In the opening chapter of his new book, Listen to This, Alex Ross declares that he "hates" 'classical music' - "not the thing, but the name". He argues that it "traps a tenaciously living art in the theme park of the past. It cancels out the possibility that music in the spirit of Beethoven could still be created today. It banishes into limbo the work of thousands of active composers who have to explain to otherwise well-informed people what it is they do for a living...."

So what else can we call it?

"Serious music" seems inappropriate, since there is a good deal of 'classical music' which is humorous, comical and witty.

"Intellectual music" smacks of elitism - and aren't we supposed to be trying to dispel the elitist image of classical music?

"Great music"? By doing that, we exclude the greats of the jazz, rock and pop genres - and not forgetting World music.....

"Art music"? But some of the songs of Kate Bush, the Cocteau Twins or Goldfrapp (who I heard last night) could be considered "art music".

And some suggestions from Radio 3 listeners:

"the People's Music" (since "so many people can participate in it"). Sounds a bit communist to me!

"Ephemeral music"
 

As Ross says, all these terms are useful, but are not its defining characteristics. Classical music can also be crazy, confused, stupid and vulgar.

Fellow Musbookers: Can we find a new name for classical music?

Your thoughts, please - clever, witty, humorous, vulgar or just plain stupid!

I heard a bit of that topic this morning on Radio 3; someone came up with an acronym COOL - chamber, orchestral something something - music, but, as the presenter inferred, Jazz has that covered.

Wondering if the message boards on R3 registered any suggestions, I had a look. Nothing - it's not a topic. and there's nothing on R3 Twitter either. Alt-classical is new music with a twist, for want of a better description, so that won't do. Perhaps we'll have to keep 'Classical' as the approximate opposite of 'Popular' music, lest we end up with the new label of 'Unpopular' music.

Perhaps the problem is the English language itself , with its limitations to one defining word eg 'classical'. Maybe we need an amalgam of a few words end-to-end, as in German -
eg Rolltreppenbenutzungshinweise (literally: rolling-stairs-use-tips - tips for using the escalator).

So string a few defining words and together and translate. The words might have to be an individual choice, but maybe the word 'immortal' could figure somewhere.

Or add a few characters together , as in Chinese. ( It is often said that the Chinese for 'crisis' has two characters, danger and opportunity, although linguists have a few issues with that oversimplification.)

'Violin plus Mozart brings joy' music?

Love this topic! Thanks Frances!! Alex Ross is basically right, even if I think it is a sad day for Western culture when the word 'classical' predominantely conjures up such negative associations.

The issue of a name for this art is only becoming more of a problem as increasingly genre distinctions are rendered meaningless by the way we are using devices like iPods, which of course accept classifications themselves, but in the end allow us freely to roam across musical time, space, and genre.

One might, unkindly, suggest "Museum Music" given our attitude to 'classical' music is not that different to how we view art or artifacts in a gallery or museum----elevated from the everyday, and requiring a special kind of viewing (or listening). I say 'unkindly' because of course 'museum art' is a phrase used to critique the repertoire of most opera companies, which seem hopelessly stuck in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Hmm, how about, "Aspirational music"? (Sounds too 'business speak'). "Good Music"? (ha, oh-so-presumptuous...)

We might, though, soon have a pretty basic definition---being 'notated music'.

After all, the rise of the pop music 'producer', notation is becoming increasingly redundant....

Maybe in 100 year's time, when iPods have morphed into something even more sophisticated, we will no longer bother with classifications for our music? Instead, perhaps we will simply group music by mood (as many people do already), such as my "Ambient" mix which my Pilates teacher purloined for the class this morning - the playlist includes John Adams, Goldfrapp, Pink Floyd, Messiaen, Kate Bush, Arvo Part, Brian Eno, Talking Heads..... There will no longer be clearly drawn divisions between strictly "classical" and "pop"..... and maybe people will be more willing to embrace music they might not otherwise listen to.

Like the idea of "notated music" though - there's something very satisfying in seeing notes on a page: it shows someone's been doing some proper work!!

The problem goes deeper than language. 'Classical' is actually a good term for classical music, whether we like it or not. Like other genres, it is defined through adherence to stylistic and generic traditions, but the age of the traditions in classical music are very old - old enough to link to a 'classical' past (ie one were mythology impinges on history). The term is going to remain relevant as long as composers are writing symphonies and concertos, insisting on adherence to notated scores, quoting Beethoven....If doing all those things makes their music unfashionable, that is their fault, not the fault of the language used to describe their work.

...'Classical' music, then, strictly speaking just applies to music between about 1760 and 1820, written somewhere within a 1000k arc stretching west from Vienna... Up to then, really, institutionalised Western music made no claim to be universal or applying archetypal stylistic models after a Classical fashion--indeed, of course, our understanding of the Classical past (i.e. Greek & Roman) dates from the same time and place (Winkelmann et al). Language _is_ part of the problem at least, if it makes us dumb (or, should I say 'deaf') to the historical context of "classical" music.

But, to return to the original question, do we have a better term?

Yes, strictly speaking 'Classical' music is all those things on the list. More importantly though, classical music in the broader sense is any music that defines itself through affiliation to: the long 18th century, the Austro-German tradition etc.etc.
I agree with Frances that it is probably more imporant to look at why classical music needs a name at all than to think up a new one. And who is doing the naming anyway? Record companies sell music as classical, but do composers and performers create music to be classical? If not, then perhaps the term will fall into disuse as the record industry either collapses or falls into the hands of the musicians themselves.

A few quick thoughts: 'Classical Music', in musicological terms refers specifically to music written roughly between 1750 - 1820. It's dominated by Sonata- and Ternary-form structures and adheres to a hierarchical harmonic system known as functional tonality. So, I say, don't mess with it – it's a good, commonly accepted term of reference.

So, 'Houston, we have a problem' – the term 'Classical Music' has been hijacked by lazy thinkers and good-for-nothing generalists to mean any form of music where you might have one or more of the following:
a) a conductor
b) musicians reading from notated scores
c) musicians dressed as penguins
d) an absence of bare midriffs, thongs and lycra (and that's just the men!)

As for the suggested alternatives:

Art Music – Pleeeeease!!! Are you seriously suggesting that the Miles Davis / Gil Evans collaborations, or Charlie Parker's groundbreaking approach to harmony doesn't amount to art? You can't grab a monopoly on the implied worthiness associated with such a term without making yourself deeply unpopular with musicians of other genres.

Serious Music – are you serious? again, I know many Jazz musicians who are every bit as serious about their music as any 'Classical' musician.

Notated Music – this is a no-go as well, because so many other forms of music are notated, from Pop through to Jazz & Blues. You also leave yourself hostage to the question 'what is notation?'. PT you're wrong about notation in pop – it's alive and well and, with the advent of computer notating software, more than ever available to Popsters for their horn and string arrangements.

As a former Managing Editor in music publishing, and now a composer of so-called 'Classical' music, I like the term 'contemporary classical', even though, strictly speaking, it's a contradiction in terms.

But even within this fairly broad-brush generic term we run into problems. I, for example, believe that music speaks directly to the emotional core, and I frame my musical references with this in mind. I deliberately use the 'lingua franca' of tonality (albeit non-functional and often modal) and often employ clearly discernible melodic structures. This is anathema to the likes of Oliver Knussen, who abhors emotional associations in the art of composing, preferring to regard composing as a purely intellectual pursuit whose emotional resonances are a coincidental by-product of the mental game of musical chess; he eschews functional tonality in favour of something altogether more contemporary, intellectually challenging and academically rigorous (he is, BTW, my favourite living composer, and I wouldn't dream of questioning his rationale).

So, in summary, the term Contemporary Classical isn't perfect but it is, IMHO, the best of a bad bunch.

'Why not just call it "music"' James Rhodes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jan/23/james-rhodes-classical-music-interview