Do you have a list of your own favorite pieces from the past 60 years?
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.
What’s your preferred term for this? “New music?”
“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.
The phrase “contemporary art music” has its own problems, of course. For example, it suggests that music from the rock and jazz worlds isn’t “art” or “artistic music,” which would be a weird thing to say of Joanna Newsome, Julia Holter, Elegi, Matthew Shipp, Nels Cline, Carla Bley, Bill Frisell, and many others.
I’ve also heard the term “university music,” since nearly all composers of the type you and I are discussing were trained in music at a university, but of course that’s also true for lots of rock and jazz composers.
Anyway, thanks for the link to your sampler list of works!
On my university popular music course, we were told that the accepted term at that time (ten years ago) was “Western Art Music”, but that that covered jazz as well.
Possibly “orchestral” music? Although that would then cover stuff like film scores, or rock bands using a symphony orchestra as what amounts to a big guitar, and wouldn’t cover solo piano works or someone like Varese...
The phrase “contemporary art music” has its own problems, of course. For example, it suggests that music from the rock and jazz worlds isn’t “art” or “artistic music,”
I might be sympathetic to that objection except for the fact that it is virtually never raised against the term “art song”—which is nothing but a special case of the same usage.
I’ve also heard the term “university music,” since nearly all composers of the type you and I are discussing were trained in music at a university
The idea of “advanced music” (another candidate term, with its own problems) as mainly a university pursuit has historically been mostly an American phenomenon, but has started to spread elsewhere. In Europe the cultural milieu is different, so there hasn’t been as much need for such music to “retreat” into academia (as it is sometimes pejoratively phrased). Of course, some composers (notably Babbitt) have explicitly embraced the university as an ideal setting for this sort of music, and don’t mind terms like “academic” (considered derogatory by some).
My father, a music reviewer, coined ‘learned music’. The crux is careful study of theory, and its full application. This is not restricted to the western tradition, so when relevant, it can be clarified to ‘western learned music’.
To be sure, pop artists often know their music theory—but I think few would assert that they’re applying it to the fullest extent. Some would, and those are cases that don’t match ‘classical’ exactly, but have elements that a classical music fan might perk their ears at.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Heh.
Informally, though, “classical” music seems to be defined as anything written before the advent of jazz music in the 1920s.
I’d disagree. I think if you played most people works by, say, Britten, William Grant Still, Copland, Philip Glass, John Taverner or Pierre Boulez, they would recognise it as ‘classical’ music.
I think the problem here is the attempt to draw an arbitrary boundary around something that doesn’t really exist. There is no reasonable way in which, say, Boulez is trying to do the same thing as Bach, but neither are trying to do what the Beatles did. There are people in the pop/rock tradition (like Joanna Newsom or Scott Walker or Van Dyke Parks) who are doing very much the same thing that people from the ‘classical’ tradition like, say, Gavin Bryars, are doing. It makes far more sense to me to, say, put Boulez with Ornette Coleman, Gavin Bryars with Brian Eno, and the Beatles with Louis Armstrong, than to put Boulez with Bryars because they’re both ‘classical’, Coleman with Armstrong because they’re both ‘jazz’ and the Beatles and Eno because they’re both ‘pop’.
(The only ones of whom I have listened to a sizeable fraction of their works are the Beatles, the only other one of whom I’ve heard a non-trivial amount is Bach, and the only other ones I’ve heard about are Armstrong and Eno.)
Folk music on the other hand doesn’t seem to evolve with time that much—I’ve over- or underestimated the age of certain songs by as much as a century. I mean, would you have guessed that “Finnegan’s Wake” is [rot13: sebz gur rvtugrra-svsgvrf] whereas “The Fields of Athenry” is [rot13: sebz gur avargrra-friragvrf], just from listening to them?
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.
The phrase “contemporary art music” has its own problems, of course. For example, it suggests that music from the rock and jazz worlds isn’t “art” or “artistic music,” which would be a weird thing to say of Joanna Newsome, Julia Holter, Elegi, Matthew Shipp, Nels Cline, Carla Bley, Bill Frisell, and many others.
I’ve also heard the term “university music,” since nearly all composers of the type you and I are discussing were trained in music at a university, but of course that’s also true for lots of rock and jazz composers.
Anyway, thanks for the link to your sampler list of works!
On my university popular music course, we were told that the accepted term at that time (ten years ago) was “Western Art Music”, but that that covered jazz as well. Possibly “orchestral” music? Although that would then cover stuff like film scores, or rock bands using a symphony orchestra as what amounts to a big guitar, and wouldn’t cover solo piano works or someone like Varese...
Symphonic music?
Same problem as “orchestral music”: it would exclude piano sonatas, string quartets, solo songs, etc.
I might be sympathetic to that objection except for the fact that it is virtually never raised against the term “art song”—which is nothing but a special case of the same usage.
The idea of “advanced music” (another candidate term, with its own problems) as mainly a university pursuit has historically been mostly an American phenomenon, but has started to spread elsewhere. In Europe the cultural milieu is different, so there hasn’t been as much need for such music to “retreat” into academia (as it is sometimes pejoratively phrased). Of course, some composers (notably Babbitt) have explicitly embraced the university as an ideal setting for this sort of music, and don’t mind terms like “academic” (considered derogatory by some).
My father, a music reviewer, coined ‘learned music’. The crux is careful study of theory, and its full application. This is not restricted to the western tradition, so when relevant, it can be clarified to ‘western learned music’.
To be sure, pop artists often know their music theory—but I think few would assert that they’re applying it to the fullest extent. Some would, and those are cases that don’t match ‘classical’ exactly, but have elements that a classical music fan might perk their ears at.
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!
Heh.
Informally, though, “classical” music seems to be defined as anything written before the advent of jazz music in the 1920s.
I’d disagree. I think if you played most people works by, say, Britten, William Grant Still, Copland, Philip Glass, John Taverner or Pierre Boulez, they would recognise it as ‘classical’ music.
What about traditional/folk songs?
Quite.
I think the problem here is the attempt to draw an arbitrary boundary around something that doesn’t really exist. There is no reasonable way in which, say, Boulez is trying to do the same thing as Bach, but neither are trying to do what the Beatles did. There are people in the pop/rock tradition (like Joanna Newsom or Scott Walker or Van Dyke Parks) who are doing very much the same thing that people from the ‘classical’ tradition like, say, Gavin Bryars, are doing. It makes far more sense to me to, say, put Boulez with Ornette Coleman, Gavin Bryars with Brian Eno, and the Beatles with Louis Armstrong, than to put Boulez with Bryars because they’re both ‘classical’, Coleman with Armstrong because they’re both ‘jazz’ and the Beatles and Eno because they’re both ‘pop’.
[pales, ashamed of his musical ignorance]
(The only ones of whom I have listened to a sizeable fraction of their works are the Beatles, the only other one of whom I’ve heard a non-trivial amount is Bach, and the only other ones I’ve heard about are Armstrong and Eno.)
Folk music on the other hand doesn’t seem to evolve with time that much—I’ve over- or underestimated the age of certain songs by as much as a century. I mean, would you have guessed that “Finnegan’s Wake” is [rot13: sebz gur rvtugrra-svsgvrf] whereas “The Fields of Athenry” is [rot13: sebz gur avargrra-friragvrf], just from listening to them?