"Classical Music" and other names for it

[ahinton]

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?

Nothing intrinsically wrong with "happy" and "sad" as long as it's understood from the outset that these are invariably mere basic generalisations as well as just two of so very many possible states of being; as long as they are, then no laziness need necessarily apply - it's down to how such terms are used and the amount of importance placed on them. Anyone who thinks, however, that they are somehow the equivalent of "black and white" (in the sense in which that expression is used by people who delude themselves into believing that there are only two sides anything) ought to remember Dorothy Parker's barb (allegedly directed against the acting of Katharine Hepburn, though some doubt remains as th the veracity of the attribution) that "she runs the whole gamut of emotions from A to B"...

[french frank]

Recall MrGG's anecdote earlier about people appreciating classical music when they weren't told it was classical.

So the reason for finding another name is that some (most, or whatever) people have an engrained prejudice against anything called 'classical music', rather than that the term is inadequate?

I don't think there's a problem until one gets towards the end of the 19th century. Or is there? Deciding that 'classical music' should be thrown out altogether as a term on the grounds that 20th century music becomes a melting pot seems a bit strange. Or pandering to people's prejudices rather than dispelling them.

[french frank]

An invaluable tool in developing language and communication skills.

Could be demanded from Radio 3 which currently encourages people to share 'how it makes you feel'.

[Beef Oven!]

............... pandering to people's prejudices rather than dispelling them.

The Mahler story in the classroom that MrGG retailed, is a good example of an opportunity to dispel prejudice.

[Serial_Apologist]

So the reason for finding another name is that some (most, or whatever) people have an engrained prejudice against anything called 'classical music', rather than that the term is inadequate?

I don't think there's a problem until one gets towards the end of the 19th century. Or is there? Deciding that 'classical music' should be thrown out altogether as a term on the grounds that 20th century music becomes a melting pot seems a bit strange. Or pandering to people's prejudices rather than dispelling them.

Well there was "light music" in the 19th century, orchestral music in which the tune is more important than what is done with it, if you'd so describe Delibes' "Coppelia", the G&S operettas, waltz sequences and the like by the Strausses - not to mention Music Hall catering for "the masses".

[P. G. Tipps]

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?

... and, even worse, presumably these new cliches would have to be approved by those in 'authoritarian power'?

What a quite dreadful and even scary prospect. Poor old Dimitri & Co will be doing double somersaults in their graves at the very idea.

[Richard Barrett]

So the reason for finding another name is that some (most, or whatever) people have an engrained prejudice against anything called 'classical music', rather than that the term is inadequate?

Not the reason, but a reason.

I don't think there's a problem until one gets towards the end of the 19th century.

But we're in the 21st!

[ahinton]

Well there was "light music" in the 19th century, orchestral music in which the tune is more important than what is done with it, if you'd so describe Delibes' "Coppelia", the G&S operettas, waltz sequences and the like by the Strausses - not to mention Music Hall catering for "the masses".

Indeed - and, whre the last of these is concerned, the plot (if ever there really was one) might be thought to have thickened in view of the respect and admiration that the waltzes, polkas, &c. of Johann Strauss II in particular attracted from composers as diverse as Wagner, Bruckner, Brahms, Mahler, Busoni and the luminaries of the Second Viennese School...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Could be demanded from Radio 3 which currently encourages people to share 'how it makes you feel'.

"How do you feel?" is something picked up from journalists, interviewing victims of terrible tragedies.. I would like to reply, "Mind your own business", but there are enough people around who are prepared to pander to these people.

[Serial_Apologist]

Indeed - and, whre the last of these is concerned, the plot (if ever there really was one) might be thought to have thickened in view of the respect and admiration that the waltzes, polkas, &c. of Johann Strauss II in particular attracted from composers as diverse as Wagner, Bruckner, Brahms, Mahler, Busoni and the luminaries of the Second Viennese School...

Indeed. I should perhaps have added for french frank's sake the folksong revivals that took place towards the end of the 19th century.

Unlike Richard's, my own collection of recordings is subdivided between classical and jazz, each category being stored in a different place, and again subdivided into vinyl and CDs. The classical recordings I have stored in composer surname alphabetical order, and the jazz chronologically, from 1919 to date. One day a friend observed that I only possess two albums of Reggae music, to which I replied that given the range of music available and one's limited lifespan I had decided early on to concentrate on these two fields; the few rock, improv and other non-jazz albums I have compromised on by sandwiching them in among the jazz ones.

From this it can be seen that until this question of whether or not certain musics fall within a classical definition had resolved itself simplistically in my mind. The way I see it is that jazz takes from whatever other classes of music it sees as compatible with itself and adapts them on its own terms. Presumably this is what composers in the classical field have done: Ravel's remark that the Blues movement in his Violin Sonata is not a real blues, and anyone hearing it can tell as such provides such an example; and yet for all its departure from, or watering down of, the blues form Ravel has adapted, for me it is more infused with the feel and spirit of blues than Milhaud's "La creation du monde" or a good many poor pastiches in pop music, for instance, though the last movement of Stravinsky's "Ebony Concerto" is pretty faithful to its harmonic ambiance - and that of Gospel music.

Possibly the first time the issue becomes more ambiguous is with the coming of Third Stream in the late 1950s, where one finds collaborations between orchestras and jazz ensembles or at least soloists in which it is impossible to say definitely which vernacular takes precedence: Ornette Coleman's "Skies of America" of 1972 comes immediately to mind.

[french frank]

Quote Originally Posted by french frank View Post
I don't think there's a problem until one gets towards the end of the 19th century.

But we're in the 21st!

But my point was that before the end of the 19thc, there was the music of the beginning of the 19th c, 18th c, 17th c, 16th c, 15th c, 14th c, 13th c and a bittie further back than that, which commonly shelters under the (protective) brolly of 'classical music'. So, I was suggesting that the use of the term 'classical' was uncontroversial until the end of the 19th c. Renaming the whole lot because:

a) some people are prejudiced against what they think of as 'classical music' and

b) the last century and a half have been a musical melting pot

seemed a bit extreme and would throw out a term which, while embracing a whole lot of differing styles (most of which saw 'transitional' phases linking one to the next), represents a positive and reasonably clear idea to many. Especially as no one seems able to come with anything better.

[ahinton]

no one seems able to come with anything better.

This seems to me to be the nub of the argument; I cannot think of one and those that have so far been put forward in a thread now exceeding 200 posts seem largely to convince neither me nor any other contributor. Whether that should be seen as some kind of admission of defeat or something else remains open to question, of course but, in the meantime, although we're most of us agreed that the term "classical music" as it is commonly used is misleading and rife with shortcomings of one kind and another, if indeed it has an "image problem" then one might conclude from this thread that discussion of a suitable alternative seems to have one too!

[MrGongGong]

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)?

Yes, sometimes because (and you might find this hard to understand?) we pay people to be TEACHERS in order that they nurture and develop the people they teach. One idea of school is to learn about stuff you don't find outside, so if you live in a world where music is either "happy" or "sad" then a good teacher will encourage you to question and explore other possibilities, you know, use NEW WORDS, listen to NEW MUSIC (whether it's "Classical" or Tuvan Overtone singing)...

Did you never do English exercises at school where you were given words to use in context?

It's not the 1950's you don't get beaten senseless for saying that something is "happy" (though i'm sure some of our leaders would be all in favour)

[Daniel]

Yes, sometimes because (and you might find this hard to understand?) we pay people to be TEACHERS in order that they future and develop the people they teach. One idea of school is to learn about stuff you don't find outside, so if you live in a world where music is either "happy" or "sad" then a good teacher will encourage you to question and explore other possibilities, you know, use NEW WORDS, listen to NEW MUSIC (whether it's "Classical" or Tuvan Overtone singing)...

Did you never do English exercises at school where you were given words to use in context?

It's not the 1950's you don't get beaten senseless for saying that something is "happy" (though i'm sure some of our leaders would be all in favour)

That seems to be rude, patronising and ignore what I said. Do you really want me to answer?

The whole post was as follows:

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?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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?

I think I know what you mean by "new 'clichés'", Daniel - and these would be dealt with as they arise, later in the young person's education. A child of eight using "ecstatic" instead of "happy" is not [yet] using a cliché/"cliché"; s/he's discovering and implementing a word for the first time(s). If it just becomes a lazy "substitute" for "happy", then another word - for example, "euphoric" - would be introduced. And then the differences between "ecstatic" and "euphoric" would be explored, which develops language, and - one hopes - builds a more closely-examined relationship between the child's/teenager's emotional/psychological experiences and the ways they reflect internally upon these and communicate them to others.

Perhaps the word "banning" takes on an unpleasant aura that does not reflect what happens in the classrooms: no letters are sent home to parents; names are not read out in Assembly; scarlet letters are not sewn onto jumpers. It's a game - not unlike not being allowed to use the word "said" in a passage of dialogue: a "tool", as I said in the post you quoted. Kids are not given detention for not singing "Euphoric Birthday to you"! It's more a case of their being given a set of (temporary) rules to channel their imaginations into exploring a wider vocabulary.

Happy now?