I think I would describe "classical" as the works of the great European composers from the 1600s to early 1900s, and anything since then that draws heavily from that tradition in its compositional and instrumental structure. That would include solo compositions (such as those for piano) or small ensemble (such as string quartet) as well as orchestral composition. Avant garde compositions by classically trained composers (such as Cage or Stockhausen) could also be considered.

I think we may see in the next 25 to 50 years a major paradigm shift in how "classical music" is defined. Even now, the record industry is marketing some very controversial stuff as "classical" (such as the albums of Sarah Brightman and other "classical pop" singers, certain "new age" artists who fiddle around with orchestras, or Paul McCartney's "classical" pieces). All of this is beginning to blur the line between "classical" and pop. There are more than a few people who favor considering monumental rock works such as "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band", "Pet Sounds", "Dark Side Of The Moon", or "The Wall" as classical.

It will be very interesting to see where we are in 20 years or so on this one.

you think? At the time, these pieces were loved and cherished by many of the times, because face it, what else did they have to listen to? Mozart was pinned as "a man with too many notes" although he was a boy prodigy...

So would you say the same about literature and this is why we call books such as Ivanhoe, David Copperfield, and Emma, Classics?

Let me use an analogy...Classical is to "old music" as Electronica is to electronic music; a term used very loosely when describing the baroque, romantic, impressionistic, Renaissance, etc. ages, as is Electronica to me...

And I understand your mentioning of Miles Davis...we do appreciate him as a whole right now, but it may take years to truely appreciate what he composed and accomplished.

these are some fine points! you know, sometimes genre looses the artist's creativity and creates boundaries, but we do need order in some areas. but i really still define classical as timeless. older music is definitely classified loosely as 'classical' but i think this is a misconception. perhaps 'older' music can be described as the 'early period' or something to the effect. yes, i understand that there is a clear timelined connotation of the "Classical Era" but perhaps like you noted earlier, Electronic music will perhaps fall into a similar parallel label of the sort. thanks for the input!

As to standing the test of time.. I think electronic music as we know it will be gone within 50 years.

then what will be there? will we go back to more of a "classic rock" vein? I highly doubt electronic music will be gone, but then again, who knows. I'll be too old to realize what it is by then.

By then Neural Synapse Transmission will be the cutting edge, where we can 'think' the music up, and it transcribes itself.

(I'm only half-joking)

Also pills to live forever will be like viagra...