# Why in the world do we need music periods??



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

I am not sure I call those things correctly - maybe "era" is a better term?

What value in experiencing the music do we gain by attributing it to a "classical", baroque", "romantic", etc. era?

So what if many composers of some time period had some techniques in common? What does it help to know that fact?

Then, again, what is the point to call, for example, Bach "baroque" if you can find in his music elements of almost any other subsequent style - from atonalism to modern rock bands? And is Wagner really _romantic_? Not post-impressionist?

Do we not create more brainy confusion leading people away from the core of music appreciation?


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Dude you think too much.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I don't entirely agree, but I like the way you think :3 I feel the same way pretty much about musical genres. I'm not against categorization, and I think categorization based on time periods in the manner we do currently, based on broad stylistic things, works alright. I am against categorization that is extremely inconsistent, which genres are.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

MichaelSolo said:


> I am not sure I call those things correctly - maybe "era" is a better term?
> 
> What value in experiencing the music do we gain by attributing it to a "classical", baroque", "romantic", etc. era?
> 
> ...


I, sincerely, don't see how in heaven such a simple categorization based on common stylistic approaches and, above all, on a common historical moment can lead to such thing you say. I would think is rather the opposite, since it's the most obvious way of organizing such a massive amount of repertoire.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

jani said:


> Dude you think too much.


Perhaps better than not thinking enough.


----------



## nightscape (Jun 22, 2013)

We're pattern seekers. It's a natural human inclination to categorize things. Helps people organize better. There are clear distinctions in styles, changes in instrumentation, orchestral techniques, etc. Is defining certain musical periods absolutely essential? Not really. Does it really bother anyone? Probably not.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

MichaelSolo said:


> I am not sure I call those things correctly - maybe "era" is a better term?
> 
> What value in experiencing the music do we gain by attributing it to a "classical", baroque", "romantic", etc. era?
> 
> ...


I think its ok to have these labels but remember they're nothing more than just labels and names. I think its ok to have broad categories, however there will be grey areas especially with transitional composers. Say Beethoven and Schubert, since they straddled the late Classical and early Romantic eras. People put them in different eras, I kind of see them as both. Then there's the thing of Neo-Classicism which was just as much influenced by the Classical era as the Baroque. So it can be called Neo-Classical or Neo-Baroque, but I see them as same thing.

Its funny how Debussy didn't like the label Impressionist applied to his music. He saw himself as more of a Symbolist. Arnold Bax lived in what we call the Modern era yet he saw himself as a Romantic. Philip Glass apparently isn't much a fan of the label Minimalist. You see what I'm saying? After about 1890 or 1900 a lot of these stylistic trends and the labels attached to them become confusing. Where does Modern era finish and the Post-Modern era begin? What about now, are we in Post-Post-Modernist era.

& didn't all composers of all eras think they where 'contemporary' composers anyway? Of their own time, that is. In that regard, I like this quote from Peter Warlock (he of Capriol Suite fame) that "All old music was modern once, and much more of the music of yesterday already sounds more old-fashioned than works which were written three centuries ago."

So yes labels are confusing and innacurate but they're what we've got, they do their job as broad markers, and that's all I see them as being more or less.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Perhaps better than not thinking enough.


Does figuring out the answer for this question add any pleasure to your music listeing experince?
Does it make the music better?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

At a minimum, it gives us one more thing to wrangle about, which is good. "Oh, that's from pre-mid Viennese classical's upper Devonian period..."


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

jani said:


> Does figuring out the answer for this question add any pleasure to your music listeing experince?
> Does it make the music better?


I don't know, and it seems reasonable to say that I will continue not to know until the answer is figured out. I don't think it is a pressing issue and I'm in no hurry to discover the answer, I'm just sick of seeing the TC Apathy Squad show up to tell people that their threads are pointless before there has even been a reasonable amount of discussion of the topic at hand, an increasingly frequent occurrence of late.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> I don't know, and it seems reasonable to say that I will continue not to know until the answer is figured out. I don't think it is a pressing issue and I'm in no hurry to discover the answer, I'm just sick of seeing the TC Apathy Squad show up to tell people that their threads are pointless before there has even been a reasonable amount of discussion of the topic at hand, an increasingly frequent occurrence of late.


TC Apathy Squad :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Taught badly, taken as inflexible by a lazy or small-minded individual, more worried about getting it right, or getting it right for the quiz or test, it is disastrous, and therefore best left avoided and ignored.

Taught well, and taken to be understood as a general way to divide what are GENERALLY very noticeable shifts in style, techniques -- _and the ethos of the people and composers of the time_ -- that format, as an understanding vs. a 'bunch of facts and dates to know.' is invaluable in getting further and further in to the music, and being readily conversant when discussing music with those who have also understood it as no rigid set of facts.

Really, imposing a later idea of Romanticism upon Bach, or just because you, now, in 2013 feel that Bach is romantic, makes for no clarification at all, allows for a gross misunderstanding of the things Bach did communicate in his music. Those skewed and distorted views, whether from small mindedness, bad teaching, misunderstanding or sheer self-indulgence in a persons empirical mind as solipsistic universe, universally understood by all, is....


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

KenOC said:


> At a minimum, it gives us one more thing to wrangle about, which is good. "Oh, that's from pre-mid Viennese classical's upper Devonian period..."


Agree there. I think all this "era" thing was invented exclusively with TC forum in mind..


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

Sid James said:


> I think its ok to have these labels but remember they're nothing more than just labels and names. I think its ok to have broad categories, however there will be grey areas especially with transitional composers. ...


Well, indeed every "systematization" has its reasons. It was not my point to argue existence of those for this case. It is just that I feel somehow fooled every time I hear that Bach is "baroque". Hearing how Crudblud composes, for example, one can attribute him to several different eras - composition dependent. BUT - so what? I kind of miss the point of this excercise, however correct and reasonable it is.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Perhaps better than not thinking enough.


Not always so. I'll P.M. you a link where the working out the solution to a question is so stiffly embalmed in left brain linear thinking to a point where that party will never resolve the issue, the question, and is only half-awake, using only 50% of the brain each of us has with which to work.

That half-brain only activity led to a construct of a self-indulgent existential dilemma, creating several planets worth of material out of a grain of sand. And it screams 'way too much thought about.'

As in most everything, all things in moderation.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> I don't know, and it seems reasonable to say that I will continue not to know until the answer is figured out. I don't think it is a pressing issue and I'm in no hurry to discover the answer, I'm just sick of seeing the TC Apathy Squad show up to tell people that their threads are pointless before there has even been a reasonable amount of discussion of the topic at hand, an increasingly frequent occurrence of late.


Ahhh... they are not apathetic enough. True apathetics do not vote, or participate at all. Let's hope these quasi-apathetics reach the status of fully apathetic, and soon.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> True apathetics do not vote, or participate at all.


I can't quite summon the interest to become a true apathetic.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

MichaelSolo said:


> Well, indeed every "systematization" has its reasons. It was not my point to argue existence of those for this case. It is just that I feel somehow fooled every time I hear that Bach is "baroque". Hearing how Crudblud composes, for example, one can attribute him to several different eras - composition dependent. BUT - so what? I kind of miss the point of this excercise, however correct and reasonable it is.


Well think of it like any classification system. Its going to have its limitations. But if you look at a book on the history of classical music, its going to have specific information about composers. Like I said, that Beethoven and Schubert are transitional figures. So is someone like Monteverdi, between Renaissance and Baroque. They might put these guys in a certain section according to era, but they will inevitably explain the nuances, like why and how they fit in and relate to this era or that era. I think the reasons they give are important. In terms of contemporary composers like Crudblud, I agree it can be confusing (many things after about 1900 can be confusing to "box" I think), so classification might be easier with hindsight (the more, the better?) but harder when the music is happening here and now.


----------



## dstring (May 14, 2013)

Isn't the ultimate goal in categorizing and naming things the fact they make it easier --or even possible -- to talk and think about things? Without words there's no discussion.

Like you don't need 100 different words to categorize the type of snow in Sidney, but maby you do in Iceland.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

MichaelSolo said:


> What value in experiencing the music do we gain by attributing it to a "classical", baroque", "romantic", etc. era?


Approximately as much value as we gain by attributing it to a particular individual?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

From the POV of just listening to the music it might not matter. On the other hand, it could be more interesting, at least occasionally, to know what was typical and atypical about a work, or, if it was influential, what was influential about it. 

From the POV of someone who enjoys history, it's one of the most interesting things. Patterns and exceptions are interesting. It feels good to find out about them.


----------



## Picander (May 8, 2013)

Just see Johann Sebastian Bach. If he had realized that he was "baroque" he might have been disappointed to see that his own sons were compossing mostly "classical" music, but since he didn't know he was "baroque" and his sons almost "classicals", he didn't care.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*Why in the world do we need music periods??*

Because without periods, music would just run on and on and on and on and on and on and on and o


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Because then we couldn't argue over whether Beethoven and Schubert were Classical or Romantic composers.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Because without periods, music would just run on and on and on and on and on and on and on and o


Periods prevent music from happening all at once.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

And why the hell do we classify books by genre? Why confuse ourselves with terms like "fiction" and "non-fiction," or romance, or mystery, or sci-fi, or general fiction? Or distinguish between biographies and auto-biographies? 

No period in music is absolute. True, there can be found characteristics of different periods mixed in, but we don't define based on exceptions. A lot of it has to do with the general rules and methods that were used in given periods for composing music. Is it necessary? Probably not. But it gives one a good frame of reference when choosing what one wants to hear. You can pick up any book and read it just fine not knowing ahead of time what particular genre it falls into. But if you were searching for a non-fiction history of World War II, it sure would be helpful to have the books categorized so you could find something along those lines.

If you want to listen to music, the particular categorization doesn't matter. But if you go searching for something specifically, then it helps to know what things fall within the parameters you are searching for. Or if you find one work you like, and want to find others, then you can search based on how that work is categorized.

We sort because it helps to categorize what would otherwise be unruly collections of things. When it comes down to it, the purpose is probably about the same as why we categorize and subcategorize books in a library - to better aid us in finding what we want.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Because if you're in the mood for several of those guys that used a harpsichord a lot, with more polyphony and counterpoint than homophony and came before there was a sonata allegro form but had a penchant for fugues as a form, it's a whole lot easier to set your iPod to sort and play "baroque" at random than the mouthful above.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Well i think so others can learn about how it grew to became what it is today.


----------



## Perotin (May 29, 2012)

Allow me to be a bit philosophical here. Language structures our reality. Without classifications and categorizations we could hardly think about given subject let alone discuss it. You just simply need ideas and categories to operate with when discussing things.


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

So, cathegorization and systematization rule. Without them we would be hopelessly lost in the mass of unorganized music collected over the centuries, with substantial difficulties to navigate it and locate what we would like to hear, because we usually like to hear music that has particular attributes, like harpsichords and counterpoint, and what would we do without the periods???


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Music after a while perhaps needs new creative inputs to move on and open up avenues for artists in a new direction. We later define these to try and trace the journey that was made so we can view music within its historical context.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MichaelSolo said:


> So, cathegorization and systematization rule. Without them we would be hopelessly lost in the mass of unorganized music collected over the centuries, with substantial difficulties to navigate it and locate what we would like to hear, because we usually like to hear music that has particular attributes, like harpsichords and counterpoint, and what would we do without the periods???


Muddle on through, of course, taking more time (and if in print, column space) than anyone in their right mind would think necessary or even possible to reach agreement on a most fundamental point or definition -- like the TC thread on making a list of recommended chamber music, which goes on for pages and pages of people hashing out what, _to them / "to me"_ constitutes chamber music: _meanwhile, several clicks away, from numerous reliable sources, there are readily available definitions of "Chamber Music."_

Really, such a demonstration reminds me of what happened to language and communication in that first testament fable about the building of The Tower of Babel.


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

PetrB said:


> ...
> 
> Really, such a demonstration reminds me of what happened to language and communication in that first testament fable about Babel.


What happened? The language lost the remainder of its usefulness?... The meaning of language changed together with the meaning of "language"?

I wish....


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Perhaps better than not thinking enough.


Unbelievable--I was about to post this !


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Music periods do not happen by themselves because music isn't composed in a void. It do not appear from nowhere. Culture and cultural change influence the composer and the composer influence culture and thus promotes cultural change. The name for a period, in itself, is not really important. What is important is that music '_suddenly_' sounds -or start to sound- different and for some listeners this is important for their aesthetic appreciation because enhances it.


----------



## MichaelSolo (Mar 12, 2013)

Ondine said:


> Music periods do not happen by themselves because music isn't composed in a void. It does not appear from nowhere.


I think music (good music) is indeed composed in the void, in sometimes scary void, appearing from nowhere. Or else it is a music that could be concocted by a computer as well.



Ondine said:


> Culture and cultural change influence the composer ....


By far more important and significant influences probably are idigestion, argument with the wife / husband (or just the opposite of thereof), hangover... Why nobody writes of them?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

MichaelSolo said:


> By far more important and significant influences probably are idigestion, argument with the wife / husband (or just the opposite of thereof), hangover... Why nobody writes of them?


Being drunk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QWkXuN5_sik#t=156s
Home life, including quarrels and the (ahem) making up that follows:


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

MichaelSolo said:


> I think music (good music) is indeed composed in the void, in sometimes scary void, appearing from nowhere. Or else it is a music that could be concocted by a computer as well.


This is a nice sounding sentence but it obviously isn't true. Why did composers around the late 18th century increasingly turn to writing for more standardised instrumental groups like the symphony orchestra or the string quartet rather than the relative laxness which pervaded the Baroque era? Did something happen in 'the void' which led to a proliferation of works called symphonies which hadn't had much of an existence previously? Or was the development of the orchestra as an institution propelled by the aristocrats who originally funded them a factor?

For that matter why is there such a large proliferation of acapella vocal writing in the 16th century which tapers of significantly in favour of instrumental works or works for voice and instrumental accompaniment by the time of the high baroque era? Was that also the decision of the void or did it have something to do with the mechanical improvements to instruments made in the intervening period? Good music may appear to have a universal quality which transcends the immediate context which it arose from, otherwise we would only consider a piece of historical importance, but that doesn't mean the music doesn't still bear the scars of it's upbringing.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MichaelSolo said:


> What happened? The language lost the remainder of its usefulness?... The meaning of language changed together with the meaning of "language"?
> 
> I wish....


What was that? I was understanding you perfectly until just after 'wish'!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MichaelSolo said:


> I think music (good music) is indeed composed in the void, in sometimes scary void, appearing from nowhere. Or else it is a music that could be concocted by a computer as well.
> 
> By far more important and significant influences probably are idigestion, argument with the wife / husband (or just the opposite of thereof), hangover... Why nobody writes of them?


Because other than their catty gossipy detail about people behaving badly, they're ultra cliche and _boring._


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2013)

This thread seems to be veering to the weird and absurd.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I'm glad we do have *compartments*. Otherwise, all those fusion people would be running amok, causing great havoc everywhere. Just saying. :lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Originally Posted by Crudblud: Perhaps better than not thinking enough.

Moody- Unbelievable--I was about to post this!

Even more unbelievable! Moody and Crudblud are starting to think alike!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Ondine said:


> Music periods do not happen by themselves because music isn't composed in a void. It do not appear from nowhere. Culture and cultural change influence the composer and the composer influence culture and thus promotes cultural change. The name for a period, in itself, is not really important. What is important is that music '_suddenly_' sounds -or start to sound- different and for some listeners this is important for their aesthetic appreciation because enhances it.


This is along the same lines of what I said, but I wouldn't say 'suddenly', a change in style is a gradual thing and the full characteristics of a new style don't appear immediately but will slowly get built up.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starry said:


> This is along the same lines of what I said, but I wouldn't say 'suddenly', a change in style is a gradual thing and the full characteristics of a new style don't appear immediately but will slowly get built up.


Sudden changes in style are possible. The Eroica, Debussy's Prelude, and the Rite are three that leap to mind. Looking back, we may be able to identify this or that predecessor, but the works were so startlingly original that the connections were by no means obvious at the time.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Sudden changes in style are possible. The Eroica, Debussy's Prelude, and the Rite are three that leap to mind. Looking back, we may be able to identify this or that predecessor, but the works were so startlingly original that the connections were by no means obvious at the time.


At the time people saw them within the context of music at the time, the classical symphony genre, romantic piano music and romantic ballet. No doubt they were unusual within those areas but they did spring from genres that were clearly popular at the time. And those composers didn't just start with those pieces either, they did plenty of other works which relate to the music of their time even more.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Originally Posted by Crudblud: Perhaps better than not thinking enough.
> 
> Moody- Unbelievable--I was about to post this!
> 
> Even more unbelievable! Moody and Crudblud are starting to think alike!


Probably in this case caused by the blatant "not thinking enough" before stumbling into print that goes on here.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Vaneyes said:


> I'm glad we do have *compartments*. Otherwise, all those fusion people would be running amok, causing great havoc everywhere. Just saying. :lol:


Yeah well we got to keep John Cage in his cage. We got to keep Beethoven in the oven (well, his music is ON FIRE isn't it?...Prometheus?). We got to keep Wagner at...Bayreuth.

So let's just keep 'em where they are. Otherwise we got Beethoven mixing with Wagner and we get Mahler...or something...



DrMike said:


> This thread seems to be veering to the weird and absurd.


Certainly is now...:lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

moody said:


> Probably in this case caused by the blatant "not thinking enough" before stumbling into print that goes on here.


We should call it the Crudblud-Moody period effect, CMPE.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

the eras don't discriminate against the music. it is what it is.

if you feel threatened by one era than it's your problem.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Originally Posted by Crudblud: Perhaps better than not thinking enough.
> 
> Moody- Unbelievable--I was about to post this!
> 
> Even more unbelievable! Moody and Crudblud are starting to think alike!


Another prerequisite ticked off a doomsday prophet's list.


----------

