slightly correct. yes, there was a time in music production that is called "classic". however, it is also a very well defined genre that includes "romatic"

I will concede that the colloquial term used to generalize pre-Modern art music is "classical". That drives me equally insane, but I understand the (ignorant) reasoning behind it.

But on the description they call him a "classical composer", which he was not. A composer is defined by the style he writes in, not the genre his music is listed under on iTunes, for the same reason that an author is defined by his style, not the section his works are shuffled into at Barnes & Noble. If that weren't the case, Kafka would be remembered as an author of science-fiction, rather than an existentialist.

Either way, you have to write your description for the masses. If they had described Chopin as a "romantic composer", most would have assumed the game and its music to be something completely different. Like it or not, the distinction is relevant only to those who are interested in musical history/theory/classification. A tiny demographic, indeed.

If it makes you feel any better, as an IT professional, it bugs me when people call the monitor the computer, or the computer the brain, or any number of other common misunderstandings. Trust me, it does no good to point this out to them, and only makes you look like a condescending ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Originally posted by MrHanMan:

it bugs me when people call the monitor the compute

In case of an iMac, the monitor is the computer ;) dealt with that ♥♥♥♥ all day.

on topic, to make it short, kafka wrote stories, chopin wrote music. done. in the end the masses will define it. maybe in 100 years someone will have the same discussion about electronical music and dubstep.

Originally posted by wuddih:

Originally posted by MrHanMan:

it bugs me when people call the monitor the compute

In case of an iMac, the monitor is the computer ;) dealt with that ♥♥♥♥ all day.

on topic, to make it short, kafka wrote stories, chopin wrote music. done. in the end the masses will define it. maybe in 100 years someone will have the same discussion about electronical music and dubstep.

electronic*

i would say the word 'classical' is not the right word for a limited time frame, i kinda agree with the masses, it's basically the same as 'electronic' (which contains hundreds of actual named genres or time periods within the category)

Except the meaning of the word classical has never involved other genres or time periods.

People call "old" music classical because they do not realize that the world "classical" refers to specific period of time in which composers based their music on the ideals of the classic Greek philosophers. It stems from simple ignorance of the meaning of the word "classical", simple as that.

And I know that it's a nitpicky thing to point out, but, like I said, it's a pet peeve of mine. There's no good reason why the description on the store page can't reflect accurate information. Someone pointed out that the term "Romantic" might confuse someone, but I'd think that their target audience (people who like Chopin) would either:
a) already be aware of the meaning of that word in that context, or
b) not care, since they are just in it for music they already knew to begin with.

Chopin is a romantic composer, not a classical one. No amount of semantic debate will change that, and I cannot comprehend a single reason the developers of the game would display INCORRECT historical information on the description.

He isn't Classic Rock!?!?!?

I think this has got to be the funniest thread on the Steam forums. Thank you <3

I don't think that anyone of the target audience will give a flying F about Chopin is classical or not. Besides, most of the classical compilation albums are containing Chopin or non-classical-era songs, so I think people have a good reason to use term in the INCORRECT way. So in this case, the term "classical" is indicating the older syphonic/orchestral stuff, rather than a musical era, hence why there is "neo-classical" or "classical rock" etc. You can even argue about modern music/game/book/movie genre names too or whatever else, controversies everywhere. Just like "Indie" in steam tags. But I was really facepalming when I was reading this topic title.

Except "classical rock" isn't a genre. Classic rock is, though. Because the music consists largely of "classics" in the genre. Neoclassicism is a modernist movement led by composers seeking to emulate classical ideals.

No, there isn't a good reason to be wrong. Just because other people are perpetuating ignorance doesn't mean that the wrong answer suddenly becomes right. That way madness lies.

And you clearly didn't read my last post, did you. Classical only has one meaning in a musical context. Always has. The modern b*stardization (not sure why censors catch that word) of the word was borne of lazy publishers and radio hosts who wanted a single title under which they can throw orchestral/symphonic works.

As for the "indie" thing, I've honestly no idea what you're talking about. I'm not sure why people are flipping tables over this thread, either. They have a discrepancy on their store page. I pointed it out. What's facepalm-worthy about that?

It's certainly not a "modern bastardization" of the term "classical". It's the evolution of language. You're using jargon to define the word, because you clearly know about the subject.

But even dictionaries define "classical" the way everyone is familiar with it. This is from MW:

"a: of or relating to music of the late 18th and early 19th centuries characterized by an emphasis on balance, clarity, and moderation
b : of, relating to, or being music in the educated European tradition that includes such forms as art song, chamber music, opera, and symphony as distinguished from folk or popular music or jazz"

And other dictionaries define it similarly.

Even Wikipedia describes Romantic music as a period of "classical" music, along with the periods Baroque and Classical, which is the "classical" you're referring to. I understand the source isn't the best, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if I found the same doing a little bit of research.

So it seems that "Classical" is both a specific time period/style of music, and also the general "old music" definition that is so common.

Originally posted by seachd12:

"a: of or relating to music of the late 18th and early 19th centuries characterized by an emphasis on balance, clarity, and moderation"

Wait, you mean the period from 1770 (1750 depending who you ask) to 1830? The exact and specific period of time that I was talking about? Huh. Thanks for the support, man.
And Baroque is also quite separate from Classical, by the way. If anyone were to call Bach classical, I'd correct them in a manner similar to this.
Finally, the problem with Wikipedia is that it reflects the general public's knowledge of a subject, not an expert's knowledge. Bluntly put, it's quite extensive, but has tons of inaccuracies. Feel free to use it as it's usually quite accurate, but take what it says with a grain of salt.

Yeah, you are right. This is a semantic debate. I'm using the jargon, you are defending the colloquial. The thing is, jargon is defined by people who are learned in the subject, whereas colloquial definitions are formed from people largely ignorant on the subject. You can call on the dictionary, but I can call on hundreds of formal studies performed by musicologists, composers, and music theorists that detail the differences. You can call on Wikipedia, but I can call on RILM (Répertoire International de Littérature Musicale).

"Yeah, you are right. This is a semantic debate. I'm using the jargon, you are defending the colloquial. The thing is, jargon is defined by people who are learned in the subject, whereas colloquial definitions are formed from people largely ignorant on the subject. You can call on the dictionary, but I can call on hundreds of formal studies performed by musicologists, composers, and music theorists that detail the differences. You can call on Wikipedia, but I can call on RILM (Répertoire International de Littérature Musicale)."

And you'd be ignoring very correct English usage. You still seem to be ingoring the fact that the word "classical" when it comes to music refers to two separate ideas.

You can call it wrong, but quite clearly, it's not. In English, those ideas were given the same name. Look up the word "scotch", for example.

It's very fair for the experts to care, but it's not fair to call people wrong for not being as specific as they would like, especially when the usage is completely correct.

It is fair when you've told them they are wrong, you've explained why they are wrong, and they still insist they are right.