Making a statement like that involves defining two things -  “Classical” and “Dead”.

Had Brahms premiered a sonata that sounded like it belonged with powdered wigs, he would have come off stage with bits of rotten tomato stuck to his face. Mozart could write like Mozart, and Brahms could write like Brahms, and it’s possible Mozart could have even written like Brahms, but Brahms could never write like Mozart. Nobody would listen.

Whatever Classical music is, it is progressive. It leans forward constantly. Any backward glance must be through this progressive lens, like Brahms glancing back at Haydn in theme and variation or like Grieg glancing back at the Baroque suite in the Holberg or like Vaughn Williams glancing back at Medieval fauxbourdon in O Vos Omnes. All of these works remain products of their time, however, and cannot be understand as anything other than the specific cultural output of the culture in which they were composed. Which is why Brahms would need to wear a powdered wig to write like Mozart.

This is a sine qua non of Classical music. Without this progressive element, it simply falls apart. This is why it is impossible to consider the body of music currently contributed into the Classical canon as valid Classical music. It isn’t music that looks forward with any new theoretical lens. It isn’t discovering chromaticism like Beethoven. It isn’t dispensing with a consistent tonal center like Wagner. It isn’t edging on modality like Ravel. It isn’t using inordinate dissonance like Messiaen. It isn’t being atonal like Schoenburg. It’s pretending to sound like Rachmaninoff or Prokofiev or even Webern, but that’s fallacious – Classical music must be a unique output of the culture in which it is placed, and our culture is distinct from the culture present in the 1950s or the 1920s or the 1880s.

But there are other things that make Classical music what it is. Classical music is an intentional expansion on the ideas of the Classical age. And by this, I do not mean Mozart, Salieri, and Haydn. I mean Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, who were asked by contemporaries the classical question, “What does it have to do with Dionysus?” The answer is, of course, that it has nothing to do with Dionysus. Classical is ars gratia artis – art for art’s sake. It is secular. It is oriented around the stage, not Dionysus. It has nothing to do with the religious holidays anymore. It is now simply high drama for audiences in heels and ties. Or whatever they wore back then.

Classical music as we understand it is just this in a modern form. This can be shown clearly in the monodist movement of the 17th century. Monody (music with one melody) was the birth of homophony, opera, and Classical music in its recognizable form. Their idea was not simply to nod back to Classical drama of ancient Greece but to rebirth it and expand on its tradition. Out of this movement came a surge away from polyphony (music with many melodies) and towards the simpler homophony (music with one melody and some accompaniment).

This is why, properly speaking, anything before the rise of monodism or secular music in the West cannot be considered Classical music. It was not secular. It was religious. It answered the classical question posed above to Aeschylus differently – “It has everything to do with Dionysus.” Or, more properly, Christ. To treat Perotinus, Dufay, Josquin, and even Palestrina as classical music is bad scholarship and demonstrates ignorance of and contempt for the purpose that motivates these composers.

Classical music is dead like Latin is dead. There’s nothing new being added to it. You can take some roots and some prefixes and some suffixes and bring them together to have a slightly modified denotation, as might be necessary if you were working for the Vatican and wanted to put together a Papal encyclical. But Latin is still dead. It’s not being changed or morphed inside the tongues and minds of Latinists. It’s analyzed, studied, and prodded, but not spoken and certainly not changing. This does not mean that it isn’t useful, relevant, or necessary for understanding the culture out of which it came. It is all those things. But it is still dead.

But Classical music is only even possible in a society that values secularism and ars gratia artis. That’s rendered moot by a society overrun with a strange mix of Kantianism and utilitarianism, which are, coincidentally, two of the monumental products of secularism. Classical music is oriented around the stage, which is itself only supportable in a society that values schola or leisure the way Rawls might value justice. Leisure, schola, and hence the stage are implausible constructs in a modern and post-modern society. Classical music is no longer possible since it would be a product of a society that cannot philosophically support the concept of classical.

There is a forgotten kind of High music, one whose teleology is lost on our music historians, analysts, and musicologists. It’s High music that values leisure, necessitates schola, but rejects the stage, ars gratia artis, and other secular constructs. Music that centers around the altar, ars gratia Dei, etc. Because this is music, it is a product of a certain culture, but in this case, it is far more potent, efficacious, and sacramental in its makeup because it is the cultus, the center of worship. A culture that adopts an attitude of worship will see its culture molded and formed by the music it sings in its worship, since, at the center of every culture is cultus, your manner of worship. It is music that has power to make things happen.

What would our culture look like if we all sang the post-Vatican 2 OCP masses? What would it look like if we sang Arvo Pärt?

(This post is reproduced from Magister Perotinus, combining “Classical Music is Dead” and “Classical Music is Dead, Part II” into one semi-coherent essay.)