01/10/2014
Classical Shmassical
is a new blog about music that originates with semantics, or perhaps I mean
with vocabulary. Really, I just mean: with words.
My musical adventure started, as most journeys do, in
ignorance. I stumbled into music class as a child, gradually became habituated,
started exploring on my own, and, not surprisingly, eventually fell in love.
But what is this “Classical music” thing I fell in love
with? Nearly everyone in the music life is quick to qualify any effort at genre
categorization: “Well, calling it ‘this’ or ‘that’ is a bit restrictive – what
I’m talking about defies categories to some extent, but you know what I mean…”
Right. We often know what we’re talking about, even when it’s hard to talk
about specifics.
But there’s one aspect of this generally-acceptable
communication morass that I just can’t get comfortable with: the use of the
word “Classical” to refer to a “genre” of music that is, in fact, dozens or
hundreds – face it, thousands – of genres, types, styles, eras of music. To
call the term insufficient is to underrate the complete impossibility of trying
to wrap up several centuries and countless regional and personal styles into a
single category.
Worse still is the term itself. True, it’s not the word’s
fault that it was drafted to do an impossible job. Don’t blame “Classical” for
being insufficient to an impossible task. But don’t excuse it from blame
entirely. “Classical” has picked up a set of connotations over the decades, and
a lot of them are demeaning and misleading. To many, it means: staid, proper,
prissy, uptight, pretty but no soul. Fine for TV commercials, certain movie
soundtracks, weddings, funerals, and presentations that require an air of
seriousness. That’s wrong! But words are powerful, and sadly, “Classical” music
is now stuck with a reputation that couldn’t be more misleading – all because
of a word. It does apply, with only the usual genre-categorization caveats, to
a certain period of music – Bach’s sons through early Beethoven, say. The rest
of the time, it’s basically being drafted for a job no word could possibly
manage, and it’s doing damage in the process.
So: the word is insufficient and full of misleading
connotations – what to do? We’ve gotten along fine with this bad word serving
as a moniker, if not a proper description, for the music we love. Hadn’t we
better either come up with a better one or, failing that, learn to accept the
one we’ve got? My case is this: we’re NOT getting along fine with this lousy
word as our music’s best and only name. More and more of the public sees
“Classical” music as a ghetto full of snobs with standards but no taste, a
place they might visit briefly when necessary, but wouldn’t want to live. Play
the stuff for people and they love it. Ask them if they love Classical music:
not so much.
Yet, decry “Classical” it as I do…I’ve never been able to
come up with a substitute. I’ve tried! I searched and discussed and tried and
tried! And I failed. I can’t come up with a word to replace “Classical.”
This failure is a sign. There most likely is no word that can do what we’re
attempting to do with “Classical.” So my personal solution is, as much as
possible, to turn my back on the whole name thing. “Classical” is terrible;
there’s nothing better; might as well give up on naming it at all. Perfect
idea!
Most likely you’re familiar with the whole Yiddish “sh”
negation thing. In case you’re not: basically, saying a word, then saying it
again sticking “sh” or “shm” in front of it is a kind of clever, complicated
negation. It doesn’t merely contradict the original word, it shows attitude
toward it. There’s a bit of “who cares?”, some “as if!”, quite a lot of “no
way!”, and more than a touch of “forgetaboudit.” So there’s no good word for
“Classical” music? Hmmph. Fine. I say: Classical Shmassical!
Welcome!
