Classical Music or Common Practice Period?

This has been something which I have been debating with myself and other's for quite a while. Every person who is 'in' the "Classical Music" scene probably hates that term; just as Debussy hated his music called Impressionistic, for example. I want to open this topic, as a one-whole to discuss this.

Myself, I'd be really happy if it became the popular thing to re-name (in the popular sense) "Classical Music" to the Common Practice Music, if everyone really cannot remember the eras or whatever.

Now, the topic could come up, "Why or how would normal people, or anyone, know what 'Common Practice' really means?" Well, a first point would be, "Do you even know what 'Classical' means?" It usually pertains to the Baroque-Romantic Eras-- but, everyone calls any music that seems to be without lyrics/orchestral/instrumental/incomprehensible, "Classical Music." I totally disagree with that.

Then they might ask, "Well, I STILL don't know what 'Common Practice' is!!?" Wikipedia explains it quite well, actually...


The common practice period, in the history of European art music (broadly called classical music), spanning the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods, lasted from about 1600 until about 1900.

...and I would add to that saying that it can apply to music even after 1900, since twelve-tone series were a function developed and can be "commonly used" by a person with knowledge how to do it... just like 4-part writing from WAY back when.

Now, I know that I cannot start some revolution, but I want people (maybe even just here) to take a little consideration on their part. I, myself, will start calling "Classical Music" (as the popular whole) Common Practice or Common Practice Music.

Discuss!

Makes sense to me. Common practice is a bit more politically correct.

HAHAHA "Classical Music" sound really be renamed "AMAZINGS"! lol like when talking to someone, HEY THERE DUDE, DO YOU LISTEN TO "AMAZINGS"? HAHAHA YEAH I DO! LOL 'cause they are ^-^ amazing (some of them are anyway ^-^) lol okay ill stop now =/

I totally agree with this! So much confusion tends to arise with so many different definitions for "classical" music that a separate term would do a lot of good.

Hmm... I always thought there were multiple working definitions for 'classical' when describing music, depending on the context, much like the term 'theory' in science and in popular culture. Meh, I'm not familiar with music history enough to have an opinion on this =)

On another note, what would you call the 'classical' music that are composed later than 1900? It seems that would fall out of both categories.

Music from the 20th century and beyond that follows and expands classical and romantic ideas is called contemporary music, though I'm not sure what exactly draws the line between contemporary music and all the other genres that have popped up since then. For example, is Jazz contemporary? or rock and roll? Is it limited to the orchestra/piano/any traditional music group?

I would say that defining genres in this day in age is impossible and utterly futile. There's so much crossing going on that almost every album (or indeed every song) has its own genre that encompasses about twelve more general ones. But in response to your question, I would say jazz is its own genre, born from the scrappings of impressionism and being the forerunner of rock and roll. Which, by the way, has proved to be very... fertile, if you catch my drift.

No, I don't catch your drift.

Technically, Classic is defined into several terms... there's music according to the certain instrument. I think "Classic" music is just different things combined. for instance, some consider "Enya" to be a classical singer... which is partially true. I think it would be hard to have "Classical" renamed, since that is what we have all learned what its called since 2ed grade. If you renamed it It could be called "A Combination of everything" or the Latin word for that (What ever that is)

I know it may seem dumbed down (but I think it has to be that way sometimes), but I use the phrase "instrumental music" to describe what most people define as classical music.

I would much rather call it classical music than "common practice music". Common practice music? comon it just doesnt sound good.. At least find a better name. Classical is defined as of the first or highest quality, class, or rank: a classic piece of work. And thats exactly what classical music is. It was the first and still of the highest. The first great composers made songs that used the craziest techniques and methods of the highest quality that take so much skill to play that holds up to this day.

I dont know where you are getting the idea that everyone in the classical music scene is hating the term but in my group of people, they dont mind at all. It sounds more like a sterotype to me.

I know it may seem dumbed down (but I think it has to be that way sometimes), but I use the phrase "instrumental music" to describe what most people define as classical music.

Where are the Operas? the Cantatas? The Oratorios? That form part of the 'Classical' music and is not instrumental. That definition is a lot more general than saying "Classical music".

I would much rather call it classical music than "common practice music". Common practice music? comon it just doesnt sound good.. At least find a better name. Classical is defined as of the first or highest quality, class, or rank: a classic piece of work. And thats exactly what classical music is. It was the first and still of the highest. The first great composers made songs that used the craziest techniques and methods of the highest quality that take so much skill to play that holds up to this day.

I dont know where you are getting the idea that everyone in the classical music scene is hating the term but in my group of people, they dont mind at all. It sounds more like a sterotype to me.

But calling it classical sounds to me like it's classic; like it's a joke, "Oh, that's classic." It also sounds boring, old and uninteresting in the way I feel it's used. And you forget that when the Baroque, Classical, Romantic, "Impressionist", "Modern", "Contemporary" and "Advant-Garde" music is in it's day and even now, it's what is popular. Mozart was popular in his day, so was Beethoven. Stravinsky was controversial and Rachmaninoff was a depressive. Classical Music should describe what the music is, but it seems to. Stravinsky, Beethoven, Liszt isn't this proper s**t that has this flaunt and class to it. It's Art. That's all that it is. Anyone who says that music should be proper or some sort of rank is daft.

My Beethoven was a passionate artist who "freed" music up to a new era. Schoenberg used his new technique, the twelve-tone-scale to make anew. They are just two examples of music, in which their methods were taught and learned and became a common practice to make more art from an individual using the techniques and practices.

You see, I feel that you need to open your mind up a little more. How does Mozart's music reveal this rank of hierarchy and a boring "classic piece of work." Mozart's music (art) was so finely written out in his manuscripts with notes more than just musical notes because he didn't want people to just take it with this "goop" attitude and stupid it up. He wanted his art to come across as an overall expression; through his notes, articulations, overall volume, methods... he wanted art that was new, that was his own and that is still celebrated as a great composition to this day.

Now, you tell me that Ligeti is part of the high classes of arrangements of notes in a set time? Ligeti was a modern day Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, Debussy, Ravel, Liszt, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Rachmaninoff, Khachaturian.. what do you think music is, and what do you think I think of it? It's not about crazy methods and techniques.. or else I'd be a mathematician.

You've read the wiki. Its just how you view the definition of classical music. Classic to me doesn't sound boring, old or uninteresting to me. Classical music is a broad term, like what is considered art. They describe classical music in a even bigger range then the common practice music period. Same thing basically. And really can you imagine.

Piano teacher: Ok lets pull out some common practice music to play :lol:

Student: umm ok...


Also, anyone who has taken music history or even looked up some definitions would know any music without lyrics or orchestras are not just classical. Instead of deeming a new definition, you could educate them instead. Since no one really cares because classical is so broadly defined except for the real music enthusiasts.

I've never heard my teacher's say pull out Classical Music, the point I was getting to is that it's Music. Simply, an art.

Piano Teacher: Let's get out music! Chopin?
Me: YES.

Piano Teacher: Let's get out some Elton John!
Me: NO. Wait? Elton John, wtf?

The point is, is that there isn't classical music, that's just an era (technically) and the reason I want to start calling it Common Practice (Or "Common Music") is not because it's, for some reason, "Common s**t" or just some run-of-the-mill notes, but because it describes the music a little bit more in depth.

Don't use fancy things such as wiki. The way it starts out on Classical and Common Practice is the same, but look just a few paragraphs in, and you'll see the difference. Maybe you should read it again? And wiki is not the best database for those kind of things, it even refers that it's "Widely called Classical Music" and that it ISN'T; so even if you thought wiki is great, it says that it's only commonly called that and not technically.

Classical music even though technically an era, is being described as the music for that era, and that is what the majority of people refer to it as. If everyone was as technical as you about this it would be redefined.

Sorry, even though a technical point, It's not worth taking a stand in my book. The word has been abused to the point that it can mean any old music or old "popular" music.

Technically, Classic is defined into several terms... there's music according to the certain instrument. I think "Classic" music is just different things combined. for instance, some consider "Enya" to be a classical singer... which is partially true. I think it would be hard to have "Classical" renamed, since that is what we have all learned what its called since 2ed grade. If you renamed it It could be called "A Combination of everything" or the Latin word for that (What ever that is)

oh? haha i seriously agree but i still think it should be renamed to "Amazings" HAHAHAHAHA! ^-^

Classical music even though technically an era, is being described as the music for that era, and that is what the majority of people refer to it as. If everyone was as technical as you about this it would be redefined.

Sorry, even though a technical point, It's not worth taking a stand in my book. The word has been abused to the point that it can mean any old music or old "popular" music.

Well, thank-you for finally seeing my point. And this wasn't a thread to try and get everyone to notice the facts of things (with wiki, or whatever, or without) but just to make people think. :)

and that you have :P

hum, very informative thanks :)

"Old School Music"

ta-da~

What's really ironic is as I am typing, I can hear some loud techno going off next door -_-

Politically correct is stupid, it causes BC and AD to be changed to BCA CA in my text books. Id say instrumental is fine but thats kinda........ya, gay. point is, it is classical music.

Politically correct is stupid, it causes BC and AD to be changed to BCA CA in my text books. Id say instrumental is fine but thats kinda........ya, gay. point is, it is classical music.

Thank-you for sharing your detailed opinion!

No, really, you might want to think about what has been said from everybody, and even if you still disagree, back-up why? I'd like to know why (reasons?) you just want it to be called something else, or stay "Classical Music."