# To end confusion over the word "Classical"



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Letting the Mozartean period bear the name "Classical" alone, if you could rename what we listen to from "Classical music" to something else, what would it be?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Art Music, then you have to distinguish between Mozart's Eine Kliene Nachtmusik and his 41st symphony.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Couchie said:


> Letting the Mozartean period bear the name "Classical" alone, if you could rename what we listen to from "Classical music" to something else, what would it be?


'Twould have to be labeled Grokmusic. "Art music" sucks elitist pond water.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

uhhh....Arthur?


----------



## hawk (Oct 1, 2007)

Well I would call it " wicked good music" said with the most New England Downeast accent. Hilltroll being a Vermonta know's what I mean dont cha.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Orchestral/chamber music is good enough for me.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Orchestral/chamber music is good enough for me.


That would leave out electronic music. And then would that mean Jazz is also chamber music along with string quartets?


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

"Superior music"


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Curiosity said:


> "Superior music"


Wow, at least art music is a little more subtle in its elitism.:lol:


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

How about ubermusik. Better?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Orchestral/chamber music is good enough for me.


I like this.

Art music--besides being kinda redundant, there's a sort of haughty institutionalism about it, like "this is REAL art". Classical probably doesn't need any more of that attached to it.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I like this.
> 
> Art music--besides being kinda redundant, there's a sort of haughty institutionalism about it, like "this is REAL art". Classical probably doesn't need any more of that attached to it.


Well then would that make most Jazz considered chamber music then? And where does electronic music fall into those categories?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Jazz is improvisational music, not through composed chamber music. There is some overlap involving the third stream in jazz.

But when you tell people you listen to chamber music, I don't think jazz comes to mind for most folks.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Jazz is improvisational music, not through composed chamber music. There is some overlap involving the third stream in jazz.
> 
> But when you tell people you listen to chamber music, I don't think jazz comes to mind for most folks.


Are all forms of Jazz improvised? I'm kind of ignorant here.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Well I mentioned the Third Stream. This is a type of chamber jazz that was developed in the 50s and 60s by composers like Gunther Schuller, and John Lewis of the Modern Jazz Quartet. It consists of scored out parts with sections left open for improvised solos.

There is also a lot of modern big band jazz that features sophisticated written scores, but there is almost always room for the musicians to take solos.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

How 'bout just... "music"?

Really, it's too black and white to define things as simply "classical" and "non-classical", or even "art music" and "non-art music". There's a ton of musicians out there who would like to think that they are writing art music. And we just can't apply this label to them all. Nor can we ignore all the jazz, traditional, and popular musicians out there who are writing music that is just as "artistic" as classical composers are. In short, all using the term "art music" does is simply open another can of worms about word usage, which may have even broader consequences than using the term "classical" does.

Maybe Baroque Opera and Serialism really _are_ too far apart to stick into one drawer. Why don't we just call them "Baroque Opera" or "Serialism"? That would avoid confusion, definitely.

But the problem is, a lot of classical listeners would not want to shed their "classical" identity.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

violadude said:


> And where does electronic music fall into those categories?


If they make it in a chamber, they're set.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Electronic music already has a name.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Air said:


> How 'bout just... "music"?
> 
> Really, it's too black and white to define things as simply "classical" and "non-classical", or even "art music" and "non-art music". There's a ton of musicians out there who would like to think that they are writing art music. And we just can't apply this label to them all. Nor can we ignore all the jazz, traditional, and popular musicians out there who are writing music that is just as "artistic" as classical composers are. In short, all using the term "art music" does is simply open another can of worms about word usage, which may have even broader consequences than using the term "classical" does.
> 
> ...


Actually, I really like that idea. Let's not have a catch all phrase for classical music. All the styles are too different.

Although, now when people ask me what I listen to, instead of saying just "mostly classical" like I usually do I have to say:

"oh you know, some Renaissance madrigals, some Italian Opera, some German opera, some rococo style music, some "sturm und Drang" classical, some Russian Nationalism, some Czech nationalism, some Post-romantic music, some pan-tonal music, some serialism, some expressionism, some impressionism, some romantic Ballet, some 20th century Ballet, some spliced electronic music, some recorded electronic music ect...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

No matter what labels we figure out, some works of music (and maybe even some genres) are going to be hard to classify. 

All labels have this problem. We had a debate about "America" earlier. The Celts and Saxons might object to "England." How do blonds feel about "Russia?" Now that we know about the Southern Pacific, we should make "Nippon" rename itself something that means "the land of the not quite first light?" Or China should no longer be "the central state" but must now be "the state a little to the north and quite a bit to the east." 

Also, as I was misnamed, I'd like to change my name to "the awesome one in the family." For short, Taoitf (the second "t" is silent).


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

^ True, also for newer music. Hardcore: a kind of punk rock, or electronic dance music? Depends who you ask.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Letting the Mozartean period bear the name "Classical" alone, if you could rename what we listen to from "Classical music" to something else, what would it be?


If you mean the complete genre of what is called classical music then a lot of people call it serious music


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Couchie said:


> Letting the Mozartean period bear the name "Classical" alone, if you could rename what we listen to from "Classical music" to something else, what would it be?


It would be nice to end the confusion, but maybe it should be done the other way around, letting "Classical" denote the whole thing, and then find another label for the Mozartean period?

In some languages, like my own, a name corresponding to "Viennese classical" (German: Wiener Klassik, Swedish: Wienklassicismen) is used for the Mozartean period, so we don't have the confusion to begin with.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I keep thinking what would sound better than "Talk Classical" for the name of this site. I can't think of anything. "Talk Music" seems a little too wide open for me. I think I agree with TresPicos.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

How about we keep the umbrella term "classical" and rename the period, instead? I'd name it the "Enlightenment" period.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I'd call it,...'The Funk'


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

*Academic music.* Of course this would exclude outsiders like Charles Ives, but no label is perfect.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Academic Music??? That doesn't get me too excited. I want some innovation!


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

I always thought that "Classical Music" sounded rather snobbish. How about any of the following non-snobby names?*

Far Better Than Anything Else* Music

or

_*Not Your Normal Average Music But Light Years Better *_Music

or

*Maybe You Should Ditch Everything Else Once You've heard This* Music

or

*Not For the Average Plonker* Music

or

*A Cut-Above For The Cognoscenti * Music


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Yeah! Being snobby is kind of wimpy anyway. Let's go for all out arrogance!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

hawk said:


> Well I would call it " wicked good music" said with the most New England Downeast accent. Hilltroll being a Vermonta know's what I mean dont cha.


Hah! My upstream neighbor called me over this afternoon so she could give me some of her 'wicked good' pears. She has the lingo, but not the Downeast accent. Folks in or from the Northeast Kingdom have an accent that reminds the hearer of Downeast, but it's not the same.

I'm still campaigning for *grokmusic*. Hasn't anyone here read _"Stranger In a Strange Land"_?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

So... no one wants to rename the period instead and leave the genre name as "classical?"


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't think there's much confusion, because to mean "the Classical Era" we simply say that as it is, but when we mean "classical music" in general, we just say that. Context is the key here, as it seems to be in many things in life...


----------



## Whipsnade (Mar 17, 2011)

Is the problem that we need a new name for "classical" music or that we use a single label to cover 700 years of diverse musical history? Maybe we need to stop lumping all of these styles together and just refer to each style by its own name (baroque, classical, romantic, post-romantic). No other art form has a label for most, but not all, of its history in the western tradition.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> 'Twould have to be labeled Grokmusic. "Art music" sucks elitist pond water.


"Grok" as in Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein grok? As in "I grok what you are saying?"


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah! My upstream neighbor called me over this afternoon so she could give me some of her 'wicked good' pears. She has the lingo, but not the Downeast accent. Folks in or from the Northeast Kingdom have an accent that reminds the hearer of Downeast, but it's not the same.
> 
> I'm still campaigning for *grokmusic*. Hasn't anyone here read _"Stranger In a Strange Land"_?


Aha, I was right indeed!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Couchie said:


> Letting the Mozartean period bear the name "Classical" alone, if you could rename what we listen to from "Classical music" to something else, what would it be?


The answer is obvious and "Classical" should undisputedly be renamed as ................... atonal. Mozart's music is atonal.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It would be nice to end the confusion, but maybe it should be done the other way around, letting "Classical" denote the whole thing, and then find another label for the Mozartean period? 

Yes... there seems to be consensus across the arts as to "The Renaissance" and "The Baroque"... but when we get to the 18th century the terms are all over the place: "The Enlightenment", "The Classical Era", "The Rococo". "Neo-Classicism". Musically the period combines elements that echo both the Rococo and Neo-Classicism in the visual arts. Obviously we can't use the term "Neo-Classicism" in music as we do in art because there is no Greco-Roman classical model that it has revived. I vote "Rococo."


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Is the problem that we need a new name for "classical" music or that we use a single label to cover 700 years of diverse musical history? Maybe we need to stop lumping all of these styles together and just refer to each style by its own name (baroque, classical, romantic, post-romantic). No other art form has a label for most, but not all, of its history in the western tradition.

Of course in literature we have the "classics" and in art we have the "masters"... and both, for better or worse, are "elitist" terms denoting what has survived and been deemed art of real significance and aesthetic merit. Ultimately, that is the problem with the term "classical music". It is employed as if it denotes a style or genre... and yet it is neither. The differences between a Byzantine chant, a dance from Islamic Spain, a Renaissance madrigal, a comic opera, a string quartet of Beethoven, a German lied, a French melodie, the music of Bartok, Takemitsu, and Philip Glass quite likely exceeds the differences between Jazz, rock, bluegrass and the blues. The reality is that the term "Classical Music" is largely employed in a manner which suggests music inherently superior to "popular" and "folk" music... and I wholly question this. I suspect that the best of much of that music defined as "popular" may prove far more lasting than some of that which is defined as "contemporary classical".


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I don't know if I may have missed someone else saying something similar, but one thing that distinguishes my "Classical" music collection from my non-classical collection is that the classical material is _mostly _organized by composer and my popular music collection is, as far as I remember, _always_ organized by performer or subject (in the case of anthologies or show music and movie music).

Unfortunately, this isn't a hard and fast rule. I do have my Hilary Hahn, Julia Fischer, Helene Grimaud & George Szell sections, for example. And, there are some classical anthologies organized by subject, rather than by composer. But, on the other side, the rest of my music is organized by performer whenever possible, even for example, Ella Fitzgerald Sings the Music of Cole Porter - it's under Fitzgerald, not Porter.

So, for me, "Composer's Music" works pretty well.

I still think there is nothing really wrong with "Classical", as long as the term is pretty well understood, as "Sid" said, in context.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Once more. Maintain classical as the umbrella term. That's a given nowadays.

Use Classicist music for haydn mozart beethoven


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

What about SexyMusick?


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

Up till about 50 years ago classical music was called 'good music'...a horrible term.

I once heard classical defined as 'Music that has to be written down'. On that basis let's call it *scored music*.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> Aha, I was right indeed!


Yes. "Grok" meant something deeper than simply 'understand'. High quality 'classical' music must be grokked to be fully appreciated. The term and the music are a natural fit. Ask any Martian.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

There's plenty of non-classical scored music.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

I propose that we put the question to Mikhail Gorbachev and see what he says. He gave the English language two of its best words, perestroika and glasnost. Whatever he suggests, that's what we go with.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> That would leave out electronic music. And then would that mean Jazz is also chamber music along with string quartets?


Most Jazz _is_ chamber music, idn't it?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Two Genre identifications are all anyone needs:

Pop / Non-Pop

========== simples


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Two Genre identifications are all anyone needs:
> 
> Pop / Non-Pop
> 
> ========== simples


So, if Beethoven's Fifth is *POP*ular, it mustn't be counted under "Non-Pop"?


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

How about these two Genre IDs?

Music I listen to / Music I don't listen to


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It's simply the most practical way to tell someone what music you like.

hpowders' potential girlfriend: "So what music do you like?"

hpowders: "I love classical music."

hpowders ex-potential girlfriend: "I HATE CLASSICAL MUSIC!! What are you, some kinda weirdo???"

See how easy it is, using "classical"?


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

It's no different than labelling everything that's not 'classical', 'pop' music. So while I don't like/use the term (or I if do, always with Dr Evil style quotations), it's probably easiest to define.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I can't believe no one has said absolute music which actually means non-program music (symphonies, concertos, sonatas, ect.) I use "absolute" all the time talking about any non pop as some of you would have it. I much prefer saying it than classical which for me pertains to the classical era only.... not to be an elitist but I'm right...


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2014)

Except of course that "absolute" has already been used. It has it's own set of associations. People will think you're talking about music without any kind of program is all. 

Not that there really is any kind of music without any kind of program at all. Be fair, "fugue" means both to chase and to flee. (Nice bit of economy there, eh?) Sounds like a program ta me.

But I digress.

Anyway, the problem with using "classical" to refer only to what we now call "the classical era"--or not the problem, the irony--is that the term "classical music" dates from very near the end of what we now call "the classical era." (By the time the term got into English, that era was indeed all the way over.) But that's OK. Life is full of ironies.

My suggestion would be to dispense with the word "classical" entirely. It was first coined by a snob to be snobbish, and it hasn't improved much in that regard over the years. And it covers too much ground. Too many various and different styles. But who's gonna take my suggestion? Exactly.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2014)

some guy said:


> Except of course that "absolute" has already been used. It has it's own set of associations. People will think you're talking about music without any kind of program is all.
> 
> Not that there really is any kind of music without any kind of program at all.


Hear hear !

Hey, is this the same thread by the same name that someone else just started yesterday? Have I posted in the wrong place?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

If we're renaming the broad category, we might consider "European Tradition." The term is admittedly unwieldy, but has the advantage of acknowledging the initial cultural milieu (from which this music spread to have worldwide influence) while distinguishing it from indigenous music of other cultures (including American forms like blues, jazz, and rock).

If we rename the specific period, I second the vote for Rococo. This would have the advantage of paralleling art history's progression from Baroque to Rococo.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2014)

The only reason I'd object to Rococo is that the so-genannt classical era was a reaction against the previous era, a romantic revolt against the classicism of Bach and Handel. Whereas, in art, Rococo is clearly a continuation of Baroque. The Rococo artists were revolting, too, especially the ones who didn't bathe frequently, but only against certain features of Baroque, not against Baroqueness itself. Rococo is sometimes called "late Baroque," after all. Classical would never ever in a million years be thought of as late Baroque.


----------



## echmain (Jan 18, 2013)

Maybe we should make up our own word. How about...shmurgle.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

I would say Neoclassical period, but Stravinsky's style already has that name and that would be confusing.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Der Leiermann said:


> I would say Neoclassical period, but Stravinsky's style already has that name and that would be confusing.


It gets more confusing than that. In literature, English Neoclassicism is earlier, in the first half of the eighteenth century, with the Augustan writings of Swift and Pope, while French Neoclassicism goes all the way back to the second half of the seventeenth century and the tragic drama of Corneille and Racine.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

some guy said:


> My suggestion would be to dispense with the word "classical" entirely. It was first coined by a snob to be snobbish, and it hasn't improved much in that regard over the years. And it covers too much ground. Too many various and different styles. But who's gonna take my suggestion? Exactly.


I would take your suggestion happily, and generally do, though in practice I find a handy use for the term. When someone asks "What kind of music do you listen to?" I say "classical" if I don't want to talk about it. Usually works like a charm: I get a glazed look, or an expression of revulsion, and the conversation ends or turns to something less potentially painful. On the other hand, if I do want to discuss the subject, I will say something like "a wide range of music from the Middle Ages to now," and a meaningful conversation may ensue.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

instrumental/orchestral music?


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

The general public views Classical music as anything from the Baroque to the Modern / Avante Garde (Medieval and Renaissance music relegated to "Church" music). I don't see this changing in the forseeable future. I personally see the period of music between Baroque and Romantic as Transitional. Many of the composers working at that time bridged those periods. Haydn is a prime example. Humans love to catergorize: it's the Western tradition to do so, to make sense of somthing that is in a continual state of evolution.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Simple. Global genocide of all those who cannot grasp the difference between Classical and classical -- might as well round up all those who believe film and video scores are classical and throw them in with the rest of the lot slated for extermination


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Simple. Global genocide of all those who cannot grasp the difference between Classical and classical -- might as well round up all those who believe film and video scores are classical and throw them in with the rest of the lot slated for extermination


And I would be one of the casualties, as I consider Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky a classy classical piece, as well as Korngold's Captain Blood, or Shostakovich's numerous film scores. Goodbye cruel world! :-E


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Two Genre identifications are all anyone needs:
> 
> Pop / Non-Pop
> 
> ========== simples


Or Plop and Non-Plop music.

But does pop mean anything but classical? I don't see bluegrass being necessarily popular among the masses. When I see the term pop music I think more of the garbage (or plop) that is played on most top 40 music radio stations.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Florestan said:


> But does pop mean anything but classical? I don't see bluegrass being necessarily popular among the masses. When I see the term pop music I think more of the garbage (or plop) that is played on most top 40 music radio stations.


True, and the free jazz experiments of Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, and John Coltrane never made the hit parade either.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

'Classical Music' alternative: Art Music (Classical Art Music & Modern Art Music)

Make it happen, Powers that Be!


----------



## echmain (Jan 18, 2013)

Musycke

..........


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

amfortas said:


> True, and the free jazz experiments of Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, and John Coltrane never made the hit parade either.


It did caused Ornette Coleman to be punched in the face by Max Roach, that is some sort of popularity I guess.


----------

