"Classical Music" and other names for it

[french frank]

Discipline is "fun"!

Pah! I said "stop just being fun" implying that, though discipline may indeed be fun (and none agrees with that sentiment more than I), it is more that just fun. Also, 'a discipline', with the indefinite article, connotes something more than 'discipline' tout court, does not it?

[ahinton]

"Strange how potent cheap music is."

Thus Mr Coward, describing music that wd not be accepted as 'classical'.

I suggest we use this example, and re-classify 'classical music' as - 'expensive music'.

Or perhaps, taking note of how supermarkets brand their high-end stuff : 'taste the difference music'

Good points all, but I think that I'd prefer the Waitrose equivalent, namely "essential music" (beats "every little bar helps", "lightening the texture", "spend a little, listen a lot", live well with more music" or "where quality music is cheaper" every time, methinks) - but a suitable alternative to "Classical Music" would seem to continue to elude us all; I wonder if the answer might be for the Breakfast programme to run a competition for the best term to replace "Classical Music", with answers in the form of tweets, emails, phone calls or texts and a first prize of a gold leather bound copy of Sarah Walker's 1995 PhD dissertation Ecelcticism, Postmodernism, Subversion: New Perspectives on English Experimental Music and a choice of booby prize between an evening with Clemmy or a night out dancing with Katie.

[ahinton]

Don't think it was ever excluded, though, ah.

Well, I'd have to take your word for that.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Pah! I said "stop just being fun" implying that, though discipline may indeed be fun (and none agrees with that sentiment more than I), it is more that just fun.

I see your "pah!" and raise you a "pish!" - when is it ever "just fun"?

Also, 'a discipline', with the indefinite article, connotes something more than 'discipline' tout court, does not it?

Yer got me there! So, to offer an answer (something more than "answer" tout mange) to your original question (At what age does Music stop just being fun and become a discipline?) - at whatever age a person begins to study it seriously: could be three, could be thirty, could be ninety ('tho' they'd have to get a move on by that age). A person grabbed by their enjoyment of a subject (not just Music - as I keep saying - a language, or Drama, or Biochemistry, or History, or Sculpture, or Knitting .... ) wants to get further into it and takes the requisite discipline upon themselves to the measure to which they want to take it.

... or not: as I'm constantly being reminded on this very Forum, Music can be enjoyed just from passive listening alone - it's frequently stated that some such listeners are scared that the "magic" of their listening experience might be lost if they become aware of the "Theory" behind it (a statement I find as bizarre as suggesting that Biology lessons make Sex less enjoyable). Not everybody wishes (or has time) to develop the discipline side of serious study - teachers (of all subjects) put the joys of their subject on display and hope that as many students will realize that this could be a significant aspect of their lives; one they hadn't thought was "for them" before.

[Richard Barrett]

Music can be enjoyed just from passive listening alone - it's frequently stated that some such listeners are scared that the "magic" of their listening experience might be lost if they become aware of the "Theory" behind it

It seems to me that you can never get to the end of learning about the "Theory", and that the further you do get, the more mysterious and magical the whole thing becomes, enough to fill several lifetimes I think.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It seems to me that you can never get to the end of learning about the "Theory", and that the further you do get, the more mysterious and magical the whole thing becomes, enough to fill several lifetimes I think.

- absolutely. (David Attenborough said exactly the same thing about Biology, btw.)