"Classical Music" and other names for it

[verismissimo]

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?)

And, PGT, it's a simple way for teachers to assert their superior intellect and role. Even lazy, one might think.

[Richard Barrett]

But seriously,

Excluding cliches

is a really important point I think. Recall MrGG's anecdote earlier about people appreciating classical music when they weren't told it was classical. Clichés are often "commonly held" because too many people's experience is too narrow.

[french frank]

What are you, some kind of Liberal Democrat?

No politics, please, Richard

[Serial_Apologist]

Wait - I've got the solution to this problem of classical or not classical music.

Let's call all the music composed in the evolving European church and concert hall tradition from say Machaut on to the present "classical music".

Musical sub-types under the "classical" heading would include:

Symphonies, concertos, organ, chamber and electrophonic musics, military band music, opera and music for ballet, and, where necessary (as in "Die Soldaten") any mixture of the above, but always predominating over strictly non-western types, e.g. jazz, rock, "world".

And let's call the part of that music tradition from approximately 1750 to 1820 "Classical music", with a capital C.

Once this was agreed people would be expected to familiarise themselves with the subgenres listed under the "classical music" label.

This principle could be applied to other historical eras within the "western canon", eg. Romantic to distinguish say Tchaikovsky from "romantic" eg Charles Aznavour.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Let's call all the music composed in the evolving European church and concert hall tradition from say Machaut on to the present "classical music".

Why leave it as late as that? How would you then describe the modal Tracts of the Eighth Century CE, or earlier Music?

[Serial_Apologist]

Why leave it as late as that? How would you then describe the modal Tracts of the Eighth Century CE, or earlier Music?

Well ferney we can expand back in time - the main thing is to agree on the general principle.

Edit: come to think of it, since at some point it becomes difficult to differentiate "western classical" from near-Eastern forms, perhaps we could decide on settings in ancient Greek or Latin as providing a cut-off point.

[Beef Oven!]

Wait - I've got the solution to this problem of classical or not classical music.

Let's call all the music composed in the evolving European church and concert hall tradition from say Machaut on to the present "classical music".

Musical sub-types under the "classical" heading would include:

Symphonies, concertos, organ, chamber and electrophonic musics, military band music, opera and music for ballet, and, where necessary (as in "Die Soldaten") any mixture of the above.

And let's call the part of that music tradition from approximately 1750 to 1820 "Classical music", with a capital C.

Once this was agreed people would be expected to familiarise themselves with the subgenres listed under the "classical music" label.

This IMV, is the way through. Of course it requires two interconnected conditions; that people approach the 'tweaking' of the sub-types with the view of making them work, rather than finding exceptions to 'disprove' the definition; and there is a desire to reach agreement on a shared definition in general terms, rather than constantly seeking snags that might scupper a consensus.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Edit: come to think of it, since at some point it becomes difficult to differentiate "western classical" from near-Eastern forms, perhaps we could decide on settings in ancient Greek or Latin as providing a cut-off point.

Indeed - it is one of those ironies that the chief origins of what became the Western Classical Traditions were the plainchants originating with the Jewish followers of Christ in Palestine.

[Richard Barrett]

I don't see how we can come up with a better word for it if we can't actually describe what defines it.

Exactly!!!

The word "classical" implies a certain conservatism, I'm sure I don't need to explain why, although in fact most of the composers in the "canon" I mentioned previously were, in their different ways, mould-breakers so to speak. Of course most "pop" music is conservative too, following fashion rather than creating it, and of course the typical harmonic structure of a popular song has arguably changed little in hundreds of years. Where you draw the line between genres is dependent on what angle of approach you're taking. We see this with "composed music" in the original article under discussion. If you look at how the music was made you might think there's a case for drawing the line in the particular place described by that author. If you look at what it sounds like you might draw it somewhere else. If you look at its relationship to the surrounding culture at a particular moment in history you're draw it somewhere else again, and somewhere else yet again at a different moment in history. So in a more general sense there's nowhere to put the line. I have all my CDs in alphabetical order of composers. Janáček comes after Iskra 1903 and before Japan for example. I feel that the less we try to define musical genres, the more interesting and creative our listening experience becomes.

[MrGongGong]

But seriously, is a really important point I think. Recall MrGG's anecdote earlier about people appreciating classical music when they weren't told it was classical. Clichés are often "commonly held" because too many people's experience is too narrow.

This is why I do think another word is needed.
I'm not totally convinced by "composed" BUT it's better than "classical" for many of the more recent musics it refers to.

[Beef Oven!]

This is why I do think another word is needed.
I'm not totally convinced by "composed" BUT it's better than "classical" for many of the more recent musics it refers to.

But your Mahler experience in the class is just one aspect. There are plenty of other instances where using the term 'classical' is positive. Which leads me to believe that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the name, nor has it been cliched beyond repair.

[Daniel]

Because to simply use "happy" and "sad" as descriptors of music is superficial and lazy.

I'm not so sure about happy and sad quite qualifying as cliches, or superficial and lazy. They are sometimes beginnings, as other words are.

And I think one could argue our purest and most vivid experience of things come when we are young children and don't feel the need to define things linguistically. One could also say that once you start attempting to define anything in language you risk distancing yourself from it, putting it into a suit of clothes in which it does not necessarily belong. It just depends I think.

For some, linguistic complexity/variety clearly enhances their connection with music and other things. For others language is oftimes a barrier to experience. Such a thing doesn't indicate stupidity, merely a different means of processing/making sense of phenomena. Analytical thought doesn't need to take place in the form of language. Simple words can say and mean a lot more to a user than sophisticated ones. The oblique and metaphorical nature of language in relation to the things it describes, sometimes means a simple word can have a richer and more diverse meaning than something more complex in its implications.

I agree about encouraging uncliched thinking in your subsequent post, but your strictures about banning happy or sad from the classroom seem a bit extreme. Is 'jolly' off the list too? Lazy thinking is lazy thinking, people who use arcane language can be cliched and lazy thinkers too. (Indeed, thinking itself at times could be considered an evasion of confronting what it is to be alive, and thus a form of laziness.)

[MrGongGong]

but your strictures about banning happy or sad from the classroom seem a bit extreme.

I'm not a teacher and I don't really have 'strictures' but I would try to avoid using those words (as I would avoid using the word "soft" to indicate a dynamic) as in my experience they are used when people aren't really thinking very much about what they are actually listening to.

(I was merely commenting on what is common practice in many of the schools I visit)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

(I was merely commenting on what is common practice in many of the schools I visit)

- post-Reception Primary and Secondary alike, and across the curriculum. An invaluable tool in developing language and communication skills.

[Daniel]

- post-Reception Primary and Secondary alike, and across the curriculum. An invaluable tool in developing language and communication skills.

I don't get this. If a child says 'I think that piece of music sounds happy', it's suggested to them it's not sufficient/ doesn't sufficiently describe their feelings and they'll need to find something different (or words to that effect)? Obviously if they say it sounds happy and then are encouraged to go further and explore other ways of seeing it, that's great. But does one need to ban happy/sad for that to happen. Surely new 'cliches' will just arise in their place?