# Comparing music from different eras



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Is it possible to compare a good or great Baroque work with a Romantic one? Presumably the composers of each will have been trying to do very different things using very different aesthetics ... so what rules apply to comparing them? Similarly, can we compare the modern (even Stravinsky's neoclassicism) with the Classical or the contemporary with the Baroque or Romantic? Are they even trying to achieve the same affects in their audience? 

It ought to be instructive and interesting to make such comparisons and might teach us something about both eras in the comparison.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I think it is possible, because at its most fundamental music always worked in the same way and some things are timeless and independent of era. In each era you can express all sort of things with music. It's just that you have different tools (education, background, works you were exposed to, instruments, etc.)

Also, some modern things aren't that new after all.

For example there were silent pieces of music before 4'33'' :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_silent_musical_compositions

Also Mozart used some some dodecaphony:



> Dodecaphony, likewise, was a favorite technique of Mozart. This remarkable and famous passage from the fourth movement of his Symphony 40 in G minor contains a succession of every pitch-class except the tonic (pitch-class numbers have been given for clarity):
> Here, it seems relatively clear that he is using eleven pitches to undermine the twelfth. Another example occurs in the third movement of his Symphony 41 in C major, where several overlapping statements of a rather chromatic theme results in this:
> 
> which contains every pitch-class in the space of 6 short beats (pc numbers are shewn in red). Taken out of context, these measures have no identifiable key. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to subvert the tonic. One may fancy that this is the result Mozart's characteristically humorous and defiant attitude towards composition. Two measures later, when he works his way out of this dodecaphonic mess, he ends the passage on a deceptive cadence, which further gives the sense that he is consciously sabotaging the tonic.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Wallace Berry and Nicholas Cook have very good books on musical analysis... but I doubt 99.9 % of the listeners are going to apply such techniques to dissect and compare their favourite musical pieces. Much of the magic is lost when you understand how much craftmanship and how little "inspiritation" (0%) or "talent" (0%) are actually needed.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Wallace Berry and Nicholas Cook have very good books on musical analysis... but I doubt 99.9 % of the listeners are going to apply such techniques to dissect and compare their favourite musical pieces. Much of the magic is lost when you understand how much craftmanship and how little "inspiritation" (0%) or "talent" (0%) are actually needed.


If this is true, than the logical conclusion is that the less musical education you have, the bigger the chances that you'll produce truly inspired works, with "soul". If this is truly so, then the best music is authentic folk music by illiterate people. Second best would be popular music. Jimi Hendrix would be far superior artist than most contemporary composers. The worst would be classical music (yes, even the old classical music).

However, I can't fully agree with this, but I do appreciate the point he tries to make. But it's still too early to write off old masters.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think the comparisons of music from different eras tells us more about ourselves than it does the music. Sometimes comparisons can border on the absurd, as well, unless one has a clearly defined sense of what the art is supposed to be doing for us.

For instance, comparing Bach with Britney Spears: absurd, unless one has clearly defined one's criteria. For example, one must recognize the Britney Spears' music has a right to exist, and should be tolerated, if not respected. It performs functions which Bach cannot: it reinforces teenage girls' identity and lifestyle, has marketing functions, is danceable, and other aspects of "utilitarian" art.

Bach's music was also utilitarian, for the Church. But his main purpose was non-utilitarian: to further the "glory of God."

So, in doing these comparisons, we must have _an objective set of criteria which are not simply our own preferences:_ we must realize that _all music has its purpose, and these purposes are as varied as the people who consume it._


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> If this is true, than the logical conclusion is that the less musical education you have, the bigger the chances that you'll produce truly inspired works, with "soul". If this is truly so, then the best music is authentic folk music by illiterate people. Second best would be popular music. Jimi Hendrix would be far superior artist than most contemporary composers. The worst would be classical music (yes, even the old classical music).
> 
> However, I can't fully agree with this, but I do appreciate the point he tries to make. But it's still too early to write off old masters.


No, ignorance has nothing to do with "soul" or quality of the music. 
Not understanding the laws of physics and creating cults devoted to the lightning/sea/fertility gods etc doesn't make the phenomena encountered in the world more exciting, authentic or whatever.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

BabyGiraffe said:


> No, ignorance has nothing to do with "soul" or quality of the music.
> Not understanding the laws of physics and creating cults devoted to the lightning/sea/fertility gods etc doesn't make the phenomena encountered in the world more exciting, authentic or whatever.


But it allows you to base your composition choices on how it feels rather than whether it fulfills certain formal requirements. Perhaps our intuitive understanding of music is superior to our formal understanding of it. Perhaps we have still not reached that stage in which the tiniest intricacies of our intuition can be successfully formalized. Perhaps formalization allows you to produce above average output, but it's intuition that allows you to give it the final touch and to make something truly great.

Perhaps not knowing the formal rules allows you to use your intuition as a more faithful guide, and that's why in popular music there are so many different styles... each band has their own style (well, at least it used to be like that while popular music was good, which is still true in some less commercial genres) that they naturally developed on their own.

On the other hand, uniform formal education can produce a bunch of similar sounding musicians...


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> a) how it feels
> 
> b) ... uniform formal education can produce a bunch of similar sounding musicians...


a) Maybe you are more interested in music cognition and psychoacoustics - it these areas there is a significant progress achieved in recent times. Still, "how it feels" is very speculative topic and has more to do with cultural conditioning not something to do with the music itself.

b) It can, if they teach them a style, not a real music theory that is applicable to any type of music, but this would be a graduate course in music these days. 
In general, practical skills like score reading, ear training, playing an instrument are more important than theory, because you can break the formal stylistic rules of classical, jazz, pop or ethno music that your teacher taught you (and learn on your own the real theory from the "books"- any decent university library will offer cheap access to even the modern research in academic online journals)


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

ZJovicic said:


> Also Mozart used some some dodecaphony:
> 
> Dodecaphony, likewise, was a favorite technique of Mozart. This remarkable and famous passage from the fourth movement of his Symphony 40 in G minor contains a succession of every pitch-class except the tonic (pitch-class numbers have been given for clarity):
> Here, it seems relatively clear that he is using eleven pitches to undermine the twelfth. Another example occurs in the third movement of his Symphony 41 in C major, where several overlapping statements of a rather chromatic theme results in this:
> ...


Where did you find this? The use of the term _dodecaphony_ in this passage is incorrect. Using all of the twelve tones of the chromatic scale in a passage of music does not constitute dodecaphony as that term is properly understood. Dodecaphony refers to the twelve-tone serial method pioneered by Schoenberg. Mozart never composed anything that used a tone row or that even remotely resembles twelve-tone serialism. To suggest otherwise is nothing short of absurd.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I can listen to Bach's E major violin concerto and the Brahms Violin Concerto a hundred times and could not choose one over the other in terms of profundity, how much it moves me, pleasure, greatness and so on. I could perhaps talk about how they differ. 

I think, though, that if I compared the Brahms Concerto with another Romantic violin concerto I could hazard thoughts about the value of one over the other. I could probably do the same comparing the Bach Concerto with one by Vivaldi or Telemann.

Every work is different, every composer is different. But once you get to comparing music across eras the differences in intent and purpose seem to make comparisons of value nearly impossible. I can imagine having a personal preference between works of similar standing but not a suggestion as to absolute value.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I can listen to Bach's E major violin concerto and the Brahms Violin Concerto a hundred times and could not choose one over the other in terms of profundity, how much it moves me, pleasure, greatness and so on. I could perhaps talk about how they differ.
> 
> I think, though, that if I compared the Brahms Concerto with another Romantic violin concerto I could hazard thoughts about the value of one over the other. I could probably do the same comparing the Bach Concerto with one by Vivaldi or Telemann.
> 
> Every work is different, every composer is different. But once you get to comparing music across eras the differences in intent and purpose seem to make comparisons of value nearly impossible. I can imagine having a personal preference between works of similar standing but not a suggestion as to absolute value.


I don't get this constant need to compare things in the CM community. This does not exist in other genres of music, certainly not in this kind of degree - this constant need for comparisons, rankings, creation of lists. I admit that I have been occasionally infected with this culture too and succumbed to it. But it is silly, really. Why to compare different fruits or different smells? There is no meaningful way to do these comparisons. I can probably only say I like the composition or I don't like it, I like the composer or I don't, and this is not even constant in time, but can evolve. There is no way to compare Bach to Boulez or Chopin to Palestrina, because they all wrote very different music with different goals, different means, different styles etc.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> But once you get to comparing music across eras the differences in intent and purpose seem to make comparisons of value nearly impossible.


What about originality, form, motivic development, orchestration, performance etc?
Are these not valid criteria?
In many aspects some of "talkclassical" favourite composers are way overrated, but that's normal - there is no such thing as "perfect" composition or artist.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ OK but you do it all the time. You may do it more than many of us! You have many opinions about what music is good and what music isn't.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> I don't get this constant need to compare things in the CM community. This does not exist in other genres of music, certainly not in this kind of degree - this constant need for comparisons, rankings, creation of lists. I admit that I have been occasionally infected with this culture too and succumbed to it. But it is silly, really. Why to compare different fruits or different smells? There is no meaningful way to do these comparisons. I can probably only say I like the composition or I don't like it, I like the composer or I don't, and this is not even constant in time, but can evolve. There is no way to compare Bach to Boulez or Chopin to Palestrina, because they all wrote very different music with different goals, different means, different styles etc.


The creation of aesthetic rankings has a long history. I was amused by the evidence in this recent article:

https://newleftreview.org/II/114/carlos-spoerhase-rankings-a-pre-history


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Jacck said:


> I don't get this constant need to compare things in the CM community. This does not exist in other genres of music, certainly not in this kind of degree - this constant need for comparisons, rankings, creation of lists.


Other music boards I frequent (prog and classic rock) do it just as much.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Heh, on one hand as Jacck said, the comparison is kind of silly but then it can also be necessary for orientation, and sometimes also people need to validate their own preferences. A certain kind of pleasure can be derived from defending high ranking of a certain piece or from arguing that some piece is underrated/overrated.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I doubt music from different Eras could be usefully compared as to quality. Different goals and aesthetics.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Jacck said:


> I don't get this constant need to compare things in the CM community. This does not exist in other genres of music, certainly not in this kind of degree - this constant need for comparisons, rankings, creation of lists. I admit that I have been occasionally infected with this culture too and succumbed to it. But it is silly, really. Why to compare different fruits or different smells? There is no meaningful way to do these comparisons. I can probably only say I like the composition or I don't like it, I like the composer or I don't, and this is not even constant in time, but can evolve. There is no way to compare Bach to Boulez or Chopin to Palestrina, because they all wrote very different music with different goals, different means, different styles etc.


Perhaps this is because classical music enthusiasts are in search of the "ultimate" musical masterpieces, the highest standards of playing, and can tend to be a bit snobbish. I've seen this in jazz fans as well.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ZJovicic said:


> Heh, on one hand as Jacck said, the comparison is kind of silly but then it can also be necessary for orientation, and sometimes also people need to validate their own preferences. A certain kind of pleasure can be derived from defending high ranking of a certain piece or from arguing that some piece is underrated/overrated.


You sound like you're torn between the urge to create and to destroy. :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm glad we mostly recognise that the music of different eras do different things for us. I certainly agree with that. As an insight it has helped me to explore music of eras that I am less familiar with. Most recently this was "early" (pre-Baroque) music - an exploration that I am still only in the early stages of but am enjoying greatly - but in the quite recent past it was with contemporary music. So much contemporary music transports me to places that no other music has ever taken me and these are places I might never have found if I had concentrated in finding the things I love about Romantic or Classical music. Expectations seem to have a big influence on how I receive music that is new to me.


----------

