so whats the deal with modern classical? i thought classical was specific to certain time periods, so how is any music composed today classical? i don't get it. obviously, a lot of new composers don't even write music the same way as in past centuries, so who decides what is 'serious classical art music' and such crap and what is just somthing else?

also, whats the dif between avantgard classical electronic stuff and electronica and techno idm stuff? lots of modern composers use electronic stuff, but they're still clasical, not electronica??? what makes an electronic person like techno or ambient or something and not classical?

and how bout the instrumental prog stuff with lots of strings, long songs, and weird sounds?? that isnt classical either?

dammit this is confusing..

i think "classical" refers to both the classical period of western art music, and written (as opposed to performed) music in general.

The term Classical easily falls apart at any attempt to handle it. It seems the most accurate when it appears in the context of ancient Greek and Roman art/architecture (classical antiquity).

It's really just a term of convenience for any art form with a tendency toward order and hierarchy. In music, it separates formal art music from popular music.

Well, here's my understanding of the whole thing:

Classical refers to anything composed by the great composers of the Western world. In other words, "serious music." These composers have done the most with the musical techniques and instrumental technologies available in their time.

Classical and avant-garde often overlap. Schoenberg, Luigi Nono, Stockhausen...for instance. Maybe not Stravinsky anymore...I supposed he's finally been accepted by most peeps as a Classical Guy (ever since that Fantasia thing came out). Even Debussy wrote "weird modern music" according to some of his contemporaries (believe or not, some people alive today still believe this).

Electronica definitely stems from rock music. These musicians don't seem interested in music's abstract properties (harmony, melody, and counterpoint). It's a lot of groping around for interesting, pre-existent sounds to put to a beat. They're basically on the same level (or less) as your average rock musician. I wouldn't call them composers, unless you're trying to be euphemistic.

I don't really consider Pierre Schaeffer or Tod Dockstader classical composers. I doubt they thought of themselves as such. On the other hand, I consider their art to be serious. So, I don't know...I just call it concrete music.

As far as classical affectations in rock music...

Any mental cripple can add a bunch of strings to the background of a rock song. Hey Jude isn't Classical music.

You can nail it down to a year range (1760-1820) if you want.

After listening to Classical music for a good while, you develop sensibilities that help evaluate new forms of music. There are so many permutations and cross-overs these days...it's not always easy. Rock musicians never really take the classical ideal seriously. They go just far enough so they can say that they've been there.

Take my advice and keep this knowledge to yourself. If you let on that you know too much about serious music everyone around you will just think you're a Communist (another great, ambiguous word).

when i was very young i was always confused by this. people would talk about how beethoven was arguably the first romantic composer, but then stravinsky is "classical music?" sometimes the whole thing gets weird though, i mean schoenberg did write some music that wasn't really weird at all, and other stuff well you know. however some of those experimental dirgy stuffs from Xenakis and Stockhausen i don't really think are 'classical,' no matter how you define it.