Do you like the term 'Classical Music'?

[opus10no2]

The word classical implies tradition and oldness, but the great 'classical' works were innovative,  defying tradition, and more musically advanced than most modern popular music.

[imbetter]

i hate the term

[opus10no2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_classical_music

and the word classical-
'of or characteristic of a form or system felt to be of first significance before modern times'

[m1469]

In some sense I like it because it seems sophisticated (I know, this is a controversial thing to say), but, in a few other senses I don't care for it.  For example, the word "Classical" also means a certain style within a huge body of works within several eras, so the term is just not as inclusive as I would like it to be.

And then, I start thinking along the lines of ... what do I feel would go into the broad definition of "Classical Music" ?  As you say, Opus, the music then was innovative, and new -- it was modern music of the time.

Plus ... well, I think I am half drunk so I will stop talking now.

[opus10no2]

Plus ... well, I think I am half drunk so I will stop talking now.

Well, that's a good reason for you to continue 

Thing is, also, 'contemporary classical music' just sounds HILARIOUS to any n00bs out there.
It's like a moron of the purely OXY kind.

The reason I passionately dislike the term is because it is used so freely and ignorantly by people who know nothing of it, or the definition of it.

Also it is an extremely flawed term, try to look for absolute definitions and you'll always find an exception.

Ok, one springs to mind - complexity.

But then, consider Glass and Satie - simple music, called 'classical'.

Dream Theater, Spock's Beard - prog rock, more complex music, called 'popular music'.

I have really tried to think of a better term, categories are convenient, but alot of the greatest music defies categorisation.

We talk in an insular community here, but go to a general music forum and ask for their thoughts and definitions of 'classical music', it can be a real eye-opener, and an infuriating one at that.

[Bob]

It seems a little too general to me.

[opus10no2]

It seems a little too general to me.

And in another way not general at all, I mean it includes so much , and excludes so much also, depending how you see it.

Some things to think about -

Is 'classical music' when performed on 'pop' intstruments still 'classical music'?

Is 'crossover classical' - ie. small sections of great works cut and repeated in the form of a popular song - 'classical music'?

Do you prefer the terms 'art music' and 'serious music' or are they just as flawed?

[mikey6]

In absolutely the broadest terms we have classical music and pop sh*t.  However thinking that people break up every 2 or 3 years into a new term - techno, Disco, RnB, Hip Hop etc-  it's rather frustrating that everyone can't learn and utilize the names of historical periods.

[counterpoint]

The word classical implies tradition and oldness, but the great 'classical' works were innovative,  defying tradition, and more musically advanced than most modern popular music.

I agree to 100 %

On the other hand, the word "classical" defines something of high quality - and in this sense, it's a very appropriate word.

[jlh]

In absolutely the broadest terms we have classical music and pop sh*t.  However thinking that people break up every 2 or 3 years into a new term - techno, Disco, RnB, Hip Hop etc-  it's rather frustrating that everyone can't learn and utilize the names of historical periods.

The problem with the term classical is that it is thrown around so much by people to include anything of an academic nature that is not jazz.  I feel sorry for people who are trying to be "crossover artists".  How are they supposed to market their work?  Classical? Jazz? Rock? Record stores don't know where to put their CD's!!

I don't think like some that pop and rock are pure sh*t.  I actually like that kind of music if it's done well and actual thought has gone into it by real musicians.  That's why I dislike most rap and punk.  I think one reason I like rock-type stuff is because I've worked behind the scenes with sound and lighting, been a record engineer and played with a few bands as well.  I sing too, so it's nice sometimes to go to a karaoke bar and just sing anything out of the book because the vocal lines are easy compared to "classical" songs.  HAHA I just used that term in an all-inclusive way....  

[jabbz]

I like classical muic, but I've also found myself using the term 'Art music' plenty.

[mephisto]

I hate the term to. What about erudite music?

[nicco]

What about like...old tunes

[counterpoint]

what about 'revolutionary music'?

[mephisto]

What about like...old tunes

:whale:

Seriously I hate the way in wich most people think of classical music as old-music, when in fact it is written by people who are still living, and will be written long after all of us are dead.

[oscarr111111]

I think 'classical music' fits, but I don't like the association with upper class snobbery.

I despise the term 'popular music' because because I feel it implies that it is in some way better to other music, it should be referred to as 'commercial music' or something along those lines.

[phil13]

No. The term 'classical music' should, ideally, be meant for the Classical era. 

I wonder what everybody thinks of the term 'longhair'.

Phil

[pianistimo]

upper class snobbery?  and you prefer period instruments?  i have a feeling this is some kind of test.  a trick question.  if you don't like period instruments and you think it's ok for any music with a sort of classical form or classical sound to be included in 'classical music' - and you are not a beatnik - you are elite.  enjoy it while it lasts.

[oscarr111111]

upper class snobbery?  and you prefer period instruments?  i have a feeling this is some kind of test.  a trick question.  if you don't like period instruments and you think it's ok for any music with a sort of classical form or classical sound to be included in 'classical music' - and you are not a beatnik - you are elite.  enjoy it while it lasts.

Go re-read my posts.

[pianistimo]

why.  did you change them?

[oscarr111111]

why.  did you change them?

No, I posted a new one explaining what you'd misinterpreted in it.

[soliloquy]

I don't mind it, although I hate having to try to concisely articulate what sort of music I personally listen to (modern classical) to people who don't listen to any classical, because I don't like to just say I listen to "Classical" music, because that carries (to them) the connotation of Mozart and Bach, and I don't like to say "Contemporary" music, because there is a genre of music in popular music called contemporary, so I usually end up having to give them youtube links to Xenakis =/

[jakev2.0]

The word classical implies tradition and oldness, but the great 'classical' works were innovative,  defying tradition, and more musically advanced than most modern popular music.

I agree 100%.

When someone asks me "Oh...you like classical music?"...I recoil.

A phrase that attempts to describe over three centuries and styles as diverse as those from Gesualdo, Debussy, Haydn, Wagner, Bach, Medtner, Scarlatti, Debussy, Prokofiev, Handel...is just NOT sufficient.

Hell, "classical" isn't really useful to describe more than Haydn , most of Mozart and the dudes like them. You can't convince me late Schubert sonatas or Beethoven quartets are "classical".

[danny elfboy]

The term classical is meaningless and tautological.
Given enough time even Bryan Adams could be one day considered "classical" compared to the "contemporary".

Classical is nothing but a chronological term and that's what make it so useless.
In my opinion the only meaningful terms to describe a style of music are those terms that are/can be used by the authors when the music is contemporary.
So for example rock'n'roll was rock'n'roll for the rock'n'rollers.
Nothing written by the "classical" authors was "classical" for them.

Classical can be compared to "pop" in that they both are not terms descriptive of the style but of extra-musical and extra-stylistical concepts like chronological time and level of popularity.

Just like given enough time whatever kind of music can become "classical" (in fact many are already using the term "classical" form 80's electro-pop music) given enough chance-popularity whatever niche style can get within the definition "pop"

Within the "pop" category have been songs that actually belong to specific styles like: experimental electronic, ambient, ethnic, new-age, lounge, soundtrack, celtic, ballad, country, chanson, metal, gothic, happy hardcore, dream, progressive, jungle, chillout, downbeat, punk, house, new beat, coldwave, rap, R&B ....

I would get rid of the terms classical, contemporary and pop once and for all.

Anyway the search for alternative terms should not make us fall prey of the same mistake of using extra-musical and extra-stylistical (enterily subjective and biased) terms. If using chronology or popularity as criteria as criteria even more is using biased concept like "value" or "quality" or "seriousness" or "importance"

To philosophically look for an objective degree of such criteria is unteanable and self-contradictory as shown by the failure of such attempt.

[rc]

hahah, yes, that's why we keep it.

The main thing is that we know what people mean by it, and by context we also know when they're being more specific.  Useful.

When somebody asks me what music I like, I tell them classical, because they will basically understand what I mean.  I don't expect random people to know the difference between Bach, Haydn and Prokofiev (I like them all so using the general term classical is accurate anyhow ).  Anything more they need to know can be explained in the music itself.

Nobody wants to be lectured on the words they use, especially when their meaning is clear.