On 7/7/2011 9:46 AM, Warp wrote:
> Jim Holsenback<nom### [at] nomailcom>  wrote:
>> LOL, so I guess you're OK with calling something only 30/40 years
>> "Classic". I guess then by that scale, Bob Dylan would be what ...
>> antique ;-)
>
>    It depends on the lifespan of the genre. "Classic" or "classical" usually
> refers to the beginnings, when the genre was still new and finding its
> shape.
>
>    Theatre has existed for thousands of years, hence you wouldn't call
> 1950's theatre "classical", but instead classical theatre would be something
> from 2000 years ago.
>
>    In contrast, rock&roll has existed for less than 100 years, so "classical
> rock&roll" would be something like from the 1950's and before.
>
>    Rap began in the 70's and 80's, and hence the classical period of rap
> would be from those times.
>

I've occasionally heard "classic" used this way, but never "classical", 
and frankly it sounds pretty wrong to my ears.  I'd always taken 
"classical" in this context (that is, the context of art) to refer to 
one of the following:

1) Art work from antiquity (particularly ancient Greece and Rome)
2) Art inspired by antiquity
3) Art marked by a simplicity of form and/or a restraint of emotion
4) A generic term for "serious" art
5) The two definitions which pertain the the genre of music (related to 
some of the above)

Am I missing something and it's actually in common usage to use 
"classical" to refer simply to the origins of a genre?  It seems a waste 
to generalize a perfectly useful word like that when there's others that 
are better suited anyway.

Post a reply to this message