= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Firewalling the Optimal from the Rational - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (339)
It's not exactly the same thing, but I did once throw together a "sampler" list of works by currently living* composers. Not everything in there is a favorite, and there are many favorites not included (especially since the list was restricted to academic composers, thus leaving out a lot of Europeans such as Boulez), but it does give an idea of my "orientation". :-)
*At the time of writing -- Babbitt has since passed on.
"Contemporary art music." (Or "modern", but that might paradoxically suggest older, as in 1900-1950.)
"New music" is perfectly fine in a context where it's taken for granted that "music" refers to art music (as opposed to popular music). But "classical" is just as bad when referring to Tchaikovsky as when referring to Boulez; the issue is the terminological collision with the Classical period in music history.
I fear the battle for the strict sense of "classical" has already basically been lost. For what it's worth, I tend to say things like "classical music in the broad sense" or "classical music in the sense that includes Josquin and Prokofiev as well as Haydn and Mozart". Which is appallingly clunky, but better that than the mere incomprehension that will generally follow if one uses terms like "art music" instead.
"Art music" is a well-established term.
I'm well aware of that.
Unfortunately, its well-established-ness is only useful when talking with people who are well informed on this stuff, which most people aren't. See, e.g., the fact that Luke (who is generally well informed about things, and interested enough in this particular topic to be writing evangelistic webpages about contemporary art music) is choosing to use the term "classical" and proposing "new music" as an alternative.
So: yes, you can say "art music" when you mean art music. In that case, your usage will be correct and you'll be accurately understood by music experts; but to anyone at roughly Luke's level of expertise and below your meaning will not be clear.
Or you can say "classical music" and make, where necessary, appropriate disclaiming noises. In that case, your usage will be incorrect and some music experts will look down their noses at you a bit; but people at roughly Luke's level of expertise and below will have a reasonably idea of what you mean.
I generally choose the second option unless I know I'm addressing only experts. I wish there were an option that combines correctness, broad comprehensibility, and conciseness -- but I don't know of one.
Is “art music (popularly known as ‘classical music’)” concise enough?
It's about as concise as the version that puts "classical" first and qualifies it. I prefer to start with the term that will be more widely understood, and then (when necessary) add the qualifier that lets experts know I'm well informed, rather than starting with the term that pleases experts, and then (almost always) adding the qualifier that lets muggles understand what I mean. Others' mileage may vary!