How do you think western classical music compares to other forms of classical music?

Question

Lets say Pakistani classical music.

Pakistan classical music also known as quwwali

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAqThta2y-s

Answer 1

compared to persian classical music, there are less notes in it because persian music uses notes "between" the 12 notes of the western system... but that's not quite right either because classical does use a mix of different tuning systems, we just dont give the notes different names when we do it.



compared to carnatic classical music, the rhythm is much less complex.

mozart was known for syncopation, but certainly not a lot of isorhythm or polyrhythm.



but thats talking about western classical from a long time ago...

classical music is still being written!

and today, the composers in all these styles are aware of and influenced by each other.

so todays "western classical tradition" composers do use microtones and polyrhythms.



and i know chinese classical tradition was influenced by western tradition in that they started making larger and smaller versions of their string instrument to mimic the way the violin family has basses cellos violas and violins.



you know... i think the system you know the most about will always seem the most complex to you, because you are not aware of all the complexities if you only know a little about it...

so there arent many objective people who are experts in multiple classical styles.



so i suspect they are all equally complex, but they have put their complexity into very different elements of the music.

Answer 2

I have never heard a person claim that one type of music is superior to another type (but I'm not denying that it happens). I do know that the two styles are very different. I personally would not choose to compare the two to each other for this reason. I think both are very interesting and beautiful. I do understand however that many people who have only grown up with the western style of music may dislike the sound of arabic music. Since a half step is the smallest recognized musical interval in western music the semi-tones of arabic music may be aurally disturbing to some people who are only familiar with this type of music (because semi-tones would just sound out of tune) But the same goes the other way, for people who have grown up with predominately arabic music. Western music, which only utilizes intervals as small as half steps would probably sound boring and incorrect as well. I believe it is mostly just a cultural thing. And anyone who says either one is "superior" to the other one is being a bit of a bigot.

Answer 3

It depends, western music is generally summed up as the influence which modernized in European areas. This began when the early renaissance kicked in, or when styles of polyphony became so prominent, sacred music principles began to fade away. I would assume that what your focusing on is the influence of the western culture of the 17,18, and 19 century, to the development of what became classical music of the western world. So with that said, now we can compare what are the differences between the two.



The classical music which we listen to, mozart, Hayden, yada and yada, (note: J.S Bach was a baroque composer, and stuck to the baroque traditions until death) are the ending results which developed from the past western traditions. When you think of western music, you need to depict which time area you are comparing to, such as if you were in Burgundy France during the 15-16 century, western music would have been renaissance music due to the cultural swell of the time.

I think that the comparison of what you have asked is a bit too shallow. Don't get me wrong, but why compare both when we know that the development of our westernized culture and music was influenced by these other groups. Now how we came to our well know western classical music which many today think is 'stupid' is a really interesting trip with fights over principles of how music should be perceived. It's quite a journey.

Answer 4

Most music that's not Western classical music gets written off as "folk" music. IDK what is considered folk and what is considered classical, but I find non-Western music a lot more interesting (as well as modal music like Greek or Celtic)





Also just for the record Pakistani classical is totally awesome.

Answer 5

Compares in what way? They are both founded on long-standing and respected traditions; but different and independent long-standing and respected traditions. I cannot give a thought-through answer without knowing the basis on which comparison should be made. Please give some Additional Details, the more the better.

Answer 6

Western classical music is certainly more complex than any other classical music tradition. It has a much more complex theory base and a notation system that enables more complex compositions than "ethnic" classical forms.



In my opinion, what makes western classical music distinct form these other forms is the system of notation, which allows for much more theoretically inspired composition) and the complexity of the harmony - many ethnic traditions of music rely on a simple drone for harmony, if any at all.



The invention of musical notation by Guido d'Arezzo around 1000 AD is generally cited as the event that allowed the western music to develop into it's later complex forms. This appears to be the main event in musical history that distinguished western music from other classical traditions, such as Indian classical music, for example.



Hope this helps.

Answer 7

dnt kno lol

but id rather stick to beethoven n mozart

n bach (baroque)

id say sum have more of a muslim sound or indian depending on where

anyway...idk just wantd to throw my 2 cents n lol