More on "Art Music" - an interesting resource
Boxwood
you can self-publish materials, if you feel you have the expertise.
There is a large section of modules by Catherine Jones on Music:
http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m11421/latest/
In this particular module she writes about "art music," and the term is
not pretentious, at all--no matter what the great intellectuals in this
forum say. The phrase "art music" is so ubiquitous, I am astonished,
still, that whole legions of people would find fault with it (or maybe
it was just with me). She writes:
Classical and Art Music
Popular music is, by definition, music that appeals to many people. You
don't have to know anything about music to like a pop tune - it's
"catchy". Art music is a catch-all term for any music that is enjoyed
by a smaller crowd. This can include the more challenging types of jazz
and rock music, as well as Classical. Most people agree that the
appreciation of art music requires some study, careful listening, or
other extra effort. But it can be harder to agree on what exactly
belongs in this category. This is at least partly because popular
tastes do change. For example, most operas were written to be popular,
middle-class entertainments, and artists such as Liszt and Paganini
enjoyed rock-star-like fame and popularity in their day. Today,
however, nineteenth century operas are no longer considered popular
entertainment, and popular works that could technically be considered
opera - except for the fact that they are written in popular musical
styles - are instead grouped with musicals. As another example, ragtime
was wildly popular during Scott Joplin's lifetime. It later fell out of
favor and was known only to some jazz connoisseurs. Then in the 1970's
it became popular again.
Classical music is a confusing term with more than one meaning. In the
visual arts, the term classical refers to ancient Greece and Rome. In
the 1700's, Western Europeans became very interested in the ancient
classical style, which was imitated by many artists, sculptors, and
architects. Art historians call that period the neoclassical ("new
classical"). Unfortunately, nobody really knows what the music of
ancient times sounded like. So instead of being influenced by the sound
of ancient Greek music, eighteenth-century composers were influenced by
the ideals of classical art. The music of Mozart, Haydn, and the early
works of Beethoven are in this style, which we call classical rather
than neoclassical, because the original classical music of ancient
Greece and Rome is lost. (And actually, it probably would have sounded
very exotic and Non-Western to us!)
So the original classical music comes from one fairly short era. The
other great composers of Western music lived during other periods:
Bach's music is Baroque, for example, Brahms and Wagner, Romantic, and
Debussy, Impressionist. But most people do not know which music is from
which period. So all of the music of the great Western composers of the
past (as well as modern art music that is part of the same tradition)
is lumped together and called classical. The art music of other
cultures is also often called classical; for example, people speak of
the classical music of India.
J. Teske
This was and is a game that I have been playing since I was in
college. It just came to the fore a couple weeks ago when my
daughterp-in-law asked just this question. She was asking because in
my family we do a gift exchange on my wife's side of the family (I
myself, being an only child, don't have much family). This exchange
involves my wife, her surviving sisters, the husband of her deceased
sister, their spouses, the ten cousins who are the children of these
four sisters and now, their spouses. My daughter-in-law drew the name
of my niece's husband who we have only met at their wedding four years
ago. Gift ideas are freely circulated among this 20 or so folks by
email. Despite great distances separating us all the sisters and the
ten cousins are as thick as thieves. The internet is a great thing to
keep family together. The niece's husband requested some samplers of
classical music, something I gather he is just starting to have an
interest in. I gave my daughter-in-law a few suggestions of CDs she
might purchase for him, but then she hit me with the zinger. Just what
do you mean by Classical Music? I did go through my dilemma with the
term and the shortfalls inherent in that term. I also told her that I
can't really come up with a satisfactory term myself because all my
alternate terms have shortfalls themselves.
To some folks the Beatles are classic. (as one of the comparatively
few surviving people who actually saw the Beatles live, in concert,
the older I become, the more classic they become to me.) As Connie
points out a lot of other cultures also have "classical" music, but I
can assure you my patience for listening to something like classic
Indian ragas is rather short, exceeded only by my few ventures into
Chinese opera (in college, I got a band of Chinese Opera singers
banned from my dormatory where they were usurping my practice space.
The difference here was that I was paying rent for the space and they
were not. I walked out of a Chinese Opera that the Washington Opera
unwisely programmed a number of years back.) Classic Rap or Hip-hop is
a contradiction of terms in my book. "Art Music" doesn't work for me
either since what may be "art" to me can be "dreck" to someone else.
Concert Hall music doesn't work either...there is a lot of stuff which
goes on in concert halls that I wouldn't sit through, but I have stood
for French Canadian fiddling, Bluegrass at local festivals, a bit of
Jazz, certainly Broadway shows and got great pleasure at hearing them.
I couldn't come up with a real definition for my daughter-in-law
except to jokingly tell her that it is the music my son (her husband)
and her sister-in-law (my daughter) won't listen to. In the end, my
definitions came up to be something like the famous Supreme Court
Justice's comment years ago concerning pornography..."I know it
when I see [hear] it."
Let the games begin, but be aware no one else seems to have come up
with a suitable and accurate unassailably unambiguous definition in
the last couple hundred years.
Jon Teske
Boxwood
can be harder to agree on what exactly belongs in this category"?
BTW, how did you change the Subject : line??
J. Teske
I typed it as a totally new thread. I thought there were substantial
differences in the topic I wished to pursue even though there is
obviously a tie-in.
Jon
J. Teske
>Well, Jon: Isn't that exactly what Cathy is saying? i.e., that "..it
>can be harder to agree on what exactly belongs in this category"?
Yes it is, and many people, both authorities in the field such as
Cathy, and unabashed fans such as me, have grappled with the subject
for years. Aside from the so-called "Classical period" e.g.
Haydn/Mozart/early Beethoven, it is very hard to define what most of
us call "classical music."
Jon
>
>BTW, how did you change the Subject : line??
Started a new thread, I didn't hit the "reply" button on this one
as I inadvertantly hit the delete button before I responded.
Boxwood
how.
YES: musicology is a rapidly changing panorama, with "new music" or
"neuvo musiche" or whatever the current term is (in whatever language)
is always in the offing. I think that it *is* difficult to pin history
down, like a butterfly in a collection? You can't do it. The best you
can do is try.
Isn't the current era we're supposedly in called "post-modernism?" But
most post-modern tracts are impossible to read and, to most people,
meaningless. The Emperor has no clothes on whatsoever.
Hugs,
Connie
J. Teske
Inevitably, today's "Post-Modern" movement will someday be "old hat."
The people we now call Classical Greeks didn't know they were
classical; or, perhaps even Greek (didn't they call themselves
Hellenes or something like that. They were more like to think of
themselves as Athenian, Spartans, Macedonians etc.
Jon
>Hugs,
>Connie
ttd...@hotmail.com
Boxwood wrote:
>The phrase "art music" is so ubiquitous, I am astonished,
> still, that whole legions of people would find fault with it
Well, if legions of people find fault with it, maybe there is something
amiss!
>(or maybe
> it was just with me).
Probably both! :))))
None of what follows is illuminating, including my own post. But then,
maybe the end of the year just brings out the darker humbug side of me.
If the great intellectuals of music academia are unable to come up with
a better term than "art music" to describe music that requires some
study to appreciate, then there is something dreadfully lacking in the
originality of their thought. The term "art" is so loaded with baggage
that one should be extremely careful the way in which it is used.
Again, what would come to mind if we spoke about "art painting", "art
sculpture", "art literature" and "art art" ? If you are going to coin
a term to sub-categorize a discipline, give it some thought as to avoid
unnecessary connotations...Connie, :))))
Here are some terms which you should consider using instead: unpopular
music, less popular music, smaller crowd music, studied music, academic
music, research music, PhD music, 12 university music.... :))))
Hugs and kisses,
Tien
Christian Tessier
<ttd...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1135703601.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Boxwood wrote:
>>The phrase "art music" is so ubiquitous, I am astonished,
>> still, that whole legions of people would find fault with it
>
> Well, if legions of people find fault with it, maybe there is something
> amiss!
>
>>(or maybe
>> it was just with me).
>
> Probably both! :))))
>
> None of what follows is illuminating, including my own post. But then,
> maybe the end of the year just brings out the darker humbug side of me.
>
>
> If the great intellectuals of music academia are unable to come up with
> a better term than "art music" to describe music that requires some
> study to appreciate, then there is something dreadfully lacking in the
> originality of their thought. The term "art" is so loaded with baggage
> that one should be extremely careful the way in which it is used.
> Again, what would come to mind if we spoke about "art painting", "art
> sculpture", "art literature" and "art art" ? If you are going to coin
> a term to sub-categorize a discipline, give it some thought as to avoid
> unnecessary connotations...Connie, :))))
>
> Here are some terms which you should consider using instead: unpopular
> music, less popular music, smaller crowd music, studied music, academic
> music, research music, PhD music, 12 university music.... :))))
>
> Hugs and kisses,
>
> Tien
>
creativity + thought + talent + intuition + appeal + hard work + "ce petit
je ne sais quoi" + ... While pop = crativity + thought + talent + appeal +
work + a certain degree of conformism. IMHO art is non-conformist.
Christian
Boxwood
a better term than "art music" to describe music that requires some
study to appreciate, then there is something dreadfully lacking in the
originality of their thought.
Maybe they should; I'm not disagreeing with you. But THE REALITY of
the situation is, open any textbook or other materials in this field,
and you will see this phrase over and over and over. So, THE POINT IS,
why ATTACK someone who innocently uses this, and insist that they are
pretentious. They're not.
You at one point accused me, among other things, of being a snob. (or
was it Eve?) At any rate, if you truly think I'm a snob, I'm happy for
you. Because I'm NOT. I attended Rice University, which is SNOB
GROUND ZERO. I know what snobbery is.
Larry McMurtry, whom as I'm sure you know, won a Pulitzer Prize for
_Lonesome Dove_ , attended Rice, and is widely quoted as saying that
Rice is full of "upper middle class snobs and psychopaths."
But this is not worth arguing about. You guys have done enough damage
to me, and to my poor daughter. Blocking you, too, Tien.
ttd...@hotmail.com
Boxwood wrote:
> But this is not worth arguing about. You guys have done enough damage
> to me, and to my poor daughter. Blocking you, too, Tien.
I wish you and your daughter goo health for the new year. The rest is
bullshit.
Tien
ttd...@hotmail.com
Peter Schug
jdt...@comcast.net wrote on 12/26/05 1:50 PM:
> On 26 Dec 2005 08:51:33 -0800, "Boxwood" <techf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, Jon: Isn't that exactly what Cathy is saying? i.e., that "..it
>> can be harder to agree on what exactly belongs in this category"?
>
> Yes it is, and many people, both authorities in the field such as
> Cathy, and unabashed fans such as me, have grappled with the subject
> for years. Aside from the so-called "Classical period" e.g.
> Haydn/Mozart/early Beethoven, it is very hard to define what most of
> us call "classical music."
>
> Jon
I think of classical music as stuff that has been written mostly for the
common orchestral instruments and occasionally for national instruments that
is intended to be played as written and never or seldom to be re-arranged by
someone else. Stuff that is played as written with only a small allowance
for interpretation. That excludes all pop with the possible exception of
things like the quartet things like "What if Mozart... (Hampton String Qt?)
That sort of thing is pop based (so is a lot of classical music) but by it's
nature not easy to change, so I guess it could slide into the classical
world if it got played enough. I love the Baroque Beatles Book but I don't
think any of it will ever be performed in Carnagy Hall anytime soon.
That's my babble on the subject. And NO, I don't think that some of the
weird stuff could be called either classical or music. On the other hand I
think that Harry Partch did really great things that are part of classical
music and will probably not be performed all that often now that he is gone
and his instruments are probably falling into slow decay.
Pete