# Classical or Baroque?



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

Curious to do a survey on which era is most preferred by TC users. I'm personally in the Baroque camp but obviously like both.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I voted for classical, because in general I find that I'm not interested in baroque music - with the huge exception of Bach.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> I voted for classical, because in general I find that I'm not interested in baroque music - with the huge exception of Bach.


I personally prefer Mozart. I find Bach more serious and intellectual, I enjoy Mozart's sense of fun and light-heartedness.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

It's a little unfair because the classical era was also the shortest of all the periods. I'm making it a point to listen to more classical era because it's the one I listen to the least by far. I really love the classical aesthetic of balance and restraint, as well as the conventional forms of the period.

I like Baroque a lot because I love counterpoint, the rhythmic activity and just the way some of the instruments sound (harpsichord, viola da gamba, oboe d'amore, recorder). I also find interesting what the composers managed to do working within the confines of the period: limitations can really inspire creativity. I also enjoy the more "pedestrian" Baroque than pedestrian classical, but don't have any real concrete reasons as to why.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I like Baroque a lot because I love counterpoint, the rhythmic activity and just the way some of the instruments sound (harpsichord, viola da gamba, oboe d'amore, recorder). I also find interesting what the composers managed to do working within the confines of the period: limitations can really inspire creativity.


Remember, something like this is also "Classical":


hammeredklavier said:


> For instance, this contains all the "traits of Classicism" I described earlier ("Mood shifts within a single movement, Classical style orchestration/instrumentation, sections/phrases cleanly-cut with cadences, and through-composition, etc"):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I prefer baroque by a wide margin. If it wasn't for Mozart and Haydn, I'd likely never listen to classical-era music except in a TC game.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> I prefer baroque by a wide margin. If it wasn't for Mozart and Haydn, I'd likely never listen to classical-era music except in a TC game.


There was that thread a while ago called "Do other Baroque composers reach the greatness of J.S Bach?". One could apply that to the classical period as well. Without opening the objective/subjective can of worms, it's hard to argue that Mozart, Haydn (I'll let the reader decide which one ), and Beethoven were vastly superior to to many of their peers. Or at the very least, they had the most distinctive voices. But that doesn't mean there isn't brilliant or even average but still wonderful music that's worth listening to. Weber, Koželuch, CPE Bach, and Pleyel are all fantastic composers. But yeah, take Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven out of the equation and the classical period definitely becomes far more drab, in my opinion.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Without opening the objective/subjective can of worms, it's hard to argue that Mozart, Haydn (I'll let the reader decide which one ), and Beethoven were vastly superior to to many of their peers. ........


You're entitled to your preferences, but if you ask me, one thing about Baroque music in general is, "everything just feels constant all the way". There's A LOT of stuff like these:


hammeredklavier said:


> I think the "cerebral qualities" of Bach's keyboard music are often overstated, compared to say, Handel's:
> 
> 
> 
> (~56:00)





hammeredklavier said:


> Why isn't the same thing said about other Baroque composers such as Handel or Telemann? Listen to the fugue from the Dixit dominus:
> 
> 
> 
> . It sounds like Zelenka without the melodic chromatic twists. No gradation in dynamics, no variation in rhythm. Just Continual successions of imitations and cycles of sequences. (I know they are Baroque aesthetic traits, but why do people always point out these things in Bach, but not in Handel or Telemann, for example?)


^It's fine if you appreciate all this stuff (no arguing with taste), but frankly if you ask me, sometimes while listening to stuff like these at any point I wonder "how long is it going to keep going on like this?" 
I think it was allaroundmusicenthusiast who once opined that the Baroque was the lowest point in European music (or something like that). Again, music is subjective.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Curious to do a survey on which era is most preferred by TC users. I'm personally in the Baroque camp but obviously like both.


How about the melding of both


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> But yeah, take Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven out of the equation and the classical period definitely becomes far more drab, in my opinion.


Is this stuff actually "great", or is it only just really "popular"?:




I guess it's up to everyone to decide for themselves subjectively.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I personally prefer Mozart. I find Bach more serious and intellectual, I enjoy Mozart's sense of fun and light-heartedness.


Yeah. Another Mozart fan here. But I do like Baroque really much as well. I not only love Bach, but also Handel (Water Music and Messiah), Vivaldi (Four Seasons and Violin Concertos), and many other stuff.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> It's a little unfair because the classical era was also the shortest of all the periods.


I think this is an important point. Depending on how strict one is, the "classical period" in the narrow sense lasted only about 40 years (ca 1760-1800), if one is generous, about 80 (1740-1820) whereas we have about 150 years of baroque music.

To be fair one would have to count almost the whole 19th century together with "classical" because it was dominated to a considerable extent by classical forms (at least in large scale instrumental music). Of all dubious borders between epochs the classical/romantic might be the most dubious as shown by people arguing forever on which side two eminent composers like Beethoven and Schubert belong.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Most of my Baroque listening is taken up by Bach, and the rest of it consists almost entirely of Handel and Monteverdi.

For the classical period, I listen to the Big Three-- Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. I also listen to CPE Bach sometimes.

So I chose Classical, assuming that Beethoven is included. Otherwise, it'd be a tie.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

KevinW said:


> Yeah. Another Mozart fan here. But I do like Baroque really much as well. I not only love Bach, but also Handel (Water Music and Messiah), Vivaldi (Four Seasons and Violin Concertos), and many other stuff.


Handel composed more than that. Try his keyboard suites, and Israel in Egypt.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It's not news but Handel actually composed even (much) more than Water Music, Messiah, the keyboard suites and Israel in Egypt...


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Overall it's Classical for me. I prefer less counterpoint but more contrasts of mood and dynamics than the opposite.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> There was that thread a while ago called "Do other Baroque composers reach the greatness of J.S Bach?". One could apply that to the classical period as well.


but in the baroque period there were also Purcell, Zelenka, Rameau, Couperin, Biber, Pergolesi, Monteverdi, Scarlatti, Buxtehude... (and Vivaldi, Telemann, Lully etc) those are all important composers, not just footnotes in the shadow of Bach. I'm not sure if in the classical period it's the same.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

norman bates said:


> but in the baroque period there were also Purcell, Zelenka, Rameau, Couperin, Biber, Pergolesi, Monteverdi, Scarlatti, Buxtehude... (and Vivaldi, Telemann, Lully etc) those are all important composers, not just footnotes in the shadow of Bach. I'm not sure if in the classical period it's the same.


What do you mean by "important"? I could make an argument about Gluck inspiring Berlioz (who called Handel "a tub of pork and beer"), F.J. Aumann inspiring Bruckner through Catholic music at St. Florian, or M. Haydn having influence on Weber by giving him tutelage over multiple periods of his development, or inspiring Schubert in the German song and mass. (Also take a look at these excerpts from "Hummel and the Romantics" by Mark Kroll: post2157488 ). I could also argue about Pergolesi being a one-work composer overblown way out of proportion, the Biber mystery violin sonatas or whatever being nothing more than note-spinnings appropriate for 17th century street dances and his requiem being a very typical kapellmeister work, or Telemann being a total Gebrauchsmusik manufacturer by churning out a thousand cantatas and "Tafelmusik" with barely any of them making so much an impression, or Baroque opera being endless series of da capo arias (until Gluck came along to "save" it). And I'll save Zelenka's grindy sounds with his chromatic fourth fugal subject clichés in his masses for the last (they even call him "Bach's Catholic counterpart", OMG!). Keep listing perpetual canons and sewing machines, I won't be impressed. And last time I checked, you compared Bach to AI. 


hammeredklavier said:


> For instance, the Dies irae movement of this (6:26~13:39) is a wonderful example of operatic drama contained in formal design. Listen to how the character central aria section is transformed in the later section (consisting more of choruses and ensembles) and the drama ensues as the themes are recapitulated:
> 
> 
> 
> (at 12:12, the theme from the beginning, 6:26 is recapitulated, and at 12:41, the theme from 7:00 is recapitulated).


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you mean by "important"? I could make an argument about Gluck inspiring Berlioz (who called Handel "a tub of pork and beer"), F.J. Aumann inspiring Bruckner through Catholic music at St. Florian, or M. Haydn having influence on Weber by giving him tutelage over multiple periods of his development, or inspiring Schubert in the German song and mass. (Also take a look at these excerpts from "Hummel and the Romantics" by Mark Kroll: post2157488 ). I could also argue about Pergolesi being a one-work composer overblown way out of proportion, the Biber mystery violin sonatas or whatever being nothing more than note-spinnings appropriate for 17th century street dances and his requiem being a very typical kapellmeister work, or Telemann being a total Gebrauchsmusik manufacturer by churning out a thousand cantatas and "Tafelmusik" with barely any of them making so much an impression, or Baroque opera being endless series of da capo arias (until Gluck came along to "save" it). And I'll save Zelenka's grindy sounds with his chromatic fourth fugal subject clichés in his masses for the last (they even call him "Bach's Catholic counterpart", OMG!). Keep listing perpetual canons and sewing machines, I won't be impressed.


Settle down. You prefer the classical-era; others prefer baroque. It's all good. No period is objectively superior to another.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Another one missing option :I like both, so no vote.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The baroque revival in different stages during the 20th century is quite unique and interesting. It was extended to earlier music but I don't think that most of the classical and romantic composers that have been tried to (re)establish will go beyond a niche existence on recordings. One simple reason is probably that until the early-mid 20th century there as just a bit of Bach and Handel, usually played more like Brahms and both early baroque like Monteverdi and later music like Vivaldi concerti(not performed like Brahms) was a breath of fresh air and appreciated by audiences. In the 1950/60s many commenters seemed to believe that the Vivaldi/baroque craze was a fad (Adorno derided the (supposedly both pretentious and ignorant) baroque fan "who says Bach but means Telemann"). 
They have been clearly proven wrong. 

Even more surprising is that the revival was extended to lesser known composers, medieval and renaissance music, and eventually baroque opera. Every opera guide book I read as a kid in the late 1980s followed the narrative that L'orfeo was great but opera declined to boring chains of virtuoso dacapo arias within a generation or two and was only redeemed by Gluck in the 1760s. Nowadays operas by Monteverdi, Handel, Rameau are certainly staged more frequently than Gluck's whose turn it is probably now to be "re-discovered".


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Baroque for me is Bach - a bit of Handel and even less Vivaldi. There is much fine music in the remainder - but I rarely seek it out.
Had there been no Mozart or Haydn - I would probably spend more time listening to baroque. The classical era (say 1760 to 1800) would have been a musical dark ages without Mozart and Haydn.


----------



## FrankE (Jan 13, 2021)

Baroque.
Going through my collection - which is organised by period then composer - I have relatively little Classical sensu stricto


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Rogerx said:


> Another one missing option :I like both, so no vote.


Ditto. Mozart is my favourite composer, but I would never willingly choose to be without Bach and the best of his contemporaries.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

I voted for classical, but have no idea why. At its best, classical music is just Mozart, and a bit of the Haydn brothers (I don't consider Beethoven classical). At its worst is some of the blandest music ever, baroque has that too, too much formulae. But at its best baroque is late works by Orlande de Lassus, Monteverdi, Biber, Buxtehude, Bach...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Xisten267 said:


> Overall it's Classical for me. I prefer less counterpoint but more contrasts of mood and dynamics than the opposite.


I don't think Classical is "less about counterpoint" when we consider examples like 



. Certainly general Baroque composers (by "general", I mean high Baroque composers except Bach) churned out generic grindy-sounding overture-suite stuff endlessly, so the amount of "counterpoint" seems higher on the surface. I hate to say it, but it could be questionable how much _"human"_ creativity and ingenuity went into writing all that. All 18th century music is written by the "rules of counterpoint", btw. None of the composers thought music in terms of "chords" as we do today. 



 (notice the subtleties with dynamics; 13:00~14:30) 



 (1:50~3:10)


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't listen to a lot of either but I'd have to go with Baroque because I listen to more Bach than Mozart or Haydn.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I didn't vote because, had it been possible to do so, I would have voted for all three options.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

I'm particularly fond of Baroque brass. Like Delalande's Symphonies for the King's Supper, Bach's Orchestral Suites 3 and 4, et cetera. I love the majesty of it. Your typical run of the mill baroque on the other hand, meh.


----------



## szabomd (Dec 13, 2021)

I like the baroque music, especially Bach or Vivaldi. 
However, the classical era is much better, it's clear and great.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I voted baroque, but classical period is also good enough not let me bad-mouth about it.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Ariasexta, what do you think of Beethoven?


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

norman bates said:


> but in the baroque period there were also Purcell, Zelenka, Rameau, Couperin, Biber, Pergolesi, Monteverdi, Scarlatti, Buxtehude... (and Vivaldi, Telemann, Lully etc) those are all important composers, not just footnotes in the shadow of Bach. I'm not sure if in the classical period it's the same.


CPE Bach and Michael Haydn should not be considered footnotes in the shadow of Mozart.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Ariasexta, what do you think of Beethoven?


I really like his symphonies, there is a symphony about the ruins, that is beautiful. I still keep his quartets on my computer files ready to listen(I download from actual CDs). Mozarts quintets and quartets are also phenomenal.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Both equally. And with some exceptions (Brahms, Schubert) both more than romantic.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Ariasexta, what do you think of Beethoven?


While Beethoven was technically a Classical era composer, he defined the Romantic style.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It is not very precise because there are some boxes that are shelved differently and there are opera and similar boxes taking up more space and boxes with CDs in cardboard sleeves that take up less which does not always balance out but I just had a look and I have ca. 21 shelving units of Baroque starting with Monteverdi (about 7 of which are Bach and almost 5 Handel; Vivaldi and Telemann ca. 1 each) and 17 units of Classical *without* Beethoven (ca. 6 Haydn and a bit more Mozart, although I probably have more Haydn discs, they are more economically packed, I'd have to actually count to determine if Bach, Haydn or Mozart were in the lead). Beethoven alone is almost 9 units, so Classical *including* Beethoven would be 25-26. These five are the composers I have most recordings of. 
Next would probably be Schubert and then Brahms but these shelves are a bit different; I'd guess both would each take a bit more than 3 of the units of the baroque + classical shelf. Again, it's not precise as far more Beethoven and later than baroque or Mozart recordings are in boxes dedicated to artists that are shelved differently.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Classical for me. Masterpieces from classical era could contain features of the baroque era, not vice versa.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

I still have my vote, let's keep it that way .


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Love both periods, but chose Baroque. The mediocre composers of the Baroque tended to write better music than the mediocre composers of the classical era. I would be inclined to credit the discipline of counterpoint.

As an example, I was just listening to Fiocco's keyboard works






And that's one box set I don't need to own. While Fiocco was imitating the likes of Couperin or Rameau, there was some very mild interest in his works, but as soon as he adopts the alberti bass, it all gets mind-numbingly vapid. The emphasis on melody pretty much sucked the juice out of whatever else might have kept Fiocco's music interesting. J Haydn and his string quartets, in the sense of his giving each instrument more equal standing (like the baroque), really saved the classical era.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> As an example, I was just listening to Fiocco's keyboard works


Any more perpetual canons and sewing machines you would recommend? Actually, don't they get AI to write this stuff these days?



> J Haydn and his string quartets, in the sense of his giving each instrument more equal standing (like the baroque), really saved the classical era.


"Giving each instrument equal standing" was something done all the time in instrumental, vocal works of Richter, Adlgasser, M Haydn, Pasterwitz, etc. (I can't think of anything in the Baroque except Bach that wasn't surpassed by them)


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Any more perpetual canons and sewing machines you would recommend? Actually, don't they get AI to write this stuff these days?


No. But AI has been busy finishing Beethoven. Go figure...



hammeredklavier said:


> "Giving each instrument equal standing" was something done all the time in instrumental, vocal works of Richter, Adlgasser, M Haydn, Pasterwitz, etc. (I can't think of anything in the Baroque except Bach that wasn't surpassed by them)


Should have known you would break out in hives at the mention of J Haydn. You couldn't be more wrong about Richter's string quartets. Can't think of any written by Adlgasser, but your knowledge of exceedingly minor 18th century liturgical church composers is unrivaled-especially those of Salzburg. M Haydn's string quartets are charming but lack the innovations of his brother (which you don't appear to grasp based on your list of composrs). They're more like Mozart's early string quartets --- pre-JHaydn.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Neither would be a more viable third option for me.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> Should have known you would break out in hives at the mention of J Haydn. ..........................


Don't try to derail the thread, just cause it's hard to understand how using dynamics, mood changes, and putting some thoughts in laying out form makes music sound "human". (The string quartets are of dubious authenticity, unless you mean the string quintets, btw.) I've listened to 2 volumes of the Telemann edition (4 hours of each. Stopped where the Baroque trumpet started sticking out again and getting annoying). I'm somehow reminded of


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Don't try to derail the thread topic,


he wrote, once again inserting composers of pre-classical liturgical music into the thread.



hammeredklavier said:


> I've listened to 2 volumes of the Telemann edition (4 hours of each...)


Well then, that must make you an expert on Telemann! On to the next box set!


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


>


AI's completion of Beethoven's 10th:






I mean, because Beethoven must be no different than a Bach harmonization...


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

I listen to both. Should not be baroque vs classical. I listen to Gregorian chant etc and things written in 2021. It’s all MUSIC.


----------



## thejewk (Sep 13, 2020)

I voted for baroque, which I spend a lot more time listening to than the classical period. I have found that the classical period is for me possibly the least interesting area of 'Western art music', or whatever you want to call it, and generally my interest dips a little until the romantic era started to rear its head.

I fully expect that this will change though as I expose myself to more and more material over the years, so this is hardly a strong preference.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Baroque - I don't dislike classical but it sometimes seems a bit smooth and squeaky clean to me, whereas I find that baroque has more grit and feeling behind it. It could be that baroque is closer to traditional/ folk tunes and I grew up with and formed my musical ear on those. Also, I might not have enough patience for classical.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

(~56:00)


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

The other cool thing about the baroque is that so many of its forms are based on dance rhythms and forms. That definitely distinguishes it from the classical period. If you like music that makes you want to swing your hips and dance a little, then that's the baroque, not the classical era.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> (~56:00)


Yeah, but Vivaldi is notorious for this sort of formulaic sequencing. Stravinsky snarked that Vivaldi wrote the same piece a thousand times. That said, if I had to choose between Vivaldi and any number of minor masters from the classical era, I would choose Vivaldi every. time. Vivaldi's harmonies and melodic ideas can strike like lightning. And picking up on my previous comment about baroque music being far more closely tied to Renaissance dance forms, you get this mind-blowing weirdness:






I mean, you can't touch that. With the exception of the greats, the majority of classical era compositions just sound like aristocratic puffery next to that.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Baroque all the way.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> I mean, you can't touch that. With the exception of the greats, the majority of classical era compositions just sound like aristocratic puffery next to that.


More like Vivaldi is an exception. I still think you're fantasizing about it too much. Baroque music is still full of courtly gigues, courantes, gavottes, sarabands etc, that don't seem to get anywhere substantially, or operas with endless series of da capo arias. Banal? I'll leave it to everyone's subjective opinion. 
Tell me what's so great about the harpsichord music of Telemann or Graupner, for instance. I've listened to 1 hour of each, and tried so hard not to fall asleep.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I still think you're fantasizing about it too much.


Hey, try making your case without the gratuitous personal slights.

But anyway, I would take Kozeluch's piano sonatas over Telemann's keyboard works, but I would take Telemann's concerti &/or chamber music over Kozeluch's without hesitation.


----------



## Taplow (Aug 13, 2017)

I voted Baroque. I'll take 150 years of Baroque over 50 years of Classical any day.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> (~56:00)


I'm reminded of "Lurch's harpsichord"


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> With the exception of the greats, the majority of classical era compositions just sound like aristocratic puffery next to that.


There's always stuff interesting enough to be listenable, if you look for them.

*Grand Symphony for the Peace with French Republic Op.31 (1797)* - P. Wranitzky
0:00 The Revolution
4:55 English March
8:32 March of the Austrians and Prussians 
11:19 The Fate and Death of Louis XVI 
14:23 Funeral March 
18:21 English March 
19:20 March of the Allies 
20:42 The Tumult of a Battle 
23:29 The Prospects of Peace 
25:28 Rejoicing at the Achievement of Peace

*Le Portrait musical de la nature ou Grande Symphonie (1783)* - J.H. Knecht
I. Allegretto - Andante pastorale - Allegretto - Villanella grazioso, un poco adagio : 00:00 
II. Tempo mederno (Allegretto) : 09:40 
III. Allegro molto : 12:44  
IV. Tempo mederno (Allegro molto) : 18:38 
V. L´inno con variazioni - Andantino -Coro : Allegro con brio - Andantino : 20:59

notice the "continuity":
12:30 , 18:30 , 20:50
and "recalling of themes" across movements in the symphony:
0:00 , 20:04 , 0:58 , 9:40


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

vtpoet said:


> I mean, you can't touch that. With the exception of the greats, the majority of classical era compositions just sound like aristocratic puffery next to that.


I'm inclined to agree with you - and frankly were it not for Mozart - I would certainly have voted baroque.


----------



## Doublestring (Sep 3, 2014)

Baroque has a lot more good composers. Apart from the obvious Germans there are many good Italian and French composers: Monteverdi, Carissimi, the Couperins. I also like the lute suites of Sylvius Leopold Weiss. Baroque has more polyphony, in spite of inventing the monody.

It's unfair however, because Baroque lasts three times as long. So I'll rank them like this:

1 Late Baroque
2 Classical
3 Early Baroque
4 Middle Baroque


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

PlaySalieri said:


> I'm inclined to agree with you - and frankly were it not for Mozart - I would certainly have voted baroque.


Is there anything in these that doesn't sound "puffery" (whatever that means) to you? 
Telemann Edition Vol.1: 



Telemann Edition Vol.2: 



It's the thing about "Baroque grandeur", it's usually this sort of thing (



 or 



) that's passed as "depth" in the Baroque. After so much exposure, I really hate to say it, I sense a slight bit of "cheapness", lack of dimensionality. Record the music in MIDI, it won't lose any of its expressiveness. (I acknowledge Handel being a good tunesmith though.) There's a difference between "endlessly grinding away with chattiness of basso continuo style and stuff", and "using counterpoint with subtlety and nuance to establish contrast and provide emphasis". 



. To me, Bach is unusual of the Baroque to have "warmth" in expression (eg. the "Et in terra pax"s of his masses and double violin concerto).
Btw, Berlioz admired stuff like Salieri's Les Danaïdes 



 but called Handel "a tub of pork and beer".


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

I chose Classical on account of Beethoven and Schubert being included, though if both were removed I might revert to Baroque. But I am surprised that Haydn, CPE Bach, JC Bach, Rossini, Cherubini, Paganini, Weber, Bomtempo, and at least Clementi's keyboard pieces aren't mentioned more in this thread. While yes there are quite a few court pieces among them, there's also a lot of interesting things going on, not least the Sturm und Drang period and that early transition to Romantic. The period is more than Mozart, even if his genius stands above the rest.

It's a tough call, though, because Bach, Vivaldi, and Handel do tower over them.


----------



## Michael122 (Sep 16, 2021)

Classical. It is, classically, the classy choice.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

AeolianStrains said:


> I chose Classical on account of Beethoven and Schubert being included, though if both were removed I might revert to Baroque.


I don't consider Beethoven or Schubert composers of the Classical period; they're early romantic.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I've listened to 2 volumes of the Telemann edition (4 hours of each. Stopped where the Baroque trumpet started sticking out again and getting annoying).





progmatist said:


> I'm particularly fond of Baroque brass.


The use of the brass is also another thing in Baroque music I have certain reservations (not hatred) for as well, although this Telemann cantata isn't the worst: 



. By contrast, the way post-Baroque music handles the brass, it's usually "subdued" within the orchestra and takes prominence only in places where there's need for its dramatic tone color. 



. Look at this; 



 (written in 1772) do we find any passages of the trumpet sticking out all over the place, sounding like an elephant in a savanna, like the Telemann example?



vtpoet said:


> That said, if I had to choose between Vivaldi and any number of minor masters from the classical era, I would choose Vivaldi every. time. Vivaldi's harmonies and melodic ideas can strike like lightning.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, you can't touch that.


Sorry, even that sounds slightly a bit "petty" (lacking "fullness of sound") and "grindy" to me, I'm afraid (which is probably why all the courtly courantes end up sounding all too samey). Look how this obscure post-Baroque master handles the minuet and divertimento. 



 / 






hammeredklavier said:


> (notice the subtleties with dynamics; 13:00~14:30)
> 
> 
> 
> (1:50~3:10)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Just look at the repetition of thematic material with no alteration. Banal? I'll let everyone decide for themselves subjectively.




This is "typical Baroque". You'll find tons of this stuff if you go through 6 hours of Graupner: Complete Harpsichord Music, Vol. 1:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, Berlioz admired stuff like Salieri's Les Danaïdes
> 
> 
> 
> but called Handel "a tub of pork and beer".


"Les Danaïdes followed in the tradition of reform that Gluck had begun in the 1760s and that Salieri had emulated in his earlier opera Armida. Salieri's first French opera contained scenes of great solemnity and festivity, but overshadowing it all was darkness and revenge. The opera depicted politically motivated murder, filial duty and love in conflict, tyrannicide, and finally eternal damnation. The opera, with its dark overture, lavish choral writing, many ballet scenes, and electrifying finale depicting a glimpse of hellish torture, kept the opera on the stage in Paris for over forty years. A young Hector Berlioz recorded the deep impression this work made on him in his Mémoires."


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> Is there anything in these that doesn't sound "puffery" (whatever that means) to you?
> Telemann Edition Vol.1:
> 
> 
> ...


There is as much puffery in baroque music of course - but there are probably more undiscovered gems in the baroque era. The Gluck you uploaded yesterday I listened to and didn't find it interesting at all.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I find it kind of odd to even consider an excentric egomaniac like Berlioz who obviously wanted to make something really new and out-Beethoven Beethoven as arbiter of music that was mor than 50 or even 100 years old at his time. His comments are useless except for learning something about this particular excentric composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"In its orginal form "Radamsisto" is one of Handel's longest operas, "four hours of not always inspired music," according to Simon, whose first task was to put together an edition suitable for today's audiences. "The biggest problem for today's audiences. "The biggest problem was trying to restrain one's self-indulgence, and not be seduced by the lesser material," explained Simon, who pared the opera down to 2 1/2 hours and reduced its three acts to two." https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...st-hits/623150ae-746c-41b3-a434-3c3ed42162fd/
"if you ever want to suffer an incredibly tedious time, if you want to be impelled to stick a fork in your brain just to stop the endless flood of mundanity, listen to Handel's 62 Variations."
https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations



PlaySalieri said:


> there are probably more undiscovered gems in the baroque era.


Of course, I'm not calling any of the stuff "trash"; people are free to appreciate whatever they want. But I find that there's _generally_ more exaggeration about _general_ Baroque music being "worth a listen" (compared to music of other eras). The case of the Graupner, which I posted in #68, seems like an example of people "not seeing the naked emperor", in my humble view. It's also quite obvious that music devoid of dynamics is easier to replicate using AI.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

AeolianStrains said:


> I chose Classical on account of Beethoven and Schubert being included, though if both were removed I might revert to Baroque. But I am surprised that Haydn, CPE Bach, JC Bach, Rossini, Cherubini, Paganini, Weber, Bomtempo, and at least Clementi's keyboard pieces aren't mentioned more in this thread. While yes there are quite a few court pieces among them, there's also a lot of interesting things going on, not least the Sturm und Drang period and that early transition to Romantic. The period is more than Mozart, even if his genius stands above the rest.
> 
> It's a tough call, though, because Bach, Vivaldi, and Handel do tower over them.


And don't forget Scarlatti, Rameau and Couperin. That whole generation born at the end of the 17th century. I do like Clementi's keyboard works, but would choose Scarlatti over Clementi in a New York minute. I'd take Händel's operas overt Rossini's. I'd take Rameau over Cherubini. I'd take Locatelli over Paganini, Telemann over Weber. I'd even take Bach over Mozart. Haydn and my beloved CPE Bach.... Those would be tough losses. But, fortunately, it's purely hypothetical.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


>


Looks like deepbach never learned about parallel 5ths. 0:22


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> The use of the brass is also one of things in Baroque music I have certain reservations (not hatred) for as well.


For me, the baroque trumpet is one of the great joys of the baroque. When I was a teen I deliberately pursued the trumpet and drum oratorios and cantatas of Bach, Telemann and Händel. The primary reason you don't get the baroque trumpet in classical music is because all the baroque trumpeters died. Nobody knew how to play the instrument by Mozart's time, hence Mozart's rewrite of Händel's "The Trumpet Shall Sound" as an aria without Trumpet. The trumpet did not sound. There just wasn't anybody to play the part. It wasn't until the late 20th century that the "baroque trumpet" was played again and there's a fascinating story behind that and how it happened. But, if you don't like it, you don't like it.



hammeredklavier said:


> Look how this obscure post-Baroque master handles the minuet and divertimento.
> 
> 
> 
> /


He handles it beautifully, but that doesn't change the fact that by this time both he and his contemporaries had moved on from the dance forms that dominated the late baroque---especially. I'm not saying that this is a reason that baroque music is superior to classical, only that this is a facet that very much distinguishes the baroque from the classical and if one likes dance-like gregariousness in their music, they're probably going to prefer the baroque.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Just look at the repetition of thematic material with no alteration. Banal? I'll let everyone decide for themselves subjectively.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Meh. You find the same repetitiveness in the classical era:






I mean, we can cherry pick the best and worst all week long...


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

vtpoet said:


> For me, the baroque trumpet is one of the great joys of the baroque.


Totally agree. For me, it's one of the primary reasons I prefer baroque music. It's too bad that the Hammer man can't appreciate it more.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

The middle movement of K545 is very repetitive - yet one of my favourite movements. Repeating enchanting material - nothing wrong with that.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Meh. You find the same repetitiveness in the classical era:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I actually quite like this. Dizziness in music, not a common emotion.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Dizziness over a lost penny.


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

Art Rock said:


> I voted for classical, because in general I find that I'm not interested in baroque music - with the huge exception of Bach.


Incredible that you could love Bach but not some Telemann or some Graupner or all Zelenka and many others. I don’t understand it. I get that somebody can prefer Mozart to Haydn, but how can one say “Oh I love Mozart, but I can’t stand Haydn”?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Voted Classical. Classical has its cliches but they're not as distracting as the ever-present baroque circle of fifths progression that to me, overstays its welcome.

In the baroque concertos I've listened to, the melodies seem to meander more too.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Baroque. What a wealth of "national" musics emerges in Italy (opera, strings), Germany (choral, organ), France (opera and ballet) and England (choral)! I'm ok with the Baroque ending c. 1720 and the later music of Handel Rameau, and Vivaldi being considered at least pre-Classical. But not Bach, his personal vision remains Baroque, a word that originally had negative connotations (strange, misshapen). And there is something strange about Bach -- for instance the way he treats the voices as instruments. Yet if you sing Bach in a choir those nutty vocal lines generate tremendous energy and people really get into them.


----------

