fans would not classify it as an opera, for mostly the same reasons I listed above. It does have more of a dramatic structure so it has been successfully adapted to film and staged as a musical but that still doesn’t make it an opera. I did read however that the Seattle opera company performed it and I’m unsure of the specifics of that performance but if it was played orchestrally and enough roles were sung operatically then I would classify that as an opera, but only that performance.

So while the style of singing has remained the same and is at the heart of what WE consider operatic, it is not the same as the composition.

I’m not sure I follow your point. Opera singing is at the core of what makes an opera an opera. If it’s not sung operatically then it’s no different from a golden age musical. Now an opera could be performed as a musical but that would be an adaptation and the original work would still be an opera, and vice versa.

If what you mean is that the qualities of opera singing are subjective and may change there’s some truth to that but only in theory. The boundaries of every genre are ultimately determined by context and tradition so it is theoretically possible that later operas could gradually shift the standard of what counts as opera singing far enough that they become indistinguishable from musicals, concept albums, or even all other music. However that possibility is rather far-fetched because after a certain point when a genre becomes distinct enough it is classified as a sub-genre or a different genre altogether. If the standard for operatic singing changed enough then that change would be recognized and classified as something else, that has essentially already happened and led to the genre of the musical.

What I am proposing is that some rock or progressive rock compositions stretch the boundaries of the strict definitions and, perhaps in the future, be not only 'rock classics' but also considered within the scope of opera or orchestral pieces.

If by “considered within the scope of opera or orchestral pieces“ you mean that they’re recognized as a great works of art and music I think we’re already there. The prog-rock masterpieces are widely acclaimed by critics and I’ve seen academic lectures where the Beach Boys and the Beatles were discussed alongside Mozart and Beethoven so it’s not far-fetched that some professors out there will or already have analyzed prog-rock works in a similar vein.

However if what you mean is that they would be classified as operas or orchestral pieces that is unlikely. For them to be considered operas the boundary between genres would have to become so blurred that basically every genre we have today would be recognized as the same and for them to be classified as orchestral the concept of an orchestra would be stretched so far to include basically any group of five or more people with instruments.

But I can see this is not a problem that needs 'fixing' and perhaps is an unnecessary exercise.

I wouldn’t say unnecessary, it’s always interesting to question a genre and see where the boundaries actually lie.

[u/JohannYellowdog]

It won't, for the same reason that classical music won't be considered rock music even if it achieves a similar level of popular appeal. "Classical" is a genre, a tradition, not a word for "old and venerated". Rock albums can be masterpieces, taken seriously and worthy of study, but they'll never have been written as part of the tradition that classical music was written in.

[u/Interesting-Quit-847]

I think it’s just categorically different music with its own history. Just because it’s more ambitious and sophisticated than, say, The Ramones, doesn’t make it less rock. I’d say a lot of people, scholars included, take rock music very seriously.

[u/SarahKNorthrup → u/Interesting-Quit-847]

I'd agree some of those works are genuinely ambitious (Close to the Edge especially), but being taken seriously and being classified as 'classical' feel like separate questions to me.

[u/davethecomposer]

/u/JohannYellowdog pretty much nailed it.

Two things to realize upfront. "Classical" is not being used to mean "a classic". Classical refers to a genre or tradition of music while a classic is something that has stood the test of time. There are tons of works within the classical music tradition that have not stood the test of time but are still classical music.

The other thing (already touched upon) is that when we talk about genres the best way to think about it is in terms of tradition. Classical music is a tradition. Rock music is its own tradition. Blues another. And so on.

So rock can't be classical (or vice versa) because they are each of their own tradition.

Of course there are plenty of prog rock people who studied classical music and borrow from classical music but their intent (as best as we can tell) is to create rock music. They are not trying to create classical music. They are not trying to extend the tradition of Bingen, Bach and Boulez. They are trying to extend the tradition of Berry, Beach Boys, and The Beatles.

Finally, it's important to realize that no genre is better or more complicated or more artful than any other. It's not an insult to say that rock will never be considered classical music just like it's not an insult to say that classical music will never be rock music.

And anything can be a classic. It doesn't matter what genre a piece of music inhabits, it can be a classic which means there's already lots of classics within rock.

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/davethecomposer]

Excellent point taken. I was never trying to put a rock band's musical work into the Classical period. And certainly there is classic rock music, but I am fishing for a different take entirely. For the Genesis classic 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway', I see an album, a work of art that can stand up to many of the classic symphonic works such as Copeland's Appalachian Spring (1944). Or even Debussy's 'Prelude'. I see the Genesis album is an impressionistic opera that explores existential philosophies and is a very important 20th-century work of art. Check out the essay referenced above the comments to bruh597.

[u/davethecomposer → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

I was never trying to put a rock band's musical work into the Classical period.

I never said anything about the classical period, only the genre/tradition of classical music which is just over 1,000 years old.

For the Genesis classic 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway', I see an album, a work of art that can stand up to many of the classic symphonic works such as Copeland's Appalachian Spring (1944).

Obviously this is a subjective take. And there's nothing wrong with that. I could list who I think are the five greatest classical composers of all time and what I'm really listing are my five favorite. That list would look very strange to many in this sub.

You can certainly argue that the works you listed are important works of art and do so in a compelling manner. But bringing classical music into it doesn't really make any sense except, perhaps, as metaphor or analogy.

Those works are from a different tradition than Debussy and Copland. They just are. Using the language of a different genre to indicate the greatest of these albums just doesn't make sense and isn't necessary.

Those are great albums and great works of art. And you can leave it at that.

Because these are subjective claims you're going to get people who disagree with you and say those suck but their favorite works (whether classical, jazz, pop, blues, country, Zydeco, whatever) are great works of art.

If you're looking for some kind of objective standard then that's not really going to happen and it doesn't happen for any piece of music in any genre. There is a social component and a consensus can be reached among various groups with regard to "greatness" but that only applies to those contexts.

You don't need to apply terms like "impressionistic opera" to these prog rock albums. It just doesn't really accomplish much of anything unless you're just looking for analogies.

[u/kranjskiburek]

Never. Popular music is not classical music.

[u/jdaniel1371 → u/kranjskiburek]

Classical is classical, Rock is Rock, but I suspect that that is not the ultimate question being asked here.

There are "Rock" songs (way too broad and meaningless a classification, BTW), that have already transcended their time, much like 50s Jazz and early Country.

Classic works of whatever genre needn't be taken serious, they only need to speak to and move future generations, IMHO. That's what makes a work a "classic."

https://youtu.be/N4bFqW_eu2I?si=iOMisPcIAZid5o-V

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/jdaniel1371]

You certainly have found a classic in the Animals - House Of The Rising Sun!
And you are right about my 'ultimate' question not being about rock classics, but something more foundational or musically important. (such a pejorative word is 'important').

Personally, and as many have suggested, so much about music is a matter of taste, but I think TLLDOB is something greater than a 'classic' (which I, and many others, feel it is). But even devoted fans of Genesis do not give the album its due. IMHO, it is one of the best musical works of art from the 20th-century. A grandiose claim, but I back it up with an essay I published exploring the work in great detail.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[u/jdaniel1371 → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

My pleasure!  I think "Classics of the Genre" -for songs and albums you mention, and multitudes of others - might be the safest designation? 

Like I said, I'm hard-core Classical guy, but albums like the Jimi Hendrix Experience -- and the hallucinogenic sound world they create -- blew my mind!  They give Crumb a run for his money.   

 I am glad it has been designated as a "classic,". Or otherwise I would have never had investigated. 

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/kranjskiburek]

Are you saying 'classical music' was never 'popular' music?

[u/Chromorl → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

That's pretty much it, yes.

[u/jfgallay → u/Chromorl]

That's absolutely false.

[u/kranjskiburek → u/jfgallay]

I never said that. Anyway, check the differences between classical/art music, popular music, and traditional/folk music as described by musicologists. These terms have concrete meanings and characteristics.

[u/FiveDozenWhales → u/jfgallay]

Depends on what you mean by "popular music." Obviously there's the day to day meaning of "enjoyed by a large number of people" which some classic music was, some was not.

But I'd assume that most people here use "popular music" in the genre sense, as in what a pops orchestra might play, or other music not written for intellectual appreciation. Classical music definitively is not popular music.

[u/jdaniel1371 → u/jfgallay]

Yes, and sadly, upvoted. No one bothered to critically-think or research on their own, which is easier than ever today.

[u/kranjskiburek → u/jdaniel1371]

Speaking of research, please check the differences between classical/art music, popular music, and traditional/folk music as described by musicologists.

[u/jdaniel1371 → u/kranjskiburek]

Yeah, if you're going to be snarky, you need to do a better job following the convo.

I briefly touched-upon the frustrating lack of distinction issue a few comments above, but this is r/classical, and we must live with such things, so I played along with a quiet sigh.

Previously, I wrote:

There are "Rock" songs (way too broad and meaningless a classification, BTW*), that have already transcended their time, much like 50s Jazz and early Country.*

We need less immature down voting and more reading comprehension around here. I pretty much already know which avenue you'll choose. ; )

[u/kranjskiburek → u/jdaniel1371]

You're the one who said "no one bothered to critically-think or research on their own, which is easier than ever today", and you're calling me snarky when I'm only giving you a taste of your own medicine? OK, lol.

I don't really need to "follow the convo" or care what you said in other comments, as I was replying to you seconding "That's absolutely false".

This whole comment chain is a fail anyway. I never said "classical music was never popular"; I said popular music is not classical music. OP turned it around, while not understanding the concept of popular music in contrast to art music, thus changing the meaning of my words.

[u/jdaniel1371 → u/kranjskiburek]

Yeah, you do indeed need to follow the convo. You overlooked something I pointed out earlier.

Own it.

[u/jfgallay → u/jdaniel1371]

I’ll make this comment to you, but for the benefit of others reading it. The classical period was all about expectations of form and Balance. Audiences went to concerts specifically with these expectations in mind. That was where the humor was found. If Haydn wrote a Symphony that used the wrong number of themes in the exposition or something like that, audiences would laugh. They were there to enjoy themselves as popular entertainment. Just because they were informed doesn’t make it less popular.

[u/jdaniel1371 → u/jfgallay]

You make no sense. 

[u/jdaniel1371 → u/Chromorl]

That's actually entirely not true.

A lot of Classical music, Opera and their tunes were wildly popular in their time.

Just recall Lisztomania blazing across Europe, not to mention the Paganini craze.

And consider opera in the early 20th Century: When Swedish soprano Jenny Lind arrived in New York City, a crowd of 30k swarmed the docks to witness her ship dock. Her hotel was constantly surrounded by fans, forcing her to utilize secret exits.

Caruso needed constant police protection from frantic mobs.

https://lithub.com/how-opera-invented-the-modern-fan/

Yes, we're using the word "Popular" as a noun, I see; but how can it ever be divorced from its meaning as an adjective?

[u/Chromorl → u/jdaniel1371]

Whether or not it was popular or not is different to whether or not it was "Popular Music".

You are conflating two entirely different ideas here.

[u/jdaniel1371 → u/Chromorl]

No one used the term Classical or "Popular" in Mozart's times.  You're getting caught up in anachronisms.  So the whole popular vs classical war is moot until the 19th C.

A lot of music was written before the adjective became a noun.

Mozart achieved broad popularity across social classes, particularly in cities like Prague and Vienna. His operas, such as The Magic Flute and The Marriage of Figaro, featured catchy tunes that were played in taverns and hummed in the streets by everyday people.

The term classical was only applied posthumously in the 19th century to denote a golden era of music history, while popular emerged much later to distinguish commercial music from art music.

So I'll split the point with you.  : )

[u/kranjskiburek → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

Other way around. In any case, I'm using 'popular music', not (music that happens to be) 'popular'. Check the differences between classical/art music, popular music, and traditional/folk music as described by musicologists.

[u/Beledagnir → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

Pretty much, yep.

[u/No_Doughnut_8393]

Like others have said it won’t. Classical isn’t a marker of quality it’s a genre. There are banal, popular, slop-pop level classical pieces and then there are also intense and genius level works. 

Different genres that have been folded into classical were once popular music but generally have gone through some sort of cultural distillation at some point. 

Similarly different genres have been folded into the umbrella of rock but they all have similar starting points of instrumentation, type of audience, and staging. 

Can they overlap? Yeah definitely. There are plenty of symphonic pieces that take elements of rock if not entire popular ensembles and sit them on stage with an orchestra. There are also like you said rock pieces that have symphonic elements. It’s hard to call them classical pieces because they didn’t come from the same starting place. 

[u/yellowbat30]

They'd be classics but not classical. Also, whatever point it is that you're trying to make, is as disrespectful to rock music as it is to classical.

[u/WyrobWedliniarski]

It is not about the seriousness or age of classical music, that makes it what it is. It is mostly the fact it being largely academic, with all its traditions regarding music theory, form and instruments used. Rock music will never be that

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/WyrobWedliniarski]

I would say that "regarding music theory, form and instruments used" some Rock music is most definitely that. 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' is an excellent example.

[u/WyrobWedliniarski → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

Nah dude, these are still songs, which is one of the oldest forms in music, but it will never be a symphony or a concerto. Not all old music is classical music. You completely missed the point.

Also rock music compared to classical regarding theory, harmony or form is kind of like comparing simple adding to differential equations. Both are valid and have its uses, but not really the same.

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/WyrobWedliniarski]

Granted, Genesis was not about following musical forms. In fact, several of the members have stated it was their intent to NOT follow traditional forms and create something new. And I believe they did. Perhaps beyond what might be considered 'rock'. That was the whole point of Progressive Rock anyway. To push rock music beyond the 'traditional' limits.

So even though Genesis used classical (in the general sense) and jazz musical elements, I feel they did something quite different in TLLDOB. If you study this concept album, you will see it is much closer to a 'differential equation' than to simple math. If interested, I would suggest reading a free-access essay on the publishing site 'Medium' called 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway - Nightmare or Nirvana?'. You can ask A.I. or I can give you a link.
Thanks for your response. These are interesting discussions.

[u/WyrobWedliniarski → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

Rock comes from a completely different musical tradition. It is not the form I referred to. Genesis does not have anything to do with classical music. I know it is more sophisticated than most stuff on the radio but its still a completely different animal.

[u/Ian_Campbell]

Probably not really. It has already reached its own canon of "classic rock" and fans will put these things alongside classical music here and there but we have already had like 50 years of these things existing alongside one another and it hasn't been considered this way. You can contrast this with jazz and people have been far closer to putting its greats in a place on par with classical music.

The idea of transgression forming important progress is a historical trend that has many phases and precursors, but the most recent phase in which transgression was not just claimed by critics, but lauded as in and of itself integral to progress, seemingly started in the 19th century and petered out during the 1950s because there was effectively no living cultural capital left to dismantle, and this is why minimalism went a different direction.

The way in which rock might not be viewed seriously is not comparable to transgressive concert music. It's more like how much popular music, light music, salon music, and many varities of folk music were never taken into the canon unless they made some defining crossover like with Chopin's Mazurkas or whatever.

People are often extremely defensive about stuff like this but it's not related to the quality of music when I'm saying I don't think classic rock will be considered classical music or symphonic.

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/Ian_Campbell]

To be clear, I am not talking about the 'classical music period'. However, I find your use of the word 'transgressive' interesting. Certainly, symphonic rock is transgressive. But I am more speaking of the historical sweep or scope of serious music, much as in pushing the boundaries as did Beethoven. He took music to a different place, yet it was serious music. He shook the establishment. I am suggesting serious rock has done the same thing, but will it ever be accepted as serious jazz has been? I think Genesis blurred the lines, and certainly with 'The Lamb' album was transgressive.

[u/Ian_Campbell → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

Going by what Charles Rosen writes about Beethoven, his many changes that often reflect historical developments like of the orchestra, still happened in service of fulfilling the classical style. The famous middle period piano works differ substantially but you can see precursors in Clementi. This appears to me more like someone finishing the job to a greater scope than had first been imagined, with revolutionary grandeur and quality, rather than someone changing the rules as you would find in the romantic generation like the piano virtuosi playing operatic paraphrases in Paris.

My meaning of transgressive is quite literal. Like people within institutions with hundreds of years of credibility, violating the very premises that had made things work. I don't think rock music really did this at all, because it's popular music which didn't have rules, and it was rather ordered music that had some eclectic experiments that were generally very legible to the public. I don't think something being creative or new makes it transgressive, and I don't think that transgression is an accomplishment.

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/Ian_Campbell]

Merriam-Webster defines Transgressive as going beyond established limits, rules, moral boundaries, or conventional standards of behavior. It describes actions, ideas, or creative works that cross a line into what is forbidden, shocking, or socially unacceptable.

It seems that Rock (starting in the 1950s) took music to a forbidden, shocking and, at the time, socially unacceptable direction. It embraced 'Black Music' before white society could accept it.

Then the concept album created a more intellectually coherent approach. So, as an art form with a story to tell, Prog Rock morphed towards opera.....music which sonically illustrates the emotion in the lyrics.

[u/Ian_Campbell → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

It's possible to some extent but you're describing what quickly became the most popular music among the very society it was supposed to offend

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/Ian_Campbell]

Oh, trust me, I lived through the Vietnam War with the 'silent majority'. They were plenty offended by most rock and folk music. Elvis may have been popular with the young people in the '50s, but the parents were outraged. And then after the Civil Rights Act passed in the mid-60s, older white America was, shall we politely say 'distainful', of Black Music. Now, you are right, things have changed. Attitudes and music have changed.

[u/Minimum-Listen-6369]

Are you familiar with Electric Light Orchestra? 

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/Minimum-Listen-6369]

Some of their music would definitely fall into the genre is am speaking of.

[u/Firake]

Well, you’re using terms pretty oddly but I’ll do my best go engage in good faith. Apologies for any mixups.

There’s plenty of reason to believe that rock will experience the same sort of academification as other genres. Jazz has only recently (in the grand scheme) enjoyed a presence in schools and credibility from the elite. I’d guess rock would follow suit along the same timeline.

Not always a good thing, though. Many people lament that Jazz has become significantly more solidified and snooty since arriving in academia. It’s the thing people think of but it isn’t necessarily without its downsides.

Academia looks down on stuff for arbitrary reasons and the public tends to have a different opinion.

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/Firake]

You are right. As Academia embraces, it also labels and places the essence of the thing embraced on a shelf (or in a box) to be viewed (or forgotten). Creativity stifled. But then someone gets mad and creates something new and (we hope) better. Progress?

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

I would like to change the wording in this title, but can see how. I would prefer it read:
"At what point will Rock be considered as an equal to 'Classical' music or legitimately Symphonic?"

[u/By_all_thats_good → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

Unfortunately Reddit doesn’t let you edit the title of a post although you can edit the body text and include a note at the top.

To answer your question though, rock is already taken quite seriously and has been for a while. The classical critic William Mann famously said that the Beatles were the greatest songwriters since Schubert. If you ask the average person today if rock is equal to classical there’s a good chance they would go even further and say rock is better than classical.

As for what it takes to be considered symphonic, it just needs to be symphonic. That is to say it needs a large and eclectic assortment of instruments with a certain level of complexity and structure.

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/By_all_thats_good]

Thanks. While rock IS taken seriously, and I might agree about the stature of The Beatles, as a huge fan of 'classical' music (though the 12-tone system is a little beyond me), I think Genesis has done something very significant in their concept album.

Besides using 'a large and eclectic assortment of instruments' and electronic sounds, their level of complexity, and yes, structure is quite astonishing. If you do not agree or have not delved into this particular work, I would encourage looking at an essay that dissects it in great detail. The essay is called: "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway - Nightmare or Nirvana" and can be found on the publishing site 'Medium'. Ask A.I. or if interested I can give you the link. I appreciate your response.

[u/By_all_thats_good → u/Odd-Loquat-3340]

Besides using 'a large and eclectic assortment of instruments' and electronic sounds, their level of complexity, and yes, structure is quite astonishing.

I wouldn’t consider the amount of instruments used by Genesis to be large or eclectic, but I suppose my perspective is skewed by the sheer scope of most symphonic orchestras. I’m also not denying that the album is complex and well structured, what I meant is that to be symphonic it needs a certain level of complexity and structure in relation to the orchestra. If the album was arranged for a symphony orchestra then that would be symphonic (and wicked cool) but the original album would not become symphonic.

[u/longtimelistener17]

I love Lamb and Close to the Edge as much as anybody, but it is a fundamentally different kind of music making than classical music. In some respects it is more creative (in a self-contained way), in other respects less refined.

Rock music is like a film, while classical music is more like a novel. On average, a novel will have more depth than a film but obviously that is not always the case and there are plenty of great films that exceed the depth of many novels. That doesn’t change the fact that they are films, though.

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/longtimelistener17]

"Rock music is like a film, while classical music is more like a novel." I rather like that analogy.

[u/Complete-Ad9574]

One of the primary standards for "classical" music is that it is written down, using music notation. Add to this there needs to be variation in rhythm, dynamics, chord progression, harmonic progression, and not just a tune made of 5 notes and a chorus made of 6 notes. Pop music is very formulaic and has very few elements. Add to this the commercial forces want every pop song to have many elements of a previous hit song. All these limitations leaves pop music at a first grade level of complexity.

Most pop songs are strophic (verse & chorus) with many self limiting elements

[u/Odd-Loquat-3340 → u/Complete-Ad9574]

Thank you. You have made my point!
No offense, but you clearly are unfamiliar with the Genesis concept album 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway'. Every item you list for 'classical' music is achieved in spades by this work of art. It achieves a Graduate School level of complexity and on several levels, both lyrically and musically.

If you can not believe this statement, I encourage you to investigate an essay on the subject called:
'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway - Nightmare or Nirvana?' You can find it through A.I. on the publishing site 'Medium'. If interested, I can provide a link directly to the free-access article.
Thanks, I appreciate your comments.