Boring, confusing or just plain wrong


When I write 'Steinway' everyone knows I mean a concert grand. That's why big corporations throw millions at creating brand names. Yet elsewhere classical music uses descriptors that are boring, confusing or just plain wrong. Does contemporary music include composers who are dead? Does early music exclude Bach? Does new music embrace twentieth-century music? And, as the excellent Music in a Suburban Scene quite rightly points out, why should world music ignore western art music? It's a subject I've written about before and nobody seemed very interested. So that's a good reason for raising it again - what's in a name?

Any copyrighted material on these pages is included as "fair use", for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis only, and will be removed at the request of copyright owner(s). Report broken links, missing images and errors to - overgrownpath at hotmail dot co dot uk

Comments

Erin said…
Contemporary classical seems like the best fit to me, but obviously not perfect. 'Modern classical' sounds too much like it sounds different from not-modern classical, which isn't necessarily the case. It's all a bit subjective though, and unless a community really engages with the name, it stays just a label.

It's true, a name everyone rallies around helps connect people.

My favourite lately has been the new contemporary classical (or whatever) club night and record label Nonclassical.

Recent popular posts

How to reach a big new post-COVID classical audience

I put a spell on you

Requiem for my vinyl

Untold story of the counterculture's Islamic connection

Vonnegut gets his Dresden facts wrong

The Berlin Philharmonic's darkest hour

Classical music must face the facts - click bait pays

Berlin Philharmonic's first woman conductor

Benjamin Brittten's relationship with children

Philippa Schuyler - genius or genetic experiment?