tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-25658582811418140622007-12-08T15:35:00.000Z2007-12-08T15:35:00.000Z<I>By 'contemporary music' I, of course, meant 'contemporary classical music', and I've changed the wording to that now.<BR/><BR/><BR/>It's difficult to find the right words that convey 'non-rock/folk/pop'. Some commentators use the words 'serious music' but that seems even worse.<BR/><BR/>Any suggestions for an alternative to the handle 'contemporary classical music' are very welcome.<BR/><BR/>Or is the categorisation meaningless when groups such as Soft Machine moved between categories?</I><BR/><BR/>Ah ... the penny drops. It was of course obvious that the list was missing classical/serious/art musicians. However, my reaction stemmed from the reality that you take a commendably broad view of what sorts of music are worth writing about, and it just didn't occur to me that "contemporary music" was intended to be other than a broad term.<BR/><BR/>I suppose the label that may be the best of the existing bad lot is "serious music." That at least has the benefit of capturing some composers and performers who are certainly serious but who would be excluded by a label of "classical". "Art music" has the right sort of flavour to my ear, but is probably subject to even more misunderstandings.<BR/><BR/>But "serious" sounds just so ... well, serious. <BR/><BR/>However, I could argue that the reality that there is no simple and understandable "pigeonholes" is a Good Thing ...Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00914563821350955193noreply@blogger.com