'Music for (BLANK)' vs. '(BLANK) Music'

[snyprrr]

Do you know what I mean? The difference between writing 'Music for String Quartet' vs. 'String Quartet Music'?

Some music is written as 'Guitar Music', meaning, it takes into account all the possibilities of the instrument, whereas, if I'm getting this right, 'Music for Guitar' is PREVIOUSLY written music, for some other endeavor entirely (Handel Transcriptions?), that has been transcribed for whatever said instrument.

Do I have this right? Is this what I'm trying to get at? Can you give me examples for/against? Or, is there an 'argument' I'm missing (I know, I know, you can't read my mind,... sheesh! )? Do YOU have any thoughts on the matter?

[Que]

[...] 'Music for Guitar' is PREVIOUSLY written music, [...] that has been transcribed for whatever said instrument.

Do I have this right?

No.

Q

[Lethevich]

Sometimes I have noticed the "for XYZ" designation being used to indicate lesser material. For example if a composer names a work "pieces for string quartet" rather than "string quartet", they will often be intentionally underlining the diminutive aspect of the works. But there is no consistency in this application and I have not noticed much to back up your theory.

However this already tenuous observation of mine only applies to late tonalists, post-WW2 composers have often avoided traditional names and erred towards these "music for large ensemble" style titles.

[jochanaan]

It's always the composer's call.

[snyprrr]

No.

Q

ok,... 'Guitar Music' is what you would call something written specifically for guitar,... I would imagine in a virtuoso aspect,... like 'Music' that helps you get to the technique of your particular instrument.

'Music for Guitar' on the other hand, would be 'Music' written

oh,... nevermind ...