"Classical Music" and other names for it

[NatBalance]

NatBalance, I don't wish to pursue an aggressive line of questioning but I don't really see why possible responses to my questions hinge on whether your description/definition is partial or not.

Well I think it does because your questions relate to another needed definition of classical music which my definition does not cover. The key word in my sentence "Classical - the music itself can say what it wants to say without words" is the word 'can'. I'll study the rest of your post again later and describe what I mean by the 'music itself'.

[french frank]

Isn't an important 'division' between the various genres individual taste? 'People' like 'classical' and nothing else; 'people' like jazz and nothing else; 'people' like pop, metal, hiphop &c and don't stray too far away from those sounds. It makes sense for 'people' to know that they can hear 'classical music' on Radio 3, hip-hop on 1Xtra, discriminating/off-the-wall/left field/intelligent &c. &c. popular on 6 Music. Broad categories are needed if for no other reason that for 'most people' 'music' is not universally loved: some music is widely hated by 'some people': talentless, boring, infuriating blah blah blah …

The bulk of (surviving/recorded) music which dates back to before 1900 will be 'classical' of some sort, won't it, the various styles being telescoped into a single genre with the label 'classical'? After that it either continues to be classical - RVW, Sibelius, Shostakovich et al - or is either 'not classical', 'pop' &c 'rubbish' ("not even music") &c .

Isn't it only the music from the 20th century onwards that becomes impossible to categorise? Doesn't the difficulty lie in assigning all this music to one category or another?

[P. G. Tipps]

Because to simply use "happy" and "sad" as descriptors of music is superficial and lazy.
Along with the nonsense about minor and major keys being "happy" and "sad".

Maybe, according to your personal opinion, and nobody would object to that ... but BANNING such easy terms from the classroom is a different matter altogether, and indeed one might assume would be anathema to all those wishing to make 'classical music' more approachable and accessible to the wider public?

[MrGongGong]

Maybe, according to your personal opinion, and nobody would object to that ... but BANNING such easy terms from the classroom is a different matter altogether, and indeed one might assume would be anathema to all those wishing to make 'classical music' more approachable and accessible to the wider public?

No

If you want people to engage with listening to and talking about music then you need to engage with developing a language to talk about such things.
Music is much more nuanced than "happy" and "sad" which are just "Empty Words" (have you read it?)

[french frank]

If you want people to engage with listening to and talking about music then you need to engage with developing a language to talk about such things.

What if you want them to listen to a particular kind of music, and talk about it - not just music in a generalised way? What if you've developed a language for it but are told: 'No, no: music is just music.' This is why I see it as linguistic fascism to tell people they can't talk about music in one way - they've got to talk and think about it in a different way. For their own benefit …

[MrGongGong]

What if you want them to listen to a particular kind of music, and talk about it - not just music in a generalised way? What if you've developed a language for it but are told: 'No, no: music is just music.' This is why I see it as linguistic fascism to tell people they can't talk about music in one way - they've got to talk and think about it in a different way. For their own benefit …

Excluding cliches is useful technique that's all.
If you want to get people to talk about a particular kind of music (so at the moment I am listening to Shostakovich (Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra Conducted by Kirill Kondrashin via Youtube, very loud!) encouraging them to use words more than "happy" and "sad" is a good way to go IMV.

So, Prof Tipps which should I choose for the Shostakovich ? I'm a bit confused because it's neither, and both and more.

[Richard Barrett]

'People' like 'classical' and nothing else; 'people' like jazz and nothing else; 'people' like pop, metal, hiphop &c and don't stray too far away from those sounds.

Some 'people' do (Ian Thumwood for example ) but do most people? Think back to the complaints (ignored of course) when "Mixing It" was taken off the air. That was one of my favourite radio programmes, mainly because you had no idea what was going to come up next, or indeed whether you'd "like" it, although actually it had a better "like" rate with me than most of R3 on account of never playing any Delius (to name but one).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If you want people to engage with listening to and talking about music then you need to engage with developing a language to talk about such things.
Music is much more nuanced than "happy" and "sad" which are just "Empty Words"

Indeed - and it's not just in Music lessons that such vocabulary is discouraged; anybody over the age of seven is encouraged to develop a more nuanced vocabulary, such that by the time they reach secondary school, kids will only use "happy" and "sad" in an ironic if not derisory manner. It is only in Music lessons that their vocabulary is so retarded (in the literal sense of that word) that they have to fall back to such literally infantile descriptions. Telling young teenagers that the words are "banned" connects with their sense of irony and they readily accept the need for better (more appropriate, more adequate) epithets AND the challenge to discover what these might be for them.

[NatBalance]

Excluding cliches is useful technique that's all.
If you want to get people to talk about a particular kind of music (so at the moment I am listening to Shostakovich (Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra Conducted by Kirill Kondrashin via Youtube, very loud!) encouraging them to use words more than "happy" and "sad" is a good way to go IMV.

So, Prof Tipps which should I choose for the Shostakovich ? I'm a bit confused because it's neither, and both and more.

Actually, I only used the terms 'happy' and 'sad' related to pop music. Classical needs more words. A realize those two words are even simplistic for pop music but I think it is a good idea when trying to solve a problem to bring it to the simplest terms possible ..... THEN you can get HEAVY. I hope the fact that no one else is daring to have a go at trying to actually define classical music is a sign that they are taking time to have a good think about it.

Yes .... thought that was the reason :)

[Beef Oven!]

I hope the fact that no one else is daring to have a go at trying to actually define classical music is a sign that they are taking time to have a good think about it.

Yes .... thought that was the reason :)

[french frank]

Some 'people' do (Ian Thumwood for example ) but do most people?

The single quote was designed to suggest a generalisation rather than a considered statement of … 'fact'! 'Most people' probably do because unless you start breaking up contemporary popular into its separate sub-genres 'most people' know nothing except one of the varieties of post war popular, now mainly linked to the big names. Plus a piece of film music if they've been to a blockbuster. I judge only by the under 40s in our family. Friends do seem to gravitate between either jazz or classical, with a few having no particular interest in music at all.

As for clichés, they become clichés because what they express is a commonly held view/feeling, what people can recognise and readily relate to. In some contexts they're to be avoided but I should think that in others they do have an effective use.

[P. G. Tipps]

Excluding cliches is useful technique that's all.
If you want to get people to talk about a particular kind of music (so at the moment I am listening to Shostakovich (Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra Conducted by Kirill Kondrashin via Youtube, very loud!) encouraging them to use words more than "happy" and "sad" is a good way to go IMV.

So, Prof Tipps which should I choose for the Shostakovich ? I'm a bit confused because it's neither, and both and more.

Well, of course, you can choose whatever label you wish, MrGG, it's not the business of 'Proff Tipps' or anybody else to advise you on the matter. I simply urge you to consider the possibility that what seems right to you may not be shared by others, and for everyone to feel free to describe a piece of music in any way they see fit?

As for Shostakovich, like most composers his music can reflect a variety of moods to the listener, and if the end of his popular Fifth Symphony can be described as either 'triumphant' or 'defiant' (according to personal interpretation), why on earth can we not describe music as being 'happy' or 'sad'?

FF uses the term 'linguistic fascism' to describe an attempt to ban the use of such words ... heavens, I would never dare use such an uncharitable term, myself! ... but alongside that, is it not also 'cultural elitism' of the highest (or lowest) order?

Questions, questions, questions, Mr GG!

[french frank]

Bill Gates Desert Island Discs this week(?)

(By 'fascism' I was thinking of classical 'fasces' which was at the root of the word: the symbol of authoritarian power)

[Richard Barrett]

As for clichés, they become clichés because what they express is a commonly held view/feeling, what people can recognise and readily relate to. In some contexts they're to be avoided but I should think that in others they do have an effective use.

What are you, some kind of Liberal Democrat?

[P. G. Tipps]

(By 'fascism' I was thinking of classical 'fasces' which was at the root of the word: the symbol of authoritarian power

'Authoritarian power' will do nicely ... that contradiction within an allegedly liberal society seems stark.