Genre classifications are meaningless when the most interesting stuff doesn’t fit neatly into any genre.

I suppose you could classify Finland’s Apocalyptica as a string quartet. But if you hear them, or even more if you see them live, you can’t classify them as anything other than a rock band who happen to play cellos instead of guitars. Their version of “Hall of the Mountain King” has to be heard to be believed.

I believe that argument about the number one in the classical charts being disqualified because it was actually a pop song proved that the whole division between “classical” and “pop” is nothing but a marketing device by the record industry.

There is “music” and there is “noise”. Both can be found under the heading “classical” and “pop”.

I rather like the “Classic Rock” records produced by the LSO, but I’m sure they are not to everyone’s taste.

I also like Claude Bolling’s “Crossover Jazz”, especialy his “Suite for Chamber Orchestra and Jazz Piano Trio”.

I would also draw people’s attention to “Sky” – a group of highly proficient professional musicians who you could see were really making music together for the fun of it. Are their albums “classical” or “pop”? I don’t know and I don’t care.

Do they think of themselves as “classical” or “pop”? I think that when you are a professional musican you generally have to take the jobs you are offered. Folk like Tristan Fry and Herbie Flowers have played on many pop recordings simply because they are very good at what they do and sometimes “pop” bands are better showmen than they are musicans.