No, but it is a good indication of what classical music constitutes in the public/layman's mind. Like it or not, when you say the words "classical music", the listener is going to assume that you're talking about the symphonies and not the centuries of bards' tales that were written and promptly forgotten.trooper6 said:
I'm not saying western art music is mostly instrumental though.
I'm saying the works that people who don't study the subject think of when you say "classical music" (i.e. the works you should be referring to if you're using the term and not trying to be deliberately confusing), are mostly instrumental.
Yes, it is more precise to refer to the works as "the classical symphonies" or whatever, but that's not how the term is used in ordinary conversation.
Let's not revert to using the original etymological meanings of words. I'm sure you understand what I'm actually trying to say. I'm using terms in the way they are most commonly used.
'Music' in the way I'm using the word in this thread is sounds that are normaly arranged to provoke a certain emotion (unless you want to get really artsy about it and tape your office chair squeaking for a minute and call it music). It may often contain lyrics. If a piece does not utilize the component of lyrics, the music does not contain spoken language.
Lyrics are pieces of text that are made to be performed with a melody or accompanying music.
I thought I noted that not all music that accompanies lyrics is poor.
All I've said is that instrumental music, due to its nature, generally has more interesting melodies, harmonies etc., whereas a real lot of lyrical music ends up really boring if you force the singer to hum instead of saying the words.
From what post of mine do you get the idea that I think music containing lyrics automatically makes it bad?
What I'm saying is that the words in a given song are unimportant to me, so for me to listen to a piece, the 'musical' aspect of it (The word 'music' here used as a term for the aspects of a piece that do not include spoken language.) needs to be good. In an instrumental piece, chances are it is, as the piece was made with only 'music' in mind, while in a given lyrical piece, there's a good chance that leaving out the words will leave the piece rather uninteresting.
It's vocal music, yes, but it's not lyrical.
I don't see the vibrating strings in your neck as any different from the vibrating strings on your guitar when it comes to 'musical' purposes. They can both be utilized as instruments, and just because one instrument is located inside a person, that doesn't make the piece any less instrumental in my mind.
It's when the focus of the vocals becomes to perform a piece of poetry instead of being part of a great piece of music that I get annoyed, since I seldom bother to pay attention to the poetry in the first place.
There are lots of lyrical pieces where the vocals are great 'musically' and still perform lyrics. But there are also a lot of lyrical pieces that are boring, 'musically', because the focus of the composer was the lyrics.
Concerning your edit: It seems you might have gotten my point. Which was that music where the composer/arranger's main concern is to make a 'musically' engaging piece (Beethoven's 9th) is "better" than music that's made with something else in mind (like carrying lyrics or filling the vacuum in an elevator).
