gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (02/29/84)
~ Much hoo-ha is made here of the difference between classical music and the so-called classical period, leading to such statements as, "baroque music, strickly speaking, is not classical music (because it is not of the classical period)." Here I wish to make a case for the use of `Viennese period' to refer to that period (1775-1825) usually called `classical.' First, go to your favorite dictionary and look up `classical' -- "of the highest class" (how pretentious), "of ... the Greeks and Romans" (oh really?), "... restrained, regular, simple" (oh REALLY?), "famous or well-known...." (* sigh *). Well, you see how it goes. To ascribe the word `classical' to this period does not make sense; it picks out this period as being something uniquely brilliant in the history of music, and this is simply not true and unfair to other periods. Now, from my textbook for music appreciation, "Listen", by Joseph Kerman of UC Berkeley: "In the second half of the 18th century, a new musical style was developed by several great composers active in Vienna... "The new musical style developed by the Viennese composers is traditionally referred to as `classical.' Recently, however, musicians and musicologists have been objecting to this term even more strongly than to the term `baroque'.... For unlike the term `baroque,' the term `classical' can lead to real misconceptions.... "[one of which is] that a `classical' style has to be entirely serene and unemotional. But ... it was exactly the Viennese composers -- first Haydn and Mozart, then Beethoven and Schubert -- who pioneered a new degree of personal involvement and expression in their music...." [He goes on to refer to the style and period as `Viennese' for the rest of the book.] This suggests, does it not, a trend towards the use of `Viennese'? So let's stop calling it `classical' and call it Viennese instead, and stop confusing each other.