Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

why do they call it contempory classical?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    why do they call it contempory classical?

    Though, what I am wondering is why the word classical is used in contemporary classical?

    I think, and may be wrong - I just do not understand, it should answered by these composers of contemporary classical like:

    "We are people who are desperate for attention. We are fascinated by music, and not only that, want to be considered musically brilliant - if not genius? Though, have no real, true, etc.understanding of the 1000's of years of experimentation? And do not have any REAL and TRUE feeling for music. We are really a bunch of pompous egoist who want to be remembered as brilliant musicians (did we already mention that?)? We go too far with our "brilliance" because that is how pompous we are! The orchestra is primarily what we prefer because it is what great musicians use for music - though we like synthesizers too, we can't emphasize this enough! The key thing to understand is, well really the brilliant musician factor, it's just so fascinating and cool! Though, the orchestra is a fascinating tool, so much can be done with it, etc...

    [They have a "moment of clarity"]:

    Though in truth we are not blessed with genius, or emotions and feelings like that of the true masters, so in the end our music is not music, to some degree, well at least not the music we would like it to be considered, because music, well not music, but feeling - is such a complex subject - and we highly, I mean highly lack in not, just, being able to feel on a level of such sublimity but do not really understand feeling to the degree we like to think we do - which is one of the most complex issues that can ever be questioned (feeling). Oh, while we are still in this "moment of clarity" - we would like to say that we are so shallow and pompous, did we already mention that?

    [They lose their clarity and Birtwistle responds.]

    Did I mention that by many I am considered to be the most famous composer in Europe?
    Perhaps, I am confused, but it makes no sense why classical is attached to the name. Heck, the name classical makes little sense anyway so why go as far as calling it contempory classical?

    I know that was rude, but does it not seem like that? Surely someone else feels this?
    - I hope, or I could not live. - written by H.G. Wells

    #2
    Terms such as 'Classical', 'Romantic' and 'Baroque' are only helpful in so far as they identify a certain style and period in music/art history. The term Classical is of course usually misapplied to all 'serious' western music - the term 'serious' (used to distinguish it from 'popular' music) is in itself misleading because many people would also describe the popular music of Strauss, Suppe, Offenbach etc.. as 'classical'! Clearly the contemporary music of today has nothing in common with the 'classical' style of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven but we seem to be stuck with such meaningless labels!
    'Man know thyself'

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Peter View Post
      Terms such as 'Classical', 'Romantic' and 'Baroque' are only helpful in so far as they identify a certain style and period in music/art history. The term Classical is of course usually misapplied to all 'serious' western music - the term 'serious' (used to distinguish it from 'popular' music) is in itself misleading because many people would also describe the popular music of Strauss, Suppe, Offenbach etc.. as 'classical'! Clearly the contemporary music of today has nothing in common with the 'classical' style of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven but we seem to be stuck with such meaningless labels!
      Anyone who knows classical music knows the name is improper, yet everyone says it - that cracks me up! It should be renamed to something more general (perhaps very general)?

      Though back to topic, it does bother me the "contemporary classical" composers allow that name to be used for their music. Why not something like orchestral avant-garde? I don't know, I just find it bothersome?
      - I hope, or I could not live. - written by H.G. Wells

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Preston View Post
        Anyone who knows classical music knows the name is improper, yet everyone says it - that cracks me up! It should be renamed to something more general (perhaps very general)?

        Though back to topic, it does bother me the "contemporary classical" composers allow that name to be used for their music. Why not something like orchestral avant-garde? I don't know, I just find it bothersome?
        It is the public at large who have this generalised view of classical music when the term really applies to music written from about 1750-1830. To add to the confusion Mozart and Haydn were not in their day referred to as 'classical composers' but 'romantic'! So the term was applied retrospectively and we may have to wait a hundred years for posterity to come up with suitable references for today's music and its proper place in history.
        'Man know thyself'

        Comment


          #5
          I've spent a lot of time in the contemporary pop/rock world and have often argued that the general public will gladly purchase music that gives it a tune it can sing and/or a beat it can dance to. MP3/ITunes have done much to clarify how big the audience is for any music genre.

          I said all that to say this: call it what you will. The musical cream always rises to the top and will be the truly "classical" music.

          Comment

          Working...
          X