Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!decwrl!daemon From: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.music Subject: RE; terms for music Message-ID: <4651@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Dec-83 12:25:35 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.4651 Posted: Mon Dec 19 12:25:35 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Dec-83 02:07:27 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Western Research Lab, Los Altos, CA Lines: 62 From: Ed Featherston HL01-1/P06 225-5241 Begin Forwarded Message: ------------------------------------------- Newsgroup : net.music >From : GALAXY::MALIK Organization : Digital Equipment Corp. RE; terms for music Trying to come up with unambiguous terms for the various styles, approaches, & traditions in music is difficult. One of the problems is establishing a clearly understood context for the discussion. If we're talking about 'classical/serious' music vs. 'popular/non-serious' music, then it's important to remember that we are excluding a large portion of the world's musics. How would we catagorize a Bantu chant? Is it 'classical' or 'popular'? Even having established the limits of what we are talking about, there are problems. Certainly, Beethoven is far more popular (more people know about, like, buy records, etc.) than many a so-called 'popular' band. It's silly to think of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. as unpopular. They may be relatively unpopular to 17 year olds living in America, but then, the Ramones are relatively unpopular to 40+ year olds. So, popular/unpopular gets us nowhere. Similarly, for serious/ nonserious. 'Art-music' is even worse. What's art? Everyone's got his/her own definition for it; try to convince someone that something they like isn't art - you'll end in a shouting match. What to do? Like most things in life (and especially language), you have to compromise. Accept that the terms are fuzzy and do the best you can. I favor 'classical' and 'pop' (if there's a jazz musician around I'll usually add 'jazz' as a special catagory) as the most useful terms I can think of. By 'classical' I mean, everything in the classical tradition - up to and including the most extreem avant-garde. By 'pop', I mean everything in the popular tradition - from Western folk to Public Image Ltd. This has some problems. Frank Sinatra would seem to have more in common with Schubert lieder than Captain Beefheart. Similarly, some people find calling both Mozart and Cage 'classical' a bit hard to swallow. But they are part of a living tradition that feeds on itself for it's *MAJOR* influences. So, what I'm saying is that the terms 'classical' and 'pop' are useful in referring to separate traditions. They don't tell you a thing about what the piece sounds like; nor do they make any value judgements. They simply help to clarify what you are talking about. ,Karl Malik (UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!rhea!galaxy!malik (ARPA) decwrl!rhea!galaxy!malik@Berkeley decwrl!rhea!galaxy!malik@SU-Shasta ------------------------------------------- End Forwarded Message