As a description, I agree academic music is the best--see Joseph Ratzinger's comments about feeling trapped--and you are right about the trends. I heard a senior recital by a composition major that was a triumph, and there were melodies trying to get out, and he wrote a beautiful choral piece for the standard sized choir used in the 16th Century. There is also academic jazz, and I have a hard time distinguishing the two genres--one is an improvisational version of the other?

But it is the actual decision or agreement that I am fishing for. Perhaps it is not in wide use, and, as always in academia, one person's personal little pet term that I ran across.

Kenneth

But it is the actual decision or agreement that I am fishing for.

I honestly don't believe there is one. Musical periods tend not to get named for some time after they've finished - and frankly - I don't know if there's any consensus on what the wide open field that comes after the Romantic period is called, let alone what you describe.

the term--or terms--that are used to describe the consensus...

idiotic

elitist

bloviating

self-important

Point, guys, I had a POINT.

CHG has outlined just how absurd it is to try pigeon-holing or concretely defining liturgical music, modern or otherwise. One either knows it when one hears it or one doesn't. Certainly we (at least, many of us) would not want to be limited to chant, or 'Classical Roman' polyphony at the expense of 'other' polyphonies, certainly we would not want Mahler et al. to be disqualified, nor would we want to be told that Mozart or Monteverdi (or Stravinsky!) masses were inappropriate, and so on, ad infinitum. It is an exercise in futility and artistic imprisonment to attempt legislation or definitive requirements of sacred music of our time or any other. One just simply knows intuitively that there is music more appropriate to our liturgies than that being performed in a great many of our churches, but this intuitive recognition cannot be infallibly formulated in anything other than highly subjective language.

And, to address the initial question: it doesn't seem to me that there is a single term that would describe the gamut of 'modern' classical music. As the writer observed, there are quite a few styles inspiring quite a few schools of modern classical music. We know, though, that a given composition is 'classical' in the broad sense, not because of its tonal vocabulary (or absence of such), its basis on tone rows, aleatoriness, post-romantic, etc., nature, but by recognising its literary quality and register, and the level of intellect that is engaged, the spiritual doors that are opened. But! I'm getting subjective, aren't I? If one needs a description to perceive why Britten is edifying and certain other stuff isn't, one will never comprehend why, or that it really is.

I think, melofluent, that he meant music school faculty.

That, Kenneth, is in no way apparent in his two responses thus far. The reference to college faculty came late in the game. Happily, my collegiate compositional mentor was Dr. Frank LaRocca, mentioned above by Chuck, and a member of this forum.

and really, though I was (trying to) make a joke, I thought it was pretty clear-

Kenneth's suitable mind: What do you call the idea that music should sound awful?
Adam's wooden humor: Stupid.

Lost.

Chaos.

Chance.

Do you really want me to expand?

Quite a bit of "academic" music seems written for academicians. Hardly anyone else wants to hear it. Music schools have been, unfortunately, dominated by these "composers" for years. I hope that changes.

Marilyn vos Savant remarked a few years ago, that students enter music schools as princes, and leave as frogs.

Actually, Adam, you cut and pasted the part you were reacting to. It's just the problem with discussion boards.

That said, I still like some of that stuff and am quite comfortable listening to a lot of it.

However, we have gotten well beyond what I was looking for.

Cheers, Kenneth.

There's plenty of good, contemporary music being in written, produced, and consumed- in all styles and genres, including the various shades and flavors of so-called "academic music" or "contemporary classical" music which use a wide variety of 20th-Century idioms. And of course there is a huge amount of commercial music which is of very high quality and uses classical or "academic" compositional technique- film music and (more and more) video game music.

Any attempt to say that some particular style or genre of music, from florid counterpoint to Cagian aleatory, is [ dead / commercially unviable / not serious / not really music / the only thing that really matters / not worth pursuing / of little value / the most valuable / etc / etc ] is ridiculous. People who presume to the stature of guardians of musical culture, whether they promote pre-20th century "Classical" styles or post-Common-Practice modernism, are annoying little pedants. Musicians and musical organizations should, can, and do figure out how to make whatever music that they feel called to make, and all sorts of people will consume all sorts of music for all sorts of completely inscrutable reasons.

(Perhaps not obviously: None of that has any bearing on my opinions regarding what sorts of music is or is not appropriate for liturgy. That rant was solely in regard to the notion - mentioned, but I assume not held, by Kenneth - that only certain kinds of academic music are worthwhile or are viable career paths.)