I'm prompted to post this question having seen an answer (in response to a question about a 'Shostakovitch song') which suggests answerers should stop picking up on questioners who refer to each and every piece of classical music as 'a song' Do you think that to do so is being unnecessarily pedantic? Or is it only right that we should continue to suggest that a distinction should be made between 'songs' (i.e lieder, melodie etc) and other forms of music? It is arguable that the very name of this board 'classical' is incorrect as it is designed to deal with all 'art' or 'concert' music, whether written in the Classical period or not. Should we just bow to the inevitable and accept that language is changing (due, probably, to itunes) and that 'song' is going to be a generic term just as 'classical' has become (or, indeed, 'biro' for a ball point pen or 'hoover' for a vacuum cleaner)
del_icious_manager2009-05-21T02:51:56Z
Favorite Answer
I don't think it is ever right to reduce standards to the lowest common denominator. Dumbing-down is a disease and insults everyone in one way or another.
How can any of us ever learn anything unless we are told? I learn something new every day. Sometimes I make mistakes. I don't want to make the same mistakes repeatedly and so I am grateful when someone puts me straight. I then don't make that mistake anymore (hopefully!).
You single-out music terminology because that's our subject here, but surely it's important to use the correct words in EVERY area of life. It's all very well to say that language is changing and evolving (which, of course, it is), but that doesn't equate to using words of one syllable which might have a vague meaning of the subject being discussed. Of course one can make oneself understood by using such language, but that's not really the point, is it? We have a language rich in subtlelty, meaning and diversity and it is wrong to undermine that.
Calling a symphony a 'song' is a bit like calling a lion a kitten. Sure, they are related to each other but they are not the same. For me, it can never be wrong to correct the misuse and abuse of language. A song is something very specific; many of us know that. Some people misuse the word (not helped by sub-standard websites such as iTunes and MySpace which call anything a 'song', whether it is or not). But how are they to learn that this is not the correct terminology if no-one tells them?
I say we should stand up for the standards we hold dear and do our utmost to uphold and improve them. Without such care, surely we run the risk of gradually sliding down the slope of regressing into grunts and snorts because we are too lazy to think of the words. 'Song' will NEVER be a generic term for me.
Edit, having seen Alberich's post:
Swimming against the tide? Yes, maybe so. However, 'going with the flow' is no excuse just because doing the opposite is a little difficult. Nothing in this world of any real value was achieved by people swimming WITH the tide.
'Who cares?' I do. You do. That's what counts. If we shrug our shoulders and join the apathetic masses, we become no better than they are. WE then reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator. That's not really our style, is it?
Well, if it were a serious poster who were just ignorant, I probably would correct him/her. To play Devil's Advocate though (and I really am lenient in practice), I don't think we should get too bent out of shape about linguistic details.
I posted a question a while back about why I don't believe in grammar. I'm an English major, so it goes against my nature!, and I definitely I think it's important in the practical sense (getting a job); but philosophically, I don't believe in grammar. I've studied history and languages a lot, and in the process I've stumbled on some really interesting stuff. I have found records from Ancient Greece in which the educated members of society were freaking out about laxity in grammar. Their grammar rules, though, were so incredibly arcane and complex that they have long since become obsolete; has this really led to a "dumbing-down" of humanity? The world has always had its idiots and its geniuses, and it always will. I found a similar argument among Anglo-Saxon scholars around the year 1000; again, they were freaking out about grammar and insisting that it signified the end of cultured society. Um...? The gutter languages of ancient Rome turned into French and Spanish; who cares if French and Spanish don't distinguish between grammatical cases? The lack of the "ablative" and the "accusative" didn't stand in the way of Molière and Cervantes.
I think pedantry is all in the intent. When some people on this forum explain the difference between a song and a piece, they are polite and are just trying to help; others use their superior knowledge to show off and scoff. There's a difference, and that's why some are pedants and others are just wise and knowledgeable teachers. I have had professors who knew *way* more than I did, and yet I never felt that they were pedantic; it's because they were humble.
Edit: Well said OpernKatz!
To Doctor John: We all acknowledge your superior intellect. The point is that those "schoolboys" you speak of (and there are very few who still study ancient Greek) would be far better served by learning to think critically and creatively than by memorizing the alpha, omicron, and attic second declensions. The insistence on grammar seems as arbitrary and pointless to me as the Aristotelian unities. The French scoffed at Shakespeare for centuries because he didn't follow these silly, strict rules; now who is laughing? The French were snobs.
Pedantry is a bad thing because it is rude, proud, and it drives away people who might otherwise explore classical music. I'm sorry if you want the classical world to be an ivory tower for the "elite" to gloat over how superior they are; I'd rather it be a place for learning and teaching.
What I see often here is... some young folks who aren't familiar with classical music had heard bits of a classical tune that caught their imagination and want to find out more about it (like having it identified so that they can check the whole tune out properly... and possibly explore further into the classical music genre). So, they come here innocently asking for help. And what do they get but being dressed down just for not knowing that some classical music fans take great offense when a classical number is called a 'song'. Who'd have imagined that, eh? I know it's a four letter word, but from the reaction that word gets around here you'd think it's another type of four letter word altogether!
Sometimes I wonder if classical music itself is unpopular with younger audience or if it is the classical music fans who are going out of their way to turn people off from giving the genre a proper try. Song, tune, number, piece, whatever... you see the question, you know what the questioner is looking for. Then you have to decide: answer the question and perhaps gain classical music another young fan that'll keep it going or nitpick about his choice of what to call a number... missing the forest for the trees.
There is a reason why people dislike snobs who like to talk in specialize language that lay non-specialists can't understand. When someone really knows something, he talks so that others can understand him rather than sticking to technically correct lingo that goes right over other people's head. I see much of that going on here... Music is for everyone regardless of whether they know the correct term for things or not.
I feel answers to this sort of question which literally name Shostakovitch songs as an answer are a far worse form of pedantry. The asker, no matter how ignorant or lax, was not being disingenuous.
At least (if I recall) the party was asking about Shostakovitch, and had remembered an associated title "Leningrad." Give them credit and the benefit of your knowledge, I say. I often inform the party of the basic difference between the meaning of the terms song and piece. I recommend if you cannot have the patience to do that when answering to then not address that question.
We are all here to serve as well as be served. (some service includes the bluntness to inform people they are inadequately prepared, etc.) It is also a matter of how any of us wish to spend free time. Sometimes I'm up for it, others not.
Was the Shostakovitch question pedantic in that it was asked to satisfy a petty mentality to merely label things, or to answer a homework question? Impossible to say.
I'm equally irritated by more informed people asking questions like, "What other movies is this Chopin piece used in?" Again, what is the point of this type of question: is it not also a bit offensive as to a type of pedantry? I do not answer these. Simple.
I have learned to avoid, but have not yet been able to fully resist, questions with the outward appearance of teen style phone-text, simile those questions not posited with standard word usage.. This sort of outward appearance at least cues the reader as to what 'sort' of personage posed the question.
Choose your battles. I would prefer to TRY to help, selectively, than also be disingenuous in pretending there are not millions of uninformed people in the world, many of whom genuinely want information.
This forum requires you only be 13 years of age to join. I think it allows anyone to join who has the physical capacity to reach a computer keyboard and type a bit. The more versed and experienced YA members, I am certain in each category, could all wish for a forum where all participants were better informed, could spell, were not lacking even fundamental vocabulary needed to pose questions, etc. ad infinitum.
When it really gets to me, I tell myself, "Sir, back away from that computer. Do it now." Then I go eat, or brush my pet, or practice, or compose, or any of many other things more appealing and rewarding - at that moment. I agree sometimes YA is such an egregious mass of crap one would be much better off staring at a blank wall.
I noticed the Shostakovich question likewise. Personally this would have been one of the occasions I would have allowed such incorrect terminology to slide as the person does later acknowledge that the work in question is actually a symphony. As Alberich mentions it is indeed a constant battling against the tide.
I'm not advocating this though as I agree with every word Del_icio has said on the matter as regards refusing to dumb-down our language to make it more palatable. However If the two-fold purpose of such correction is also to help the said person to understand musical vocabulary better, then I believe it is very important to always offer such correction in a tactful manner. Sometimes the way we word things can so often be interpreted as contempt. Simply correcting someone for improper use of the word 'song' without offering any further assistance for the overall context of question will more often than not be perceived as us coming across as haughty and pedantic and we wouldn't be helping that person one jot.