"Classical"

Is anyone else as autistic as me when it comes to this """genre"""? I tag everything in my library as either symphony, concerto, motet, sonata, choral etc as what they really are instead of just lmao classical bro. It's so stupid, there is more difference between say motet and symphony than metal and rock. Whole """"classical"""" meme needs to die off and people who coined it erased from history and their entire lineage with it burnt in pits. Such a crime against humanity.

Attached: 1554227983012.jpg (600x600, 59K)

classical is a bygone time, so it bugs me whenever an new album/soundtrack w/orchestra is labelled "classical"

That too. Makes no sense that composer who did his piece yesterday is suddenly classical. It's sonata, motet, symphony, choral, oratorio, piece, opera or any of the myriad setups. Who the fuck came up with this "classical" nonsense?

No one cares you fuckin dweeb

I tag by time periods in increments of 100 years up to 1600 and in increments of 50 after that, e.g. early 17th century.

Genres like motet, sonata, etc., titles, catalogue numbers, keys go into the track title. No need to redouble them.

...

Classical doesn't necessarily mean classical era. But you're right, the fact that any sort of music that has ONE violin in it is labelled as "classical" by normies is a crime.

The English, obviously.

but aside from the classical era, what does classical mean though?

Classical was used in 17th century London to distinguish the best works of the time from the rest. Later on you also have classical era that was a big influence (especially Beethoven) on composers of the 19th century, but in German speaking or German culture influenced lands they use the word "classicism" for that specific period to distinguish it from "classical". Your tags are fine though, fuck "classical" as a "genre", it's nonsensical and doesn't mean anything. I'd much rather call music by what it is, i.e. a renaissance motet, a expressionist piano sonata, a late romantic symphony etc. because all those have almost zero in common so it's retarded to lump them together into one """"genre"""" as you clearly put it.

see Also it means several things, but usually it's what you could also call "Western art music" or any sacred/high art from Europe or part of that institution and/or tradition, so that means it's still being made today by some.
Although you also have classical musics from other parts of the world, like Turkish and Indian classical. I don't know really, it's a fucking stupid word to be honest. I'd much rather just talk in accurate and specific terms but sadly not many people know a lot about old music so they just lump it together in one "genre".

The German words are actually "klassisch", "Wiener Klassik", and "klassische Musik" (or: "ernste Musik", i.e. serious Musik). "Klassizismus" or "klassizistisch" (classicist) refers exclusively later emulations, e.g. in Prokofiev's symphony.

The same applies to (((electronic))) music

Shit, I was sure that Germans had the same logic as us and that Klassizismus meant classicism/classical era, but I guess I was wrong. In that case I prefer neoclassical to describe 20th century emulations. What a clusterfuck of words and different meanings.

I have a big classical library. I don't tag anything I just organize it by composer/piece/performer.

Based

Attached: 1546002451107.png (427x576, 310K)

Renaissance to early 20th century

The point is that there is no model for music in classical antiquity, the first composer to be considered classical in the sense of "timeless, inexhaustible" was Josquin, but the word only really takes off in music around 1800. So it makes sense that music's "Greeks" in the Yea Forums sense are quite young.

conductor?

Sounds plausible. So it was basically people going "wow this Mozart dude is so good it's such a instant classic" the same way hiphop connoisseurs of now are raving about Kanye, and it stuck somehow as genre. Did I get your exposé right?

>sacred/high art from Europe
There were sacred folk musics though. So I don't think sacred comes into it.

> Renaissance motet and romantic symphony have nothing in common.

Both of these pieces were notated and thus can be read.

I include it in the performer field

Congratulations on finding the lower common denominator

see but yeah it's one way of looking at one definition of the word. It's a clusterfuck.

Why did you change the quotation to make your comment sensible?

Pretty much, though we're two people.

They also use a particular form of voice-leading (avoiding perfect parallel intervals, resolving dissonances by step, etc.), a feature that is rare at best in jazz and virtually non-existent in popular music.

>They also use a particular form of voice-leading (avoiding perfect parallel intervals, resolving dissonances by step, etc.)
You're genuinely trying really hard here, huh?

How did I change the quote ?

From
>renaissance motet and late romantic symphony have almost nothing in common
to
>motet and romantic symphony have nothing in common
Now you're splitting hairs and scraping the barrel with shit like "they're both written down in notation" and "voice-leading" (which was a bullshit statement as well).

> Avoiding parallel perfect intervals

*Laugh in expressionnist*

Attached: claude-debussy-9269290-1-402.jpg (300x300, 10K)

>romantic music
>avoiding perfect parallel intervals
Bitch have you even heard of Liszt

We were talking about Renaissance motets and Romantic symphonies.

The voice leading statement was not from me. I've made the post with Debussy showing that some "classical" eras do not care about good voice leading rules.

My point is that the only thing in common between a Renaissance and romantic work is that they were written down. And that's pretty much how "classical" is defined, no ?

Classical includes pieces before Guido of Arezza invented notation.

I don't think so. Example please ?

Gregorian chants, you fucking mug

Oh right. But these were still notated using neumes.

Well if your only criteria is that it was somehow notated then okay

Well, I haven't found a better criteria.

Guido didn't invent notation. There's musical notation from antiquity, and the musica enchiriadis gives notated polyphonic examples a century before Guido was born.

I meant actual pitch notation that is still used today. Notation from antiquity is fuck all relevant here.

Greek sources use tetrachord notation. So does the echirisdis. Guido uses a hexachord. All of those are a far cry from modern diasthematic notation.

Based free smiley poster

The term Classical is used to cover a broad range of art music that originated in Europe around 500 AD, including the Medieval Classical Music, Renaissance Music, Baroque Music, Classical Period, Romanticism, and Modern Classical eras. Notable composers in the genre include Pérotin, Machaut, Palestrina, Händel, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, Schönberg, Stravinsky, Cage, and Reich.

Although there are notable exceptions, particularly in the early and later periods, Western Classical music can be characterized by its tonal system and harmonic language, dodecaphonic tuning system, fixed notational system, standard musical forms, and instrumentation. When compared broadly to other traditions of music, Western Classical Music tends to place more emphasis on harmony and less on rhythm, and relies more on fixed performance rather than improvisation.

The genre has changed radically over time, and two pieces picked from different periods may sound vastly different; however, the gradual development, its evolutionary lineage, and its history lends cohesiveness to the many individual styles and movements within the genre.

yep its like refering to any traditional music as folk or any form of popular music as popular music

That categorisation is an entirely different thing though.

Attached: muzak.png (1600x1200, 110K)