# Should classical music drop the "classical" and why are there no genres in it?



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

*Should classical music drop the "classical" and why are there no genres in it?*

In another thread I've read opinions which say that classical music is irrelevant today because:



> Classical music will always be considered as stuffy museum music by the general population. Being sensitive to diversity of today's classical composers won't fix things. They will all starve.


 some other opinions



> There appears to be a fairly clear choice: either classical music is a dead art form, in which case the purpose of a concert is to present historical artefacts, and therefore the music will be almost entirely by white males and there's no point in arguing it; or classical music is a living thing, in which case a concert should be focusing more on the music of the present...





> The large contributors to keeping today's orchestras alive and functioning are usually rich, conservative people who enjoy their Beethoven and Brahms. They don't care about any music post late 19th century.


So now I have a proposition: classical music should drop the adjective "classical" and call itself simply music. Here are reasons why:

1. Most importantly, the term "classical" reinforces the idea that it is dead music, music of the past. And this is simply not true, as today there are probably more active classical composers than in any other time in history.

2. It's factually incorrect and imprecise. First because it alludes to just one period in history of music in late 18th and early 19th century, and second because even in the wider meaning of the word "classical" it's incorrect to call any new work classical. For anything to achieve this status it has to age and to pass the test of time. Just like you can't call a new novel classical, you also can't call new symphony classical. Also the meaning of the word classical would imply that music from the other genres could also rightly be called "classical" if it passes the test of time and achieves wide or universal acclaim. So, many jazz standards and acclaimed rock albums could be called classical. For all these reasons using the term classical is questionable.

3. There is no analogy in other forms of art. Literature is simply literature, painting is simply painting, regardless of its style or era in which it's produced. Yes there are classic novels, but they become classic just by the virtue of universal acclaim and age. So a novel written today can't be considered a classic novel, but in 100 years, it might get this epithet if it passes the test of time.

4. Because when referring to new works, it's very pretentious.

5. Because it clumps together works from very different schools, traditions, styles, etc... which makes it difficult to navigate to the uninitiated.

So we come to the second question. Why there are no genres in (classical) music?
Yes there are "genres" like symphony, opera, piano sonata, etc... but I think the term genre is incorrect for them. They are actually types of compositions, not genres in its usual meanings.

Maybe it would be more appropriate to use the term genre for various styles and schools of (classical) music, so we would have genres like:

Romantic music
Impressionistic music
Baroque music
Minimalist music, etc...

In this way (classical) music would be recognized as a living and breathing art form, so when you list music genres of 21st century it wouldn't be like this:

Rock, R&B, Electronic music, folk music, ... and Contemporary classical music

But like this:

Rock music, Minimalist music, Folk music, Hip hop music, New Complexity, Heavy metal, Post minimalism, New simplicity, Industrial music, Neoromanticism, Neoclassicism, Soul, R&B, Polystilism, etc...

What would this achieve? Well 2 things:

1) "classical" music wouldn't be separate from everything else anymore, and by dropping the term classical it would lose its stuffiness and pretentiousness.

2) Recognizing its genres and treating them like genres of any other music would allow members of audience to incorporate certain classical genres in their identity and to more actively make choices... so instead of clumping together all classical music fans as "those nerds who listen to classical", you'd instead have Jane who listens to Neoclassic music, Jack who listens to new complexity, John who listens to minimalism etc... and of course there would still be those eclectic types who listen to many genres... (I would be among eclectics)


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

There are absolutely "genres" in "classical" music but these are not generally widely understood beyond those who appreciate it. As you say "classical", strictly speaking, denotes the period when Haydn and Mozart were active, with Beethoven and Schubert then moving into the "romantic" period. My personal favourite period is from about 1875 to about 1950 which I suppose makes me an aficionado of the late romantic and early modernist periods. But these are just labels really, and I think the term "classical" is useful shorthand for general identification of orchestral and chamber music performed on acoustic instruments. I see no reason why it should be dropped, particularly if this might then lead to greater alienation from that kind of music for those who do not currently appreciate it. This style of music should be made more accessible in my opinion rather than less so.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Well, it's debatable whether it would make it more or less accessible, but I agree wholeheartedly that it should be more accessible to people. I just don't know how to achieve it. So I thought the term classical alienates some people from it and dropping it would make it more accessible, but I am not really sure.

Or maybe some other term could be suggested to replace it? But a more neutral term, not something pretentious sounding like "serious music", "art music" or "erudite music"...

Because it's not always serious... (there are works which are light in nature), and there is popular music which is serious too.
Because "art" music can be found in other genres too.
Because "erudite" would alienate less educated people from it.

Maybe just call it "written music" in that it's usually written down as a sheet music?
Or "author" music, in which the emphasis is on composer as an author instead of singers and performers.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I certainly use a number of genres (more than 20) of classical music for my iTunes library. They include whether the music is played by a soloist (plus a separate one for piano music), a chamber group (with a separate one for quartets) and so on along with the period the music was composed in. 

I don't have a problem with the term classical music for even the most contemporary music. It refers, as I understand it, to the philosophy behind it, the tradition is springs from. The alternatives are less than helpful, I think, and I don't confuse the term classical music with reference to music from the classical period or with the "classical" tendency in music: as with much language the clue is in the context. 

As for the quotes from another thread that you provide, apart from the one that presents a choice, I disagree with them! So, I don't think there is a problem. It could be (and I think this is your concern?) that the term is off putting to some but I suspect it is a label for something many people already think they do not like. Classical music is like a language and needs to be learned. It doesn't really repay you if you don't put a bit of work in at the start. I don't think there is a way around that although more people would be willing to invest the time if it was perceived as "cool" rather than something that belongs to the crusty elites invoked by one of your quotes.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Also, by counting classical genres together with other genres, more emphasis would be given to classical music.

Compare this:
(Rock, Folk, R&B, Soul, Hip Hop, EDM, New Age, Jazz, etc... and classical) - just one place given to classical

with this:

(Barroque, Classical, Romantic, Impressionistic, Blues, Jazz, Expressionistic, Atonal, Rock, R&B, Soul, Minimalist, Folk, Hip Hop, EDM, New Complexity, etc...) - 8 places given to classical


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Drop "classical" as the name for what we listen to and then, what would you call it? "Good" music? That would turn off the general non-classical listening folks even more.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I don’t think the name makes that much of a difference. As long as classical musicians continue to be born—and it’s hard to keep track of all the outstanding young pianists and violinists, for example—the music will survive. When classical musicians are no longer born, then the music will be dead. But that hasn’t happened yet and I don’t think it’s ever going to happen despite the cynics the music has to put up with whose negativity only makes the problem worse.

The crisis today is that there’s more of a focus on recorded music than on live performances because it’s cheaper since the economic downturn about 10 years ago. Then there are the cheapskates who expect the arts to be supported by ticket sales or private donations only rather than including any kind of state funding like is so often done in Europe, though they’re having their problems too. 

One of the greatest developments that I believe will help keep the music alive is the growing interest in analog sound, tapes and vinyl. Because they can’t be duplicated and pirated like digital files and the public will need to buy their own copies. That means the lives of the musicians playing it will once again be valued. The music has been dying because the live musicians have been cheated out of the residuals and income, and someone needs to put a stop to that highway robbery. 

In the meantime, I have no fear about the music dying. There’s so much available online that it’s almost impossible to avoid. It’s being heard almost everywhere regardless of whether it has a smaller audience than pop. It’ll probably help when the old guard cynics die off who’ve forgotten that cultural and economic trends go in cycles. I consider it marvelous that the digital era is dying off and there’s a resurgence in analog sound that I see continuing for many years to come despite the convenience of live digital streaming still being available.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> One of the greatest developments that I believe will help keep the music alive is the growing interest in analog sound, tapes and vinyl. Because they can't be duplicated and pirated like digital files and the public will need to buy their own copies. That means the lives of the musicians playing it will once again be valued. The music has been dying because the live musicians have been cheated out of the residuals and income, and someone needs to put a stop to that highway robbery.


I think there are actually programs that allow digitalizing music from the records... it's not much of a technical issue. Also many of contemporary records might not have truly analog sound as the music was initially engineered on computer, and only in the last step of the process they pressed it on a record.

However, I think there are some advantages of records. Mainly possession of a physical object which can be rather aesthetically pleasing and valuable to you for personal reasons. Records usually come with nice covers, they include valuable information on the cover. They allow for the hobby of collecting, etc. And the very process of cleaning them, maintaining them, and putting them on a turntable consists of series of rituals which allow you to connect to it more deeply.

I think cheap music and free music is a very good thing. Youtube rocks. But once you can afford it, and when you develop love for it; I am sure a lot of folks wouldn't hesitate buying actual records. So records and Youtube can hopefully coexist.
Right now, due to place where I live (Bosnia) and my status (student), most of the music that I listen to is still free. But I see myself in the future making purchases. Until then I will explore and hopefully develop my taste.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> I certainly use a number of genres (more than 20) of classical music for my iTunes library. They include whether the music is played by a soloist (plus a separate one for piano music), a chamber group (with a separate one for quartets) and so on along with the period the music was composed in.


Exactly. There are so many genres within classical music, they're collapsing off the edge of the shelf. Solo piano (sonatas, fantasies, mazurkas, nocturnes, etc), piano music for 4 hands, and for 2 pianos, piano trios, and on and on, almost endlessly...


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Kieran said:


> Exactly. There are so many genres within classical music, they're collapsing off the edge of the shelf. Solo piano (sonatas, fantasies, mazurkas, nocturnes, etc), piano music for 4 hands, and for 2 pianos, piano trios, and on and on, almost endlessly...


But are they really genres or just types of compositions?

In popular music you could say there's just one prevailing genre - a song.
But there is a huge difference between a pop song and a thrash metal song, even though both feature instruments and vocals and can last roughly the same time.

So, just like a song is a type of composition, and pop, metal, etc, are genres, I'd say that symphony, mazurka, sonata, etc... are types of compositions, while romanticism, impressionism, classicism etc... could be genres, perhaps.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> But are they really genres or just types of compositions?
> 
> In popular music you could say there's just one prevailing genre - a song.
> But there is a huge difference between a pop song and a thrash metal song, even though both feature instruments and vocals and can last roughly the same time.
> ...


There's a huge difference between a violin sonata and a mass. Big diff between a lieder and a violin concerto. A piano trio is a different species to a symph. I'd think of these as genres.

Romantic music, baroque, etc are a different classification, maybe based on style or era, and within which, you'd still find these different genres...


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Definitely not. Classical Music is part of the classics such as literature, art etc. It will be remembered in decades and possibly centuries to come. Other genres such as e.g pop are forgotten after a short while!


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> Definitely not. Classical Music is part of the classics such as literature, art etc. It will be remembered in decades and possibly centuries to come. Other genres such as e.g pop are forgotten after a short while!


Forgotten after a short while?

1964 - 8 million views on Youtube





1965 - 11 million views





1958 - 34 million views


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

There's often too much sub-categorisation associated with any kind of music, but perhaps it's necessary when a more detailed analysis of a particular genre is required. On the other hand, I don't think that simply calling everything 'music' would be of any help at all. 

Catch-all terms such as classical, jazz, rock and pop are universal for a reason: they are convenient and instantly recognisable - even non-adherents should have a fair idea of how wide a spectrum each one is capable of covering, but if anyone has any pre/misconceptions about any sort of music and they aren't willing to take the trouble to educate themselves whether due to lack of interest or anything else then that's too bad - you get out what you put in.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

In the New Stasis in the Arts in which we find ourselves imbedded, there is (and always will be) a place for classical music, however defined. There are places also for every other sort of music, as much or as little of it as one wants to hear. In an era where the Internet makes everything available anytime, nobody's pet music is permitted either to exceed or to fall below the place assigned to it by the workings of the system. The size of the pie constantly increases; the number of individual, discrete slices of that pie (genres, however defined) also increases. Today, everyone who wants to listen to classical music has available all they could want, even as the bulk of classical music as a historical phenomenon recedes slowly into the past. We may not like these trends; we may want many more people to listen to what we like--say, "classical music"--but indeed this is the best of all possible worlds.

Two examples illustrate: Traditional flamenco song is such; as it slowly withered--its purist practitioners and their audience died off while the music metamorphosed into something that no longer could be accurately labeled as flamenco. Yet never has there been more "classic" flamenco available than right now via YouTube--all one could ever want. Here is a pie slice that may be unchanged in size while the pie itself grows. Another genre that has been around, it seems, for centuries yet remained unheard except by those actually present during its performance is Gharnati. Fifty or one hundred years ago, who had ever heard (or had the chance to hear) Gharnati, a music of Morocco? Now we access abundant Gharnati via YouTube--an example of a wholly new slice of the pie.

Let's quote Leonard Meyer, the architect of the idea of the New Stasis in Music and the Arts: "...change and variety are not incompatible with stasis. For stasis, as I intend the term, is not an absence of novelty and change--a total quiescence--but rather the absence of ordered sequential change. Like molecules rushing about haphazardly in a Brownian movement, a culture bustling with activity and change may nevertheless be static. Indeed, insofar as an active, conscious search for new techniques, new forms and materials, and new modes of sensibility (such as have marked our time) precludes the gradual accumulation of changes capable of producing a trend or series of connected mutations, it tends to create a steady-state, though perhaps one that is both vigorous and variegated. In short......a multiplicity of styles in each of the arts, coexisting in a balanced, yet competitive, cultural environment is producing a fluctuating stasis in contemporary culture."

This does not directly deal with the question of what/how to name or rename classical music to make it more popular or appealing, but rather to suggest that there are trends at work today that transcend in effect what we call things.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2018)

You can call it what you like, but it won't change a note of the music.

As for genres, they are just a filing system.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Classical Music is a colloquial term. Western Art Music is the one serious people use.

You are confusing style with genre. Minimalism, post-minimalism, serialism and so on are styles. Opera, symphony, concerto, song and so on are genres. I don't see a problem here. The terminology all works just fine and its meanings are clear.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2018)

I agree with the idea in theory of losing the tag "classical." It conjures up for many people Old, Dead, Museum Music. That perception may be appealing or neutral for many, but I suspect that for the majority it is the essential reason why they may never bother to investigate it. For them, it is a category of music that is fixed in time like a fly in amber and, like the fly, it is similarly old and dead.

In practice however, I think we are stuck with the term, even though I see it as less than beneficial. So to find a suitable replacement term is all a bit academic. (I think calling it just music is a non-starter for sure; given that there is already a plethora of other musics which are _not_ "classical" - it would just add confusion).


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Classical Music is a colloquial term. Western Art Music is the one serious people use.
> 
> You are confusing style with genre. Minimalism, post-minimalism, serialism and so on are styles. Opera, symphony, concerto, song and so on are genres. I don't see a problem here. The terminology all works just fine and its meanings are clear.


It is true, but such classification exists only within classical music.
In popular music, and in GENERAL music classification, genres usually refer to styles and not to types of compositions.
So you have "a song" as a type of composition which is in some main aspects the same in pop, rock and disco, for example, but these songs have very different style, and we call these styles (pop, rock and disco) genres.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> In practice however, I think we are stuck with the term, even though I see it as less than beneficial. So to find a suitable replacement term is all a bit academic. (I think calling it just music is a non-starter for sure; given that there is already a plethora of other musics which are not "classical" - it would just add confusion).


I've heard the term "contemporary music" used for contemporary classical music. I think if not the best, it's not a bad term, even if it sounds a bit ambiguous, as it could be confused with any new music...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> In this way (classical) music would be recognized as a living and breathing art form, so when you list music genres of 21st century it wouldn't be like this:
> 
> Rock, R&B, Electronic music, folk music, ... and Contemporary classical music
> 
> ...


But classical music _in its entirety_ - a millennium's worth of music - accounts for less than 10 percent (maybe less than 5 percent, depending where you are) of all music sold (and, presumably, listened to), so the term "classical music" even as a catch-all refers to a niche interest. God knows what tiny percentage "contemporary classical" accounts for. Splitting it up even further puts a futile burden on the general public to know, or indeed care, about the differences between increasingly obscure sub-categories.

Personally I tend to distinguish between "classical" and "contemporary classical" when I want to make it clear I'm talking about dead-people music vs living-people music. But otherwise it's just "classical" when I think the person I'm talking to has insufficient knowledge and/or interest for me to go to the trouble of breaking it down further.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

1) there are genres within classical - baroque, classical, romantic and modern
2) words are unimportant, you can call the music whatever you like
3) yes, it is a half-dead genre. Classical music was alive during Mozart times. But already towards the end of the 19th century, the classical repertoire consisted mostly of repetitions of old music. That was one of the reasons Schoenberg invented his musical revolution, to change this trend of listening to music that has been dead for a long time

rock was alive from 1950's to 1980's. Now it is becoming dead music too. Look into the non-classical music thread, people mostly listen to old rock. The only difference is that classical music is written in notes and can be replayed by other people. Nobody will ever play Beatles, Doors, Jethro Tull in 100 years as a live music. Only recordings.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2018)

> =ZJovicic;1434411
> 
> What would this achieve? Well 2 things:
> 
> 1) "classical" music wouldn't be separate from everything else anymore, and by dropping the term classical it would lose its stuffiness and pretentiousness.


Classical music is not stuffy or pretentious, whether it is called classical or something else.



> 2) Recognizing its genres and treating them like genres of any other music would allow members of audience to incorporate certain classical genres in their identity and to more actively make choices... so instead of clumping together all classical music fans as "those nerds who listen to classical", you'd instead have Jane who listens to Neoclassic music, Jack who listens to new complexity, John who listens to minimalism etc... and of course there would still be those eclectic types who listen to many genres... (I would be among eclectics)


These classifications already exist. If someone justs listens to New Complexity, then they can tell someone that. The thing is, virtually no-one does. In general, people who enjoy one aspect of contemporary classical enjoy other aspects of it too, not to mention work by dead composers. Not only that, if you are worried about pretentiousness, someone who responds 'New Complexity' when asked what music she likes is going to come over as exactly that.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

ZJovicic said:


> Forgotten after a short while?
> 
> 1964 - 8 million views on Youtube
> 
> ...


As a young person, I have only heard the beetles song and this was after 50 years. Pop songs from the early 20th century are all but forgotten except by people that were alive in that era. Missa papae Marcelli was composed 500 years ago and still gets voted high up in TC lists. The reality is that no one is going to perform beetles songs and provide their own interpretations. I highly doubt that in a hundred years anyone will listen to the beetles (except, perhaps, for historical interest) but I can almost guarentee that anyone will still be able to recognze the opening bars to Beethovens 5th.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

We the people will always "underrate" what we don't understand. Following EdwardBast's remarks about "style" and "genre", I don't think the analogue classical styles are any longer representative of Western Art music as they were in the past. I'm still more hopeful about any pure form or mixture of Jazz and Soul.

For instance, would A Winged Victory for the Sullen be considered a neo-chamber music act instead of the label "Minimal Classical" that often sells to the public?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

BachIsBest said:


> The reality is that no one is going to perform beetles songs and provide their own interpretations.


I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your policework there, Lou.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I'm not so sure about pop songs being forgotten or reduced just to recordings. There are many tribute bands who perform songs by bands that have disbanded a long time ago. There are also many cover songs... the same song can be covered multiple times in history in different styles and become a hit many times.
Also, many modern music acts sample a lot of 1970s and 1980s music.
Also magazines like Rolling Stone or sites like Digital Dream Door, compile lists of best ever songs and albums, and it can be a good reference point for young people to learn about older music, if they care of course. I do. Most of my friends don't.
My approach is to try balancing listening to NEW music, supporting living artists, etc, with listening to best music from the past from all genres, this include classical, but also popular music genres.

A lot of old rock music is still frequently played on radio, etc... And some of it is still very popular, like Queen, Nirvana, etc...


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Most covered songs in history.
Just "Yesterday" has been covered 2200 times!

http://mentalfloss.com/article/20811/most-covered-songs-in-music-history


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

It seems to me that "classical" is used in opposition to "popular". "Classical" is a large umbrella term for western orchestral music just as "popular" is a large umbrella term for everything that isn't classical. 

I agree the term is flawed, but I don't know that fragmenting it into smaller genres will be particularly helpful given their lack of prominence in popular culture. Everyone knows what "rock" is, not everyone knows what "neostylism" is. In this case, we might be going down the rabbit hole of sub-sub-sub genres of popular music, like all those "-core" genres within alternative within rock. I find that no one outside of really devoted fan circles knows a thing about those sub-sub-genres of rock anymore than they know about the sub-sub-genres of modern and contemporary classical. 

I'm just saying if our goal is to make it more accessible, I don't think this would really help. It's hard to make it accessible, though, it's not like I have any better ideas...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I know, let's start calling it Prog, if only to confuse the Deacon.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> 3. There is no analogy in other forms of art. Literature is simply literature, painting is simply painting, regardless of its style or era in which it's produced. Yes there are classic novels, but they become classic just by the virtue of universal acclaim and age. So a novel written today can't be considered a classic novel, but in 100 years, it might get this epithet if it passes the test of time.


There absolutely _are_ analogues in other art forms. Literature is not simply literature; like all other art forms it has had its collisions with tradition and changes and 'modernist' movements. There are forms of writing that resemble the novel as it has been, but isn't so much 'art' as something else (Fifty Shades of Grey?).

The names for the epoch changes like 'baroque' and 'classical' are actually lifted from other areas, most commonly architecture and visual art which are categorized to reflect the general artistic culture of a period. The fact of the matter is that the music, written down for solos players or ensembles, as it developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, forged a template that has proved very durable. 
Music has moved in many directions since the dawn of the 20th century, but writing for an orchestra, or a string quartet or piano trio... following pretty much the template forged in the 18th century is not mistakenly called 'classical' in a general sense.

When new/ contemporary composers write works I don't think they are the ones necessarily calling their music "classical" , but they are largely following in the footsteps of a tradition. They will have been educated in a similar way, learned the same principles and unless they are writing 3-minute pop songs or specifying what their music is, they will be classified as "classical".

I see your point, that calling it just "music" would supposedly break down a barrier, but the barrier is actually real and part of the content of the music. I hope that everyone would give "art music" a chance and listen to it and get to listen to it, but there's no denying that it can sometimes take effort and knowledge and listening experience. People's tastes will just reverse any attempts to break down classification barriers. When someone says "I want to listen to some music" it means different things to different people and they have to have a name for what they like and they don't like.

My father calls it 'that serious music' (as it used to be called actually) and he doesn't like it. He still won't like it if the name 'classical' were to be banished into oblivion.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

When I said there were no analogies I didn't mean to say that there are no different styles in other arts, but that there isn't such a sharp distinction like between classical and non-classical. The closest analogue would be "literary fiction" vs. "genre fiction", but I think this classification is artificial too and commercial based. Great novels of the past weren't written as "literary fiction", but just as novels, they could be historical, dramas, romance, or mixed genres... Only after time has passed some of old novels got the status of classics.

So this division in literary and genre fiction irks me too. Much more logical approach would be to simply write a novel, its thematic content would put it in some genre, and if it achieves some merit, it could be deemed literary in short term, and classic in long term. But today, some genre writers write intentionally in such a way to satisfy criteria of a certain genre, and to be able to sell it, at the expense of literary merit. Hence "genre fiction". 

Luckily in fiction this divide is a bit less sharp than in music and a lot of readers read works with literary merit, and not just "genre fiction". Classical and contemporary literary fiction is much more popular among readers than classical music is among listeners of music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Jacck said:


> 1) there are genres within classical - baroque, classical, romantic and modern
> 2) words are unimportant, you can call the music whatever you like
> 3) yes, it is a half-dead genre. Classical music was alive during Mozart times. But already towards the end of the 19th century, the classical repertoire consisted mostly of repetitions of old music. That was one of the reasons Schoenberg invented his musical revolution, to change this trend of listening to music that has been dead for a long time
> 
> rock was alive from 1950's to 1980's. Now it is becoming dead music too. Look into the non-classical music thread, people mostly listen to old rock. The only difference is that classical music is written in notes and can be replayed by other people. Nobody will ever play Beatles, Doors, Jethro Tull in 100 years as a live music. Only recordings.


Words _are_ important. Baroque, classical and romantic aren't genres. They are styles.

There are complete scores for the Beatles. I've notated tunes by Tull for my own amusement. People are playing Beatles and Tull live fifty years after the music was written and while the copyrights are still in effect. What makes you think they won't be doing it in another fifty years when they aren't? in fact, I played both yesterday. Live. In my living room.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

As of just recently, I tend to refer to much of the music I listen to as 'orchestral music' rather than classical as it predominantly is and some people see the term 'classical' as an elitist titIe. The last time I used the term 'classical music' in a conversation with someone I received a really pompous (intentional) look. 'Orchestral' usually let's the more informed people know what I like. Morons don't know what I'm talking about (and rarely ask). I refer to chamber music as chamber music. If people don't understand it, tough!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

^ and you refer to classical piano music as piano music?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Words are important. Baroque, classical and romantic aren't genres. They are styles._

Rather, they are historical periods just like the Renaissance and are associated with certain artistic styles that were practiced in the period. The romantic 19th century saw the birth of "romantic" music as well as painting and literature. Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People" was the paint example of Beethoven's "Eroica" symphony and Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein' the literary equivalent of Berlioz's Fantastic symphony.

I don't think of "romantic" music as a genre, however. A genre would more likely be a symphony, song or opera or another subclass of the style. Most dictionaries define genre as a category of artistic composition characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter. The synonyms to genre would include category, class or group.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Jacck said:


> Nobody will ever play Beatles, Doors, Jethro Tull in 100 years as a live music. Only recordings.


Oh, I don't know, I saw a pretty good Led Zeppelin tribute band a few weeks back and they split up nearly 40 years ago.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> A lot of old rock music is still frequently played on radio, etc... And some of it is still very popular, like Queen, Nirvana, etc...


Nirvana? Old rock music? I saw them live! Perhaps I should just accept that I'm not getting any younger.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

I find the distinction between _Art music_ ("Konstmusik" in Swedish) and _Popular music_ to be rather helpful, where the former - among other things - acknowledges a canonical tradition and makes certain aesthetic (and moral) demands, etc.

Adorno is _certainly_ no favourite of mine, but his (astute) thoughts on the so-called _Kulturindustrie_ are _very_ thought-provoking. Art music opposes _everything_ that has to do with money, speculation or mere passive entertainment. Bach apparently signed all his compositions with the initials "S. D. G." (Soli Deo gloria), and that, I think, is the very hallmark of Art music. The serious composer works _solely_, in one way or another: "To the glory of the most high God, and that my neighbour may be benefited thereby."


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> ^ and you refer to classical piano music as piano music?


Yep. Usually it comes up as secondary in any conversation of the music I like and by that time they've already worked out that I'm discussing 'classical' music.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> But classical music _in its entirety_ - a millennium's worth of music - accounts for less than 10 percent (maybe less than 5 percent, depending where you are) of all music sold (and, presumably, listened to), so the term "classical music" even as a catch-all refers to a niche interest. God knows what tiny percentage "contemporary classical" accounts for. Splitting it up even further puts a futile burden on the general public to know, or indeed care, about the differences between increasingly obscure sub-categories.
> 
> Personally I tend to distinguish between "classical" and "contemporary classical" when I want to make it clear I'm talking about dead-people music vs living-people music. But otherwise it's just "classical" when I think the person I'm talking to has insufficient knowledge and/or interest for me to go to the trouble of breaking it down further.


Shouldn't we rather be comparing the total income that classical music has generated over all the years of it's life time with that of the popular styles around today. Point being, we can't assume that the income from such popular styles will continue at the same rate that it is today. Will the income 'One Direction's' music generates be anything to speak of in 30 years time?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forss said:


> I find the distinction between _Art music_ ("Konstmusik" in Swedish) and _Popular music_ to be rather helpful, where the former - among other things - acknowledges a canonical tradition and makes certain aesthetic (and moral) demands, etc.
> 
> Adorno is _certainly_ no favourite of mine, but his (astute) thoughts on the so-called _Kulturindustrie_ are _very_ thought-provoking. Art music opposes _everything_ that has to do with money, speculation or mere passive entertainment. Bach apparently signed all his compositions with the initials "S. D. G." (Soli Deo gloria), and that, I think, is the very hallmark of Art music. The serious composer works _solely_, in one way or another: "To the glory of the most high God, and that my neighbour may be benefited thereby."


What of those works written on commission? I am thinking at this moment of Prokofiev's fourth symphony, though many other examples come quickly to mind.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2018)

Maxwell Davies charged by the minute for his compositions. I doubt if he was alone. No-one would describe his music as pop. :lol:


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Forss said:


> Adorno is _certainly_ no favourite of mine, but his (astute) thoughts on the so-called _Kulturindustrie_ are _very_ thought-provoking. Art music opposes _everything_ that has to do with money, speculation or mere passive entertainment.


It believe it's more accurate to say that Art music opposes nothing and ignores those factors without taking them into account at all. It's a different emphasis. To consciously oppose sometime sets up a resistance and is not the pure idea in and of itself without the burden of those considerations. Adorno's quote is just one more example of his questionable observations. He turns everything into a mess and an even bigger problem than music that is supposedly not Art music. Maybe he suffers from poor translations. But he wrote what I consider one of the best modern string quartet's in the 20th century that deserves to be heard more:


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I attended the same school as Peter Maxwell Davies for two years.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

My impression is Classical is used to refer to music cognizant of the the development in the past few hundred years, even if only as a reaction to it. It also has higher musical aims than most popular music.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> It believe it's more accurate to say that Art music opposes nothing and ignores those factors without taking them into account at all. It's a different emphasis. To consciously oppose sometime sets up a resistance and is not the pure idea in and of itself without the burden of those considerations.


You are very right, sir. "Ignores" is a more precise term and explains the matter more accurately.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> What of those works written on commission? I am thinking at this moment of Prokofiev's fourth symphony, though many other examples come quickly to mind.


That is certainly puzzling, and I don't really know what to think of it. I am also thinking of Haydn's extensive _oeuvre_? Perhaps composers writing on commission still had a sort of creative, boundless freedom - not least in their own minds - with the sole purpose of exploring the very _music(al form)_ itself?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forss said:


> That is certainly puzzling, and I don't really know what to think of it. I am also thinking of Haydn's extensive _oeuvre_? Perhaps composers writing on commission still had a sort of creative, boundless freedom - not least in their own minds - with the sole purpose of exploring the very _music(al form)_ itself?


We do know that Prokofiev loved living well (as well as he could) almost as much as he loved composing: fine dining, travel, access to goodies from the Soviet state after he had returned home. So, in his case, we have two powerful forces sometimes working in parallel to achieve certain goals. In Bartók's case, with the sublime _Concerto for Orchestra_, he needed cash as a recent immigrant to the USA, and Koussevitsky's commission was just the thing to ease his mind and allow him to compose. We also owe Martinů's wonderful first symphony, at least in part, to Koussevitsky's commission. Artistic fervor and purity can keep one alive for only so long. Sometimes Mammon must mingle with the Muses .


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Forss said:


> That is certainly puzzling, and I don't really know what to think of it. I am also thinking of Haydn's extensive _oeuvre_? Perhaps composers writing on commission still had a sort of creative, boundless freedom - not least in their own minds - with the sole purpose of exploring the very _music(al form)_ itself?


Historically, composers working on commission definitely did not have boundless freedom. Commissions came with all kinds of constraints--genre, length, instrumentation, mood, etc. In the case of opera, composers and librettists sometimes had to change the endings of well-known stories to accommodate the work's patrons.

With few exceptions, I daresay no composer before the 20th century worried as much as we do that these constraints might affect the integrity of the music. This is a distinctly modern problem. Some composers actively welcomed the challenge of composing under constraints. Even Schoenberg himself acknowledged (in an admittedly different context, but still) that composing under complete freedom is the easiest thing in the world.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Composing (or writing or painting) under complete freedom so often means the work never gets done.

Here's Karl Marx's missive to his publisher twelve years after promising to deliver the manuscript for Das Kapital:



> "...the thing is proceeding very slowly because no sooner does one set about finally disposing of subjects to which one has devoted years of study than they start revealing new aspects and demand to be thought out further."


You have to ask who was _really_ extracting the surplus value in that relationship...


----------

