# Music ok, but “classical”



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

Perhaps we talked about this before, if so, forgive me and move on. Why does the need exist to describe some music as “classical”? In my world, “music” will do. (But I’m of course so hip that U2 appears just before Vaughan-Williams on my shelf of records). To make that terminology even more confusing, in popular music “classic” is often used to describe well known rock music. Do we have for and against? And why?


----------



## Boludo (Apr 4, 2019)

Yes, we've talked about it before.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

It depends on what you mean by the word "is".


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Just listen to what you like and that's it...


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

The important thing to understand about all words is that they're just labels. Don't confuse labels with reality. In reality, all genre labels are just trying to capture certain aspects of sound, style, and tradition and being distinct from other sounds, styles, and tradition. "Classical" carries certain connotations that "classic rock" doesn't. I'm sure when you hear the former you have a range of possible "sounds-like" in your mind that are very different from the latter. If someone said "I'm going to play you some classic rock" and then turned on Beethoven, I for one would be very confused. If they put on some Led Zeppelin, however, I wouldn't be. That says something about how these terms shape our expectations about what we hear.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Perhaps we talked about this before, if so, forgive me and move on. Why does the need exist to describe some music as "classical"? In my world, "music" will do. (But I'm of course so hip that U2 appears just before Vaughan-Williams on my shelf of records). To make that terminology even more confusing, in popular music "classic" is often used to describe well known rock music. Do we have for and against? And why?


Why do you place Vaughan Williams records after U2? Do you categorize all your music by composers, then? What do you do with albums that have, for the sake of example, Vaughan Williams and Elgar on the same disc?

Also, isn't a bit absurd to take umbrage at the term "classical" as a genre marker and still use "rock" as an appellation?

Finally, "Classic Rock" is *not* merely well-known rock, but rock music, well known or otherwise, under a certain umbrella, typically synonymous with the rise of album-oriented rock music in the 60s and 70s, and because of its length from modern rock, has acquired a certain "classic" status. It begins with radio playing.

Classical music, on the other hand, was a term invented in the early 1800s to distinguish it from modern (= "romantic", another term for you to play around with) music. We now classify it all as "classical" in order to draw a distinction between music where the composer is key (like your Vaughan Williams above) and where the performers are key (like your U2 example). Obviously jazz and early pop ensures the distinction is messy, but alas, that's what you get when you try to classify anything.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

How else are we to pigeonhole several different epochs and styles spanning hundreds of years as if they were one single thing?


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Never mind, wrong thread.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If someone said "I'm going to play you some classic rock" and then turned on Beethoven, I for one would be very confused. If they put on some Led Zeppelin, however, I wouldn't be. That says something about how these terms shape our expectations about what we hear.


Though the label is not some essential precondition for our listening. When I reach for a CD, I might briefly think, "Classical this morning", but not, "Shall it be UK Indie, or Gypsy Punk?" I'd just put on either The XX or DeVotchKa.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Passacaglia and fugue! If someone uses the word music, others already know what you’re referring to—sound—but it’s not specific enough, it could be anything, and then others will break out into a cold sweat and swear at you or may call you names out of the fear of the unknown. But you could use the word music generically if you tell them you want to play something for them as a surprise. Then the word can cover almost everything... Classical is more specific in reference to an orchestra, chamber music, or a soloist. So the word can be useful because it doesn’t refer to something like heavy metal, though there’s no harm in that. I think most listeners know that it’s classic rock and not classical rock, just as common knowledge or common usage... Or better yet, just mention the name of the group or the name of the orchestra or the name of the musician, and that usually clears everything up without even having to use the word music. 
:tiphat:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

We use the terms and words that allow us to discuss things in ways that are understood by those we are discussing with. If I am asked by a stranger how I spend my time I will include "listening to music" in my answer. But, if what I am saying only applies to classical music, I will use that term. Sometimes I need to use terms like "Romantic composers" or "contemporary music". But that's OK, I can manage it.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Someone wrote a book once that implored people to stop using the term "classical", even "classic" for reasons already given here. He wanted the term "concert music" to be used: music that is intended to be listened to. Which led him down a cul-de-sac. Ballet music may not have been written to listen to, it was written to be danced with, but most of us would certainly consider Rite of Spring, The Nutcracker, and Romeo & Juliet "classical". It's a fraught term, imprecise certainly, but live with it. No genre terms really are all that accurate anyway. Rock, Jazz, Country...all have long ago lost their original or intended meanings.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

AeolianStrains said:


> Why do you place Vaughan Williams records after U2? Do you categorize all your music by composers, then? What do you do with albums that have, for the sake of example, Vaughan Williams and Elgar on the same disc?


I'd like to chime in on this one. When I had an order to my collection, it was by composer. For discs that had multiple composers, I went with the composer I liked the most.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> I'd like to chime in on this one. When I had an order to my collection, it was by composer. For discs that had multiple composers, I went with the composer I liked the most.


My Classical stuff is organized by title, so that it's usually by dominant composer on a disc, though several albums, especially more recent ones, have decided to abandon the composers name in their titles. Thinking Nocturne, Salzburg, Water (which I don't own yet, but still the point stands).


----------

