# Regarding Classical Music Periods. .



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

According to the infallible wiki, the periods went something like this:

1 Medieval (500–1400)
2 Renaissance (1400–1600)
3 Baroque (1600–1760)
4 Classical (1730–1820)
5 Romantic (1815-1910)

I assume these are just periods of time in which most of the music written mostly had particular characteristics. Enough to sort of define a particular sound. I was wondering if these particular periods are however, kind of arbitrary. I guess there is probably some debate about cut offs. Some people may disagree over a few years here and there. That's not what I mean though. I mean, a more radical difference. Maybe from the midpoint of one presently defined period to the midpoint of the next, and from that midpoint to the midpoint of the next, etc. Making a new group of periods. Wouldn't these new periods be just as different? Wouldn't they be just as good? Surely the progressions in sound were at a reasonably slow pace. I find it hard to believe that at each of the beginning points of these present periods there were any major revolutions. Even just grouping the periods as plain old centuries would seem less arbirtary.

Or are there good reasons for splitting the time periods up like it presently done?

I apologise if I'm missing something really obvious. I am but a newbie to all this.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

I hope my reply didn't go out of topic, for Classical to Romantic we can easily address Beethoven, but how about Baroque to Classical era, who is the notable composer that can said represent both style ? I found it's harder to separate Baroq to Classical.


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

Here are some notes I took from the music text book "Listen" by Kerman/Tomlinson. These are just some general patterns throughout the periods:


Renaissance: 

1. Subtle, floating rhythm.
2. Use of Modes


Baroque: 

1. Rhythm definite, regular, insistent.
2. Use of meter (bar line introduction).
3. Basso continuo - 
3a - bass parts reinforced by chordal instruments
3b - clarifies harmony
3c - texture
4. Ground bass - "constructed from bottom up" AKA Basso ostinato
4a - Bass instruments play short phrase repeated, while upper instruments play over it.
5. Use of harmony - introduction of minor/major , chord functions. 
6. Polyphonic texture. 

Classical: 

1. Rhythm - highly flexible, "of a pleasing variety"
1a - used to create contrasts within music to create "less predictability."
2. Dynamics - passages conceived more specifically in terms of dynamics. Crescendo/diminuendo came into use.
3. Rise in popularity of the pianoforte (instead of the harpsichord of the Baroque era).
4. Increasing attention to tone color - ie, woodwind/brass given clearly defined regular roles. 
5. Melody - Demand for simplicity and clarity, for "relief from the complex, richly ornamented lines of the baroque period." - Reliance of uncomplicated, singable melodies with clear phrases.
6. Homophonic texture. 
7. Introduction of forms , ie sonata form, and the symphony. 

Gr, wife is calling me to bed, but that's what I have for now.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

That doesn't really address my question though. Was there not a gradual progression through time? If you broke up the history into the periods I suggested, wouldn't you be just as able to come up with characteristics for each of the newly defined periods?


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

There are many composers like Beethoven, Schubert, Mahler, Sibelius etc that belong to the borderline of their periods. Beethoven and Schubert can only be characterized as being both classical and romantic period composers; some of their early works can easily have been written by Haydn or Mozart, some of their late works have clearly advanced their form beyond what Haydn or Mozart would have been capable of achieving. But the time periods are certainly not arbitrary and you can usually recognize the sound signature shared by music from those periods easily. There is certainly a gradual progression of music through those periods, but many composers obtain their legendary status by making works that are revolutionary and that break the mold of music from their period. When Beethoven composed his 3rd Symphony he changed classical music forever, similarly when Wagner composed Tristan und Isolde.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2010)

Johnny said:


> That doesn't really address my question though. Was there not a gradual progression through time? If you broke up the history into the periods I suggested, wouldn't you be just as able to come up with characteristics for each of the newly defined periods?


I don't mean this comment to be mean-spirited, but you seem to have a habit here of posting questions that are kind of vague, and then when people attempt to give you an answer, you give some snippy comment about them not answering your question.

My recommendation for you is to explore the music. Listen to music from different periods, and find out why they really do fall pretty cleanly into different general styles. The edges are fuzzy, and there can be some overlap, but generally they are fairly accurate. It is not some arbitrary designation. And it was also keeping pace with other things at the time. The Baroque period consisted not only of that particular style of music, but also extended to architecture and other cultural aspects. The same with the classical period. There are transition periods in between, and certainly some components from a previous period may linger longer, but the general distinctions are pretty true.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

How is this, "If you broke up the history into the periods I suggested, wouldn't you be just as able to come up with characteristics for each of the newly defined periods?" vague?

And I don't know what you mean by "snippy", but I wasn't being an ***. I was just pointing out that what he said didn't answer my question. Which it didn't.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2010)

But this forum doesn't exist to answer your questions. It is a forum for discussion. 

For your original question, then, the answer is: no.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

I apologise if I wasn't clear. I'll try again:

According to the infallible wiki, the periods went something like this:

1 Medieval (500–1400)
2 Renaissance (1400–1600)
3 Baroque (1600–1760)
4 Classical (1730–1820)
5 Romantic (1815-1910)

I assume these are just periods of time in which most of the music written mostly had particular characteristics. Enough to sort of define a particular sound. I was wondering if these particular periods are however, kind of arbitrary. I guess there is probably some debate about the exact cut offs. Some people may disagree over a few years here and there. That's not what I'm asking about though. 

I'm wondering if a more radical difference, maybe (for example) from the midpoint of one presently defined period to the midpoint of the next, and from that midpoint to the midpoint of the next, etc. Making a new group of periods. Wouldn't these new periods be just as different? Wouldn't they be just as good? Wouldn't you be able to just as easily come up with a list of characteristics that are prevalent in these new periods, as you are in the present ones? 

Surely the progressions in sound were at a reasonably slow pace. I find it hard to believe that at each of the beginning points of these present periods there were any major revolutions. Even just grouping the periods as plain old centuries would seem less arbirtary.

Or are there good reasons for splitting the time periods up like it presently done that I'm missing?

I realise this is hardly of Earth-shattering importance. I'm just new to this Classical thing, and when I saw these groupings, assumed they were somewhat arbitrary. But thought I'd ask, out of curiosity, to see if I'm missing anything. I thought a Classical Music Forum would be reasonable, seeing as there's likely to be many people here who know more about Classical Music than I do.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

DrMike said:


> But this forum doesn't exist to answer your questions. It is a forum for discussion.


Don't be daft. We are all only allowed make comments? Questions aren't allowed?



It's not like I'm demanding eveyone to immediately drop everything and put all their efforts into answering anything I ask.


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

Johnny said:


> I apologise if I wasn't clear. I'll try again:
> 
> According to the infallible wiki, the periods went something like this:
> 
> ...


David58117 and wikipedia have already answered your question, music development is gradual but the musicial characteristics of each time period is clearly defined and not arbitrary. The whole mentality and goals of composers in each period is radically different. You could for example split romantic era composers between the more conservative Brahms/Schumann composers and the more radical Liszt/Wagner composers, but those 2 groups still share similar characterstics that enable us to group them as Romantic era composers. Brahms is conservative and struck to many classical era forms, but no one would claim that he's a classical period composer. So yes there are good reasons for splitting the time periods up.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Those who write music history need to categorize composers and set specific periods for them, it makes them feel in control of music history and it's 'story'. Those who don't fit into their story are considered irrelevent. That's how it works. Music of course does gradually evolve, some elements of baroque (such as church music) carry into classical, some classical into 'romantic', some romantic into 'modern'.


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

all good responses here. Listen more and worry less about the acedemic exactness about what year a period ends and another begins. Grab some music and listen.

----------

I have always considered the evolution of music very similar in nature to some theories in evolutionary biology. (Bear with me folks, I'll be brief...)

'punctuated equilibrium', or 'evolution by jerks'. Periods where many are composing according to conventions of the times, with of course artistic advancement occuring all the time. However - once in a while someone clearly creates groundbreaking work that changes the rules. That is why people (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight of course) can point to Beethoven as a good reference point as the beginning of the Romantic period. I tend to look at Bach and his unmatched attention to musical structure as the beginning of the classical period.

Looked at from a distance (see this poster for example, containing nearly 1,000 composers that I have on my wall.. illustrating birth/death and exact relationsips in time http://www.carissimi.com/mainframe.html ), music history looks relatively smooth. You can pretty much PICK a composer 'between periods' and listen to influences from both sides.

Looked at close up... say by listening to the difference between Corellis Concerto Grossi and Bach Brandenburgh Concertos - and it seems a little more sudden... like punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism. Largely because of groundbreaking work that Bach himself created, like the Art of Fuge.

I dont really agree with Starry saying that those that dont fit 'the story' are seen as 'irrelevant'. In fact... genius is defined and represented throughout history as those that 'dont fit'.

Random babling....

(note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium )


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

As Dr Mike said, music doesn't exist alone. People were becoming influenced by the spread of new ideas in politics, science, art, and the hold that religion had on the production of music was let loose over time. Music went from being something for the elite, to the common people. Composers went from being seen as the equivalent of shoe makers and being judged based on the quantity of their output (not the quality) to the romantic image we have today of the composer "wrestling with God" creating something special and truly meaningful, something *to be enjoyed* by us.

Listen to (youtube it if you need to) selections from Bach (baroque) and Haydn (classical), and consider that what you're talking about doing is merging these two very different composers into the same period. Then listen to Mozart & Telemann - try to guess what period they are part of. You should notice that they generally follow the compositional patterns of their time, but under your proposed idea, they would be all part of the same period.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

The names people give to particular periods of course doesn't make any difference to what music I'm going to listen to, or how much I'll like it. 
Like I said, you see these terms all over the place, so I thought I'd just ask to see if I'm missing anything. I've seen nothing to convince me that they are anything but arbitrary.
And in case anyone asks me why I bothered asking at all, if it doesn't affect what music I'm going to listen to, or how much I will enjoy listening to the music, it was just plain old curiosity. Just like if I see people constantly using the terms "counterpoint" or "sonata", etc, I might wonder what they mean. Of course knowing why something is called a sonata doesn't make the piece sound any different. 
I didn't think such a question would need much thought or effort from someone who is more familiar with Classical Music than me.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2010)

I guess the problem here is that you (Johnny) went with the initial assumption that the delineations for musical periods were rather arbitrary, but I am assuming you had no reason for believing so.

As many have said already, you can listen to the works of several representatives of each era and very readily come to the conclusion that these divisions are, in fact, fairly accurate. Certainly you will get those at the borders that have aspects of previous and forthcoming periods (Beethoven is the easiest example - his first 2 symphonies are very clearly classical, while looking at later symphonies, you notice that they share many characteristics of what would become the Romantic period). 

The distinction between Baroque (Bach, Vivaldi, Telemann, Handel, etc.) and Classical (Haydn, Mozart, early Beethoven) is quite clear. And the distinction between Classical and Romantic (Brahms, Wagner, Dvorak, Schumann, etc.) is also quite clear. Certainly there are further subdivisions within each era, as you will notice that not all baroque composers sound equal, and the same with other eras (such as the rift between the Brahms and Wagner factions in the Romantic era). Additionally, much of the eras is cyclical. The Romantic era shares some characteristics with the Baroque - both sought to add ornamentation to the music, whereas the Classical period was very much interested in defined, distinct forms of music. One of the early Classical composers, Gluck, sought to bring order to opera, turning it from a showpiece for Castrati that would sing as they pleased, conductor be damned, into a very disciplined piece where the conductor, and not the soloist singer, called the shots.

Look at other aspects of these eras. The baroque era saw construction of religious structures that were very ornate. Compare that to the Classical era, where you saw a resurgence in construction of buildings with obvious Roman and Greek influence. This is actually partly where the era derives its name - a renewed interest in Roman and Greek (i.e. Classical) culture. The classical era and its return to order, structure, and logic, was a reaction to the previous baroque and rococo eras that put more emphasis in emotion and ornamentation. The romantic era, then, was also a reaction to the rigid structure of the classical era, reintroducing emotions and ornamentation and incorporating them into all aspects of culture. Not only can you see the differences clearly in the music and architecture of the eras, but also in the art. Yes, people will quibble about the exact dates that mark the divisions, and probably any single year is absurd to choose, but overall the paradigm holds true.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2010)

Johnny said:


> The names people give to particular periods of course doesn't make any difference to what music I'm going to listen to, or how much I'll like it.
> Like I said, you see these terms all over the place, so I thought I'd just ask to see if I'm missing anything. I've seen nothing to convince me that they are anything but arbitrary.
> And in case anyone asks me why I bothered asking at all, if it doesn't affect what music I'm going to listen to, or how much I will enjoy listening to the music, it was just plain old curiosity. Just like if I see people constantly using the terms "counterpoint" or "sonata", etc, I might wonder what they mean. *Of course knowing why something is called a sonata doesn't make the piece sound any different*.
> I didn't think such a question would need much thought or effort from someone who is more familiar with Classical Music than me.


Actually, the listening experience is quite different when you have a greater understanding of the piece. I am no musicologist. Much of what I know is from reading up on music and musical terms, as well as the lives of various conductors. I have no formal training other than a few years playing saxophone in junior high and high school.

But you gain a greater appreciation for what the composer did in a work, and I will listen to pieces that didn't at first listen do anything for me, to hear something that I read was contained in it. That is how I gained a better understanding of what counterpoint was, and just what kind of skill it took to produce a beautiful piece of music with counterpoint. For example, listen to Bach's Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin, where he has written music in counterpoint where only a single instrument - the violin - actually plays multiple voices in the same piece. It is extraordinary. Much of counterpoint is performed either by ensembles, where the different voices are conveyed by different instruments, or even on keyboard instruments, such as the piano, harpsichord, or organ, where it is more manageable, although still requiring great skill, to play the different voices with one instrument. Not understanding this the first time I listened to the Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin, I was not as impressed with the music. But now I view them not only as beautiful music, but wonderful musical creations of a genius.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

I could reverse that on you and say, "Maybe you went in assuming there were good reasons for the present periods, and therefore were somewhat biased and saw what you wanted to see." I think my idea of assuming there is no good reason, until I see there is one, is better. But you seem to disagree.

Just because you can find particular characteristics within the present periods, doesn't necessarily mean that if you split them up like I suggested that you wouldn't be able to find a new set of characteristics.

Maybe I'll change my mind on this in the future, but as I said, so far they seem arbitrary to me. But it's not a major issue.

Thanks to anyone who tried to answer my question.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

Do you think knowing why something is called a sonata would make a difference to your enjoyment of it? Surely it sounds the same? I realise, once you know what a sonata is you may look for the defining characteristics within it, or something. Maybe you get added enjoyment from that. I don't see why you would though.


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

Johnny said:


> The names people give to particular periods of course doesn't make any difference to what music I'm going to listen to, or how much I'll like it.
> Like I said, you see these terms all over the place, so I thought I'd just ask to see if I'm missing anything. I've seen nothing to convince me that they are anything but arbitrary.
> And in case anyone asks me why I bothered asking at all, if it doesn't affect what music I'm going to listen to, or how much I will enjoy listening to the music, it was just plain old curiosity. Just like if I see people constantly using the terms "counterpoint" or "sonata", etc, I might wonder what they mean. Of course knowing why something is called a sonata doesn't make the piece sound any different.
> I didn't think such a question would need much thought or effort from someone who is more familiar with Classical Music than me.


What?

We explained why they are not just arbitrary. There are clear cut, obvious differences between the composers of different periods, which is the reason why your suggestion of changing the dates does not make sense. What you need to do now though is *listen* to it...because once you understand what the baroque and the classical period sound like, you'll realize why it doesn't make sense to merge Bach + Haydn in the same period, as your suggestion.

I still don't think you understand that music follows what was happening culturally. As there were cultural shifts in thinking and new ideas were presented, it was reflected back in the music. After all, composers lived through these times, don't you think they were affected by it? ...have you been introduced to Shostakovich yet?

And in case you were wondering, yes having a knowledge of what sonata form is does make a piece sound different, because you'll understand what is happening structurally, and will be better able to follow it. It doesn't change the notes of course, but active listening goes a long way within this genre, and it's too easy to get lost with out an understanding of what the structure should be.

You should know by now that if you have any questions, ask us! We love this music, and talking about it, that's why we're here.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Johnny said:


> The names people give to particular periods of course doesn't make any difference to what music I'm going to listen to, or how much I'll like it.
> Like I said, you see these terms all over the place, so I thought I'd just ask to see if I'm missing anything. I've seen nothing to convince me that they are anything but arbitrary.
> And in case anyone asks me why I bothered asking at all, if it doesn't affect what music I'm going to listen to, or how much I will enjoy listening to the music, it was just plain old curiosity. *Just like if I see people constantly using the terms "counterpoint" or "sonata", etc, I might wonder what they mean. Of course knowing why something is called a sonata doesn't make the piece sound any different. *
> I didn't think such a question would need much thought or effort from someone who is more familiar with Classical Music than me.


Of course it doesn't but it does help divide musical history into periods. Form, tonality, harmony, instruments, voice leading etc all characterise certain eras. When a piece is referred to as a tone poem, you can guess it doesn't belong to the baroque period, just like if you know a piece strays into distant regions of harmony from the tonal centre it probably doesn't belong to the classical period. Not all these advances progressed perfectly together with forms outliving harmonic structures and such things but certain elements are quintessentially of their time.

If you picked arbitary dates you would get widely varied styles of music. If you take your parameters for the Romantic period 1815-1910 and start at the mid-point, say 1870, and end 95 years later in 1965 you will get such a variety of music that will bear no resemblance to each other. Brahms 1st symphony lumped together with your favourite, 4'33'' would make no sense. Debussy alongside Stockhausen alongside Tchaikovsky. That would be arbitrary. What can you possibly find to connect these composers?

There may be exceptions and the 20th is a bit harder to categorise but overall the periods are divided a lot more methodically than you may think.


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

Johnny, I hate to pull this, but I think the problem is you don't understand what the period defining terms mean. The shift alone from polyphony to homophony is pretty significant, that what you're saying just makes no sense. It's like cutting the Mona Lisa right down the center and splicing it together with a Picasso painting, and then saying "yeah, they may be a bit different, but I'm sure we can find enough similarities to consider it a single unit."

Meanwhile, we're looking at your creation thinking "wouldn't it be more logical to put the two halves of Mona Lisa together?"


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2010)

Johnny said:


> I could reverse that on you and say, "Maybe you went in assuming there were good reasons for the present periods, and therefore were somewhat biased and saw what you wanted to see." I think my idea of assuming there is no good reason, until I see there is one, is better. But you seem to disagree.
> 
> Just because you can find particular characteristics within the present periods, doesn't necessarily mean that if you split them up like I suggested that you wouldn't be able to find a new set of characteristics.
> 
> ...


You could reverse that on me, but it would make no sense. By your own comments about being new to classical music, and not knowing much about it, you would have no basis whatsoever to divide the music up into different periods, so your system would be even more arbitrary than you are currently accusing the accepted system of being. The current divisions are widely accepted by people who have listened to the music, studied the architecture, the history, and the art of these various periods.

There is significant evidence and academic study behind the accepted divisions - there is nothing arbitrary about them. There is a logical and justifiable reason for the divisions, and it goes far beyond merely discussing musical styles and practices. Your naive dismissal of them as "arbitrary" seems comical, since you yourself admit you have little knowledge of the subject matter. That makes about as much sense as having lived on the equator your entire life, then moving away from it, and dismissing the 4 seasons as an "arbitrary" division of the year. Or lacking an understanding of the earth's orbit around the sun and declaring the assignment of 365 days to a year as "arbitrary."

Several people have here given you ample explanation as to why and how these divisions have come to be. Rejecting those now seems rather obtuse on your part, given that you have no reason for rejecting these divisions.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2010)

It also is quite contradictory for you to argue against 4'33" as being music based on "arbitrary" definitions of what music is, and then in this thread argue against "arbitrary" divisions of musical periods.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

DrMike said:


> Several people have here given you ample explanation as to why and how these divisions have come to be. Rejecting those now seems rather obtuse on your part, given that you have no reason for rejecting these divisions.


I am truly amazed that anyone can be bothered to continue answering questions on this simple subject in the face of repeated responses from "Johnny" saying he doesn't get it. Can't you people see that you are being taken for ride? You must have nothing else better to do with your time.

The obvious thing for "Johnny" to do is to go back to Wikipedia where he presumably started and to finish off reading the article on "classical music". All the answers to his questions about categorisation of periods are very clearly explained there, and far better so than here.

The next think Johnny should do is actually to go off and listen to some baroque, classical and romantic music and then come back and say he can't hear any difference between any of them if that is still the case.

Honestly, the subject matter you are discussing is so basic and non-controversial that you are merely demeaning yourselves by making such simple and obvious points in the face of such ignorant responses. You are wasting your time, and it's so obvious.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

DrMike said:


> It also is quite contradictory for you to argue against 4'33" as being music based on "arbitrary" definitions of what music is, and then in this thread argue against "arbitrary" divisions of musical periods.


I'm not sure what you mean. I'm having difficulty even thinking of something you could have meant there that makes sense.

I said you can call 433 music if you want, it doesn't change anything about it. It's still a blank score. I didn't use the fact that whether you call it music or not doesn't matter, as a point against it. If that's what you got, then you need to try and read what I said again.

And here I didn't argue against arbitrary divisions. I don't care if people categorise things. I was just asking, "is the present one not arbitrary?"

I don't know where you see any contradiction.

I don't really care though, because I don't really care that much about this. And I have even less interest in discussing anything further with you.


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

Opal said:


> You must have nothing else better to do with your time.


Ha, bingo. It's Friday, I'm completely off this coming week for spring break and I'm sitting here listening to the Brandenburg Concertos (Pinnock). I had a long week of class/clinicals and it's now over..temporarily. Later I'll buy some beer and start the Barenboim Tristan und Isolde recording, then tomorrow I'm taking my wife to an outdoor art exhibit and then to see Alice in Wonderland.

As I said before, I love talking about music, just as everyone else who replied. If someone wants to "take me for a ride" where I'm allowed to talk about something I enjoy, and at no harm to myself or others, then by all means!!!!


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Opal said:


> I am truly amazed that anyone can be bothered to continue answering questions on this simple subject in the face of repeated responses from "Johnny" saying he doesn't get it. Can't you people see that you are being taken for ride? You must have nothing else better to do with your time.
> 
> The obvious thing for "Johnny" to do is to go back to Wikipedia where he presumably started and to finish off reading the article on "classical music". All the answers to his questions about categorisation of periods are very clearly explained there, and far better so than here.
> 
> ...


You've wasted your time by telling us we are wasting our time and by me telling you you have wasted your time by telling us we have wasted our time, I have in turn wasted more of my own time. Kapeesh.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

David58117 said:


> Ha, bingo. It's Friday, I'm completely off this coming week for spring break and I'm sitting here listening to the Brandenburg Concertos (Pinnock). I had a long week of class/clinicals and it's now over..temporarily. Later I'll buy some beer and start the Barenboim Tristan und Isolde recording, then tomorrow I'm taking my wife to an outdoor art exhibit and then to see Alice in Wonderland.
> 
> As I said before, I love talking about music, just as everyone else who replied. If someone wants to "take me for a ride" where I'm allowed to talk about something I enjoy, and at no harm to myself or others, then by all means!!!!


Which "Pinnock" are you listening to? The old or the new?

I admire your devotion to duty. Personally, I can't be bothered to waste time on subjects that are far better explained elsewhere, especially when the "audience" (if that's what you want to call it) is clearly not interested in anything you have to say. This was apparent to me soon after the start of this thread. The man clearly hasn't a clue about classical music. There's no harm in that as we all have to start somewhere, but our "Johnny" is trying to turn it into a virtue by arguing that all the well-established historical "clusters" are phoney, and that an appreciation of the different musical styles/structures doesn't aid appreciation. This is ridiculous.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2010)

David58117 said:


> Ha, bingo. It's Friday, I'm completely off this coming week for spring break and I'm sitting here listening to the Brandenburg Concertos (Pinnock). I had a long week of class/clinicals and it's now over..temporarily. Later I'll buy some beer and start the Barenboim Tristan und Isolde recording, then tomorrow I'm taking my wife to an outdoor art exhibit and then to see Alice in Wonderland.
> 
> As I said before, I love talking about music, just as everyone else who replied. If someone wants to "take me for a ride" where I'm allowed to talk about something I enjoy, and at no harm to myself or others, then by all means!!!!


I have what I presume is the older recording by Pinnock on Archiv - my 2nd recording of the Brandenburgs that I purchased. I enjoy them from time to time. As of late, though, I have found a few that I greatly prefer. Have you, by chance, listened to the Alessandrini/Concerto Italiano recording on Naive? Very beautiful. I keep meaning to pick up Masaaki Suzuki's recording on BIS - I have his recording of the Orchestral Suites, and they are incredible.


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

I have the old set as well with the English Concert. I have not heard his new recording, or the alessandrini or suzuki set either. The only other copy I have is the one included in the Bach Edition set from Brilliant Classics (Belder), but as expected, it's not the best.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2010)

Johnny said:


> *I'm not sure what you mean. I'm having difficulty even thinking of something you could have meant there that makes sense.*


I guess that, then, pretty much sums up my thoughts on your comments.



> And here I didn't argue against arbitrary divisions. I don't care if people categorise things. I was just asking, "is the present one not arbitrary?"


And when it has been explained to you that it is not arbitrary, you have, for whatever reason, still refused to accept that it is not arbitrary, throwing out fairly ridiculous hypothetical ideas for dividing musical eras, despite the fact that you still are fairly uninformed on even what the different styles of musical composition are.



> I don't really care though, because I don't really care that much about this. And I have even less interest in discussing anything further with you.


Suit yourself. Report back when you have reconciled Haydn and Wagner into one musical period.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2010)

David58117 said:


> I have the old set as well with the English Concert. I have not heard his new recording, or the alessandrini or suzuki set either. The only other copy I have is the one included in the Bach Edition set from Brilliant Classics (Belder), but as expected, it's not the best.


I highly recommend the recording by Alessandrini. It is currently my favorite. Wonderful sound, great interpretation. Harnoncourt's recording with Concentus Musicus Wien on Teldec is also a good recording.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

SPR said:


> I dont really agree with Starry saying that those that dont fit 'the story' are seen as 'irrelevant'. In fact... genius is defined and represented throughout history as those that 'dont fit'.


Surely all composers are of their time, it's only by reading history backwards that people say they are forecasting the future. Of course composers of the future will have been influenced by those of the past, that's inevitable. And as far as history being an inevitable evolution of music to where we are now maybe that could be questioned. Where are we now anyway? With a mix of all different styles. Maybe the development of music has been more about an accumulation of possible styles, with some enjoying more development over time but none exactly going away.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

jurianbai said:


> I hope my reply didn't go out of topic, for Classical to Romantic we can easily address Beethoven, but how about Baroque to Classical era, who is the notable composer that can said represent both style ? I found it's harder to separate Baroq to Classical.


How about W.F. Bach? C.P.E. Bach? Haydn was composing during the baroque and classical eras, and indeed nearly made it to the romantic.

also, Rameau, Boyce, and possibly even Handel

Of course, Mozart wrote 'old fashioned' music at times, his great masses do hark back to the style of Bach, and his later music abounds with contrapuntal passages, quite natural and 'learned' counterpoint indeed...


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2010)

As I understand it (and certainly I am open to hear if I am completely off base), but Gluck was also an influential composer in transitioning from Baroque to Classical styles, particularly in the area of opera, shifting from the opera as a showcase for vocal soloists who frequently would completely disregard the conductor entirely to display their talents, and turning it into an organized musical story that was controlled by the conductor. That may be an extremely simplistic explanation, but I am trying to summarize from what I read a while back.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2010)

Just the overture to Gluck's _Orfeo ed Euridice_ is a great example of the difference between baroque and classical all by itself!


----------

