In his Tuesday blog, Steve Burns posed an interesting question - what do we call classical music? As I was reading it, I was really hoping that it would die.
Why? Because I like to drink.
If you've spent even a little time buying or reading about wine, you know that Champagne is a region in France. And only sparkling wine made in Champagne can properly be called champagne. If the bubbly is made in California, Spain, or anyplace else, isn't really "champagne," it's sparkling wine.
I know that at least one reason for this was that producers in Champagne didn't want everybody ripping off their name. I get that. But now we've lost a perfectly good generic term. If you're at a restaurant and ask for a couple glasses of champagne, a waiter might decide to educate you and explain that they don't have "champagne" by the glass, but they serve an excellent spakling wine from blah, blah, blah by the glass.
When this happens I always think "Ah shit! Now he's pegged me as a hick and will want to help me with every word bigger than "gravy".
I like generic terms. I like to ask where the kleenex is rather than asking where the facial tissue is.
I don't think we need another word for it. The only thing I don't like about "classical music" is that by saying you like it, people pretty much assume that you must not like anything else.
Now THAT is a problem.
Comments
This is so intriguing. In
Tue, 10/3/2006 - 1:23pm — Marc Geelhoed (not verified)This is so intriguing. In pop music, the more labels you can attach, the better. People don't *want* to be part of a large group. Some classical fans want to make the tent as big as possible. I find that interesting.
Kleenex and Classical Music
Mon, 10/2/2006 - 10:11am — John RyanThank you for what you said about classical music. You put Bach, Mozart, Schonberg and Janacek under the umbrella. That's what I like about the word - it gets you to more or less the right place. From there you can talk about your specific likes and preferences. I'm just a little bit sore that champagne can't be the umbrella term. Something about saying "sparkling wine" is so technical, like asking a bartender what distilled beverages he carries. I understand why a consortium would want to preserve the prestige of its name. Once upon a time - some 20 years ago - you could buy a really cheap bottle of pretty bad wine called champagne (maybe you still can for all I know). However, I suspect that these days - with more and more Champagne houses buying vineyards and producing spakling wine in California that the quality difference is MUCH narrower than it was 25 years ago. And we might see a new term "California Champagne" become a mark of prestige.
Here's the point - it's not
Mon, 10/2/2006 - 2:53pm — Guest (not verified)Here's the point - it's not just a gap in quality we're talking about - there's something actually different about it. Californian sparkling white wine, even at its best and most expensive, tastes different from Champagne. Yes, I've tried it. (Can you tell I've had this argument before?)Personally I think the term "classical music" is quite like the term "sparkling wine". If the term being suggested was "Beethoven" then I would object, just as I object to "Kleenex", and the British use of the verb "to Hoover". Now, if I only liked the "new music" part of classical music, I might find it a bit odd to say I like "classical music" as a genre. Just like, if I only like brie it would be a bit silly to say I like cheese in general. Speaking of which, American stores are happy to call something "brie" that the French wouldn't even grace with the term "cheese" (I mean, it's more like plastic). I'm sure the French never did use the word "Champagne" for anything other than Champagne (and I'll be irritated if some pedant out there can gleefully declare me to be wrong).
Dear Guest, You are
Mon, 10/2/2006 - 3:47pm — John RyanDear Guest, You are absolutely right about points 1, 2, 3, and 4. No arguement. Concerning the term "classical music," I can't agree more - I don't think we need another word for this stuff (classical music).
I'm afraid I disagree on
Sat, 9/30/2006 - 5:09pm — Guest (not verified)I'm afraid I disagree on both counts. I like to preserve the term "Champagne" for the real thing, because sparkling white wine from other places tastes disgusting compared with Champagne. Likewise, I don't like any music other than what is commonly known as "Classical music" by everyone except a few pedants whose noses are stuck in their navels.As regards labels and prejudice, have the opposite problem from you - people are always asking me what "other" kind of music I like, other than classical, and I have to try and convince them that I really don't like anything else. Incidentally, among classical music, I probably like the technically "classical" period the least. If I were to go to a desert island, I would take Pelleas or The Makropoulos Case rather than, say, all Mozart's operas. I'd rather have Verklarte Nacht than all Beethoven's symphonies. And I'd take five minutes of Bach rather than the entire oeuvre of Mozart and Beethoven combined.
Post new comment