the term "classical," as applied to music, has been debased out of all recognition

I know that "classical" is only one type of the music we call "classical," and I know that some buffs frown on its more general use, but what is a better general term for what most people understand to be "classical music"? I for one would be happy to change, but I've never been given a better option.

I agree, Flats. Seems the way I encounter this frown most often is when people are particularly keen to assert their sense of ownership of the music heritage. Separating out lexical meaning and personal 'positioning' is one of the things that fascinates me about use of language.

I know that "classical" is only one type of the music we call "classical," … but what is a better general term ?

That which we laughingly refer to as serious music.


Or as Rhuby so aptly states it: Except amongst people like musick and I, of course [with inlcusion of what is, no doubt, the irony icon ()]

Of or relating to European music during the latter half of the 18th and the early 19th centuries.
Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition
serious music

Yet Another example of meaning shift. I am continually surprised at how we all* take take so much pride of ownership in what are, in the final dusk of day, only received definitions (or as mav characterized it so finely, personal "positioning").
-ron obvious

*me too!

surprised enough, obviously, to do a double-take.

Being a fan of "classical" music myself, I can tell you establishing a commonly-accepted word for it is hopeless. We know that there are two senses of the word; the strict sense which refers to Mozart et al, and the general sense which covers music from Josquin des Pres to Philip Glass, but with notable exclusions. You can't even get agreement on what constitutes classical music in the broad sense. Does it include Scott Joplin? J.P. Souza? Paul Simon? Stephen Foster? If not, why not? Until music lovers can get general agreement on what is and is not classical music in the broad sense, you can't expect to agree on a label for it.

I believe terms we can all agree on here will be descriptive, and therefore eliminate the use of "classical" for anything else but it's original (specific) musical reference. The style of music is the easiest way for *all to agree, and it is those unfamiliar (especially ones that organize music stores and (shame on you) radio stations) that make the decision to group all these together. You can't find Elvis and Brubeck (not the best example I'm sure) in the same stack (or on the same radio hz) for specific reasons... not instrumentation and not year of popularity... yet these distinctions become obvious only when familiar with both. I'm not sure if an acceptance of grouping Madrigals and what-ever-it-is-that-we-can-call-what-Philip Glass-composes together isn't adding "logs to the fire". The broader term "classical" comes directly out of not being *prone to recognize the difference, a laziness turned acceptance (perhaps)... (with no doubt) a definition after the true 'classical period' definition was *firmly in place...

Even the afore mentioned other uses of the broader term classical seem to be more specific than this musical use, and I'm only slightly perplexed as to why being specific here is different than all the other instances on this board where (G-d forbid) certain lines are crossed...

What was the AHD "thinking" when it allowed the qualifier "European tradition" into "the" book (don't start this one now, save it for a rainy day-shutting myself down-e).

...are particularly keen to assert their sense of ownership of the music heritage. Separating out lexical meaning and personal 'positioning'... Now, which music heritage are we talking about?

...commonly placed in apposition to 'popular', so you just have to discriminate based on the nature of the conversation... I do agree. However, rarely will I have a discussion (since someone brought up personal positioning) where the distinction between classical and popular is clear enough within my understanding of the words for them to make their point. When asked to be more specific, they usually can and do (or I do for them). If Scott Joplin (who is a classical representation of a specific style) and Josquin des Pres (is as well) are to be collected into a 'term' (still wondering why would we) it should be "classic music" (not classical) (are we back to the "functionality" arguement?)... besides, all classic music was popular at one point (he-he-he).

.. and on top of all this meandering, no one else commented about "painfully careful".

Jazz! (in case you think we really have a problem with *classical, Bob)

To demonstrate my earlier point about meaning in context, I am a trustee of a small charity devoted to widening access to music (especially for young people). I have no particular problem in practice, talking to say the Arts Council about "early music" or say the general public about "classical music". Each context has constructed its own range of language and accepted meanings - it is the normal sensitivity we are all likely to show in using a different 'voice' when requesting a loan from our bankers compared to asking our partner to gis some munny The only problems tend to occur when one community impacts on the discourse of another, and then the architecture gets rearranged...

I feel like underwhelm is a nice word. It may be an imaginary word, but I think that if it is used correctly, it could be effective.

Underwhelmed: the anti-thesis of being overwhelmed... to be overly comfortable with the amount of understanding/work/thought/creativity required by something. Where overly comfortable is irritating in the same manner that being overwhelmed is irritating.

How does that sound?

How does that sound?

underwhelming

Dear NoEffects -- Welcome aBoard!
I tend to parables myself and so to illustrate use of underwhelm :
Mother is expecting a ticket for a luxury cruise to England aboard the QE II for her birthday, Instead, the adult children present her with a ticket on a local river cruise.
Mother is undewhelmed. (Of course she smiles and says thank you...never letting on. That's what Mothers do!)
It's an oddly American usage, I think.

I think that "uniquely" American usage of underwhelm works, but I think that overwhelmed can be more than just an overload of expectations realized, etc. Like when one is dealing with a lot of work and deadlines and such, they experience a feeling of being overwhelmed with pressure and responsibility. I think that underwhelm could also apply to someone who is wanting of more responsibility/work... it can express their displeasure with having so little responsibility.

Ex. Sarah's children have finally grown up and left the house. She now feels underwhelmed with the work left to do around the house. She misses her tiresome chores and nagging dilemmas.

Thank you for the nice welcome. I was just told about this site a week or so ago, and I like what I see so far.

Hi, NE - please treat my little joke in the spirit intended, as welcoming you to the nuthouse like one of the family!

I am not so sure this is uniquely USnism. In contrast to Rhuby, as a Brit I am very comfortable with this as a distinctive way of saying "expectations disappointed" or something similar. When you look at the etymolgy of whelm it seems a reasonable new backformation of a word with fine (Old) English pedigree:

whelm (hwĕlm, wĕlm)
tr.v., whelmed, whelm·ing, whelms.
To cover with water; submerge.
To overwhelm.
[Middle English whelmen, to overturn, probably alteration (influenced by helmen, to cover) of whelven, from Old English -hwelfan (as in âhwelfan, to cover over).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.