Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

the term "classical music" did not exist until 1930s

Quote:
“In the history of the music we now call "classical," new music was in fact the norm until at least the first third of the 19th century. Before that -- in Mozart's time, for instance -- hardly anyone performed old music. Yes, a few musty connoisseurs remembered Bach and Handel, but everybody else liked newer stuff. They all played new string quartets at home, and went out to see the latest operas.
   This didn't change until the 1830s, give or take a decade, when emerging groups of high-culture sophisticates began actively to perform the music of the past. And this, I suspect, is where our problem started -- with the idea that "classical music" (a term that never existed in Bach's or Mozart's day) was something special and privileged, something far loftier than any music we'd normally hear in our everyday lives. As the 19th century progressed, more and more old music got played, until by around 1870 it found a home in the deepest heart of musical life.
   But even then new music didn't stand apart in any special way. You can see that very clearly if you read music critics of the time. Take George Bernard Shaw, who reviewed concerts in the 1890s. He wrote about the Brahms Requiem, about new works by Verdi, Dvorak, and Grieg, about an absurdly hyped new opera called Cavalleria rusticana, and about premieres by Massenet and Tchaikovsky (along, of course, with pieces by composers we don't remember anymore). But -- except in the special case of Wagner, whom he loved, but who, even a decade after his death, still sounded startling to many people -- Shaw never talked about new music as if it was any problem for him or anybody else. He liked some of it; some of it (most notoriously, anything by Brahms), he didn't like. But he wrote like someone in our age going to the movies; nothing he reviewed got treated specially simply because it was new.”

http://www.gregsandow.com/NewMusic.htm

 In my opinion,this article‘s proposition of the recovery of classical music is defective,but this paragraph is really helpful for my studying of classical music.

Where do you disagree with him?

This makes sense, as up until the 1900s popular music was European folk, hillbilly or variations on the waltz/proto-big-band sound.

When it became clear that this style was taking over ("prole drift"), musicians needed a way to keep classical from being dumbed down. Outside of Gershwin, Copland, Dvorak and other partial intelligences, they succeeded.

This makes sense, as up until the 1900s popular music was European folk, hillbilly or variations on the waltz/proto-big-band sound.

When it became clear that this style was taking over ("prole drift"), musicians needed a way to keep classical from being dumbed down. Outside of Gershwin, Copland, Dvorak and other partial intelligences, they succeeded.

I know those words, but that post makes no sense.

Dvorak was no "partial intelligence", maybe you just haven't heard his 8th symphony.

I see the logic of throwing him in that pile (to an extent): he was no Beethoven, and he was not the "best" of his contemporaries. But he certainly had his own moments of greatness.

Ah dag, does this mean we gotta purge classical from the vernacular in the same mode as we do with Kreator/Slayer type bands and thrash-metal?

Ah dag, does this mean we gotta purge classical from the vernacular in the same mode as we do with Kreator/Slayer type bands and thrash-metal?
I suggest simply using the term Art Music as appropriate.  It already exists and has a distinct definition that's generally more useful than the term Classical.