MICHAEL from New Jersey writes:

I am enjoying the posts of Eric R. (here, here and here) who seems to have become the resident music critic at THW dot net.

I quite agree, “classical music” is ambiguous for the reasons stated; and that “European art music” is the preferred term.

But surely not “Western European….” That I have never seen. Where does that leave Brahms? Vienna is not Western Europe. Chopin? Warsaw is not Western Europe. Dvorak? Prague is not Western Europe. Vivaldi? Venice is not Western Europe, and the whole of Italy is not either.

“European art music” is simple, descriptive, accurate, basically coterminous with the practice of written music — musical notation being a European invention dating from ca 1035.

But don’t utter it in mixed company! How dare you designate a single musical tradition as “Art”!! But it only refers to a mode of transmission made possible by the invention of musical notation (I protest) which also promoted the development of individual authorship (I continue). Music transmitted orally – e.g. folk music – is really a quite different cultural practice so what’s wrong with using distinct names (I plead).

And by the way, European art music historically has been highly dependent on folk music for at least its melodic content. Just think of all those Renaissance Masses based on current , sometimes vulgar, street ditties!  Ah, but the conversation ended right at that first “Art”!

Eric R. writes:

My stars!  I’m in over my head!!! This guy sees right through me! Ha ha! I got the term from a music prof at University of Virginia. I agree, I’ll drop the “Western.”

Leonard Bernstein uses the term “exact music.”

Laura writes:

I’m still going to call it classical music.

Please follow and like us: