Classical antiquity

Most historians, I think, try to avoid saying "classical" without a further qualifier -- at least I do, as someone who works with (pre-)Classical Greece, and that's really to avoid privileging Greco-Roman culture at the expense of any other culture. So I'd never say "Classical" this or that without specifying a region or culture: classical Greek art, classical Persian poetry, classical Chinese literature, etc.: if I didn't use the ethnic name, it would just be a rather silly effort to pretend that my culture of choice was the only one that mattered. Within any given culture's history, the exact meaning of "classical" will vary depending on how specific you're being. Rather like with classical Western music: in a broad sense classical music means "any music performed by an orchestra or chamber group or instruments typical of such groups", without any particular dates implied; but if you're being a bit more technical you'll use "classical" to mean "western European art music from the period 1750 to 1825". Similarly, "classical Greece" in a general sense can mean "Greece from ca. 1000 BCE to 500 CE or thereabouts", which would be extremely inclusive; but when people who actually work on ancient Greece say "Classical Period", they're usually using it in a more specific sense, referring to the period from ca. 480 BCE to 323 BCE, which bears that name because it's a convenient pigeonhole for modern historians to use. So in the case of "classical" Greece, we have an Archaic Period (776-480 BCE), Classical (480-323), Hellenistic (323-146), Roman (146 BCE onwards), and maybe other delimiters depending on context. It's perfectly find to use terms like this in a general sense sometimes, more specifically at other times. Context will almost always make it clear which is which. As another example: if I'm talking about "epic", I might use it in a general sense (any long or grandiose narrative) or in a technical sense (a specific genre of poetry, using dactylic hexameter or iambic pentameter rhythm, and informed by a tradition extending from Homeric poetry onwards). Or "lyric", which may be very general (poetry of a generally pretty, thoughtful, or introspective character), semi-specific (ancient Greco-Roman poetry other than epic and drama), or very specific (early Greek poetry designed to be performed by a soloist to the accompaniment of a lyre, using Aeolic rhythms). Again, context will normally make things clear. More on reddit.com

You can start with Charles Rosen’s the Classical Style but he focuses on the Classical period using Haydn Mozart and Beethoven - but it’s a good place to start because lots of historical discussion uses the Classical period as a basis for comparison with other periods. More on reddit.com

Funny you mention this. Here's a relevant scene. In answer to your question, it originated as the term in the 19th century to refer to a "golden age" of music - namely, Bach to Beethoven. You'll notice some immediate problems, the biggest of which is that Bach cantatas are nothing like Beethoven symphonies, and certainly nothing like the latter's late works. Of course, there's also the pervading problem of the exclusivity of western music, but that's neither here nor there, apparently. Nowadays, there are essentially three separate, yet interlocking definitions: "Classical music", capital C, which denotes the Classical Period music (not to be confused with the Classical Era, like Ancient Greece, ofc), "classical music" meaning in general "old, orchestral-y music", and "classical music" meaning "orchestral-y music" in general. Note that the latter two, clearly, have a ton of overlap; here, I'm making the distinction because I know some people who clearly differentiate filmic "classical" and concert "classical", and others who kind of lump them all together. I suspect that the problem arises from people taking "classical" to mean "old", or perhaps timbrally equivalent to whatever appears in a Romantic symphony. Since basically all instruments in a Classical symphony more or less appear in a Romantic symphony (i.e. the entire set of Classical instruments is a subset of Romantic instruments), people have just kind of lumped them together in a sort of "this is classical music". It's like a non-metalhead listening to Iron Maiden, A7X, and Black Sabbath and just kind of lumping them all together under "metal". Technically not wrong, but it fails to get at the nuances between different bands and subgenres. That's kind of why I brought up the Star Trek scene. If "classical" is really just "old music that I don't really listen to", then it follows that the definition of classical music is evolving as time progresses. More on reddit.com