Being a violinist and music aficionado, it has always bothered me that I know of no term which groups all types of so-called "classical" music (i.e. Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic etc.) together. If one is speaking of all these epochs but wishes to still be technically correct, I believe they must refer to each one by one. So, does anyone know of a more efficient word?

That which we laughingly refer to as "serious music".

When National Public Radio was given the Peabody Award in 1999 for its daily program "Performance Today," the citation was "in recognition of more than a decade of entertaining listeners and making serious music both contemporary and accessible." And the Peabody people weren't laughing.

the Peabody people weren't laughing

That's their problem.

mmm, I think this {edit: referring to 'serious music'} is about the only cover-all I know, which has the merit of covering say Steve Reich and Philip Glass and so on as well...

[digression] Went to one of the best concerts of my life on Friday night, at St Georges in Bristol: Nikolai Demidenko and Alexi Andreev playing Russian works for two pianos, including simply stunning renditions of Rachmaninov that made you want to cheer for being human! It came in a week when I became without work, but it was an heroic occasion that left me nothing short of exultant. By the time they had played four encores, we felt duty bound to let them go and soak their fevered brows - but if you ever get the chance to see them do this kind of programme (they tour a bit) seize it! Sell your grandmother, whatever...

[/digression]

...to still be technically correct, I believe they must refer to each one by one.

Hear, here!!!

------------

So, does anyone know of a more efficient word?

Since none of those musics were particularly efficient (OK, maybe Renaissance) I don't believe grouping them *deserves and efficient word.

Good to hear you back, E.E.S.

I find this "classical" thing very amusing, aksherly. It brings out the presciptivist in the most ardent of our descriptivists. In reality, it's a good catch-all phrase for the music you describe, but since our most devout descriptivists happen to be musos they turn passionately prescriptivist whenever anyone pushes this button.

I think "classical" works fine, and if you need more description, you can give the more specific as well. when it works, use lower case for the general term, and uppercase for the specific era. I often use the term 20th Century classical music. works great.

The other half of my (Gemini) personality *seems to disagree with your assessment. I'm only trying to describe my own usage and, therefore, add some credence to the *old axiom "A culture of one is as valuable as a culture of a million".

My other other half also finds it amusing and is sure you're not talking about us...

There are people for whom the term 'baroque' has very little meaning; there are people for whom the names of Bach and Tellemann have very little meaning. However, if I use the term 'classical' music in describing, for instance, a wonderful Bach organ prelude I'd heard in a church somewhere, there are people who would have a sense of the kind of music of which I was speaking, even though I'd known I was actually thinking of baroque music. For me to use the term 'baroque' would be to cause a log jam in understanding. If I'm teaching a lesson--well, that's altogether different. I'm an educator. But what a boorish snob I would be to educate a casual acquaintance who simply wanted to know, "Do you really like classical music like Bach's and Beethoven's?"

To turn the tables, I sometimes incorrectly refer to something my almost 21-year-old daughter is listening to as 'rock.' She becomes a little crazy when I do this. She begins to lecture me on why whatever she is listening to is not, in fact, rock, but something else. And then she lectures me on the fine points of what it is that I have incorrectly identified as 'rock.'

Her lecture is really lost on me, just as my own on baroque music would be lost on someone outside of the circle of 'serious' (hahaha) music lovers. My daughter's 'rock' music will always be 'rock' music to me since I really don't ever expect to spend my time trying to learn the differences in popular, often very loud music. And to most people who really don't gravitate toward 'classical' music in all of its forms and guises, that 'longhair' music is immediately identified as 'classical.' And I don't have a problem with their identification of it as classical, even though I know the truth. They can happily spend their time sorting and classifying their rock and I'll happily spend my time sorting and classifying my classical. And many of you here can happily spend time sorting and classifying both rock and classical. But we know of what we're talking, don't we?

But we know of what we're talking, don't we?

What do you mean we, keemosabe?

Therein lies the problem. A general term means we aren't saying anything specific about any specific thing. I love 'em. Use 'em allah time. However, I'm aware it's kinda like saying "He's got an old car" to me, satin or wwh, or saying it to a recent high school graduate. Without some specific form of reference the high school graduate probably immediately thinks "it breaks down often and is probably a bit rusty" whereas *we'd probably ask (or be wondering) what decade it was from. Being general may be sufficient, neccesary or even desireable to keep the long story short but, in the case of the word 'Classical' (as I've said before) it was pre-facto used specifically, just as you using the word 'Baroque' to describe something specific will futher the process of that person's "sense of" understanding why you call it 'Baroque'.

But what a boorish snob I would be to educate a casual acquaintance who simply wanted to know, "Do you really like classical music like Bach's and Beethoven's?"

So your answer would be "Yes/No" -vs- "what do you mean by 'like Bach's or Beethoven's'"? [Groucho-e]

--------

Wham, bam, thank you max.

maybe we should ask how the one specific term, "Classical" came to be used for the general? and was it always thus?

obviously it wasn't *always...

[smirk]

good question, eta...while we refer to classic literature, for instance, we don't refer to a "Classical literature" as some generalistic genre. So why not "Symphony music" or "Symphonic music"...but wait, we do have "Parlor Music" for (classical) string-quartet and harpsichord works, for instance...hmmm.

a more efficient word?

Well, I have heard the term, 'Art music'. I always assumed that it was the umbrella genre under which all the different styles (classical, romantic, etc.) were grouped. Somewhat like art cinema, I imagine. Since none of you have mentioned this term, I now wonder if I have read too much into its meaning. What does art music really mean?

I was going to suggest "art music", too, since my music history book, which covers a bit of everything in Western music from before Baroque to 20th century stuff, also uses "art music", probably to lessen confusion once it actually starts discussing Classical music.