# Talkclassical



## mallesh (May 29, 2010)

The use of the term "classical music" is odd in this sense. It is very easily confused with classical era music, and quite incorrect. There is very little that is classical or classic about Steve Reich, he is more progressive and "modern" than any popular musician. I tend to opt for the term "Art Music" - to me, this truly describes the collection of genres.

www.classissima.com/


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

I don't. To me the term "art music" is stuffy and pompous. "Classical music" is an established term, even the most ignorant people have an idea what it means, it may not be correct by our definition, but...why confuse them with a new term "art music" ?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I also hate the fact that we have to lump all music from 500-100 years in the past into one generic term "classical." In fact, I almost never do; if I'm talking about Bach, I'm talking about Baroque music. If I'm talking about Mahler, I'm talking about post-Romantic music. I like the idea of just calling classical music 'art' music, but as much as I don't like to admit it, there is plenty of popular 20th/21st century music that can be considered 'art.' 

Also you can easily refer to individual genres: opera, orchestral music, keyboard music, etc. without having to refer to it as 'classical' music.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

David58117 said:


> I don't. To me the term "art music" is stuffy and pompous. "Classical music" is an established term, even the most ignorant people have an idea what it means, it may not be correct by our definition, but...why confuse them with a new term "art music" ?


Some music is stuffy and pompous.

For instance - the pompous overtones in Elgar's otherwise wistful cello concerto which is loved by many who would scream and tear others limbs out for daring to call it 'art music'.

The term 'classical' music is a relative concept. In Aboriginal terms, or ethnic Russian, Chinese urdu; Bulgarian voices etc - some of these are marketed as 'world music' and played in art houses. Guess most don't care for what it is called as long as it fits with the furniture.

The classification issues isn't really that exciting (can't imagine) however the modern trend of the middle classes, veers towards a suspicion.... a suspicion of anything in the name of 'art'. It might be safer to call it 'classical music then' 

PS - if the term 'art music' was relevant and existed at all, I imagine Elliot Carter's first 3 string quartets would fit right in there.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

"Art music" implies that other forms of music are not art. We all know what we mean by the term "classical" and the difference between it and the classical period of music history. 

If we are worried about the perception of the general (casual listener) public to the terms, let us first dissuade them of the idea that if there is a piano or a violin then it must be classical music, or that classical music is some sort of new age relaxing music made before there were synthesizers. I don't think that anyone who calls a Beethoven sonata a "song" is going to be too concerned by whether you are talking about the classical period of music.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2010)

The terms "classical" and "romantic" had been used to distinguish two broad categories of art (and of life, for that matter) long before any of the times we've been talking about.

The term "classical music" dates from around 1810 (in Germany--getting to England in the mid-thirties) and was first used not to designate what we now call the classical period in music but as a substitute for what had been referred to before as "antient" music.*

Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were all considered (at the time) as "romantic" artists. (Think "Sturm und Drang," for one.)

Music history has GOT to be one of the most badly managed scholastic subjects in the whole curriculum. (I got practically none when I was in school, and most of it wrong.)

*Music in the 18th century was largely a matter of living composers. The few pieces by dead composers that were played were referred to as "antient" or, later, "ancient." Dead composers didn't start to dominate concerts until the nineteenth century. (That means that many of the dead composers we now idolize would have been surprised, at least, at the continuing adoration!)


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

mallesh said:


> There is very little that is classical or classic about Steve Reich, he is more progressive and "modern" than any popular musician. [/url]


Didn't people say the same thing about Beethoven during his day? Or Wagner during his? Or Debussy? etc.


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

some guy said:


> Music history has GOT to be one of the most badly managed scholastic subjects in the whole curriculum. (I got practically none when I was in school, and most of it wrong.)


Haha, I remember taking it in my private school. The teacher for it was the english teacher and had no clue about it aside from what was written on her notes. I remember her playing Oklahoma and a jazz band video, and then leaving the class thinking Sousa was one of the most important figures in classical music...so much for Mahler or Shosty or some of the other more interesting figures, although maybe it's because I'm in the USA and Sousa is American...

Anyway, I stick to my stance. People have an idea what "classical music" refers to , heck, I didn't even know what "art music" was until I came to this forum - turns out I've been listening to it for years and didn't even know it!


----------



## gurthbruins (May 12, 2010)

"Everything is a matter of taste."

_TalkClassical_ serves just fine, it got me here, in search of the Best.

There is no problem with the double meaning of classical (1. Good; 2. Pre-Romantic and Post-Baroque). Meaning 1 is for the ignorant, philistine masses and helps to keep them away. Meaning 2 is for us.

God save us from "Art Music".


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Yes,the term "art music" is loaded with baggage,and could mislead people into thinking that what we call classical music is artsy-fartsy and all that. 
I think classical music is a better term,since people are more familiar with it, and when you talk about classical music to most people who aren't fans of it,they pretty much know what you mean.
That is,the kind of music you hear when you go to Carnegie hall to hear a great orchestra play,etc.
There's an interesting website of an organization called musoc.org(Music and Society), which takes an unabashedly elistist view of classical music and prefers to call it art music.It condemsn classical musicians and critics who strike it as pandering to popular taste, and could give a lot of people the idea that classical music is indeed highly elitist,and not something which "normal" people would want to listen to. Unfortunate, but check it out.


----------

