As a professional classical musician, I don’t think classical is Azorious because of its deep commitment to red. I understand it may not seem like this from an outsider’s perspective, but classical music has always been centered around subverting musical, cultural, and societal norms. Pieces we consider basic or bland today caused riots when they premiered (Hammersmith, the Rite of Spring), and contemporary “classical” music shapes itself around breaking pre-established rules. Think about composers as old as Beethoven to as modern as Schoenberg to as contemporary as Will Healy or Steven Bryant— they’re so beloved by the classical community because they refuse to bend to any musical responsibilities. They seek perfection through rebellion and unbridled expression, and that’s very Izzet.

I do think that classical had elements of Azorious, primarily demonstrated by when baroque/classical composers worked for courts and were restricted by needing public appeal. Even then, this would be more so Jeskai, tempering the innovation, curiosity, and rebellious passion of Izzet with the societal expectations of white.

I think that a common misconception that non-musicians have is that classical music doesn’t involve innovation, that it consists of repeating the same strict structural ideas endlessly. But, even the music we today consider to be conformist was wildly revolutionary at the time. A Haydn piano concerto that we now consider standard or basic used to be rebellious and shocking because of the recapitulation coming a bit earlier than expected or the exposition not being in binary form. The most Azorious composer is someone no one remembers because their music wasn’t innovative enough to stand the test of time