Get 26% off CuriosityStream and a free Nebula account: www.curiositystream.com/12tone and use promo code "12tone" Some additional thoughts/corrections: 1) I should note that the "work-concept" thing is complex and different scholars feel differently about it. It's not clear that pre-Romantic Europe didn't conceive of music works, but it does seem pretty well accepted that they didn't conceive of them the same way we do. That's why I focused on the _modern_ work-concept: The point isn't that no one in Bach's time thought musical works existed, but they most likely wouldn't have described them in a way we would recognize. 2) The thing I describe as "vernacular music" is also called folk music, but because that has specific stylistic connotations I chose to go with the fancier but more general term. Like most terms, "vernacular music" has multiple definitions, and some sources describe it as the umbrella category for both folk and popular music traditions, but in the Romantic period popular music wasn't really a thing yet. 3) Some folks might take issue with my claim that the "rewards close listening" definition exists to reify the superiority of the canon, because they view sufficiently complex jazz, rock, and whatever as art music too. In retrospect this might have been worth addressing in the video itself, but basically, the issue here is that, by definition, the principles by which we measure complexity are rooted in our understanding of the works we've already deemed complex. All music rewards close listening, but not all music does so in the same was as traditional "art music", so our conception of which new pieces get to be included will be based in large part on what's already there, and what's already there is the Western Classical Canon. 4) There's actually a really cool video of Tom Morello demonstrating how he did the Bulls On Parade solo: th-cam.com/video/kyxKJLgfT7A/w-d-xo.html 5) On the "not for profit" thing, some people may argue that it's not fair to conflate it with valuing the work of the independently wealthy, because art music still gets funded, it's just by public grants and whatnot. This is a cop-out and is barely even worth acknowledging, but just in case, let's do it anyway: The basic idea here is that public funding boards don't have to cater to the "lowest common denominator" (a problematic view in its own right) and thus can fund "real art". But consider who gets to be on those boards: It's the same wealthy aristocrats the so-called "art music" tradition has been catering to for hundreds of years. The things they fund don't represent "real art", they represent a specific subset of the population's aesthetic preferences. Just like every other kind of music does. Again, this funding model holds no special claim to the title of art. 6) Another option might be to go the direction rock did and treat "classical" as a suffix, so we'd have Baroque Classical, Romantic Classical, and so on. That'd leave us with something like Historic Classical or whatever for that specific era, just like we have Rock 'n Roll for the period that first claimed the name "rock music". Or, I mean, we could always call the Classical Period "Classical 'n Roll"?
Amen times three on your comment regarding publicly funded art in any medium. Not only is there a selection bias in the people who get the privilege of making the selections, but there is a public opinion bias, in that if those boards select something outside the mainstream in any way, there is such a hue and cry and threats to funding sources that there is real pressure to stay inside the long-established boundaries. I'll admit, I'm guilty of this kind of bias myself, especially when it comes to artists like Jackson Pollack where the technique might seem "too accessible to the common person / insufficiently difficult to be 'real' art." Considering my preferred medium is vocal music, I really shouldn't be casting stones like that. I'm working on it!
regarding point 2 - What is the difference between vernacular/folk music vs popular music? Is folk music developed locally and independently by a community (vs "professional" musicians), and popular music is a result of mass media - music that is most often heard on the radio/online, or having the most recording sales? Does folk music exist anymore?
@@rzn80r I'm not sure if this is the prevailing view in academia; but for me it's always been like "classical music" vs. "art music of the classical era." To my own mind, folk music is anything made by The People; which would encompass everything from great-granddad on the porch with his banjo to his great-granddaughter in her room busting out EDM jams. Obviously considering everything from rock to hip-hop and as far afield beyond as one can conceive as "folk music" is a little different than the "folk" section at the record store, which is primarily acoustic instruments of certain cultural heritages; but like I said; same problem as "classical" vs "classical." I don't if The Professionals (i.e. music theorists, ethnomusicologists... lexicographers?) would agree; but to my mind, popular music is a subset of folk/vernacular traditions. Except... we tend to think of the vernacular as something that came about organically. And yet, there exist numerous examples outside of the western "art music" tradition (and leaving aside because our own cultural chauvinism leaves stuff that should absolutely be considered at a level comparable to our "art music" traditions lumped together with other cultures' vernacular traditions - say Hindustani classical and Carnatic music lumped in with bhangra and Bollywood soundtracks - in the dubious category of "world music") of music that doesn't fit the canonical notions of "art music" and yet doesn't come from folk traditions either. Thinking mainly of pieces for commission, commercial jingles, stuff like that. Which... yeah, I suppose can still be slotted into a genre. Just... it doesn't quite fit with my own thoughts on how something develops within a vernacular.
I'm an "art" musician and I don't have too many disagreements with you on the topic itself but what the fuck is that title. And secondly, why do you keep emphasizing the social class of the composers. They played for the upper-class but they weren't necessarily nobility themselves. Everyone was poor back then and the people who could afford a full orchestra for private events were dukes, counts, barons, emperors, etc. This sounded like a combination of white guilt and virtue signaling. Also, lyrics don't turn a trashy pop song with two or three notes into art music. Lyrics are poetry, not music.
Any idiot can say something is BS. And we collectively blow off those who call things BS. It really ISN'T important to "just call it BS" because that does nothing but make the people who already agree nod. Explaining accurately and in detail the problems can convince more people that it is indeed BS. Particularly in this case where the people who need to stop using the term are also academics. If you cut off the academic support of the term, you kneecap the cretins who use it to reinforce their prejudices.
I think the issue with calling it "art music" is that all music is art, it's redundant. It's like calling certain houses "architecture buildings". Just distinguish it by the genre it fits into, everyone already calls it "classical music" or we could refer to it as European classical or western classical.
ur kinda right but also i can totally imagine some pretentious person refusing to acknowledge the architectural merit of postmodern or vernacular building styles and starting to call their preferred style “architecture buildings”. the redundant pretentiousness is just so human, you know?
I dont agree that all music is art. Most music you currently hear on the radio has like 10-20 writing/production credits that change per song on the same album. This music is then basically pieced together by committee. It is audience tested. More on marketing is spent on the production of the album…theres nothing wrong with this. But the goal isnt self expression itself. Its not to make the best song that represents the most you, its to fish for the biggest banger/hit/$$$…its then intended to go on a big tour in big venues with other artists that have their albums manufactured in this way. With huge stage production…to put it simply, its entertainment not really art. Its a roller coaster ride at a theme park…nothing wrong with that and not saying it CANT be art. Just that it usually isnt. This also has nothing to do with genre. Any genre can be art. Im just saying that most current music you hear on top 200 (like 90% i would estimate) is cobbled together and packaged and sold like a toy. I wouldnt really consider that art would u?
@@vivsavagex That doesn't mean it isn't art. There is good art and bad art. If humans at some point had some sort of creative input in the final product then it's art whether you like it or not even if the goal was profit at the end of the day. As long as there is some sort of creative process like making a tune, making a beat, singing performance, composition, etc.., then it's art even if the end product is soulless corporate crap. I never said art is inherently good.
@@jhhwild thats not the definition of art though. Youre misunderstanding the basic terms of what you are talking about. If something is manufactured specifically for profit then it is not art. That is a product. If we are going by your understanding of the word art then the word has become meaningless as we can apply it to anything. Lucky charms cereal is art. An autograph is art. A tire on a car is art…do you really think of art as being that broad or are u just trying to be contrarian? because please stop and admire the artistry of billboard ad for an ambulance chasing attorney next time you walk by one if youre committed to this ridiculous premise…also, your concept of good and bad has nothing to do with anything. There is good and bad pop music just like good and bad “art music”. Its quality doesnt determine its categorization its INTENT does.
@@vivsavagex "art" by definition is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination", so pretty much anything that utilizes that can be considered "art", so yes a Lucky Charms box art can be considered art because someone had to design it, draw it and compose it which requires some level of creativity and imagination. Is it high art? No it's not, just because it's art doesn't mean it's worthy of your respect, praise, or admiration but that doesn't mean it isn't art. Music made by human beings is inherently an artistic medium just like drawing and painting just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's suddenly not art anymore. Even music you don't like requires some level of effort and creativity.
I had never heard the term art music until i had to write a term paper on it for a college music class with a teacher i hated. I didnt know the meaning of art music and the best definition i could find was just music of artistic value. So i wrote a 4 page paper on nirvana i used music theory to explain how the notes of the songs work to express the meaning emotions and artistic creativity, i gave examples from their discography, and most importantly i cited my work with other bodies of text supporting my claims. 4 pages of some of the hardest work i had done that semester and she threw it out saying, and i quote “rock music is not artistic.” i don’t think ive ever come so close to beating the living shit out of someone as i had that day.
How is rock music not "art"? What definition does it conflict with? No definition I've encountered says anything about when or for whom art was created. Nothing about profit or individual taste. Webster, for example, simply defines it as "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects." Imagination and creativity. Did Nirvana just blindly follow some deterministic formula? Was Bohemian Rhapsody just re-hashing some age-old inherent melody of the universe without alteration? If anything the mention of "aesthetic objects" provides a sticking point but that would also exclude your teacher's "enlightened, proper" music. Academia is about making researched and logical arguments. By simply throwing yours out because "I just don't agree, that's all," your teacher became the very thing they swore to destroy.
16:05 - This problem is not just in music - but in art in general. I remember once asking an art teacher what class someone interested in Manga should take - and she responded by telling me that the graphics in comic books are not art.
The problem arises because people began to conflate "art" with "prestige" If something doesnt have any percived prestige then it's not "art" to these people.
And they have zero awareness regarding how easy it is to see through their pretentiousness by the entirety of the world outside their pathetic bubble. Prestige for the sake of prestige is about as far from art as you can get. Too many typical ironies to point out with these kinda people, but as long as they get the approval of like-minded fools they'll manage to keep pretending. They'll stay in that (hopefully not) infinite circle cause they SO easily convince themselves everybody else is wrong, makes them feel all the more special, like a little kid in class justifying why they're cooler than all the kids that are actually genuine and get along. Arrogant idiots have a way of effortlessly coping, most of all, it's dishonest to themselves. Nobody else is fooled, they're ineffective frauds not willing to confront that fact on an often subconscious level, not exactly the image they're going for in their desperate attempts.
What about funk? Edit: I don't know what I was thinking when I commented it (I probably was just impatient sorry :/). Actually, I don't like some songs because of the lyrics, but just my narrowed personal taste of Brazilian funk. Besides, the the enjoyment isn't completely dependent on complexity, especially because it's all situation too (you don't pay close attention during a party).
@@srglzrmj or possibly because galleries are catering to people who have 'aristocratic' worship/worth programmed in from prolonged exposure (repetition legitimises) and white privilege manipulations used to control populations. Language is important.
When I was going through music history, my professor separated the two as classical (lowercase "c") as the western orchestral tradition and Classical (uppercase "c") as the Classical period. They would also use the term Vienna Classical for a period specific term.
Or, "This piece is from the classical period of the classical genre." In English, we regularly talk about New York without specifying city or state. In Spanish, people regularly say just, "Mexico" and we know if they are talking about the City of Mexico, State of Mexico, United Mexican States, historical area of Mexico within New Spain, Mexican Empire, or many other meanings. There's no problem with saying classical period and classical genre. I don't remember reading this idea anywhere, but I'm confident that many people have had this idea-see the comment to which I am replying.
Djent is literaly an onomatopeia of the sound a palm muted low string on a guitar does (duh) followed by the same string open (jent), as if that is not a thing that happens in other genres of metal, and not actually present in most music people call “djent music”.
And anything with "smart"... that's a real pet peeve of mine; it just means that it has _anything_ to do with a computer, which is increasingly everything.
Call the overall genre Classical Music, since that's what everybody already calls it. And leave the Classical Period as is, too. We are smart enough to understand the distinction if we can be wise enough to make a big deal out of it.
yeah, classical music isn't from the classical period and those songs aren't classics either. I love this overly confusing term and even if there was a better term for the genre I'd still call it classical music!
I'm sure there are many subtleties to this that I don't know of, but in Norway music from the classical era is refed to as "klassisismen" or "the classisism". So in Norway the phrase "classical music" is never used in the narrow definition.
What’s also fun about the term “Classical” is that in most fields it would refer to the Ancient Greek and Roman periods, and the classical period in music would really be a “Classical Revival”. Except it has nothing to do with Ancient Greek or Roman music (which would sound more like Arabic folk music to our ears), but rather some sort of comparison to the regular structure of their architecture. Maybe we should call it Palladian, since Palladio was a classical revival architect with a keen interest in symmetry and proportion, and is influential in taking architecture out of the baroque era, and many modern people have at least heard of his windows.
@@ImWriiight It was always my understanding that the classical form of a language is the original formalised written form and that the Ancient Greek and Roman periods are called "classical" because of Classical Latin and Greek, so by extension I thought classical music refers to the original formalised written form of music in the west.
What would really piss off a lot of people is Chris Thile and his ability to slip effortlessly between "art/classical (baroque)" music and bluegrass and indie/alternative rock and folk music. He's written a wonderful 4 movement piece called "The Blind Leading the Blind" and it is for a bluegrass quintet. And I think his abilities would be maddening for those people who love the concept of calling it "art" music.
"classical music" is already pretty much understood to mean this kind of music even vernacularly among musicians, I've definitely heard people specifying "classical era music" vs the more general "classical music"
Same. Classical era, or classical period is almost always used when referring to the 18th century music genre, and I hear terms like modern classical, contemporary classical, or classical inspired which seem useful when referring to a lot of newer "art music."
Even when I was in a classically based music school, I never heard the term "art music." Classical music was a term used to denote a genre and the era was specified when necessary. If this really is a trend, it doesn't seem to be a far reaching one.
The thing that got me laughing the hardest was the idea that “art music” is the only one where value is gain by listening closely. Hello? You can do that with every single song in existence and divide it into many different instruments and understand why the music works so well. Any song needs to be listened to for you to enjoy it fully
@@FrankUnknown Respectfully disagree. Sure, pop isn't supposed to hide layers of meaning and structure and whatever, but there's still a lot to dig in about how and why pop songs are constructed in such a way, even moreso if you're a producer. At worse, you can end up with a lot of redundancy by analysing different songs and realizing how much they have in common.
I implore you to listen closely to Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and tell me again that pop music is shallow. And many of those layers of riffs are there because Michael handpicked some talented kid from the ghetto and let them have a go at contributing to his record. Pop music today is shallow because the record executives figured out what works and engineered the tracks to give you just that at minimal cost, as loud as possible. But shallowness is not intrinsic to the form.
The definition of pop music as anything other than popular music is ill advised imo, the genres that inspire and become pop have change dramatically over the years. Honestly every genre changes over time and can be pretty much unrecognizable even without the inevitable divisions into sub-genres
@nknown Father Time - Kendrick Lamar King Kunta - Kendrick Lamar All Of The Lights - Kanye West ft Rihanna Saint Pablo - Kanye West New Magic Wand - Tyler The Creator Sorry Not Sorry - Tyler The Creator A&W - Lana Del Rey Love, Of Money - Mavi Anything Bruno Mars released after Doo-wops & Hooligans (Especially Silk Sonic) Any Brockhampton song with a dance focus rather than a melodic one (From Saturation III especially) I think any song can be improved if you focus on breaking it down, even the simplest of factory made dance music usually have something along the lines of hidden instrument to add volume.
Thought the exact same thing. I have a master in fine arts but also studied at music university. It is pretty much the same discussions. I feel many of these words are created and used to preserve a sense of superiority. It's a code for you having the education and socializing in the upper circles. And it is a code for who gets funding too.
Reminder the Nazi party literally hated modern and abstract art because it didn’t exhibit the inherent aryan superiority of traditional Western European HIGH ART. The Nazis exhibited it as “Degenerate art”. This is literally where the modem conservative talking point that modern art is bad. Comes from. When you see people saying that modern art is degenerate wrong and needs destroyed, remember this was literally borrowed from how the Nazis saw modern art. And it further proves that what is defined as artistic until Someone changed it will Always mean. Whatever props white people up as inherently superior.
Also applies to the culinary world. E.g. the distinction between “fine dining” and “ethnic cuisine”. If a white French chef tried pho once on a trip to Vietnam, then began selling a “deconstructed” version in his fancy Manhattan restaurant, suddenly, he’s “elevated” a lowly ethnic food.
Both cases are more instances of performance art than actual music. And for the record, both are actually pretty good musicians but get get mocked by audiences who are ignorant of the rest of their actually musically oriented catalogue.
as a visual art student, when you said 'art music' my first thought was music engineered to pair with modern art that you'd see in a museum. Using strange sounds and messing with patterns. Almost always with a variation of that one droning sound - they love that one XD Very different to what its 'supposed' to imply. Its a matter of perspective, and definition can very much influence that perspective, so I agree with you completely
That would, to musicians, be called “noise art” or “sound art”. Equally as vague, but implies that the “art” comes more solely from the say “quanta” of sound, rather than the organized whole of the sounds working together
here in germany me and my musician friends are constantly joking about "kunstmusik" ("art-music" in german) making up artsy rules for it and so on. didn't know it was a real thing...
I think it's kinda though in Germany. You have well developed scenes for others genres of music though, like in case of rock, metal and techno music. But I guess the academics are soo hard on it.
In academics there still is a clearly definded border between so called artmusic and popular music. That's also true for german universities. I always found it to be pretentious since the music which is now called artmusic was popular at some time. Otherwise no one would talk about it today. We see that gatekeeping was always a thing in music.
An der sprechen die Profs schon von ernsthafter Musik (Klassik und Jazz) und Unterhaltungsmusik (so ziemlich alles andere) Zitat meines ersten Gitarrenlehrers. 💁♂️
I never heard the term "art music", but even without that term my music teachers quickly made me feel like "classical music" is a superior form of music and the rock and pop music us kids were listening to was simplistic crap unworthy of a music theory analysis or any other form of educational attention, which lead me to view both music history and unfortunately also music theory as knowledge that I don't need ("couldn't care less to impress those arrogant snobs!") and eventually I ended up thinking I was completely unmusical, because I realized a few years later that I can't make heads or tails of the music theory they were teaching even if I tried to understand it and I had forgotten by then that it's because I didn't listen all those years before when they taught the basics they expect me to know in order to be able to follow along. I was always passionate about music, but as a result of this poor education I never had the confidence to try making music as a kid. Nowadays I sing in rock band and try to write my own songs and wish I had learned at least basic theory in school instead of having to learn it now, between working full-time, doing household chores, maintaining friendship and practicing my instruments. 😵 If only my teachers had presented me a compelling reason to learn theory in middle school, but no, they didn't consider the music us students were interested in worth mentioning. Cause _"children don't need incentives to care about our topics, amirite?"_ 🤦♂️ Teachers be like...
... maybe I need to take another go at learning music theory. I love music but I get so confused when people start talking about it in technical terms so it's slow learning
There’s literally a genre called art rock, like Sonic Youth. They first played in art galleries cause they were considered ‘out there’. Captain Beefheart and many others made (in my opinion) art music. My personal definition is different, I guess 😄 I like a lot of free jazz and crazy outsider musics and noise. I consider most of these art music, music that musicians like, music that like any other art, speaks to your soul and is truthful. Maybe I’m a reverse snob 😖
“Art” music? I’ve been a fan of classical music for years and I don’t think I’ve ever heard that term before. I thought all music was considered art? All of the supposed differences between “art” music and other music can be pretty easily debunked with just some quick research and common sense. And while I think the term “aristocratic music” works for the baroque and classical period, it doesn’t hold up after that
They mentioned in the video this is mostly common in academic circles where they don’t wanna use the term “classical music” to avoid confusion with classical period music. I doubt it has much of a place in other classical music circles, judging by the comments.
Right, I have a ton of appreciation for classical music, but the overall environment in music conservatories and other academic institutions is auful and, I'd say, discriminatory towards the others. I'm from Romania, and the name that they give to non classical or traditional types of music is "muzică ușoară”, which literaly means easy music. Everything is put in that box. So yeah, the music is gorgeous, the people transformed it into something repulsive. Ps: Even film scoring is put into the easy music category. Ps2: Stravinski was completely awesome. :))
(And I think this is the best way to approach it, just remove the term art music in formal/educational settings and use the appropriate terms to define the era and region and those of us educated in music history can be not buttholes when someone calls baroque composers or modernists "classical music" because we know what they mean and the pretentious superiority in correcting them is unnecessary)
@@joetowers4804 Similar to me. We only have like one music history teacher and I remember them and the textbooks I had to use for the class say art music in the exact way 12Tone is angry about. smh
Let's make that messy again then: do you mean "Classical" as in the pre-Christian Greco-Roman culture of art and philosophy, or do you mean "Classical" as in the also-called "Enlightenment" period?
In Poland, we call it "muzyka poważna" ("serious music") as opposed to "muzyka rozrywkowa" ("entertainment music", which is everything else). And while I'm not a fan of calling every other kind of music not serious, at least we don't claim it's not art. EDIT: yeah, I wrote the comment before watching the entire video ;-) Anyway, I'm on board with calling it "classical music". I've never heard the term "art music" before anyway so yeah, I guess "classical" would be the way to go for me.
It's worth noting "muzyka poważna" has switched word order, and therefore becomes something like a unique phrase reserved for that area of music. If you literally were to consciously call something serious music, you'd say "poważna muzyka". It seems insignificant to us but look how different that makes polish and english for example. So while "muzyka poważna" might be something i disagree with when i break the phrase down, I dont mind it because the switched order creates this sort of distance you know
@@funkymonks8333 I think I get it. Language tends to do that, roughly the same meaning when broken down but creates its own different nuance in practice
I thought of the same moment. Barbara was scandalised (as she came from 1963). As a side note, the Beatles' footage showed in that episode was later destroyed by the BBC, so that episode of Doctor Who is now the only excerpt of it still known to exist.
I think one of the most formative conversations I had towards destroying the insane pretentious attitude I had as a teenager was when I was talking to a musician friend of mine about what counts as art and he had counterarguments to every point I tried to make. The conclusion we came to by the end of it is that if even one person believes something to be art according to their definition, then that thing is art and people saying otherwise doesn't change that.
There's a story of Lenny Bernstein being faced with defining what most people call "classical," he went through several terms and rejected each in turn before settling on "longhair music."
Which is just as confusing as any other term because the Beatles were considered to have radically long hair for their time, and of course modern practitioners and aficionados don't necessarily have long hair.
"Longhair music" was a term that was used in the 1950s I believe, and may go back further to the 1940s. I always found it an ironic term since in the 1960s "long hair" became emblematic of the new music and cultural revolution that was taking place.
@ExDeeXD Music BS knows exactly what he's doing... he's making money from bad faith arguments which are meant to keep the status quo so he continues to make money. He doesn't believe in anything except his own lies and falsehoods which make him a living. His inevitable downfall will be on a similar scale to Greek tragedies where he himself will be the only thing he hates and scapegoating will no longer work.
I've gone my whole life without hearing the term "Art Music" before this video. Given, I am really only just starting my journey in learning music theory. Everyone I've ever met just calls it "classical music", including other musicians in my life. I've only really heard distinctions such as "Classical Era Music", or "Romantic Era Music" when discussing music from the different periods. Looks like this seems to be the general sentiment amongst the rest of the comments section. The way I see it, language evolves over time and definitions change over time too. If its only a academics using the term "Art Music", and 99.9% of the English speaking population use the term "classical", then I'd say that the term should be "classical" and the academics need to get with the program so to speak.
For me, the only problem with the term classical music is that it implies that music from today / recently can't be classified as classical. Then again any other term suggested will also have the same problem in some other dimension, so let's just use classical music.
@@erikharaldsson2416 Any classical radio station worth its salt (while radio is still a thing...) is just as likely to play modern compositions as ancient ones. It's the performance context and instruments used that are the common thread for the most part. I think like most of us who are into it, there's no implied boundary of what is/isn't classical based on strict timeframes if we consider it broadly enough. :D
I'd argue that's even a better term, as it makes more evident the strong tendency in that time of emulating the Greco-Roman classics, rather than being a new canon. But I'm no way an academic of music (much less of that particular period), so I might be losing sight of something
It's odd that people can accept literature that's complex, difficult, or dealing with unpleasant matters. When it comes to music though, everything is supposed to sound pleasant to the untrained ear.
Some music is art. Some is product. Sign painting is art? Scrapbooking is art? Remember "arts and crafts". The Greek word "techne" meaning art, craft, technique, or skill yields technology as well as technique. Over centuries concepts come to be differentiated by terminology, and specialized jargon. The debate over categories best leaves out the use of PLASTIC word tautologies - like "X is Y" (Life is Communication, Knowledge is Power, Education is Communication is Life is Knowledge) which doesn't create but erases meaning or insight.
@@larryconcepts i feel like you're stuck in the caveman era where you're trying to enunciate the difference between cave paintings that express something and a hefty stick for hitting stuff, but haven't come to discover that the hefty stick can be carved to _make_ it express something while still leaving it as a tool for hitting stuff, as well as the subsequent realization that _not_ carving your hefty stick is _also_ a form of expression. and that's just with the stick itself, before getting into the forms of expression that come with how you _use_ the stick it's a useful lesson. you can tell a lot about a person just from their stick alone
Another word for the classical period is the era of Viennese Classicism (because a lot of the principal composers had their base in Vienna). This term is already in use, especially in other Northern European languages, where the distinction classical music (for art music) vs Viennese Classicism (for the classical period) is much more common (I studied musicology for two years in Copenhagen and didn't come across the term 'art music' once). Rather than changing the entire academic establishment, then, you'd probably only need to change the English-language academic establishment, which.... well, I guess, is usually still really difficult, but at least there's terminology already available.
I really REALLY like "western canonic music" as a term, especially when it comes to referring to modern composers. why is La Monte Young a "classical" musician, and not Merzbow? because Young was primarily directly engaging with the "classical" canon and Merzbow primarily engages with a different tradition altogether. "Aristocratic" music seems absurdly dismissive, somehow... I can't fathom how, say, Shostakovich could be remotely considered "aristocratic"
I feel like the suggestion of "Aristocratic music" was intentionally dismissive, in the same way as "art music" is dismissive of any music not written by or for rich white men.
When I was in college, my main professor used "WEAM" (Western-European Art Music) to describe it, but I'm on board with Aristocratic Music myself (or really just describing it by period). Wish I could show that professor this video after their explanation of Tin Pan Alley.
I went on listening without knowing what he's on about, before realizing it's not about the worst music genre, as such, but the *term* "art music" itself. When I hear the term "art music", I tend to think of any "experimental" music that doesn't sound like music to non-academics.
If you think about "art rock" as a genre, it's usually rock but more experimental, so yeah it is weird that even the definition of "art" as part of a genre name doesn't mean the same thing when it's attached to "music" instead of "rock"
0:17 by who's deffinition? That is a wild assumption. Was there a small group that pushed this term, who knows when, that which still bothers our certain terminology?
@@jh01835 White people throwing petty jabs at their great grandparents is 90% of the current identity politics movement that make these "issues" exist at all. A whole century of neoclassical Chinese music was erased from history with the exception of two concertos, it wasn't wypipo's fault, it was Mao.
“Classical music” and “classical period music.” Very easy for everyone to understand. It should also be noted that jazz is now very much an “aristocratic music.” Just the words “art music” though make me also think of Radiohead and later jazz along with classical. Really, it’s not really that big of a deal. Most people don’t even know the term “art music” and would probably interpret as loosely as I said above.
Agreed 100% - this conclusion that "art music is all about power and whiteness" seems a bit like an answer looking for a question. I'm sensing a bit of indoctrination, maybe even guilt, coming from @12tone which frankly is sad because if accurate it implies he's got a reason to feel guilty. That could be a symptom of the indoctrination, he's clearly formally educated, but sad nonetheless. The whole concept really evokes for me personally eerie notions of what modern college-level education might have become.
@@andrueanderson8637 I don't know how your reach that conclusion unless you really have no contact with the usage of the term "art music" within academic circles.
@@andrueanderson8637 Have you actually bothered to read the opinions of turn of the century composers and musical theorists? They were VERY explicitly racist. Let's not forget their ideas were a major influence on Nazi Germany and other white supremacist fascist regimes.
I think this has similar problems to the term art music. Academic would refer to it being studied and "art music" is definitely not the only music that is being studied. Personally I think it's easier to change the meaning of the term "art music" than to try and change the term to something else, tho' I kinda like the term "aristocratic music" mentioned in the video.
@@armeli well, I'll admit the term "academic" has its issues, specially because it refers specifically to western music without acknowledging it, but I think it works for two reasons: first, "academic" means not only being studied, but specifically being studied in a formal way. You can say Charlie Parker "studied" his music and instrument intensely thru practice and dedication, but you can hardly call that studies "academic". The othe reason is that even if nowadays you can study popular music in formal institutions (the "academic" way), that kind of formation is totally optional because of how popular music works. That doesn't happen in the "academic" music, where formal musical education is a must, again, because of the intrinsic nature of this kind of music. The term "academic", hence, makes a relevant distinction between pop/folk and academic music, without passing judgmentent about value. "Art" music, on the other hand, does the contrary: the distinction is completely false (Mozart or Shcumann are not more "art" than Hendrix or Goyeneche) and it carries a fundamental discrimination that should not be accepted. Finally, "aristocratic music" may be historically accurate, and I understand why it could work for some, but to me it doesn't hold any particular value for its current context, whereas "academic" does.
@@triciclosonido I like your argumentation. I'm kinda sad that I can't respond with equally good thoughts. Thank you for taking the time to write your comment!
Just reminds me of when Paul McCartney was taking a cab, and the guy had on classical. He turned it off because he believed Sir McCartney wouldn't appreciate "The High Class Stuff."
Macca himself has composed and published "art" music, too. But a different term was used tbh I can't remember now, in my language (italian) I believe it was labeled "musica colta" - which translates roughly into "educated music", which I find odd since it takes lots of education to appreciate some of the Beatles' and Wings' stuff, fully. So I just say that is instrumental music written for an orchestra, but people are suckers for generalised, short labels to categorise things 🙄
@@tonybates7870 hahaha. But in all seriousness, Bach was like a sugardaddy for everyone who lived 70 years after his death (due to copyright laws), everyone uses Bach’s stuff.
I have a friend who completely dropped her intent to pursue an art history degree when she realized the contempt academia had for the work of such greats as Frazetta, Giger, or Vallejo. In general, among all the arts, there is an infatuation with specific eras and places to the absolute exclusion of anyone and everyone else - dismissing all else, no matter how amazing it actually is, as unsophisticated drek no serious person could possibly find admirable. (Her last straw was a professor who literally sneered as he sarcastically described Frazetta as "just a petty illustrator, not even worth a second look".
I was unfamiliar with any of those names so I had to look them up. Frazetta and Vallejo’s works both remind me of modern sci-fi/fantasy oil paintings. I feel like someone in academia could draw some parallels between older oil paintings and the styles of Frazetta and Vallejo. Giger’s didn’t give me the same vibe as the other two, but it is still interesting. Perhaps one could talk about the way science and science fiction influence art in the case of Giger (though it could apply to the previous two as well). In any case, thank you for introducing me to some new artists I’d never heard of!
What you say about audience participation is always true in music 'art' or not. I am reminded that Cages 4mins 33secs, where the whole point is that the audience actually generates the piece unintentionally. Anyway I had never really heard of the genre art music before but I am going to adopt the tagline 'art music for the artless' for my own work going forward.
When I was learning guitar we just called all the periods Classical and the specific period classical, distinguishing between baroque, romantic, etc when needed. Honestly I didn't find having classical do double duty confusing at all
Everything made by composers in Europe after 1700 and before 1899 is Classical Music, there's just different subgenres. I would even count Erik Satie as one of the last Classical composers in his early days.
@@MrBrno also calling _"subgenres"_ differents musical movements that spanned over century is just as stupid as it would to call rock and jazz two subgenres of the sams category
The term "Art Music" reminds me of a complaint Richard James (aka "Aphex Twin") made about the term "Intelligent dance Music". He hated it, because it implied the other techno of that era wasnt intelligent, and Aphex thought that was a terrible way to treat musicians. *All* music is Art.
Here's another suggested name - Composer Music. Since the Classical music scene of today doesn't have the same social/artistic role as the Classical music of older times (it's no longer for aristocrats lol) or the same economic model (perhaps the most distinctive feature of Classical music today is that it's usually state-funded), the only thing those traditions have in common is the role of the composer - the star of the show who doesn't have to appear in person. This relates to its role as "high art" -every piece is the product of the composer's intention, but also has an independent existence. In contrast, Jazz and Folk are Performer music, since concerts are more about who plays than what they play.
That would imply that Jazz and Rock weren't ever composed, which is absolutely bullshit. For example, many Jazz composers never receive credit. (And, yes, there absolutely are Jazz songs that no one ever bothers to "reinterpret".) Many rock songs were written by a songwriter, for a band, and most people don't know that (because they don't check the linear notes). That would also imply, by contrast, that so-called "art music" isn't performed, when it's performed daily, in various orchestras and ensembles.
This is my favorite solution to the problem I've seen yet, but I'd like to refine it a bit... I think we could replace the "Art Music" and "Pop Music" terms that we use to refer to these two groups/realms of music with the terms "Composer Music" and "Producer Music" respectively. This defines things by who typically "creates" the music / how it's typically "created." Classical, jazz, world, etc. would fit under Composer Music since they're traditionally created by composers / the process by which the music is prepared for performing and/or recording is referred to as "composing." Pop, rock, hip hop, and electronic would fit under Producer Music since they're normally created by producers / the process by which the music is arranged and recorded for release is referred to as "producing." This doesn't mean that there isn't composing involved in creating Producer Music or producing involved in creating Composer Music; it's simply categorizing things by the main form of creation that's going on when these types of music are made. We could even take it a step further and call them "Composer-Conductor Music" and "Writer-Producer Music" since that includes arguably the next most important role in each of these kinds of music: classical/jazz music is usually performed/recorded with a conductor leading the musicians, and pop/rock/etc. music usually has writers creating the lyrics.
@@joshuaholke I do prefer the idea of saying composer-conductor music, but I still think stuff like this is still not great - now you run into the problem of solo artists, and there are many genres that defy those labels. Where would you classify, say, soundtracks? Even within soundtracks, there is so much variaion - Take Chris Christodoulou's "con lentitud poderosa..." against Lena Raine's "Scattered and Lost". What about genres like Orchestral Dubstep? at it's very core, the genre exists within both of those descriptions. What about artists like Frequent - how would you even classify an artist like that? I think that describing a genre with something so general as production, composition, writing, and conducting has many of the flaws that a name like art music does - it takes those elements out of other music. No genre definition and name is perfect, and it's best off that way, but I still think that is way too broad.
I think “orchestral music” is pretty solid. It tells you that that music uses some form of an orchestra. You can also alter the orchestral with any other modifier “minimal orchestral” “neo classical orchestral” etc. in the same way u can say “thrash metal” “doom metal”….and the distinction between people trying to express themselves artistically and people in entertainment groups (not mutually exclusive but lets face it, it usually is) i dont have a problem with the art music-pop music dichotomy but what is considered art music should not be jazz or “classical” only. It should include all types of genres…whereas “art music” is impossible to completely define currently without being old fashioned, its pretty easy to see “pop music” we all pretty much know what that is. No one is confused about the objective of the latest justin bieber album. Its purpose is to sell records, merch, and tickets first and if it happens to express someones self, that nice, but incidental to its main commercial purpose.
"romantic" music also means both "mid-to-late 19th century 'classical' music" AND "babymakin tunes", and context is enough to distinguish the difference.
"Art music" belongs with terms like "literary fiction" and "genre film" in terms that make my stomach churn with disgust. These terms are elitist and serve no purpose other than to separate popular art from the art that is considered "worthy"
In ethno musicology I learned about how an African tribe wouldn't understand a sound as "music" unless it was understood that it was played by a human.
I often hear modern musicians called 'artists', and they're often very wealthy. Moreso than classical musicians whose music you called aristocratic. Well a lot of that music was also composed for a town's organ in its main church, and not for aristocratic patrons. Sure, the composers were well off, but nowhere near as modern major artists. I get that you mentioned this is more aimed at academic discussion, but that discussion doesn't seem to be all that influential in this regard.
one difference is between the focus on the one who writes the music and the one who performs it. "classical" music has a big focus on the author, while contemporary music is more focuses on the performer (which may or may not be also the author, but the focus is of them performing it, not writing it. Which makes the term artist quite fitting. Just as much as a painter paints a painting, a sculptor sculpts the sculpture, an actor acts the role, the musician makes the music. they all are the artists who create the actual art.
He was talking about it in the terms of commissioning and how the argument of 'If they get paid it's not real art' is flimsy since they don't consider the greats to be apart of that even though a lot of their work was paid/commissioned.
@@Acre00 When I was a kid and we were driving past a diary farm and the smell of manure came wafting in, my dad would be guaranteed to exclaim, "Ah, smell that sweet dairy air!"...He missed his calling in comedy.
For anyone interested in the lyrics: I watch you walk upon the streets of London. Your mini-skirt stretched tight, and looking sweet. I watch you walk, and walk into a lampost. I didn't see, upon the London street.. So turn your back, and wiggle softly from me!. With mini-skirt, (perhaps, no underwear!). Your legs are great! But, by the Gods above me!. I watch your wondrous London derriere! The Paris girls are wonders full of beauty,. And California grows the Long-stemmed L.A. rose,. Berlin nights are full of life, and lovely,. But London girls don't wear no panty-hose!. So turn your back, and wiggle softly from me!. And let me watch, and dream a dream so rare:. In my hotel, you naked there above me. Sit on my face with your London derriere!.. Credit to W.J.Bethancourt III
Never heard "art music" before and still don't know what is is lol. Apparently in french we call that "musique savante" to distinguish it from "musique populaire" (pop music) and "musique traditionnelle" (folk music). It could be roughly translated to "elaborate music" (so it includes things like musique concrète, and carries the idea that it's complex music).
I've been a musician for 40 years, and rarely have I heard it called "art music." 99% of the time, people erroneously call it Classical, and at this point, you might as well call it that, in the same we call it "Rock Music" if you're discussing Metallica, Hendrix, or the Beatles.
Oh yeah! I heard the term "art music" back in university and completely forgot about it as I never personally used it. I did specify romantic peroid (my favorite) for awhile, but most people just use "classical" as a catch all for orchestral or instrumental music, so that felt more right than art music ever did, lol
And even then, what would "classical" refer to. Only old pieces, or contemporary ones that incorporate techniques from old pieces? Would the 2019 symphonic version of Take On Me qualify as classical, because it has an orchestra? Would modern film scores qualify, because they are instrumental?
'classical' because it's played on the instruments of the classical orchestra? Which would eliminiate a lot of classical guitar music so that doesn'f fit either ...
(9:01) Honestly, one of the most overlooked concepts in modern music discourse. And that's that _every genre of music has some form of complexity_ at some point. *_Every. Single. One._* Most people will be so quick to point out the technical ability of several artists in their favorite genre, but bring up one they don't enjoy and they'll start saying that it's easy to create within or just made to make money, or even that it's *"not real music, man!"* (As if that's a reasonable argument.) Just to prove this, here is a basic list of genres, the type of complexity I believe is fundamental to each*, and an example musician that best exemplifies that type. Jazz: Harmony (Thelonious Monk) Rock: Tone (Jimi Hendrix) Metal: Dexterity (Eddie Van Halen) Hip-Hop: Flow (Kendrick Lamar) Country: Storytelling (Johnny Cash) R&B: Vocal Ability (Mariah Carey) Pop: Production (Kate Bush) Electronic: Textures (Aphex Twin) Folk: Accessibility (Joni Mitchell) Blues: Mood (Nina Simone) And that's just 10 off the top of my head. Add more in the comments if you want to expand someone's definition of complexity, especially mine. *Note: Just because I said that one particular aspect of a genre of music is fundamental to it does not mean that only one genre has it, nor that all music made within that genre has it in abundance. Rappers with wack flows exist, as well as country artists without any narrative talent and pop songs with poor production behind them.
I kinda disagree tbh, while you are right saying there's some complexity in everything, it's way easier to compose or play some pop or reggae rather than classical, romantic, rock, etc. And there's a big range of difficulty within them. It also varies a lot depending on THE SONG. You said rock has, as a difficult aspect, "tone". That's something that can be literally applied to playing any song in any genre in an instrument that needs correct tuning. You also said metal has dexterity, which just means agility... It's the same, there can be a fast piece or passage in any kind of genre, maybe except relaxing music. Country, storytelling: The art of storytelling is something very important to have in ANY song or gender, it makes the song deeper and interesting in another level, but there's nothing that says "country" has more storytelling than anything else... And Blues, mood: That's subjective to you, some people don't like blues because they don't like the blues mood.
Don't think I'd call Cage a minimalist; he did far more with chance and aleatory than the minimalism that we largely define as pulse-oriented, diatonic, process-based music. Cage I think is just a different type of modernist, like how Schoenberg, Ives, Stockhausen, Xenakis, and Stravinsky are all different types of modernist.
@@GuillermoRubelt I would always classify Beethoven as Classical over Romantic, but the line from Beethoven to Brahms and Schumann is so continuous that it's hard to argue he doesn't belong in part to the Romantic tradition too.
@@GuillermoRubelt early Beethoven, perhaps not. Later Beethoven, definitely. At transitional times in history, there are always Artists that move the needle. Beethoven definitely did.
Galant is a style, classical is a period. The galant style was popular during the "classical period", but it was far from the only one. The whole classical, romantic, baroque thing is more confusing and misleading than it is helpful a lot of the time. The reality of different styles and techniques going in and out of style is not nearly as clear-cut as those categories imply. The whole idea of "transitional periods/composers" is pretty flawed too.
@@Garrett_Rowland yeah as a first year music student, one of the first things i remember being discussed is how flawed periodisation is. In this video he mentioned the impact of 19th century german nationalism on modern conceptions of music and part of that impact is the definition of those periods, and the whole idea of periods anyway - i thought he should emphasise that a bit more particularly since he finished off the video by discussing how we could rename the Classical era when i think a lot of scholars would suggest that we don't use periods anyway, or at least the ones we're used to.
I am musicologist from Czech republic, which was part of Ausria-Hungary. So influance is quite strong, but we developed our ways to categorized those to bigs music group. artifical (art music) and nonartificial, that seems to me as a best option. We ale say "klasická" and "klasicistní" both are tranlated to english as classical music but the diference is huge. In my opiton this is issue only for english speaking countries not germam or slavic language
The literary fiction genre is another example of this same baseless specification that is solely a result of power dynamics. There's no difference between literary works and genre works that doesn't appeal to some vague notion of superiority that people can never quite define
Granted, I always defined Literature and Literary Fiction as things that have stood the test of time in a major way, and that being how something gets into the "Literary Canon".
See - I always called it 'classical music' (with a small c) to refer to the whole 'Art music' thing Classical with a capital C for the specific period with Mozart etc.
I always thought all music is art, no matter how garbage it is. Its something that a person put time into making, for whatever reasons they had to do so.
I wouldn't say that to a degree though. I thoroughly enjoy Meshuggah's music and they openly admit they don't expect anyone to like their music and simply make what "sounds cool". They also have mentioned in a lot of interviews that they love Electronic music specifically Autechre, Aphex twin, and Squarepusher.
I like how “djent” characterizes djent as badly as art music describes art music. Most djent songs don’t actually have the infamous onomatopeia, and a lot of non-djent songs do. I guess it just got too mainstream to call it “progressive metalcore”
@@drumkidstu I don't feel like that's as much of an accurate substitute as progressive metalcore. I wouldn't call dream theater djent, but they're definitely progressive metal.
More info on Danny Boy / The Londonderry Air. Was originally called O'Cahan's Lament, composed by Rory Dall, chieftain of the O'Cahan clan, near my hometown Limavady. Transcribed in 1851, by Limavady schoolteacher Jane Ross, after she heard blind fiddler Jimmy McCurry playing it outside her house.
The worst part to me is the fact that this genre doesn’t seem to acknowledge the fact that all art is subjective, not all people on earth will agree that something is art, some people might love it, and other people might hate it. There is no such way to put a definate label on something when not everyone will agree with it.
We all grew up with art music? Did we? This is literally the first time I've even heard the term, and I've either listened to or studied music for over 25 years!
As a one-time student of singing, I heard it as "art songs." They were reserved for a certain level in my performance capacities. Before I got there, as if on the same wavelength, several different voice teachers built on what I learned using anything but that genre. Emphasis was on Broadway or sufficiently complex pop. Once I crossed that boundary, not long after I learned songs by Sondheim and Andrew Lloyd Webber, it was the "real" stuff. Operatic arias or similarly known works composed in the eras from Baroque through Classical were what they meant by it. For timing context, I started studying solo voice in the late 1970s in Massachusetts and connected to the same process mentality in California in the mid-80s.
Dude... I'm a big fan of classical music (what popularly we call classical music), and even went to a bunch cassical concerts (Beethoven's being my favorite), and never heard the term art music.
@@dylanbaxter4092 - doh! I thought you were referring to an actual band! I didn't realize it was a typo 😄. I haven't listened to them in a while. It's exhausting. Intense.
I'm not fully on board with the premise that "art music" implies all other music isn't art. Genre names aren't supposed to be that specific and all-encompassing. Drum and Bass isn't the only genre with drums and bass. Pop music isn't the only popular music. Swing music isn't the only music that's swung.
Personally I don't love the term "art music", and I think it's because when you name a genre for an attribute it implies that the genre emphasizes that element. Drum and Bass isn't the only genre to use drums and bass, but it does emphasize the drums and bass as a core element in the music, same goes for Swing. Pop music is called that because it is often written with the intent of gaining massive mainstream popularity (or I suppose sometimes we probably assign the "pop" label retroactively after something has gained mainstream popularity). So when I hear "art music", that sounds like this is supposed to be music that was made with the explicit intent to be artful and artistic. Which is fine on its own, but where do you draw the line on what was intended to be artful/artistic? Drum and Bass, Swing, Pop, and EDM for example are all genre names that describe either technical aspects of the music, or their intended purpose, but "art music" feels like a value judgement. It's not so much saying that "This music is the only art music", but more "All music is art, but this music is more artistic/artful than the rest"
@@cavejohnson9071 To be clear, I'm not a big fan of "art music" as a genre name either, I've barely ever heard it used, and I think for good reason, it doesn't fill much of a purpose. It could die as a term, and barely anyone would notice. To argue the point a bit though, I think there is music that is made to be more or less artistic or artsy, and I don't personally consider that a value judgement. Music performs many roles other than being standalone art. Some music is made to get your hips moving. I love listening to danceable music, but I'd usually categorize denser music that rewards close listening to be more artistic, or art-related. We use the word art in different ways. There's art as in "artsy," or creative expression and art as in "the art of ____," which is a phrase used to compliment any refined skill. Art music to me is an example of the prior use, and not just a synonym for "good music," although you could argue it still carries that connotation.
@@duncanrobertson6472 Yeah, I suppose I can agree that some music is meant to be more "artsy." Someone else in the comments said that it would work better as a descriptor or prefix, ie. "art rock" or "art pop", and I kind of like that better. The "art music" term is mainly used by classical music theorist types, which is probably why a lot of people haven't heard the term. I'm not sure I've heard it used much outside of conservatory/music school contexts
Honestly renaming the classical period seems like a really bad idea. I didn't study music in school (was a musician but only took guitar lessons), but instead studied history. Every so often history renames periods, often for reasons that seem very good and add precision, but I think one major downside of that that academics totally ignore is it creates a huge gulf between academics and regular people. Often just as regular people are starting to become familiar with the terminology, its changed, and one can't help but have a sneaking suspicion the change is actually more to do with maintaining a power disparity between academia (particularly rich people with advanced degrees) and the rest of us. Case in point, regular people now have a pretty good grasp of the breakdown of these periods of music. If you change the classical period to something else, really the function it will serve in society is figuring out who is elite and educate and who isn't (this is exactly what I saw in history where just as something in academia was getting traction among the public, suddenly that was time to change things around)
Indeed. How many movements in History called themselves "Modern" or "Nouveaux" which starts as just meaning the newest thing, but becomes ossified as a genre term and more meaningless as time passes.
Dutch historian here. The term classical serves two functions, one is to denote the classical era, whose music is described by the term 'classical era music', the other to describe anything based on classical traditions, essentially saying it is old and potentially outdated, but worthy for some value it has, often some aesthetic or conceptual quality, often tracing its roots to Rome and/or Greece. There is and never was much of a problem calling it 'classical music', it's the term 'art music' that is just plain dumb.
@@hugobouma Benjamin Britten beat you to it "The cantata ... incorporates two congregational hymns sung by the audience." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noye%27s_Fludde#Inception
> 11:58 "[Art music is music the audience observes but doesn't participate in]" So when I listen to a CD? Oh, I guess it has to be live. So if [insert current low-brow pop singer, like Britney Spears or Justin Bieber] does a concert with no sing-a-long segment it's art music? And when everyone is clapping along to Radetzky March at the Vienna Philharmonic's new year's concert on every January 1st, it's not art music? Got it. I guess most instrumental EDM is art music?
There’s a reason that Aphex Twin coined the term “braindance,” and it was to give people who felt the need to classify music into sub genres a term that wasn’t as smug and pretentious as “intelligent dance music.”
I was actually having this exact conversation with my friend the other day. I hate using the term Art Music, but it got the point across and he hated the term because it is alienating to other forms of music. For background, I am a "trained" musician who went to a conservatory and he is a self-taught "untrained" musician. I had an arbitrary dichotomy of Art Music and Popular Music. Music that was separated by its place in culture and status. It was my personal attempt to put these two arbitrary things on the same level and allowed people to know what I was talking about at a glance, but it still put "Art Music" on a pedestal. Honestly, I would have almost done better by making a different dichotomy of Old vs. New Music with what people consider Art Music. The definitions you provided are ways me and other classically trained musicians have attempted to explain to others that Art Music is a good term. However, the breakdown of the issues and logical fallacies found in them really allowed my brain to expand much more. The "classical training", which has its own baggage, can create a very myopic view when it comes to music, culture, and (another unnecessary dichotomy I now realize I have) untrained musicians. Art music is popular music. Popular music is art music. Honestly, the dichotomy is dumb. Aristocratic Music is not a bad choice because it gives it the weight it deserves. This music was written for certain people during a certain time. Personally, I think renaming an entire period of music is probably not the best idea and we could instead as a culture just be ok with the idea that Classical capitalized and classical lowercase mean different things. First, the problem needs to be acknowledged. Thank you for making this video. I hope that this creates a bigger conversation!
I've never heard of the term art music before and it is truly the stupidest term I've ever heard of music is art if I made farting sounds with my armpit I could call that art and it would be so
Here me out now, what about the term "Scored Music" It calls to the tradition of notation / composer (which feels like the back bone of the european music cannon we're discussing), and doesn't get muddied up with genre specifics, or a specific time period. I feel like it could clear up the genre discourse within the music tradition you're describing in this video. So orchestras or symphony's would be places where you would go and (broadly) listen to "scored" music. art music is to broad and uninclusive of other styles. it's like written music, but doesnt hold the same snobbery you were implying. All music is written and communicated, but most genre's dont fully score the songs, and keep using that score in every subsequent performance or as the /definitive/ version (spent my entire undergrad as a "music composition" major thinking about this) (and so far this is the most simple, inclusive term i've been able to think of)
One issue I foresee with your suggestion of "aristocratic music" is that it leaves out a lot of contemporary "classical" artists. Anna Meredith, Julia Wolfe, Steve Reich, Thomas Ades, etc certainly aren't "aristocratic", and in some ways even eschew those norms and relations in spite of drawing from the history of development there (I mean, jazz music often uses understandings of harmony codified by "classical" music; ii-V-I and whatnot). And also on the topic of this, we have to contend with the fact that people like Anna Meredith, Steve Reich, Stockhausen, Edgard Varese, etc are also "classical composers", yet often use instruments, technologies, or forms that match popular music. Much of Anna Meredith's music is kinda like rock/EDM, but I think it still would or should be labeled "classical" or whatever other word we'd call it. "Come out to show them" by Steve Reich is classical. Edgard Varese's "acousmatic music" is a type of electronic classical. Stockhausen and the Darmstadt school's electronic musics are "classical". So, the question is, is what term uniquely combines everything from like, church music from the 800s or ancient greek music, up to contemporary electronic works by people like Jeffrey Stolet, Pamela Z, Panayiotis Kokoras, Morton Subotnik, and so on? We can't call it "concert music" since a lot of music is performed at concerts and a lot of contemporary classical in some ways literally can't be. All terms we've noted so far apart from "classical" doesn't quite fit, but "classical" is also vague and referring to a specific time period. "Academic music" like other terms mentioned would imply popular music styles are not academic. Perhaps we can call it "Unpopular music"? Or "Non-popular"? Defining it by the fact that it is not a type of populist or folk music, yet even then that might serve to create an unnecessary codified divide there, and with people like Anna Meredith, or past composers like Bartok who incorporate popular and folk music into their writing, that wouldn't fit either. Can't call it "lineage music" or something like that either since electronic classical music just ignores typical instruments often times. Can't call it "high art music" without evoking classist ideas, and even then, the minimalism of the downtown NYC scene a la Steve Reich, Philip Glass, and Julius Eastman, along with composers like Cornelius Cardew, actively opposed the idea of "high art". Can't call it "difficult music" since a lot of classical music isn't that difficult. Maybe we could call it "research music"? Because we associate all these styles with the same fundamental category, and that part of it has been defined by time periods that have changed stylistically largely with changes to how we conceptualize music, that might be a good term? Spectral music, minimalism, serialism, form structures, "never-ending melodies", etc all are kind of "discoveries" in music, and a lot of it is oriented around exploring these concepts. Then again, like you mentioned, a lot of composers, especially in the period of direct patronage, wrote as a job and not as a form of research. Perhaps then, "career music"? But then, bands have musical careers. Perhaps "patron-based music"? Much of "classical" music relies on patrons to even exist, be it the state through funding for local orchestras, individual donors, academic institutions, non-profit organizations, or otherwise, whereas bands and "popular music" is often reliant on the market. It's an interesting discussion and hard to figure out any good answer to it apart from just being like "whatever, it's 'classical' and that's fine".
Honestly, just "classical" makes the most sense. Musical genre names are, at the end of it all, just names, and the main purpose of a name is identification, rather than purely description. "Indie" started out as a label for independent musicians, but has grown to refer more to a sound than strictly a musician's status of being signed/not signed by a record label. The "rock" in rock music dates back to the fact that rock and roll was originally music you were meant to dance to, but I'd challenge most people to dance to, say, Kashmir by Led Zeppelin. Even the "pop" music label, which originally started out as shorthand for "popular", to most people has an identity outside of just what sells the most.
saying that the presence of contemporary "aristocratic music" make the term non-valid would be same as saying nobody can play "delta blues" barring people out of mississippi delta in 1920s.
@@leejuicy Not really? I'm disagreeing with the label of "aristocratic" since that sort of class relation is not present or is actively opposed in a lot of contemporary "classical" music. In the same way it would be wrong to call it "art music", it'd be wrong to call it "aristocratic music" given how broad of a genre/scope we're discussing. However, "delta blues" discusses a geolocatable musical style. For instance, we can talk about French Baroque music, which is a type of baroque music, but that would still be a part of the larger "classical" (or whatever other term) genre, just as "delta blues" is part of the larger "blues".
@@FranciT98 Yeah, I think that's a fair enough rationale; it all does come down to semantics in the end, and if we're well aware of what we're implying when we say "classical" broadly vs "Classical" in the genre-period sense, I think it would be clear enough, but I think it's still an interesting exercise to try to think of what other terms we could use.
The flip side of the idea of profit is that many rock bands and jazz musicians barely make any money from their music, at best being able to break even and have some food money, but often needing to work day jobs. Especially in the streaming era, much current music is produced for love and creative drive.
I spent five years in college (1977-82) learning to compose Art Music (or Serious Music, as we sometimes called it). Occasionally it was referred to as New Music, whenever someone of note newly composed a piece of music. And I was also taught that, loosely speaking, the genre could be referred to as classical music, but with a lower-case c. The uppercase Classical was the stuff that Mozart composed.
I've also wondered about what to call "classical" (as opposed to Classical) music. How about "concert hall" music, basing it on the kind of venue where you usually hear it live? Or we could just call the period of Mozart, Haydn, etc "Big C Classical music", and the catch-all that includes Baroque, Romantic, and so on "small-c classical music"?
the title of this video is super misleading. I thought he would be critiquing a genre of music, saying that its good or not, but instead it was just him complaining about the name of a genre
14:00 In the 20th century rock community people often complained about "selling out", modern music communities aren't immune from this nonsense either.
My partner is a concert flutist, and this is one of those things that she both uses regularly (calling it Classical music) but also gripes at regularly ("uggh, I said it again"). To help assuage her, we've started calling that genre "classical instrumentation music" such that when we call it "classical music" we're referring to the fact that it uses "classical" instrumentation, that is, instruments that can be categorized into "classes" (piano, oboe, trumpet, saxophone, theramin, ondes-martineau, etc) as opposed to "produced instruments," that is, synthesized sounds and electric instruments that operate with distortion. I know it's a bit of a cognitive leap, but it's made the general population calling it "classical" music more tolerable. It also helps a lot because it allows us to sweep Sound Tracks, traditional (non-Fusion) Jazz, Big Band, Marching Band, Stage music like Opera and Musicals, and even things like classical guitar and so-called "exotic" music like Latin Dance and Folk Music traditions with, for example, Arabic and Japanese instruments, all under the same heading. This helps immensely not only because its what the general population does anyway, but also because it describes all of the kinds of ways someone who performs on one of those kinds of instruments professionally can be expected to be capable of when tryng to gig.
Get 26% off CuriosityStream and a free Nebula account: www.curiositystream.com/12tone and use promo code "12tone"
Some additional thoughts/corrections:
1) I should note that the "work-concept" thing is complex and different scholars feel differently about it. It's not clear that pre-Romantic Europe didn't conceive of music works, but it does seem pretty well accepted that they didn't conceive of them the same way we do. That's why I focused on the _modern_ work-concept: The point isn't that no one in Bach's time thought musical works existed, but they most likely wouldn't have described them in a way we would recognize.
2) The thing I describe as "vernacular music" is also called folk music, but because that has specific stylistic connotations I chose to go with the fancier but more general term. Like most terms, "vernacular music" has multiple definitions, and some sources describe it as the umbrella category for both folk and popular music traditions, but in the Romantic period popular music wasn't really a thing yet.
3) Some folks might take issue with my claim that the "rewards close listening" definition exists to reify the superiority of the canon, because they view sufficiently complex jazz, rock, and whatever as art music too. In retrospect this might have been worth addressing in the video itself, but basically, the issue here is that, by definition, the principles by which we measure complexity are rooted in our understanding of the works we've already deemed complex. All music rewards close listening, but not all music does so in the same was as traditional "art music", so our conception of which new pieces get to be included will be based in large part on what's already there, and what's already there is the Western Classical Canon.
4) There's actually a really cool video of Tom Morello demonstrating how he did the Bulls On Parade solo: th-cam.com/video/kyxKJLgfT7A/w-d-xo.html
5) On the "not for profit" thing, some people may argue that it's not fair to conflate it with valuing the work of the independently wealthy, because art music still gets funded, it's just by public grants and whatnot. This is a cop-out and is barely even worth acknowledging, but just in case, let's do it anyway: The basic idea here is that public funding boards don't have to cater to the "lowest common denominator" (a problematic view in its own right) and thus can fund "real art". But consider who gets to be on those boards: It's the same wealthy aristocrats the so-called "art music" tradition has been catering to for hundreds of years. The things they fund don't represent "real art", they represent a specific subset of the population's aesthetic preferences. Just like every other kind of music does. Again, this funding model holds no special claim to the title of art.
6) Another option might be to go the direction rock did and treat "classical" as a suffix, so we'd have Baroque Classical, Romantic Classical, and so on. That'd leave us with something like Historic Classical or whatever for that specific era, just like we have Rock 'n Roll for the period that first claimed the name "rock music". Or, I mean, we could always call the Classical Period "Classical 'n Roll"?
Amen times three on your comment regarding publicly funded art in any medium. Not only is there a selection bias in the people who get the privilege of making the selections, but there is a public opinion bias, in that if those boards select something outside the mainstream in any way, there is such a hue and cry and threats to funding sources that there is real pressure to stay inside the long-established boundaries. I'll admit, I'm guilty of this kind of bias myself, especially when it comes to artists like Jackson Pollack where the technique might seem "too accessible to the common person / insufficiently difficult to be 'real' art." Considering my preferred medium is vocal music, I really shouldn't be casting stones like that. I'm working on it!
"That'd leave us with something like Historic Classical or whatever for that specific era"
Well, there is always Classical Classical ...
regarding point 2 - What is the difference between vernacular/folk music vs popular music? Is folk music developed locally and independently by a community (vs "professional" musicians), and popular music is a result of mass media - music that is most often heard on the radio/online, or having the most recording sales? Does folk music exist anymore?
@@rzn80r I'm not sure if this is the prevailing view in academia; but for me it's always been like "classical music" vs. "art music of the classical era."
To my own mind, folk music is anything made by The People; which would encompass everything from great-granddad on the porch with his banjo to his great-granddaughter in her room busting out EDM jams. Obviously considering everything from rock to hip-hop and as far afield beyond as one can conceive as "folk music" is a little different than the "folk" section at the record store, which is primarily acoustic instruments of certain cultural heritages; but like I said; same problem as "classical" vs "classical."
I don't if The Professionals (i.e. music theorists, ethnomusicologists... lexicographers?) would agree; but to my mind, popular music is a subset of folk/vernacular traditions.
Except... we tend to think of the vernacular as something that came about organically. And yet, there exist numerous examples outside of the western "art music" tradition (and leaving aside because our own cultural chauvinism leaves stuff that should absolutely be considered at a level comparable to our "art music" traditions lumped together with other cultures' vernacular traditions - say Hindustani classical and Carnatic music lumped in with bhangra and Bollywood soundtracks - in the dubious category of "world music") of music that doesn't fit the canonical notions of "art music" and yet doesn't come from folk traditions either. Thinking mainly of pieces for commission, commercial jingles, stuff like that. Which... yeah, I suppose can still be slotted into a genre. Just... it doesn't quite fit with my own thoughts on how something develops within a vernacular.
I'm an "art" musician and I don't have too many disagreements with you on the topic itself but what the fuck is that title. And secondly, why do you keep emphasizing the social class of the composers. They played for the upper-class but they weren't necessarily nobility themselves. Everyone was poor back then and the people who could afford a full orchestra for private events were dukes, counts, barons, emperors, etc. This sounded like a combination of white guilt and virtue signaling. Also, lyrics don't turn a trashy pop song with two or three notes into art music. Lyrics are poetry, not music.
"all music is folk music; I ain't never heard no horse sing a song," --- Louis Armstrong
But what if you use a horse's whinnying to make a melody out of and eventually a song? Then wouldn't the horse be singing that song?
@@Danmashinigamikuro kanye literally sampled an elephant and autotuned it and it sounded fuck awesome
@@shreyashshrestha6085 lol
@@Danmashinigamikuro Yeah but it wouldn't be folk music then.
@@davidwalterhall Indeed, but that means that not all music is folk music.
One thing I really love about academics is their ability to spend 15 minutes to say "that's some bullshit."
Specifying precisely why and to what extent it is bullshit is important.
+@@BradyPostma but more importantly, that's some bullshit.
Any idiot can say something is BS. And we collectively blow off those who call things BS. It really ISN'T important to "just call it BS" because that does nothing but make the people who already agree nod.
Explaining accurately and in detail the problems can convince more people that it is indeed BS. Particularly in this case where the people who need to stop using the term are also academics. If you cut off the academic support of the term, you kneecap the cretins who use it to reinforce their prejudices.
The best way to correct bullshit is to educate why it's bullshit, people lacking on giving the education part leads the BS to persist.
@@BradyPostma "specifically precisely" teens should be working in amazon warehouses not going to music college
I think the issue with calling it "art music" is that all music is art, it's redundant. It's like calling certain houses "architecture buildings". Just distinguish it by the genre it fits into, everyone already calls it "classical music" or we could refer to it as European classical or western classical.
ur kinda right but also i can totally imagine some pretentious person refusing to acknowledge the architectural merit of postmodern or vernacular building styles and starting to call their preferred style “architecture buildings”. the redundant pretentiousness is just so human, you know?
I dont agree that all music is art. Most music you currently hear on the radio has like 10-20 writing/production credits that change per song on the same album. This music is then basically pieced together by committee. It is audience tested. More on marketing is spent on the production of the album…theres nothing wrong with this. But the goal isnt self expression itself. Its not to make the best song that represents the most you, its to fish for the biggest banger/hit/$$$…its then intended to go on a big tour in big venues with other artists that have their albums manufactured in this way. With huge stage production…to put it simply, its entertainment not really art. Its a roller coaster ride at a theme park…nothing wrong with that and not saying it CANT be art. Just that it usually isnt. This also has nothing to do with genre. Any genre can be art. Im just saying that most current music you hear on top 200 (like 90% i would estimate) is cobbled together and packaged and sold like a toy. I wouldnt really consider that art would u?
@@vivsavagex That doesn't mean it isn't art. There is good art and bad art. If humans at some point had some sort of creative input in the final product then it's art whether you like it or not even if the goal was profit at the end of the day. As long as there is some sort of creative process like making a tune, making a beat, singing performance, composition, etc.., then it's art even if the end product is soulless corporate crap. I never said art is inherently good.
@@jhhwild thats not the definition of art though. Youre misunderstanding the basic terms of what you are talking about. If something is manufactured specifically for profit then it is not art. That is a product. If we are going by your understanding of the word art then the word has become meaningless as we can apply it to anything. Lucky charms cereal is art. An autograph is art. A tire on a car is art…do you really think of art as being that broad or are u just trying to be contrarian? because please stop and admire the artistry of billboard ad for an ambulance chasing attorney next time you walk by one if youre committed to this ridiculous premise…also, your concept of good and bad has nothing to do with anything. There is good and bad pop music just like good and bad “art music”. Its quality doesnt determine its categorization its INTENT does.
@@vivsavagex "art" by definition is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination", so pretty much anything that utilizes that can be considered "art", so yes a Lucky Charms box art can be considered art because someone had to design it, draw it and compose it which requires some level of creativity and imagination. Is it high art? No it's not, just because it's art doesn't mean it's worthy of your respect, praise, or admiration but that doesn't mean it isn't art. Music made by human beings is inherently an artistic medium just like drawing and painting just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's suddenly not art anymore. Even music you don't like requires some level of effort and creativity.
I had never heard the term art music until i had to write a term paper on it for a college music class with a teacher i hated. I didnt know the meaning of art music and the best definition i could find was just music of artistic value. So i wrote a 4 page paper on nirvana i used music theory to explain how the notes of the songs work to express the meaning emotions and artistic creativity, i gave examples from their discography, and most importantly i cited my work with other bodies of text supporting my claims. 4 pages of some of the hardest work i had done that semester and she threw it out saying, and i quote “rock music is not artistic.” i don’t think ive ever come so close to beating the living shit out of someone as i had that day.
How is rock music not "art"? What definition does it conflict with? No definition I've encountered says anything about when or for whom art was created. Nothing about profit or individual taste.
Webster, for example, simply defines it as "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects." Imagination and creativity. Did Nirvana just blindly follow some deterministic formula? Was Bohemian Rhapsody just re-hashing some age-old inherent melody of the universe without alteration? If anything the mention of "aesthetic objects" provides a sticking point but that would also exclude your teacher's "enlightened, proper" music.
Academia is about making researched and logical arguments. By simply throwing yours out because "I just don't agree, that's all," your teacher became the very thing they swore to destroy.
If you have a copy of that paper, I am very very curious.
Bro I would love to read that paper
if you still have it, i’d love to read it! it sound really interesting! at least maybe then your hard work will get put to some use
@Michael Romero can we read the paper?
16:05 - This problem is not just in music - but in art in general. I remember once asking an art teacher what class someone interested in Manga should take - and she responded by telling me that the graphics in comic books are not art.
Astoundingly boorish art teacher. WOW.
…what? How?
What a pompous idiot jeez
Don't even think that near a Frenchman
Omg, yes. They hate anime and manga. For what reason?
The problem arises because people began to conflate "art" with "prestige"
If something doesnt have any percived prestige then it's not "art" to these people.
The innate human need to feel superior to other people will have to be overcome for our species to advance.
And they have zero awareness regarding how easy it is to see through their pretentiousness by the entirety of the world outside their pathetic bubble. Prestige for the sake of prestige is about as far from art as you can get. Too many typical ironies to point out with these kinda people, but as long as they get the approval of like-minded fools they'll manage to keep pretending. They'll stay in that (hopefully not) infinite circle cause they SO easily convince themselves everybody else is wrong, makes them feel all the more special, like a little kid in class justifying why they're cooler than all the kids that are actually genuine and get along.
Arrogant idiots have a way of effortlessly coping, most of all, it's dishonest to themselves. Nobody else is fooled, they're ineffective frauds not willing to confront that fact on an often subconscious level, not exactly the image they're going for in their desperate attempts.
@@gonzoGnostalgicthat's total nonsense and there's zero evidence for that claim. It's like some hippie utopian fantasy.
@@carsonfarley2560 That's some tough talk coming from a guy who listens to the Beatles like a f*ggot
"Every culturally relevant genre has its own form of complexity...If you can't find it, you're probably not looking in the right place."
Right on.
What about funk?
Edit: I don't know what I was thinking when I commented it (I probably was just impatient sorry :/). Actually, I don't like some songs because of the lyrics, but just my narrowed personal taste of Brazilian funk. Besides, the the enjoyment isn't completely dependent on complexity, especially because it's all situation too (you don't pay close attention during a party).
@@pedroivog.s.6870 vulfpeck
Complexity doesn't equal quality, which explains the difference between Eric Satie and Phil Spector.
@@pedroivog.s.6870 Funkadelic was very complex and experimental. Listen to The Electric Spanking of War Babies or Maggot Brain and get back to us.
@@albusking2966 it's so funky and it's low volume
I always thought it was called art music because they play in movie scenes set in art galleries.
That'a fair. Hollywood do be bland like that.
Maybe they use it in art galleries because of its name
@@srglzrmj or possibly because galleries are catering to people who have 'aristocratic' worship/worth programmed in from prolonged exposure (repetition legitimises) and white privilege manipulations used to control populations. Language is important.
@@AmandaKaymusic speaking of language being important, you sure took the word "art" and ran with it.
@@AmandaKaymusic that might be the case for some highly prestigious ones that’s been around for ages but not all of them obviously
When I was going through music history, my professor separated the two as classical (lowercase "c") as the western orchestral tradition and Classical (uppercase "c") as the Classical period. They would also use the term Vienna Classical for a period specific term.
This! That's how it works! Guys, Guys, we've found the answer.
Or, "This piece is from the classical period of the classical genre." In English, we regularly talk about New York without specifying city or state. In Spanish, people regularly say just, "Mexico" and we know if they are talking about the City of Mexico, State of Mexico, United Mexican States, historical area of Mexico within New Spain, Mexican Empire, or many other meanings. There's no problem with saying classical period and classical genre.
I don't remember reading this idea anywhere, but I'm confident that many people have had this idea-see the comment to which I am replying.
I mean, genres often have bad names.
Examples:
-Anything with "modern"
-IDM, or "Intelligent Dance Music", which is a pretentious name for a fun genre
IDM was hated by the person who supposedly started it, Aphex Twin, for that reason.
Djent is literaly an onomatopeia of the sound a palm muted low string on a guitar does (duh) followed by the same string open (jent), as if that is not a thing that happens in other genres of metal, and not actually present in most music people call “djent music”.
And anything with "smart"... that's a real pet peeve of mine; it just means that it has _anything_ to do with a computer, which is increasingly everything.
@@iantaakalla8180 yes! He said something along the lines of "is the rest dumb music?"
@@lollllloro Smartphones, dumb people 🤣
Call the overall genre Classical Music, since that's what everybody already calls it. And leave the Classical Period as is, too. We are smart enough to understand the distinction if we can be wise enough to make a big deal out of it.
yeah, classical music isn't from the classical period and those songs aren't classics either. I love this overly confusing term and even if there was a better term for the genre I'd still call it classical music!
I'm sure there are many subtleties to this that I don't know of, but in Norway music from the classical era is refed to as "klassisismen" or "the classisism". So in Norway the phrase "classical music" is never used in the narrow definition.
What’s also fun about the term “Classical” is that in most fields it would refer to the Ancient Greek and Roman periods, and the classical period in music would really be a “Classical Revival”. Except it has nothing to do with Ancient Greek or Roman music (which would sound more like Arabic folk music to our ears), but rather some sort of comparison to the regular structure of their architecture. Maybe we should call it Palladian, since Palladio was a classical revival architect with a keen interest in symmetry and proportion, and is influential in taking architecture out of the baroque era, and many modern people have at least heard of his windows.
@@ImWriiight True! Now do “Neoclassical” :)
@@ImWriiight It was always my understanding that the classical form of a language is the original formalised written form and that the Ancient Greek and Roman periods are called "classical" because of Classical Latin and Greek, so by extension I thought classical music refers to the original formalised written form of music in the west.
What would really piss off a lot of people is Chris Thile and his ability to slip effortlessly between "art/classical (baroque)" music and bluegrass and indie/alternative rock and folk music. He's written a wonderful 4 movement piece called "The Blind Leading the Blind" and it is for a bluegrass quintet. And I think his abilities would be maddening for those people who love the concept of calling it "art" music.
I've literally never heard the term Art Music before this video
I've heard of art rock before, but I'm not very familiar with the term
Me neither, but then I'm 100% a layperson with 0 musical talent, knowledge or ability
which should give you a sense of the self-congratulatory, patting self on back nature of it.
@@--.._ not the same thing, though I suspect there's a certain similar bias towards 'classical music is art' happening
This guy is just bullshitting his way through a video
"classical music" is already pretty much understood to mean this kind of music even vernacularly among musicians, I've definitely heard people specifying "classical era music" vs the more general "classical music"
David Bennet just released a video about pop songs based on “classical” music. Everyone but the academics use that term. Let’s just go with it!
Same. Classical era, or classical period is almost always used when referring to the 18th century music genre, and I hear terms like modern classical, contemporary classical, or classical inspired which seem useful when referring to a lot of newer "art music."
@@duncanrobertson6472 or even classical vs Classical, making it a capitonym! good luck saying that out loud though...
Even when I was in a classically based music school, I never heard the term "art music." Classical music was a term used to denote a genre and the era was specified when necessary. If this really is a trend, it doesn't seem to be a far reaching one.
@@Cloiss_ capital c Classical like capital t Truth is already used in philosophy-tyoe speach
I'm a little drunk rn lol
The thing that got me laughing the hardest was the idea that “art music” is the only one where value is gain by listening closely. Hello? You can do that with every single song in existence and divide it into many different instruments and understand why the music works so well. Any song needs to be listened to for you to enjoy it fully
Nah, pop music is generally pretty shallow. Active listening doesn't reveal much that you don't get from passive listening.
@@FrankUnknown Respectfully disagree. Sure, pop isn't supposed to hide layers of meaning and structure and whatever, but there's still a lot to dig in about how and why pop songs are constructed in such a way, even moreso if you're a producer.
At worse, you can end up with a lot of redundancy by analysing different songs and realizing how much they have in common.
I implore you to listen closely to Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and tell me again that pop music is shallow. And many of those layers of riffs are there because Michael handpicked some talented kid from the ghetto and let them have a go at contributing to his record.
Pop music today is shallow because the record executives figured out what works and engineered the tracks to give you just that at minimal cost, as loud as possible. But shallowness is not intrinsic to the form.
The definition of pop music as anything other than popular music is ill advised imo, the genres that inspire and become pop have change dramatically over the years. Honestly every genre changes over time and can be pretty much unrecognizable even without the inevitable divisions into sub-genres
@nknown
Father Time - Kendrick Lamar
King Kunta - Kendrick Lamar
All Of The Lights - Kanye West ft Rihanna
Saint Pablo - Kanye West
New Magic Wand - Tyler The Creator
Sorry Not Sorry - Tyler The Creator
A&W - Lana Del Rey
Love, Of Money - Mavi
Anything Bruno Mars released after Doo-wops & Hooligans (Especially Silk Sonic)
Any Brockhampton song with a dance focus rather than a melodic one (From Saturation III especially)
I think any song can be improved if you focus on breaking it down, even the simplest of factory made dance music usually have something along the lines of hidden instrument to add volume.
Honestly, it’s kind of amazing (and depressing) how much of this video’s points can be directly transmuted to the visual arts.
Art never changes.
Thought the exact same thing. I have a master in fine arts but also studied at music university. It is pretty much the same discussions. I feel many of these words are created and used to preserve a sense of superiority. It's a code for you having the education and socializing in the upper circles. And it is a code for who gets funding too.
To literally any art medium. Elitists gonna elite.
Reminder the Nazi party literally hated modern and abstract art because it didn’t exhibit the inherent aryan superiority of traditional
Western European HIGH ART. The Nazis exhibited it as “Degenerate art”. This is literally where the modem conservative talking point that modern art is bad. Comes from. When you see people saying that modern art is degenerate wrong and needs destroyed, remember this was literally borrowed from how the Nazis saw modern art. And it further proves that what is defined as artistic until
Someone changed it will Always mean. Whatever props white people up as inherently superior.
Also applies to the culinary world. E.g. the distinction between “fine dining” and “ethnic cuisine”. If a white French chef tried pho once on a trip to Vietnam, then began selling a “deconstructed” version in his fancy Manhattan restaurant, suddenly, he’s “elevated” a lowly ethnic food.
Academia spends an awful lot of time justifying why the currently preferred academic darling SHOULD BE the darling.
I assumed art music was going to mean Cage playing nothing, or Ono screaming. I had no idea.
Ahh, in the same way as "art" in terms of "modern art" which is often interesting, but hardly the peak of art.
@@HappyBeezerStudios Exactly.
That's Avant-Garde, and it's also a really weird term
Both cases are more instances of performance art than actual music. And for the record, both are actually pretty good musicians but get get mocked by audiences who are ignorant of the rest of their actually musically oriented catalogue.
@@MrBrno That's such a strange name for art, also now that we are in the future it's even stranger calling it that
as a visual art student, when you said 'art music' my first thought was music engineered to pair with modern art that you'd see in a museum. Using strange sounds and messing with patterns. Almost always with a variation of that one droning sound - they love that one XD Very different to what its 'supposed' to imply. Its a matter of perspective, and definition can very much influence that perspective, so I agree with you completely
That would, to musicians, be called “noise art” or “sound art”. Equally as vague, but implies that the “art” comes more solely from the say “quanta” of sound, rather than the organized whole of the sounds working together
That’s 12 Tone’s secret. He’s always angry.
They're*
@@WhirligigStudios ?
@@danielvu5211 12tone uses they/them pronouns, as stated in their Twitter bio
@@WhirligigStudios ah I see
@@WhirligigStudios Ah damn, them pronouns once again...
here in germany me and my musician friends are constantly joking about "kunstmusik" ("art-music" in german) making up artsy rules for it and so on. didn't know it was a real thing...
I think it's kinda though in Germany. You have well developed scenes for others genres of music though, like in case of rock, metal and techno music.
But I guess the academics are soo hard on it.
In academics there still is a clearly definded border between so called artmusic and popular music. That's also true for german universities. I always found it to be pretentious since the music which is now called artmusic was popular at some time. Otherwise no one would talk about it today. We see that gatekeeping was always a thing in music.
Kunstmusik is a terrible word to have a spelling mistake in
@@stalfithrildi5366 Yeah, that's not a mistake
An der sprechen die Profs schon von ernsthafter Musik (Klassik und Jazz) und Unterhaltungsmusik (so ziemlich alles andere) Zitat meines ersten Gitarrenlehrers. 💁♂️
I never heard the term "art music", but even without that term my music teachers quickly made me feel like "classical music" is a superior form of music and the rock and pop music us kids were listening to was simplistic crap unworthy of a music theory analysis or any other form of educational attention, which lead me to view both music history and unfortunately also music theory as knowledge that I don't need ("couldn't care less to impress those arrogant snobs!") and eventually I ended up thinking I was completely unmusical, because I realized a few years later that I can't make heads or tails of the music theory they were teaching even if I tried to understand it and I had forgotten by then that it's because I didn't listen all those years before when they taught the basics they expect me to know in order to be able to follow along. I was always passionate about music, but as a result of this poor education I never had the confidence to try making music as a kid.
Nowadays I sing in rock band and try to write my own songs and wish I had learned at least basic theory in school instead of having to learn it now, between working full-time, doing household chores, maintaining friendship and practicing my instruments. 😵
If only my teachers had presented me a compelling reason to learn theory in middle school, but no, they didn't consider the music us students were interested in worth mentioning. Cause _"children don't need incentives to care about our topics, amirite?"_ 🤦♂️
Teachers be like...
watermelon sugar high
... maybe I need to take another go at learning music theory. I love music but I get so confused when people start talking about it in technical terms so it's slow learning
There’s literally a genre called art rock, like Sonic Youth. They first played in art galleries cause they were considered ‘out there’. Captain Beefheart and many others made (in my opinion) art music. My personal definition is different, I guess 😄 I like a lot of free jazz and crazy outsider musics and noise. I consider most of these art music, music that musicians like, music that like any other art, speaks to your soul and is truthful. Maybe I’m a reverse snob 😖
“Art” music? I’ve been a fan of classical music for years and I don’t think I’ve ever heard that term before. I thought all music was considered art? All of the supposed differences between “art” music and other music can be pretty easily debunked with just some quick research and common sense. And while I think the term “aristocratic music” works for the baroque and classical period, it doesn’t hold up after that
They mentioned in the video this is mostly common in academic circles where they don’t wanna use the term “classical music” to avoid confusion with classical period music. I doubt it has much of a place in other classical music circles, judging by the comments.
The shift is from the patrons being aristocrats to the artists themselves being aristocrats
I agree Mark Cross, I’ve played in orchestras for years and had some of the same thoughts
"I've been a fan of the NFL for years and I've never heard of an ace12 beating a cover 2. Must be something you just made up."
Right, I have a ton of appreciation for classical music, but the overall environment in music conservatories and other academic institutions is auful and, I'd say, discriminatory towards the others.
I'm from Romania, and the name that they give to non classical or traditional types of music is "muzică ușoară”, which literaly means easy music. Everything is put in that box. So yeah, the music is gorgeous, the people transformed it into something repulsive.
Ps: Even film scoring is put into the easy music category.
Ps2: Stravinski was completely awesome. :))
During music education courses, I never once had a teacher call any of it "art" music. It was always by period and region.
(And I think this is the best way to approach it, just remove the term art music in formal/educational settings and use the appropriate terms to define the era and region and those of us educated in music history can be not buttholes when someone calls baroque composers or modernists "classical music" because we know what they mean and the pretentious superiority in correcting them is unnecessary)
The only teacher I ever had that called it that was an a-hole violinist. He also went to say that blues was not music.
@@joetowers4804 Similar to me. We only have like one music history teacher and I remember them and the textbooks I had to use for the class say art music in the exact way 12Tone is angry about. smh
That sounds like a great course, and I bet whoever ran it did that very intentionally.
Good on them.
Let's make that messy again then: do you mean "Classical" as in the pre-Christian Greco-Roman culture of art and philosophy, or do you mean "Classical" as in the also-called "Enlightenment" period?
In Poland, we call it "muzyka poważna" ("serious music") as opposed to "muzyka rozrywkowa" ("entertainment music", which is everything else). And while I'm not a fan of calling every other kind of music not serious, at least we don't claim it's not art.
EDIT: yeah, I wrote the comment before watching the entire video ;-) Anyway, I'm on board with calling it "classical music". I've never heard the term "art music" before anyway so yeah, I guess "classical" would be the way to go for me.
It's worth noting "muzyka poważna" has switched word order, and therefore becomes something like a unique phrase reserved for that area of music. If you literally were to consciously call something serious music, you'd say "poważna muzyka". It seems insignificant to us but look how different that makes polish and english for example. So while "muzyka poważna" might be something i disagree with when i break the phrase down, I dont mind it because the switched order creates this sort of distance you know
@@funkymonks8333 I think I get it. Language tends to do that, roughly the same meaning when broken down but creates its own different nuance in practice
In the episode of Doctor Who, "The Executioners" (episode 1 of "The Chase"), Vicki referred to The Beatles as "classical music".
I thought of the same moment. Barbara was scandalised (as she came from 1963). As a side note, the Beatles' footage showed in that episode was later destroyed by the BBC, so that episode of Doctor Who is now the only excerpt of it still known to exist.
They also did that with baby got back in futurama
So that scene where they play "classic music from Earth" and it is Toxic by Britney Spears on S1E2 The end of the world a reference to this? nice
@@matheusbatista8086 I imagine it was, but it was undermined by equating Britney Spears with The Beatles.
@@buxeessingh2571 I laughed at that...and agreed.
This man is composed of two arms and a doodled elephant. I can’t change this, it’s just fact.
I think one of the most formative conversations I had towards destroying the insane pretentious attitude I had as a teenager was when I was talking to a musician friend of mine about what counts as art and he had counterarguments to every point I tried to make. The conclusion we came to by the end of it is that if even one person believes something to be art according to their definition, then that thing is art and people saying otherwise doesn't change that.
The best forms of art are low effort to high value with correlation to tax evasion
'Art is in the eye of the beholder'
There's a story of Lenny Bernstein being faced with defining what most people call "classical," he went through several terms and rejected each in turn before settling on "longhair music."
Which is just as confusing as any other term because the Beatles were considered to have radically long hair for their time, and of course modern practitioners and aficionados don't necessarily have long hair.
"Longhair music" was a term that was used in the 1950s I believe, and may go back further to the 1940s. I always found it an ironic term since in the 1960s "long hair" became emblematic of the new music and cultural revolution that was taking place.
That explains neoclassical metal bands... Or some metal subgenres in general
Oh! Like metal right?
Guillotine runaway music isn't a perfect term?
"Well like most things wrong with modern musical discourse we can trace this back to.... Ben Shapiro's father."
He did in fact, go to music school.
@@Robbay363 And he's a music theorist.
"My father, who, in fact, is a musician" instead of "My wife, who is a doctor"
@ExDeeXD Music what are you saying?
@ExDeeXD Music BS knows exactly what he's doing... he's making money from bad faith arguments which are meant to keep the status quo so he continues to make money. He doesn't believe in anything except his own lies and falsehoods which make him a living. His inevitable downfall will be on a similar scale to Greek tragedies where he himself will be the only thing he hates and scapegoating will no longer work.
I've gone my whole life without hearing the term "Art Music" before this video. Given, I am really only just starting my journey in learning music theory. Everyone I've ever met just calls it "classical music", including other musicians in my life. I've only really heard distinctions such as "Classical Era Music", or "Romantic Era Music" when discussing music from the different periods. Looks like this seems to be the general sentiment amongst the rest of the comments section.
The way I see it, language evolves over time and definitions change over time too. If its only a academics using the term "Art Music", and 99.9% of the English speaking population use the term "classical", then I'd say that the term should be "classical" and the academics need to get with the program so to speak.
Academia never thinks it needs to get with the program. The very idea that you aren't lauding them for their sheer genius is offensive to academia.
For me, the only problem with the term classical music is that it implies that music from today / recently can't be classified as classical. Then again any other term suggested will also have the same problem in some other dimension, so let's just use classical music.
@@erikharaldsson2416 Any classical radio station worth its salt (while radio is still a thing...) is just as likely to play modern compositions as ancient ones. It's the performance context and instruments used that are the common thread for the most part. I think like most of us who are into it, there's no implied boundary of what is/isn't classical based on strict timeframes if we consider it broadly enough. :D
In Czech there is a neat distinction - classical music is classical music and the Mozart period is callled classicistic
That makes so much sense. I wish the distinction would exist in French and English as well, it would make my life so much easier :P
It's called the classicistic period in sweden too.
I'd argue that's even a better term, as it makes more evident the strong tendency in that time of emulating the Greco-Roman classics, rather than being a new canon. But I'm no way an academic of music (much less of that particular period), so I might be losing sight of something
in norway too lmao, i think its common throughout most of europe
But one can still call it “serious music...”
everyone here is talking about music history and shit and im just focused on that super long fingernail
He’s a musician. That’s what he uses to break it down 👀
Coke nail
@@wendigo2442 I was gonna go with blunt splitter
@@johnromero6315 heroin helper
Aaand there goes my drink, thanks guys
I've been a musician for 50 years, playing in many genres. I've never heard of the term "art music". Seems like I haven't missed out on much.
Audiences are always participating in operas, symphonies and concertos by coughing
Too true! :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
(...and applauding....)
Sometimes we're choking on air or our own spit
Silly 😋
You are here too? Such coincidence
And clapping between movements.
YOUR HAND MADE MY CAT JUMP UP ON MY DESK AND BAT AGGRESSIVELY AT THE SCREEN!
EDIT: THERES TWO CATS NOW
AND ONE OF THEM AIN'T EVEN MINE
@@joost9430 Wow think of how many cats by now lol
It's odd that people can accept literature that's complex, difficult, or dealing with unpleasant matters. When it comes to music though, everything is supposed to sound pleasant to the untrained ear.
“Whoops how did that get there, link down in the description.” Lmao.
Music is art. So art music is really “art art.”
Some music is art. Some is product. Sign painting is art? Scrapbooking is art? Remember "arts and crafts". The Greek word "techne" meaning art, craft, technique, or skill yields technology as well as technique. Over centuries concepts come to be differentiated by terminology, and specialized jargon. The debate over categories best leaves out the use of PLASTIC word tautologies - like "X is Y" (Life is Communication, Knowledge is Power, Education is Communication is Life is Knowledge) which doesn't create but erases meaning or insight.
@@larryconcepts i feel like you're stuck in the caveman era where you're trying to enunciate the difference between cave paintings that express something and a hefty stick for hitting stuff, but haven't come to discover that the hefty stick can be carved to _make_ it express something while still leaving it as a tool for hitting stuff, as well as the subsequent realization that _not_ carving your hefty stick is _also_ a form of expression. and that's just with the stick itself, before getting into the forms of expression that come with how you _use_ the stick
it's a useful lesson. you can tell a lot about a person just from their stick alone
@@larryconcepts all music is art
@@larryconcepts All music is art. Some art is just better than others
@@WiseLittleOwl and that gets into the realms of opinions which don’t matter to anyone aside from yourself.
Another word for the classical period is the era of Viennese Classicism (because a lot of the principal composers had their base in Vienna). This term is already in use, especially in other Northern European languages, where the distinction classical music (for art music) vs Viennese Classicism (for the classical period) is much more common (I studied musicology for two years in Copenhagen and didn't come across the term 'art music' once). Rather than changing the entire academic establishment, then, you'd probably only need to change the English-language academic establishment, which.... well, I guess, is usually still really difficult, but at least there's terminology already available.
I really REALLY like "western canonic music" as a term, especially when it comes to referring to modern composers. why is La Monte Young a "classical" musician, and not Merzbow? because Young was primarily directly engaging with the "classical" canon and Merzbow primarily engages with a different tradition altogether. "Aristocratic" music seems absurdly dismissive, somehow... I can't fathom how, say, Shostakovich could be remotely considered "aristocratic"
I feel like the suggestion of "Aristocratic music" was intentionally dismissive, in the same way as "art music" is dismissive of any music not written by or for rich white men.
Not to be confused with Cannon music. Tchaikovsky, no!
@@ChrisLeeW00 Tchaikovsky, yes!
It is the best candidate term I have yet encountered. It even alludes to the religious ties of the genre. 👍
i think hes being sarcastic about aristocrat music
This guy embodies complete musical ego death during his videos; every genre is given their share of benefit of the doubt...I love it
When I was in college, my main professor used "WEAM" (Western-European Art Music) to describe it, but I'm on board with Aristocratic Music myself (or really just describing it by period). Wish I could show that professor this video after their explanation of Tin Pan Alley.
"You're probably not looking in the right place"
Why'd he draw Toa... OOOOHHHH it's in another castle! I get it!
Wow I didn't get that. Mind explaining why he drew the Zubat lol?
@@goldmantis5850 Zubat is a common Pokémon
Also, "that doesn't help" is probably Navi, the useless fairy companion from the Zelda games.
Good catch!
I went on listening without knowing what he's on about, before realizing it's not about the worst music genre, as such, but the *term* "art music" itself.
When I hear the term "art music", I tend to think of any "experimental" music that doesn't sound like music to non-academics.
yeah. I would think of 4'33'' before classical stuff.
If you think about "art rock" as a genre, it's usually rock but more experimental, so yeah it is weird that even the definition of "art" as part of a genre name doesn't mean the same thing when it's attached to "music" instead of "rock"
0:17 by who's deffinition? That is a wild assumption. Was there a small group that pushed this term, who knows when, that which still bothers our certain terminology?
I just feel like using a French term would convince them. 'Oh yes, I also dive into the musique de l'aristocratie from time to time.' 💄🐽
explain
@@thilsiktonix music of the aristocracy.
@@jh01835 White people throwing petty jabs at their great grandparents is 90% of the current identity politics movement that make these "issues" exist at all.
A whole century of neoclassical Chinese music was erased from history with the exception of two concertos, it wasn't wypipo's fault, it was Mao.
“Classical music” and “classical period music.” Very easy for everyone to understand. It should also be noted that jazz is now very much an “aristocratic music.” Just the words “art music” though make me also think of Radiohead and later jazz along with classical.
Really, it’s not really that big of a deal. Most people don’t even know the term “art music” and would probably interpret as loosely as I said above.
Agreed 100% - this conclusion that "art music is all about power and whiteness" seems a bit like an answer looking for a question. I'm sensing a bit of indoctrination, maybe even guilt, coming from @12tone which frankly is sad because if accurate it implies he's got a reason to feel guilty. That could be a symptom of the indoctrination, he's clearly formally educated, but sad nonetheless. The whole concept really evokes for me personally eerie notions of what modern college-level education might have become.
@@andrueanderson8637 I don't know how your reach that conclusion unless you really have no contact with the usage of the term "art music" within academic circles.
Bruh I'm halfway through the video and I still don't know what he's complaining about
Pls explain I'm dumb
@@andrueanderson8637 Have you actually bothered to read the opinions of turn of the century composers and musical theorists? They were VERY explicitly racist. Let's not forget their ideas were a major influence on Nazi Germany and other white supremacist fascist regimes.
Vetdi just popped into my mind. His operas were so popular, that people were singing his pieces in the streets in Italy.
I'm from Argentina and my teachers have always called it "Academic music" (música académica). I think it kinda works
I think this has similar problems to the term art music. Academic would refer to it being studied and "art music" is definitely not the only music that is being studied. Personally I think it's easier to change the meaning of the term "art music" than to try and change the term to something else, tho' I kinda like the term "aristocratic music" mentioned in the video.
@@armeli well, I'll admit the term "academic" has its issues, specially because it refers specifically to western music without acknowledging it, but I think it works for two reasons: first, "academic" means not only being studied, but specifically being studied in a formal way. You can say Charlie Parker "studied" his music and instrument intensely thru practice and dedication, but you can hardly call that studies "academic". The othe reason is that even if nowadays you can study popular music in formal institutions (the "academic" way), that kind of formation is totally optional because of how popular music works. That doesn't happen in the "academic" music, where formal musical education is a must, again, because of the intrinsic nature of this kind of music. The term "academic", hence, makes a relevant distinction between pop/folk and academic music, without passing judgmentent about value.
"Art" music, on the other hand, does the contrary: the distinction is completely false (Mozart or Shcumann are not more "art" than Hendrix or Goyeneche) and it carries a fundamental discrimination that should not be accepted.
Finally, "aristocratic music" may be historically accurate, and I understand why it could work for some, but to me it doesn't hold any particular value for its current context, whereas "academic" does.
@@triciclosonido I like your argumentation. I'm kinda sad that I can't respond with equally good thoughts. Thank you for taking the time to write your comment!
@@armeli nah, it refers to the fact that only alienated academics would ever fail to find it ugly
Even within western culture there are other types of music studied academically - Jazz, for instance
Just reminds me of when Paul McCartney was taking a cab, and the guy had on classical. He turned it off because he believed Sir McCartney wouldn't appreciate "The High Class Stuff."
Thats really funny when you know that the Beatles used back for pretty much all their songs
Macca himself has composed and published "art" music, too. But a different term was used tbh I can't remember now, in my language (italian) I believe it was labeled "musica colta" - which translates roughly into "educated music", which I find odd since it takes lots of education to appreciate some of the Beatles' and Wings' stuff, fully. So I just say that is instrumental music written for an orchestra, but people are suckers for generalised, short labels to categorise things 🙄
@@vadim4252
Well, they did a song called 'Get Back', certainly . . . or was that 'Get Bach'?
@@tonybates7870 hahaha. But in all seriousness, Bach was like a sugardaddy for everyone who lived 70 years after his death (due to copyright laws), everyone uses Bach’s stuff.
@@vadim4252
"I'll Be Bach"?
Well, for a while he was - Lennon went a bit Bach-worthy after Whiter Shade Of Pale, which he loved, apparently.
I have a friend who completely dropped her intent to pursue an art history degree when she realized the contempt academia had for the work of such greats as Frazetta, Giger, or Vallejo. In general, among all the arts, there is an infatuation with specific eras and places to the absolute exclusion of anyone and everyone else - dismissing all else, no matter how amazing it actually is, as unsophisticated drek no serious person could possibly find admirable. (Her last straw was a professor who literally sneered as he sarcastically described Frazetta as "just a petty illustrator, not even worth a second look".
I was unfamiliar with any of those names so I had to look them up. Frazetta and Vallejo’s works both remind me of modern sci-fi/fantasy oil paintings. I feel like someone in academia could draw some parallels between older oil paintings and the styles of Frazetta and Vallejo.
Giger’s didn’t give me the same vibe as the other two, but it is still interesting. Perhaps one could talk about the way science and science fiction influence art in the case of Giger (though it could apply to the previous two as well).
In any case, thank you for introducing me to some new artists I’d never heard of!
@@-alovelygaycat-I love people on the internet being nice. Kisses
Only something that wasn't made for monetary reasons counts as art, and that's why My Immortal is art but da Vinci's The Last Supper isn't.
lol wait how are you not verified
To be fair they never said good art but you aren't wrong.
how the heck did I find you here lol
@@TheJackOfFools dude... It was a shitpost... Do you know what My Immortal even is lmao
I hate that this shit post is more correct than a LOT of academics...
You and adam neely should start a musical debate channel together
They've done a few livestreams with also 8-bit music theory and Sideways, those were sooooo interesting I wouldn't mind seeing new ones
@@Bladavia where can I find this??
They're on one!
@@cynthiawrzesinski4517 @Iliya3d It's on TH-cam just search for their names
Yes, bring back Musica Analytica!
What you say about audience participation is always true in music 'art' or not. I am reminded that Cages 4mins 33secs, where the whole point is that the audience actually generates the piece unintentionally.
Anyway I had never really heard of the genre art music before but I am going to adopt the tagline 'art music for the artless' for my own work going forward.
When I was learning guitar we just called all the periods Classical and the specific period classical, distinguishing between baroque, romantic, etc when needed. Honestly I didn't find having classical do double duty confusing at all
Everything made by composers in Europe after 1700 and before 1899 is Classical Music, there's just different subgenres. I would even count Erik Satie as one of the last Classical composers in his early days.
@@MrBrno So some untrained "composer" in a cottage in Scotland was playing Classical on his bagpipes?
@@fewwiggle don't mess with the Scots
@@MrBrno bruh if you mean "classic" in a wider sense, you should know that it starts way before and it's still composed today
@@MrBrno also calling _"subgenres"_ differents musical movements that spanned over century is just as stupid as it would to call rock and jazz two subgenres of the sams category
“Yeah I make experimental music, the experiment is how bad it can sound”
"all my experiments have ended in failure so far but I won't let it discourage me!"
🤣
oh hey, a comment about me, cool
Black metal time
Trap music
The term "Art Music" reminds me of a complaint Richard James (aka "Aphex Twin") made about the term "Intelligent dance Music". He hated it, because it implied the other techno of that era wasnt intelligent, and Aphex thought that was a terrible way to treat musicians. *All* music is Art.
Here's another suggested name - Composer Music. Since the Classical music scene of today doesn't have the same social/artistic role as the Classical music of older times (it's no longer for aristocrats lol) or the same economic model (perhaps the most distinctive feature of Classical music today is that it's usually state-funded), the only thing those traditions have in common is the role of the composer - the star of the show who doesn't have to appear in person. This relates to its role as "high art" -every piece is the product of the composer's intention, but also has an independent existence.
In contrast, Jazz and Folk are Performer music, since concerts are more about who plays than what they play.
That would imply that Jazz and Rock weren't ever composed, which is absolutely bullshit. For example, many Jazz composers never receive credit. (And, yes, there absolutely are Jazz songs that no one ever bothers to "reinterpret".) Many rock songs were written by a songwriter, for a band, and most people don't know that (because they don't check the linear notes).
That would also imply, by contrast, that so-called "art music" isn't performed, when it's performed daily, in various orchestras and ensembles.
This is my favorite solution to the problem I've seen yet, but I'd like to refine it a bit...
I think we could replace the "Art Music" and "Pop Music" terms that we use to refer to these two groups/realms of music with the terms "Composer Music" and "Producer Music" respectively. This defines things by who typically "creates" the music / how it's typically "created." Classical, jazz, world, etc. would fit under Composer Music since they're traditionally created by composers / the process by which the music is prepared for performing and/or recording is referred to as "composing." Pop, rock, hip hop, and electronic would fit under Producer Music since they're normally created by producers / the process by which the music is arranged and recorded for release is referred to as "producing."
This doesn't mean that there isn't composing involved in creating Producer Music or producing involved in creating Composer Music; it's simply categorizing things by the main form of creation that's going on when these types of music are made. We could even take it a step further and call them "Composer-Conductor Music" and "Writer-Producer Music" since that includes arguably the next most important role in each of these kinds of music: classical/jazz music is usually performed/recorded with a conductor leading the musicians, and pop/rock/etc. music usually has writers creating the lyrics.
@@joshuaholke I do prefer the idea of saying composer-conductor music, but I still think stuff like this is still not great - now you run into the problem of solo artists, and there are many genres that defy those labels. Where would you classify, say, soundtracks? Even within soundtracks, there is so much variaion - Take Chris Christodoulou's "con lentitud poderosa..." against Lena Raine's "Scattered and Lost". What about genres like Orchestral Dubstep? at it's very core, the genre exists within both of those descriptions. What about artists like Frequent - how would you even classify an artist like that? I think that describing a genre with something so general as production, composition, writing, and conducting has many of the flaws that a name like art music does - it takes those elements out of other music. No genre definition and name is perfect, and it's best off that way, but I still think that is way too broad.
Or big band music
I think “orchestral music” is pretty solid. It tells you that that music uses some form of an orchestra. You can also alter the orchestral with any other modifier “minimal orchestral” “neo classical orchestral” etc. in the same way u can say “thrash metal” “doom metal”….and the distinction between people trying to express themselves artistically and people in entertainment groups (not mutually exclusive but lets face it, it usually is) i dont have a problem with the art music-pop music dichotomy but what is considered art music should not be jazz or “classical” only. It should include all types of genres…whereas “art music” is impossible to completely define currently without being old fashioned, its pretty easy to see “pop music” we all pretty much know what that is. No one is confused about the objective of the latest justin bieber album. Its purpose is to sell records, merch, and tickets first and if it happens to express someones self, that nice, but incidental to its main commercial purpose.
"the baroque period of classical music", "the classical period of classical music", honestly I think "classical" works just fine as it is
"romantic" music also means both "mid-to-late 19th century 'classical' music" AND "babymakin tunes", and context is enough to distinguish the difference.
"Art music" belongs with terms like "literary fiction" and "genre film" in terms that make my stomach churn with disgust. These terms are elitist and serve no purpose other than to separate popular art from the art that is considered "worthy"
fax
In ethno musicology I learned about how an African tribe wouldn't understand a sound as "music" unless it was understood that it was played by a human.
That's what most people think, but you don't have to
That is a very backwards and/or narrow way of thinking.
@@Danmashinigamikuro thats racist
@@fiver-hoo How so?
@@fiver-hoo It’s not about race
Am I the only one that really wants an Animals as Leaders episode now?
Would love to have him analyze a prog epic, but I doubt I could get the whole of his patreon to agree.
Cave Johnson warned us about the Animal King
Gimme some abasi
If I had to choose a prog epic for him to analyse I would have to choose octavarium by dream theater. Although I like myself some animals as leaders.
@@ijustchangedmyname fair enough, I’d love to see octavarium here
I often hear modern musicians called 'artists', and they're often very wealthy. Moreso than classical musicians whose music you called aristocratic. Well a lot of that music was also composed for a town's organ in its main church, and not for aristocratic patrons. Sure, the composers were well off, but nowhere near as modern major artists. I get that you mentioned this is more aimed at academic discussion, but that discussion doesn't seem to be all that influential in this regard.
it makes his "aristocratic music" suggestion seem all the more snarky and futile. Isn't 12tone is the aristocrat of youtube content creators?
one difference is between the focus on the one who writes the music and the one who performs it.
"classical" music has a big focus on the author, while contemporary music is more focuses on the performer (which may or may not be also the author, but the focus is of them performing it, not writing it.
Which makes the term artist quite fitting. Just as much as a painter paints a painting, a sculptor sculpts the sculpture, an actor acts the role, the musician makes the music. they all are the artists who create the actual art.
He was talking about it in the terms of commissioning and how the argument of 'If they get paid it's not real art' is flimsy since they don't consider the greats to be apart of that even though a lot of their work was paid/commissioned.
I love how careful you have to be to avoid saying “London Derriere”
It's even funnier with an Irish accent because it just sounds like "Derrière".
Having not heard of the song before today, I thought it was a pun...
@@Acre00 When I was a kid and we were driving past a diary farm and the smell of manure came wafting in, my dad would be guaranteed to exclaim, "Ah, smell that sweet dairy air!"...He missed his calling in comedy.
Why would you avoid it? Just say it on purpose, with gusto!
For anyone interested in the lyrics:
I watch you walk upon the streets of London.
Your mini-skirt stretched tight, and looking sweet.
I watch you walk, and walk into a lampost.
I didn't see, upon the London street..
So turn your back, and wiggle softly from me!.
With mini-skirt, (perhaps, no underwear!).
Your legs are great! But, by the Gods above me!.
I watch your wondrous London derriere!
The Paris girls are wonders full of beauty,.
And California grows the Long-stemmed L.A. rose,.
Berlin nights are full of life, and lovely,.
But London girls don't wear no panty-hose!.
So turn your back, and wiggle softly from me!.
And let me watch, and dream a dream so rare:.
In my hotel, you naked there above me.
Sit on my face with your London derriere!..
Credit to W.J.Bethancourt III
Never heard "art music" before and still don't know what is is lol.
Apparently in french we call that "musique savante" to distinguish it from "musique populaire" (pop music) and "musique traditionnelle" (folk music). It could be roughly translated to "elaborate music" (so it includes things like musique concrète, and carries the idea that it's complex music).
Lol it's not an idea it's a reality
The academic establishment can call it whatever they like. The world has ignored them and decided to call it Classical Music. Debate over.
I've been a musician for 40 years, and rarely have I heard it called "art music." 99% of the time, people erroneously call it Classical, and at this point, you might as well call it that, in the same we call it "Rock Music" if you're discussing Metallica, Hendrix, or the Beatles.
Oh yeah! I heard the term "art music" back in university and completely forgot about it as I never personally used it. I did specify romantic peroid (my favorite) for awhile, but most people just use "classical" as a catch all for orchestral or instrumental music, so that felt more right than art music ever did, lol
And even then, what would "classical" refer to. Only old pieces, or contemporary ones that incorporate techniques from old pieces? Would the 2019 symphonic version of Take On Me qualify as classical, because it has an orchestra? Would modern film scores qualify, because they are instrumental?
'classical' because it's played on the instruments of the classical orchestra? Which would eliminiate a lot of classical guitar music so that doesn'f fit either ...
(9:01)
Honestly, one of the most overlooked concepts in modern music discourse. And that's that _every genre of music has some form of complexity_ at some point.
*_Every. Single. One._*
Most people will be so quick to point out the technical ability of several artists in their favorite genre, but bring up one they don't enjoy and they'll start saying that it's easy to create within or just made to make money, or even that it's *"not real music, man!"* (As if that's a reasonable argument.)
Just to prove this, here is a basic list of genres, the type of complexity I believe is fundamental to each*, and an example musician that best exemplifies that type.
Jazz: Harmony (Thelonious Monk)
Rock: Tone (Jimi Hendrix)
Metal: Dexterity (Eddie Van Halen)
Hip-Hop: Flow (Kendrick Lamar)
Country: Storytelling (Johnny Cash)
R&B: Vocal Ability (Mariah Carey)
Pop: Production (Kate Bush)
Electronic: Textures (Aphex Twin)
Folk: Accessibility (Joni Mitchell)
Blues: Mood (Nina Simone)
And that's just 10 off the top of my head. Add more in the comments if you want to expand someone's definition of complexity, especially mine.
*Note: Just because I said that one particular aspect of a genre of music is fundamental to it does not mean that only one genre has it, nor that all music made within that genre has it in abundance. Rappers with wack flows exist, as well as country artists without any narrative talent and pop songs with poor production behind them.
I kinda disagree tbh, while you are right saying there's some complexity in everything, it's way easier to compose or play some pop or reggae rather than classical, romantic, rock, etc. And there's a big range of difficulty within them. It also varies a lot depending on THE SONG. You said rock has, as a difficult aspect, "tone". That's something that can be literally applied to playing any song in any genre in an instrument that needs correct tuning. You also said metal has dexterity, which just means agility... It's the same, there can be a fast piece or passage in any kind of genre, maybe except relaxing music. Country, storytelling: The art of storytelling is something very important to have in ANY song or gender, it makes the song deeper and interesting in another level, but there's nothing that says "country" has more storytelling than anything else... And Blues, mood: That's subjective to you, some people don't like blues because they don't like the blues mood.
Don't think I'd call Cage a minimalist; he did far more with chance and aleatory than the minimalism that we largely define as pulse-oriented, diatonic, process-based music. Cage I think is just a different type of modernist, like how Schoenberg, Ives, Stockhausen, Xenakis, and Stravinsky are all different types of modernist.
And Beethoven is not romantic either.
@@GuillermoRubelt I would always classify Beethoven as Classical over Romantic, but the line from Beethoven to Brahms and Schumann is so continuous that it's hard to argue he doesn't belong in part to the Romantic tradition too.
@@GuillermoRubelt I always say that he introduced the romantic period, thus being both classical and romantic.
@@GuillermoRubelt early Beethoven, perhaps not. Later Beethoven, definitely. At transitional times in history, there are always Artists that move the needle. Beethoven definitely did.
Categorization is pretty non-specific in the modern era.
Musicology student here. At my university, we call the style of music from the classical period the galant style.
Galant music is already a term though, referring to early classical period music that was simpler in comparison to the music of the late baroque
I'm pretty sure that's the transition period from baroque
Galant is a style, classical is a period. The galant style was popular during the "classical period", but it was far from the only one.
The whole classical, romantic, baroque thing is more confusing and misleading than it is helpful a lot of the time. The reality of different styles and techniques going in and out of style is not nearly as clear-cut as those categories imply. The whole idea of "transitional periods/composers" is pretty flawed too.
@@Garrett_Rowland Let's be honest classical means Haydn's style
@@Garrett_Rowland yeah as a first year music student, one of the first things i remember being discussed is how flawed periodisation is. In this video he mentioned the impact of 19th century german nationalism on modern conceptions of music and part of that impact is the definition of those periods, and the whole idea of periods anyway - i thought he should emphasise that a bit more particularly since he finished off the video by discussing how we could rename the Classical era when i think a lot of scholars would suggest that we don't use periods anyway, or at least the ones we're used to.
I am musicologist from Czech republic, which was part of Ausria-Hungary. So influance is quite strong, but we developed our ways to categorized those to bigs music group. artifical (art music) and nonartificial, that seems to me as a best option. We ale say "klasická" and "klasicistní" both are tranlated to english as classical music but the diference is huge. In my opiton this is issue only for english speaking countries not germam or slavic language
The literary fiction genre is another example of this same baseless specification that is solely a result of power dynamics. There's no difference between literary works and genre works that doesn't appeal to some vague notion of superiority that people can never quite define
Eloquently said. Music itself is art, it’s incredibly crass to label music as being artistic and non-artistic.
The ‘lit fic’ authors are just jealous of the Science Fiction author’s jetpacks.
The author Kit Whitfield has some excellent posts about that on her blog. Genre, she says, is a tool for booksellers, not for authors.
Granted, I always defined Literature and Literary Fiction as things that have stood the test of time in a major way, and that being how something gets into the "Literary Canon".
"Power dynamics"? You must be a college indoctrinated millennial to use that kind of marxist language
See - I always called it 'classical music' (with a small c) to refer to the whole 'Art music' thing
Classical with a capital C for the specific period with Mozart etc.
I considered classical music to cover the written historical European forms written to a set instrumental groups.
I always thought all music is art, no matter how garbage it is. Its something that a person put time into making, for whatever reasons they had to do so.
As a djent listener, next time other people ask me what do I listen to, I would say art music.
More like Djart
I wouldn't say that to a degree though. I thoroughly enjoy Meshuggah's music and they openly admit they don't expect anyone to like their music and simply make what "sounds cool". They also have mentioned in a lot of interviews that they love Electronic music specifically Autechre, Aphex twin, and Squarepusher.
I like how “djent” characterizes djent as badly as art music describes art music. Most djent songs don’t actually have the infamous onomatopeia, and a lot of non-djent songs do. I guess it just got too mainstream to call it “progressive metalcore”
@@iurigrangTo me it's progressive metal and I leave it at that.
@@drumkidstu I don't feel like that's as much of an accurate substitute as progressive metalcore. I wouldn't call dream theater djent, but they're definitely progressive metal.
More info on Danny Boy / The Londonderry Air. Was originally called O'Cahan's Lament, composed by Rory Dall, chieftain of the O'Cahan clan, near my hometown Limavady. Transcribed in 1851, by Limavady schoolteacher Jane Ross, after she heard blind fiddler Jimmy McCurry playing it outside her house.
The worst part to me is the fact that this genre doesn’t seem to acknowledge the fact that all art is subjective, not all people on earth will agree that something is art, some people might love it, and other people might hate it. There is no such way to put a definate label on something when not everyone will agree with it.
We all grew up with art music? Did we? This is literally the first time I've even heard the term, and I've either listened to or studied music for over 25 years!
As a one-time student of singing, I heard it as "art songs." They were reserved for a certain level in my performance capacities. Before I got there, as if on the same wavelength, several different voice teachers built on what I learned using anything but that genre. Emphasis was on Broadway or sufficiently complex pop. Once I crossed that boundary, not long after I learned songs by Sondheim and Andrew Lloyd Webber, it was the "real" stuff. Operatic arias or similarly known works composed in the eras from Baroque through Classical were what they meant by it.
For timing context, I started studying solo voice in the late 1970s in Massachusetts and connected to the same process mentality in California in the mid-80s.
I've often heard the term Art-Rock, meaning the more pretentious end of the rock spectrum.
As he said, basically all music at least since the early 20th century is "art music"
Dude... I'm a big fan of classical music (what popularly we call classical music), and even went to a bunch cassical concerts (Beethoven's being my favorite), and never heard the term art music.
The Shaggs. Philosophy of the World.
The best art music album ever
Philosophy of the world isn’t just art music. It is the definition of the word “art.”
Clearly you've never heard of experimental hip-hop trio hailing from Sacramento, Deaf Grapes
Death Grips.
@@andylane3739 Correct.
@@dylanbaxter4092 - doh! I thought you were referring to an actual band! I didn't realize it was a typo 😄.
I haven't listened to them in a while.
It's exhausting. Intense.
What are those nails used for? Figuratively and literally ripping out eyes?
I'm not fully on board with the premise that "art music" implies all other music isn't art. Genre names aren't supposed to be that specific and all-encompassing. Drum and Bass isn't the only genre with drums and bass. Pop music isn't the only popular music. Swing music isn't the only music that's swung.
Personally I don't love the term "art music", and I think it's because when you name a genre for an attribute it implies that the genre emphasizes that element. Drum and Bass isn't the only genre to use drums and bass, but it does emphasize the drums and bass as a core element in the music, same goes for Swing. Pop music is called that because it is often written with the intent of gaining massive mainstream popularity (or I suppose sometimes we probably assign the "pop" label retroactively after something has gained mainstream popularity).
So when I hear "art music", that sounds like this is supposed to be music that was made with the explicit intent to be artful and artistic. Which is fine on its own, but where do you draw the line on what was intended to be artful/artistic? Drum and Bass, Swing, Pop, and EDM for example are all genre names that describe either technical aspects of the music, or their intended purpose, but "art music" feels like a value judgement. It's not so much saying that "This music is the only art music", but more "All music is art, but this music is more artistic/artful than the rest"
@@cavejohnson9071 To be clear, I'm not a big fan of "art music" as a genre name either, I've barely ever heard it used, and I think for good reason, it doesn't fill much of a purpose. It could die as a term, and barely anyone would notice.
To argue the point a bit though, I think there is music that is made to be more or less artistic or artsy, and I don't personally consider that a value judgement. Music performs many roles other than being standalone art. Some music is made to get your hips moving. I love listening to danceable music, but I'd usually categorize denser music that rewards close listening to be more artistic, or art-related.
We use the word art in different ways. There's art as in "artsy," or creative expression and art as in "the art of ____," which is a phrase used to compliment any refined skill. Art music to me is an example of the prior use, and not just a synonym for "good music," although you could argue it still carries that connotation.
@@duncanrobertson6472 Yeah, I suppose I can agree that some music is meant to be more "artsy." Someone else in the comments said that it would work better as a descriptor or prefix, ie. "art rock" or "art pop", and I kind of like that better.
The "art music" term is mainly used by classical music theorist types, which is probably why a lot of people haven't heard the term. I'm not sure I've heard it used much outside of conservatory/music school contexts
Honestly renaming the classical period seems like a really bad idea. I didn't study music in school (was a musician but only took guitar lessons), but instead studied history. Every so often history renames periods, often for reasons that seem very good and add precision, but I think one major downside of that that academics totally ignore is it creates a huge gulf between academics and regular people. Often just as regular people are starting to become familiar with the terminology, its changed, and one can't help but have a sneaking suspicion the change is actually more to do with maintaining a power disparity between academia (particularly rich people with advanced degrees) and the rest of us. Case in point, regular people now have a pretty good grasp of the breakdown of these periods of music. If you change the classical period to something else, really the function it will serve in society is figuring out who is elite and educate and who isn't (this is exactly what I saw in history where just as something in academia was getting traction among the public, suddenly that was time to change things around)
In fewer words: it's prescriptivist poppycock
good point
Indeed. How many movements in History called themselves "Modern" or "Nouveaux" which starts as just meaning the newest thing, but becomes ossified as a genre term and more meaningless as time passes.
Segregating the indoctrinated is the purpose of academic politics.
Dutch historian here. The term classical serves two functions, one is to denote the classical era, whose music is described by the term 'classical era music', the other to describe anything based on classical traditions, essentially saying it is old and potentially outdated, but worthy for some value it has, often some aesthetic or conceptual quality, often tracing its roots to Rome and/or Greece. There is and never was much of a problem calling it 'classical music', it's the term 'art music' that is just plain dumb.
"We need to figure out what to call music!"
Me: "OK, I'll start making notes!"
How awesome would it be if your local arthouse put on operas with audience participation
Now I really want to write an opera that _requires_ the audience to sing along.
@@hugobouma Benjamin Britten beat you to it
"The cantata ... incorporates two congregational hymns sung by the audience."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noye%27s_Fludde#Inception
> 11:58 "[Art music is music the audience observes but doesn't participate in]"
So when I listen to a CD? Oh, I guess it has to be live.
So if [insert current low-brow pop singer, like Britney Spears or Justin Bieber] does a concert with no sing-a-long segment it's art music?
And when everyone is clapping along to Radetzky March at the Vienna Philharmonic's new year's concert on every January 1st, it's not art music?
Got it. I guess most instrumental EDM is art music?
this reminds me of the similar problem with the "idm" genre
The term “intelligent Dance music” makes me thing “where did we go wrong as musicians?”.
There’s a reason that Aphex Twin coined the term “braindance,” and it was to give people who felt the need to classify music into sub genres a term that wasn’t as smug and pretentious as “intelligent dance music.”
@@SlyHikari03 absolutely
Yeah anytime I talk to someone about the genre I pray they don't ask me what the I stands for.
I never heard of that before, but it sounds funny. I like how it implies the existence of "stupid dance music".
I was actually having this exact conversation with my friend the other day. I hate using the term Art Music, but it got the point across and he hated the term because it is alienating to other forms of music. For background, I am a "trained" musician who went to a conservatory and he is a self-taught "untrained" musician. I had an arbitrary dichotomy of Art Music and Popular Music. Music that was separated by its place in culture and status. It was my personal attempt to put these two arbitrary things on the same level and allowed people to know what I was talking about at a glance, but it still put "Art Music" on a pedestal. Honestly, I would have almost done better by making a different dichotomy of Old vs. New Music with what people consider Art Music.
The definitions you provided are ways me and other classically trained musicians have attempted to explain to others that Art Music is a good term. However, the breakdown of the issues and logical fallacies found in them really allowed my brain to expand much more. The "classical training", which has its own baggage, can create a very myopic view when it comes to music, culture, and (another unnecessary dichotomy I now realize I have) untrained musicians.
Art music is popular music. Popular music is art music. Honestly, the dichotomy is dumb. Aristocratic Music is not a bad choice because it gives it the weight it deserves. This music was written for certain people during a certain time. Personally, I think renaming an entire period of music is probably not the best idea and we could instead as a culture just be ok with the idea that Classical capitalized and classical lowercase mean different things. First, the problem needs to be acknowledged. Thank you for making this video. I hope that this creates a bigger conversation!
I've never heard of the term art music before and it is truly the stupidest term I've ever heard of music is art if I made farting sounds with my armpit I could call that art and it would be so
Here me out now, what about the term "Scored Music"
It calls to the tradition of notation / composer (which feels like the back bone of the european music cannon we're discussing), and doesn't get muddied up with genre specifics, or a specific time period. I feel like it could clear up the genre discourse within the music tradition you're describing in this video. So orchestras or symphony's would be places where you would go and (broadly) listen to "scored" music.
art music is to broad and uninclusive of other styles.
it's like written music, but doesnt hold the same snobbery you were implying. All music is written and communicated, but most genre's dont fully score the songs, and keep using that score in every subsequent performance or as the /definitive/ version
(spent my entire undergrad as a "music composition" major thinking about this) (and so far this is the most simple, inclusive term i've been able to think of)
One issue I foresee with your suggestion of "aristocratic music" is that it leaves out a lot of contemporary "classical" artists. Anna Meredith, Julia Wolfe, Steve Reich, Thomas Ades, etc certainly aren't "aristocratic", and in some ways even eschew those norms and relations in spite of drawing from the history of development there (I mean, jazz music often uses understandings of harmony codified by "classical" music; ii-V-I and whatnot). And also on the topic of this, we have to contend with the fact that people like Anna Meredith, Steve Reich, Stockhausen, Edgard Varese, etc are also "classical composers", yet often use instruments, technologies, or forms that match popular music. Much of Anna Meredith's music is kinda like rock/EDM, but I think it still would or should be labeled "classical" or whatever other word we'd call it. "Come out to show them" by Steve Reich is classical. Edgard Varese's "acousmatic music" is a type of electronic classical. Stockhausen and the Darmstadt school's electronic musics are "classical". So, the question is, is what term uniquely combines everything from like, church music from the 800s or ancient greek music, up to contemporary electronic works by people like Jeffrey Stolet, Pamela Z, Panayiotis Kokoras, Morton Subotnik, and so on?
We can't call it "concert music" since a lot of music is performed at concerts and a lot of contemporary classical in some ways literally can't be. All terms we've noted so far apart from "classical" doesn't quite fit, but "classical" is also vague and referring to a specific time period. "Academic music" like other terms mentioned would imply popular music styles are not academic.
Perhaps we can call it "Unpopular music"? Or "Non-popular"? Defining it by the fact that it is not a type of populist or folk music, yet even then that might serve to create an unnecessary codified divide there, and with people like Anna Meredith, or past composers like Bartok who incorporate popular and folk music into their writing, that wouldn't fit either.
Can't call it "lineage music" or something like that either since electronic classical music just ignores typical instruments often times.
Can't call it "high art music" without evoking classist ideas, and even then, the minimalism of the downtown NYC scene a la Steve Reich, Philip Glass, and Julius Eastman, along with composers like Cornelius Cardew, actively opposed the idea of "high art".
Can't call it "difficult music" since a lot of classical music isn't that difficult.
Maybe we could call it "research music"? Because we associate all these styles with the same fundamental category, and that part of it has been defined by time periods that have changed stylistically largely with changes to how we conceptualize music, that might be a good term? Spectral music, minimalism, serialism, form structures, "never-ending melodies", etc all are kind of "discoveries" in music, and a lot of it is oriented around exploring these concepts. Then again, like you mentioned, a lot of composers, especially in the period of direct patronage, wrote as a job and not as a form of research.
Perhaps then, "career music"? But then, bands have musical careers.
Perhaps "patron-based music"? Much of "classical" music relies on patrons to even exist, be it the state through funding for local orchestras, individual donors, academic institutions, non-profit organizations, or otherwise, whereas bands and "popular music" is often reliant on the market.
It's an interesting discussion and hard to figure out any good answer to it apart from just being like "whatever, it's 'classical' and that's fine".
Honestly, just "classical" makes the most sense. Musical genre names are, at the end of it all, just names, and the main purpose of a name is identification, rather than purely description.
"Indie" started out as a label for independent musicians, but has grown to refer more to a sound than strictly a musician's status of being signed/not signed by a record label. The "rock" in rock music dates back to the fact that rock and roll was originally music you were meant to dance to, but I'd challenge most people to dance to, say, Kashmir by Led Zeppelin. Even the "pop" music label, which originally started out as shorthand for "popular", to most people has an identity outside of just what sells the most.
saying that the presence of contemporary "aristocratic music" make the term non-valid would be same as saying nobody can play "delta blues" barring people out of mississippi delta in 1920s.
@@leejuicy Not really? I'm disagreeing with the label of "aristocratic" since that sort of class relation is not present or is actively opposed in a lot of contemporary "classical" music. In the same way it would be wrong to call it "art music", it'd be wrong to call it "aristocratic music" given how broad of a genre/scope we're discussing. However, "delta blues" discusses a geolocatable musical style. For instance, we can talk about French Baroque music, which is a type of baroque music, but that would still be a part of the larger "classical" (or whatever other term) genre, just as "delta blues" is part of the larger "blues".
@@FranciT98 Yeah, I think that's a fair enough rationale; it all does come down to semantics in the end, and if we're well aware of what we're implying when we say "classical" broadly vs "Classical" in the genre-period sense, I think it would be clear enough, but I think it's still an interesting exercise to try to think of what other terms we could use.
@@sihplak sounds fair!
The flip side of the idea of profit is that many rock bands and jazz musicians barely make any money from their music, at best being able to break even and have some food money, but often needing to work day jobs. Especially in the streaming era, much current music is produced for love and creative drive.
I spent five years in college (1977-82) learning to compose Art Music (or Serious Music, as we sometimes called it). Occasionally it was referred to as New Music, whenever someone of note newly composed a piece of music. And I was also taught that, loosely speaking, the genre could be referred to as classical music, but with a lower-case c. The uppercase Classical was the stuff that Mozart composed.
I've also wondered about what to call "classical" (as opposed to Classical) music. How about "concert hall" music, basing it on the kind of venue where you usually hear it live?
Or we could just call the period of Mozart, Haydn, etc "Big C Classical music", and the catch-all that includes Baroque, Romantic, and so on "small-c classical music"?
the title of this video is super misleading. I thought he would be critiquing a genre of music, saying that its good or not, but instead it was just him complaining about the name of a genre
14:00 In the 20th century rock community people often complained about "selling out", modern music communities aren't immune from this nonsense either.
My partner is a concert flutist, and this is one of those things that she both uses regularly (calling it Classical music) but also gripes at regularly ("uggh, I said it again"). To help assuage her, we've started calling that genre "classical instrumentation music" such that when we call it "classical music" we're referring to the fact that it uses "classical" instrumentation, that is, instruments that can be categorized into "classes" (piano, oboe, trumpet, saxophone, theramin, ondes-martineau, etc) as opposed to "produced instruments," that is, synthesized sounds and electric instruments that operate with distortion. I know it's a bit of a cognitive leap, but it's made the general population calling it "classical" music more tolerable. It also helps a lot because it allows us to sweep Sound Tracks, traditional (non-Fusion) Jazz, Big Band, Marching Band, Stage music like Opera and Musicals, and even things like classical guitar and so-called "exotic" music like Latin Dance and Folk Music traditions with, for example, Arabic and Japanese instruments, all under the same heading. This helps immensely not only because its what the general population does anyway, but also because it describes all of the kinds of ways someone who performs on one of those kinds of instruments professionally can be expected to be capable of when tryng to gig.
"There are only two kinds of music - Good and Bad."
(P.S. Hip-hop belongs to the second category.)