"Classical Music" and other names for it

[french frank]

But can anyone on here remember when "classical music" was not used to refer to musics from Perotain to Birtwistle?

Probably not - but we (here) don't go back that far. 1829 seems to be the OED's first recorded use in the general sense (though precisely what the user had in mind I couldn't say) of 'of, relating to, or characteristic of a formal musical tradition, as distinguished from popular or folk music'.

If the term had been in common usage during the 19th c, would people have been agonising over whether Debussy could really be called 'classical'? What about Schoenberg?

We have come to a stage where when people mention 'music' they are not mentally including classical music at all. And that seems a (sad) absurdity.

[Richard Barrett]

when people mention 'music' they are not mentally including classical music at all. And that seems a (sad) absurdity.

By the same token there are many other musics that wouldn't be mentally included. As we see in so many walks of life, the elevation of commercial priorities over all others in every area of culture (in the widest sense) leads to a massive reduction in diversity and a corresponding atrophy in people's imaginative space. The idea that "art" could be for everyone looks from a present perspective like a quaint little blip in history between feudal and globalised-capital hegemonies. This is a much larger issue, of course, than whether you call a certain fuzzily-defined area of music "classical" or not, and what it ends up being called isn't going to address that larger issue in any meaningful way.

What is to be done? I think it's crucial to show in every feasible way that it's possible for the imagination still to be freely applied, by (in the present case) those who originate the music, those who collaborate in its execution and those who experience it as listeners; without boundaries or stylistic nostalgia. That is, without "classicising"! - with so much of that going on it's hardly surprising that so much music being made now gets lumped in with its predecessors.

[Serial_Apologist]

Probably not - but we (here) don't go back that far. 1829 seems to be the OED's first recorded use in the general sense (though precisely what the user had in mind I couldn't say) of 'of, relating to, or characteristic of a formal musical tradition, as distinguished from popular or folk music'.

If the term had been in common usage during the 19th c, would people have been agonising over whether Debussy could really be called 'classical'? What about Schoenberg?

Debussy, who is often referred to as a particularised manifestation of Romanticism in the closing stages of its heyday - his (disputed term) "Impressionism" seen as marking an intermediary stage in the direction of modernism - is described as returning to the pure forms of classicism in his late sonatas, following decades of writing descriptive music, and even of anticipating Stravinskyian Neo-Classsicism. Schoenberg is then described as reverting to Classical and Baroque forms (in the 18th century sense) in his early 12-tone compositions. So - just to be "helpful" - this is where another layer of confusion has been added to familiar terminology.

We have come to a stage where when people mention 'music' they are not mentally including classical music at all. And that seems a (sad) absurdity.

But not by contributers on to this forum, surely? Maybe the difficulty arises from the proprietoriness people feel towards the music they love if it can be felt to fall well within the safe confines of a generic label such as classical music or jazz. He or she can then say, yes, Britten is definitely classical music, but I'd fight tooth and nail against Birtwistle's music or Frank Zappa's being given consideration under that heading, or as jazz either, in the latter case.

[doversoul1]

Composed music:
Q: So you are a composer. What sort of music do you compose?
A: Composed music

I’m not sure if this works.

What do composers on this forum call the music you compose? You may not believe in categorising your work but there must be a time when you have to label it, such as when you talk to a publisher, tender for a commission (?) write a CV etc.

Debussy, who is often referred to as a particularised manifestation of Romanticism in the closing stages of its heyday - his (disputed term) "Impressionism" seen as marking an intermediary stage in the direction of modernism - is described as returning to the pure forms of classicism in his late sonatas, following decades of writing descriptive music, and even of anticipating Stravinskyian Neo-Classsicism. Schoenberg is then described as reverting to Classical and Baroque forms (in the 18th century sense) in his early 12-tone compositions. So - just to be "helpful" - this is where another layer of confusion has been added to familiar terminology.

I somehow doubt that an informed thought like this comes into it when this (same old) issue / argument comes up. Classical music usually means (simply) Bach, Beethoven or orchestra, violin concert etc..

Are there really so many people bothered about the name apart from those who write about it?

[MrGongGong]

Are there really so many people bothered about the name apart from those who write about it?

I think there is a real problem with the name.
Whether we like it or not it has associations and assumptions that are negative.
Sometimes it's better to find new names for things.

I'm not sure that "Composed Music" works though (Indian "Classical" Music is largely improvised etc)

What do composers on this forum call the music you compose?

Sometimes I call it composed
Sometimes devised
Sometimes other things

[doversoul1]

I think there is a real problem with the name.
Whether we like it or not it has associations and assumptions that are negative.
Sometimes it's better to find new names for things.

I'm not sure that "Composed Music" works though (Indian "Classical" Music is largely improvised etc)

Hasn’t it become a problem because someone somewhere for some reasons said it was a problem? I have not come across anyone who sees it a problem. But again, I see more squirrels and pheasants than people these days, so things may have changed. Where do you see the problem most?

Sometimes I call it composed
Sometimes devised
Sometimes other things

That’s what you do and not what it is. You can’t say I am a composer and I compose devised music, can you?

[MrGongGong]

Hasn’t it become a problem because someone somewhere for some reasons said it was a problem? I have not come across anyone who sees it a problem. But again, I see more squirrels and pheasants than people these days, so things may have changed. Where do you see the problem most?

It's a problem amongst those who are unfamiliar with it and it's nuances.
"Classical Music" is seen as the preserve of the elderly and affluent.
I've asked people who play it for a living (those who play Brahms and Mozart rather than those who play mostly Feldman and Xenakis) what words spring to mind when they hear the phrase as they often come out with the B word. It's got little to do with what it sounds like but more to do with it's perception. Finding another name can mean (and I have experience of this) that people listen with open ears.

That’s what you do and not what it is. You can’t say I am a composer and I compose devised music, can you?

I'm a composer and sometimes I make devised music.
"Composed" implies a singular vision to me, many composers work in other ways as well.

[Richard Barrett]

sometimes I make devised music

... but do you like "devised"? - I find that word really offputting. How is it actually different from "composed"? because composing can easily be a collaborative thing too.

In answer to doversoul's question: actually I don't feel I have to characterise what I do in situations like the ones you mention, since in all of them this would already be known... the situations where it does become an issue are when I meet someone socially whose musical knowledge and interests are let's say mainstream, and the conversation generally goes something like "so what do you do?" "I'm a musician." "Oh really, what do you play?" "I primarily compose, but when I play it's on an electronic keyboard controlling a computer." "What kind of music do you write?" "That's hard to answer, because some of the time I'm working with musicians who are trained in classical music and other times I might be working with people who come out of jazz, but what I'm doing is really neither of those things, it's open to them but not in an eclectic way, I'm trying always to find new directions to take music in..." "All that sounds fascinating, oh is that the time? You'll have to excuse me, I have an important phone call to make."

[jayne lee wilson]

... but do you like "devised"? - I find that word really offputting. How is it actually different from "composed"? because composing can easily be a collaborative thing too.

In answer to doversoul's question: actually I don't feel I have to characterise what I do in situations like the ones you mention, since in all of them this would already be known... the situations where it does become an issue are when I meet someone socially whose musical knowledge and interests are let's say mainstream, and the conversation generally goes something like "so what do you do?" "I'm a musician." "Oh really, what do you play?" "I primarily compose, but when I play it's on an electronic keyboard controlling a computer." "What kind of music do you write?" "That's hard to answer, because some of the time I'm working with musicians who are trained in classical music and other times I might be working with people who come out of jazz, but what I'm doing is really neither of those things, it's open to them but not in an eclectic way, I'm trying always to find new directions to take music in..." "All that sounds fascinating, oh is that the time? You'll have to excuse me, I have an important phone call to make."

"What kind of music do you write...?"

Couldn't you keep quiet & just play them a bit off your phone.....?

[ahinton]

"What kind of music do you write...?"

Couldn't you keep quiet & just play them a bit off your phone.....?

Ah, now there's an idea! At least that wold be a legitimate answer, for all that it turns back on the questioner; that said, it might be as well to preface that with "well, here's one example"...

[Mary Chambers]

I don't remember the term 'classical music' being used much, if at all, in my youth. What some now call classical music was just music. That's what 'music' meant. Other types had to be defined - jazz, pop, rock, light music and so on. Not very long ago Amazon listed its CDs under 'Music' (meaning classical) and 'Popular Music' (everything else). I'm not sure when it changed to 'Music' and 'Classical Music', but I thought the change significant.

(Oddly, when I was young 'music lessons' - individual ones, that is - meant piano lessons. Other instruments would be defined, but not piano - that was assumed.)

I have no idea what to call it. If necessary, I refer to 'classical' in inverted commas. I couldn't define it, but I know it when I hear it.

[MrGongGong]

... but do you like "devised"? - I find that word really offputting. How is it actually different from "composed"? because composing can easily be a collaborative thing too.

It's not perfect. But, for me, it makes a distinction between something created from an individual impetus and something generated by a group. Of course, some of the time individuals might design a collective process.

(I only half remember, but wasn't that the source of some "disagreement" in Stockhausen's group over Aus den sieben tagen? and arguments between Young and Conrad over the Day of Niagra CD?)

[doversoul1]

... " "All that sounds fascinating, oh is that the time? You'll have to excuse me, I have an important phone call to make."

…meaning ‘Ah, yes. Classical music. No thanks’

I suppose this is the sort of thing you mean, MrGG, but does changing the name make any difference? ‘ah yes, what you used to call classical music. No thanks’

[MrGongGong]

…meaning ‘Ah, yes. Classical music. No thanks’

I suppose this is the sort of thing you mean, MrGG, but does changing the name make any difference? ‘ah yes, what you used to call classical music. No thanks’

I think it does make a difference if you are trying to encourage people to listen to new things.

(I'm sure i've told this story before? so apologies for repetition ........ or maybe no apologies mr Riley?)

Several years ago I was involved in composing a piece for a large symphony orchestra to be part of the reopening of a concert hall. Some of the process consisted of working with 9 and 10 year olds to generate ideas (working with players from the orchestra as well as the groups playing in school) that would become elements of the piece. There were six groups, a performance can only have one beginning so I was trying to think about how I could make the start of the whole piece work with ideas from 6 groups of about 30 people. One of the things I did was to play lots of openings of pieces to talk (and then make) about how music could begin. Things like the opening of Rheingold. Black Angels, So What, some Carl Stalling, some Gabrielli, Le Grand Macabre and Mahler 5.
So before playing the examples I asked one group what they thought the opening should be like?
The answers were along the lines of, "jazzy, cool, loud, surprising" and so on, but also "Jazz, Hip Hop, Rock" but (and I do remember the exact words of this bit) "Not Classical, no, that's boring".

So when we listened and talked about what we thought about each of the openings there were lots of interesting thoughts, particularly when we got to the Mahler!

"Yes, Yes, that's the one, we should make it sound like that, it's a really dramatic start".

In my experience the name can (not always) be too much of a mountain to get over.

[Richard Barrett]

wasn't that the source of some "disagreement" in Stockhausen's group over Aus den sieben tagen?

It was Vinko Globokar who refused to put his name to the recordings of Aus den sieben Tagen because he objected to Stockhausen's habit when sitting at the mixer of fading people out when he didn't think what they were doing was right for the musical concept. Would you describe AdsT as "devised"? It wasn't written together with performers, and it can be and is performed by people who've had no direct contact with the composer or with any previous performers. I just think that word introduces an unnecessary added complication.