# Art in Classical Didn't Start till Romanticism



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

That's when composers really started expressing depth in their music rather than being commissioned to create music for an event.

That's my opinion, what do you think?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Fantasie "Bachs Empfindungen"





2:48~4:00









"composed on the occasion of the death of his employer, Prince Bishop Sigismund Count Schrattenbach, who was beloved among the people and was a great patron of the arts, the work was written under the impression of personal tragedy: Haydn's only child, Aloisia Josepha, died in January 1771, before completing her first year of life."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

And Chopin's Nocturnes are some of the best pieces written for solo piano. 

Beethoven's Symphonies are some of the best symphonic works.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Couchie said:


>


Not bad, but it doesn't pull me in.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Fantasie "Bachs Empfindungen"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I found both of these rather boring, if I'm being honest.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Art in Classical Didn't Start till Romanticism*



Captainnumber36 said:


> That's when composers really started expressing depth in their music rather than being commissioned to create music for an event.
> 
> That's my opinion, what do you think?


Sure.

Commissioning? Pooh! How can one commission a masterpiece? Imagine what Britten's _War Requiem_, or Berlioz's _Harold in Italy_, or Rimsky-Korsakov's _Scheherazade_, or Tchaikovsky's Fourth Symphony, or Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ would sound like had _they_ been commissioned. It's far better for composers to stay up late at night after working two shifts at the local McDonald's so they can compose "real" music that is deep and profound, rather than have the time to struggle at shallow music allotted through grants from symphony orchestras, music societies, wealthy patrons and impresarios.

Especially those "old" composers who pre-date Bach, who we know left us nothing of profound depths in his _Musical Offering_, Mass in B minor, or _St. Matthew Passion_.

Like this fellow, Allegri.






Does music get any shallower or "artless" than that?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> boring


Think of it this way -




 2:48~4:00 - the harsh dissonances imply "pain" (the emotional center of the movement; climaxes at 3:25).




 4:48~5:24 - the dissonances (in this false recapitulation) are milder than those of the central section, but more introspective/contemplative in expression, as if to portray a person reflecting on his past.




 the idyllic theme from the exposition returns, but it is initially 'held back' to establish tension in preparation for the conclusion (6:26), which extends in phrase (6:50) to expressively bring everything to a resolution.
Do you think this is simply music written to fulfill a commission? Listen to the final chords of the movement and think about all the modulations that came before it and the expressive mental images conjured up, especially the "expression of pain" at 2:48~4:00.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> *Art in Classical Didn't Start till Romanticism*
> 
> Sure.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but I agree. That example you posted shows great restriction of true inner intuition and fails to convey great depths of the human experience imo.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Think of it this way -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In a nutshell, I find the emotion in Baroque and Classical too restricted, and filled with artists that did little introspection.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> *I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not*, but I agree. That example you posted shows great restriction of true inner intuition and fails to convey great depths of the human experience imo.


I suspect you are alone on this Forum in not "knowing" if I am being sarcastic or not. Which is likely the reason you agree with what I wrote.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> I suspect you are alone on this Forum in not "knowing" if I am being sarcastic or not. Which is likely the reason you agree with what I wrote.


I thought as much. I don't think Baroque and Classical era music is art. It's shallow, and is not a creation of the inner intuitive being, but rather, is of the logical mind.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> In a nutshell, I find the emotion in Baroque and Classical too restricted, and filled with artists that did little introspection.


So in your world, art=emotion. Yes?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Forster said:


> So in your world, art=emotion. Yes?


Deep emotion, yes.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> *Art in Classical Didn't Start till Romanticism*
> 
> Sure.
> 
> ...


Thanks for some good recommendations though!


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Deep emotion, yes.


Well, you're welcome to your personal definition, and I'd agree that "emotion" is a significant component in art. However, I'd also agree with this in Wiki



> *Art* is a diverse range of human activity, and resulting product, that involves creative or imaginative talent expressive of technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] There is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art,[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] and ideas have changed over time.


"Art" began when man first attempted to express a thought or feeling in media other than speech (as in "Ugg!" where "Ugg!" means "Why do I exist?") or survival actions (such as cooking sabre-toothed tiger or hanging a stone door on the front of a cave.)

Musical instruments date from 45,000 years ago, cave paintings similarly. I think you'll find that Romanticism might have to work hard to compete with that degree of longevity!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Forster said:


> Well, you're welcome to your personal definition, and I'd agree that "emotion" is a significant component in art. However, I'd also agree with this in Wiki
> 
> "Art" began when man first attempted to express a thought or feeling in media other than speech (as in "Ugg!" where "Ugg!" means "Why do I exist?") or survival actions (such as cooking sabre-toothed tiger or hanging a stone door on the front of a cave.)
> 
> Musical instruments date from 45,000 years ago, cave paintings similarly. I think you'll find that Romanticism might have to work hard to compete with that degree of longevity!


I fully agree it's my own take, and not fact. But, we have yet to see the longevity of Romanticism!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's when composers really started expressing depth in their music rather than being commissioned to create music for an event.
> 
> That's my opinion, what do you think?


But haven't you waxed lyrical about Mozart only recently?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

janxharris said:


> But haven't you waxed lyrical about Mozart only recently?


I started off being a Romantic, went off into Mozart's world for about a year and a half, and now I'm back to Romanticism.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

In the end, I find Mozart to be pop classical.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's when composers really started expressing depth in their music rather than being commissioned to create music for an event.
> 
> That's my opinion, what do you think?


You are of course completely wrong in that you mistake what genius is. You mean that Michelangelo was not art as he was commissioned to do his work?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

marlow said:


> You are of course completely wrong in that you mistake what genius is. You mean that Michelangelo was not art as he was commissioned to do his work?


It's not so much the commissioned part, it's more what's produced. I don't think Michelangelo expressed great emotion in his work. It's like photography.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Baroque is too cerebral and Classical is too refined.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's not so much the commissioned part, it's more what's produced. I don't think Michelangelo expressed great emotion in his work. It's like photography.


Pardon? So what photography was like it when he painted it? Your problem is you have a thesis and you are determined to fit everything into it whether it makes sense or not and it doesn't make sense. Monteverdi Vespers were actually not written for a commission but as an offering and dedication. If you can't see the art and emotion in something like Bach's Matthew Passion then maybe that is your problem.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

marlow said:


> Pardon? So what photography was like it when he painted it? Your problem is you have a thesis and you are determined to fit everything into it whether it makes sense or not and it doesn't make sense. Monteverdi Vespers were actually not written for a commission but as an offering and dedication. If you can't see the art and emotion in something like Bach's Matthew Passion then maybe that is your problem.


Or perhaps it's a preference, and not a problem at all.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I find Matthew's Passion boring and repetitive.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Depth - Makes me feel profoundly.
Technique - Just has to be done in a way that pleases me.
Favor - Do I enjoy it.

That's my criteria for assessing art.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I find Matthew's Passion boring and repetitive.


That my friend is your problem not Bach's


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Depth - Makes me feel profoundly.
> Technique - Just has to be done in a way that pleases me.
> Favor - Do I enjoy it.
> 
> That's my criteria for assessing art.


You actually need to say that you don't personally start to enjoy music until the romantic period not that art didn't start until the romantics. Not with everything before that period isn't art.


----------



## Trollcannon (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Depth - Makes me feel profoundly.
> Technique - Just has to be done in a way that pleases me.
> Favor - Do I enjoy it.
> 
> That's my criteria for assessing art.


This seems more of a scaffold for differentiating what, in your opinion, is _good art_ and _bad art_ not whether the piece is _art_ in and of itself.

To disregard the achievements of the classical and baroque periods as _bad art_ is a lot more defendable (however preposterous a proposition it may be!), than to say it is not _art_ at all.


----------



## Trollcannon (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Deep emotion, yes.


Here, you are totally redefining what the common conception of art actually is. You are claiming that for something to classify as art, in your view, it has to emotionally move you. If we are going to redefine words in such a careless and radical way, we are better off not using them at all!

I think you are much better off rephrasing the title of the thread as "Deep emotion in Classical Music did not start till Romanticism".


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Cap'n I know you compose so you'll understand the concept that irrespective of the language used, composers still 'felt' the notes they wrote down because composing is as much an emotional discipline as it is a technical one. As I see it, Bach in particular is the apotheosis of genius and brilliance in technique that he manipulated to generate powerful emotion in his work.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Trollcannon said:


> I think you are much better off rephrasing the title of the thread as "Deep emotion in Classical Music did not start till Romanticism".


Yes, I think that is what i was getting at with this thread. And, I still prefer Mozart for the record!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

marlow said:


> You actually need to say that you don't personally start to enjoy music until the romantic period not that art didn't start until the romantics. Not with everything before that period isn't art.


Agreed, that's what I really meant. I was just making a bit of click bait to get attention.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

mikeh375 said:


> Cap'n I know you compose so you'll understand the concept that irrespective of the language used, composers still 'felt' the notes they wrote down because composing is as much an emotional discipline as it is a technical one. As I see it, Bach in particular is the apotheosis of genius and brilliance in technique that he manipulated to generate powerful emotion in his work.


And to each their own, indeed!


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Although I would typically side here with the member who isn't justifying his instinct on art by purely unyielding, logical argumentation in order to poorly and ironically substantiate the value of his own ego and nature, I also have to note that the OP isn't eluding to emotion and technicals as instinctually separate. What the field of art he's trying to refer to isn't anti-technical as in language, but anti-establishment as in social expectation.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> Although I would typically side here with the member who isn't ironically justifying his instinct on art by purely unyielding, logical argumentation in order to substantiate the value of his own ego and nature, I also have to note that the OP isn't saying emotion and technicals don't instinctually go hand-in-hand. What the field of art he's trying to refer to isn't anti-technical as in language, but anti-establishment as in social expectation.


Excellent insight!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> Although I would typically side here with the member who isn't justifying his instinct on art by purely unyielding, logical argumentation in order to poorly and ironically substantiate the value of his own ego and nature, I also have to note that the OP isn't eluding to emotion and technicals as instinctually separate. What the field of art he's trying to refer to isn't anti-technical as in language, but anti-establishment as in social expectation.


Noone more antiestablishment than Haydn, no one less antiestablishment than Brahms.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

It would be useful to learn about the deep, emotional natures in the music of the founders themselves: Bach, who balanced law with passion, in contrast to the cerebral creative-types like Mozart who balanced expectation with creativity.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Depth - Makes me feel profoundly.
> Technique - Just has to be done in a way that pleases me.
> Favor - Do I enjoy it.
> 
> That's my criteria for assessing art.


You certainly are a romantic.

I'm not. I don't value any of those things very much. I most care about what kinds of scrutiny a work can bear.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

science said:


> You certainly are a romantic.
> 
> I'm not. I don't value any of those things very much. I most care about what kinds of scrutiny a work can bear.


That seems rather odd! :lol:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Trollcannon said:


> This seems more of a scaffold for differentiating what, in your opinion, is _good art_ and _bad art_ not whether the piece is _art_ in and of itself.
> 
> To disregard the achievements of the classical and baroque periods as _bad art_ is a lot more defendable (however preposterous a proposition it may be!), than to say it is not _art_ at all.


I think a piece can be objectively measured as being profoundly moving or not, and if it is, it is art. But not everyone will enjoy the same profoundly moving works.

For example, I do think Bach is profoundly moving, but I find him rather boring and too restricted.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> It would be useful to learn about the deep, emotional natures in the music of the founders themselves: Bach, who balanced law with passion, in contrast to the cerebral creative-types like Mozart who balanced expectation with creativity.


https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7962448--the-medieval-romantics


----------



## Trollcannon (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think a piece can be objectively measured as being profoundly moving or not, and if it is, it is art. But not everyone will enjoy the same profoundly moving works.
> 
> For example, I do think Bach is profoundly moving, but I find him rather boring and too restricted.


By what method do you suppose a piece can be 'objectively measured' as being 'profoundly moving'? How do you reconcile that to be 'profoundly moved' is inherently a subjective experience?

I suspect that you may be dabbling in alternate definitions once again or are being plain irrational.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think a piece can be objectively measured as being profoundly moving or not, and if it is, it is art. But not everyone will enjoy the same profoundly moving works.
> 
> For example, I do think Bach is profoundly moving, but I find him rather boring and too restricted.


I would say the statement that a piece can be objectively measured as being profoundly moving is a contradiction in terms


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Trollcannon said:


> By what method do you suppose a piece can be 'objectively measured' as being 'profoundly moving'? How do you reconcile that to be 'profoundly moved' is inherently a subjective experience?
> 
> I suspect that you may be dabbling in alternate definitions once again or are being plain irrational.


It's just something that can be felt. I am not a fan of Neil Young's voice, but I can feel the genuine power of his music.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Another example, I don't think Star Wars is a profoundly moving film. I do not consider it art, but entertainment.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

This method works for me, at least. I think I'm on to something!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> For example, I do think Bach is profoundly moving, but I find him rather boring and too restricted.


What do you think about this


----------



## Trollcannon (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's just something that can be felt. I am not a fan of Neil Young's voice, but I can feel the genuine power of his music.


So the 'objective measurement' is 'just something that can be felt'. Seems rather subjective to me!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think empathy plays a big role in this. You can place yourself in the viewer's perspective of someone who adores a work you do not and see what they see in it, and further, feel what they feel in it. 

Adding the qualifier of profound isn't as hard as it seems imo.


----------



## Trollcannon (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> This method works for me, at least. I think I'm on to something!


Again you are conflating the subjective with the objective. Methods that you feel personally content with are not to be confused with objective methods (if such exist) that can be applied irrespective of individual musical taste.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think about this


Edit: Let me give it another chance...

I gave it a second chance and this time I'm finding myself actually preferring it to the Romantics who seem overly complex in their ideas and less fluid overall.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Trollcannon said:


> Again you are conflating the subjective with the objective. Methods that you feel personally content with are not to be confused with objective methods (if such exist) that can be applied irrespective of individual musical taste.


We'll just have to agree to disagree. Otherwise we'll just go in circles!


----------



## Trollcannon (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree. Otherwise we'll just go in circles!


Yes, I agree. I fear that we are speaking over one another rather than to one another.

I have nothing against how you personally experience or feel about music, in fact, I admire your openness with regard to your own musical taste. I just wanted to interrogate some of the claims you made.


----------



## Tarneem (Jan 3, 2022)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Agreed, that's what I really meant. I was just making a bit of click bait to get attention.


well. This is a very cheap method for getting attention


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Tarneem said:


> well. This is a very cheap method for getting attention


It is, admittedly.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm editing my criteria for assessing art:

Depth: Is it moving in a divine way?
Technique: Do I appreciate the technique used to convey the concepts heard?
Favor: Do I love it?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

So you think there's no such thing as "Classical art". 
Btw, your new avatar looks great


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> So you think there's no such thing as "Classical art".
> Btw, your new avatar looks great


Thanks! I do, but I think it's Bach and Mozart now. Those two pop up right away as having several works I love and fit my criteria.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bach:

Goldberg Variations
Mass in B Minor
St. Matthew's Passion
Cello Suites
Violin Concertos
Keyboard Concertos

Mozart:


Symphonies
Piano Sonatas
Piano Concertos
String Quartets


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I find Matthew's Passion boring and repetitive.





Captainnumber36 said:


> Thanks! I do, but I think it's Bach and Mozart now. Those two pop up right away as having several works I love and fit my criteria.





Captainnumber36 said:


> Bach:
> 
> Goldberg Variations
> Mass in B Minor
> ...


You have a reputation for changing your mind frequently, but this must be a world record.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> You have a reputation for changing your mind frequently, but this must be a world record.


Quite true. And I hate that this is characteristic of my personality. I'm just on a never ending quest for truth and beauty!

I know you love Bach, how do you feel about Art of the Fugue?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's when composers really started expressing depth in their music rather than being commissioned to create music for an event.


Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Also, other than the Kyrie and Gloria, Bach's B minor Mass wasn't commissioned for any specific occasion. Very few works from any era have its "depth". What that statement really means is "I prefer music from the Romantic era and later".


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

dissident said:


> Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.


Agreed!

(longer post)


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Quite true. And I hate that this is characteristic of my personality. I'm just on a never ending quest for truth and beauty!


That's the funniest thing I've read all week


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Becca said:


> That's the funniest thing I've read all week


I don't see why, it's the truth.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I know you love Bach, how do you feel about Art of the Fugue?


How is this lacking in "depth"?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

dissident said:


> How is this lacking in "depth"?


That's great, I've already conceded.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Quite true. And I hate that this is characteristic of my personality. I'm just on a never ending quest for truth and beauty!
> 
> I know you love Bach, how do you feel about Art of the Fugue?


I always find talk about 'truth' in music to be pretentious. Beauty is something that is subjective to the hearer but how on earth can a piece of music be 'true'?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

marlow said:


> I always find talk about 'truth' in music to be pretentious. Beauty is something that is subjective to the hearer but how on earth can a piece of music be 'true'?


I attempt to separate what is true about music from what is personal.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

marlow said:


> I always find talk about 'truth' in music to be pretentious. Beauty is something that is subjective to the hearer but how on earth can a piece of music be 'true'?


Well speaking of Romantics, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,-that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I attempt to separate what is true about music from what is personal.


Wouldn't it just be better to say 'what I like'?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

marlow said:


> Wouldn't it just be better to say 'what I like'?


Well, I'm interested in examining the philosophy behind music too.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> How is this lacking in "depth"?


How is it an example of "depth"? What is "depth"?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

dissident said:


> How is this lacking in "depth"?


Where you have all those simultaneous melody lines you have a problem, which is that the ear tends to be attracted to one over the other, very often but not always the upper. Munchinger is shallow because there are too many passages where he allows this to happen, reducing the music to main melody and secondary music. A deeper performance would not allow this, the depth would come from inside, deep down in the music, rather than from the surface of the music.

Daniel Stepner's recording with The Musicians of Aston Magna is a good example of depth, but I can't see it on youtube.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Quite true. And I hate that this is characteristic of my personality. I'm just on a never ending quest for truth and beauty!
> . . . .





Becca said:


> That's the funniest thing I've read all week





Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't see why, it's the truth.


And as the great (Romantic) poet said, " 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> Where you have all those simultaneous melody lines you have a problem, which is that the ear tends to be attracted to one over the other, very often but not always the upper. Munchinger is shallow because there are too many passages where he allows this to happen...


I don't sense this in Münchinger any more than I do in a performance by a string quartet (which this essentially is, in an augmented way). I DO sense that in performances on a piano given the characteristics of the piano.


Forster said:


> How is it an example of "depth"? What is "depth"?


Ask the OP.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

dissident said:


> I don't sense this in Münchinger any more than I do in a performance by a string quartet (which this essentially is, in an augmented way). I DO sense that in performances on a piano given the characteristics of the piano.
> Ask the OP.


I've been really enjoying Filippo Gorini's AoF on modern piano - not sure why, but I have!


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> I don't sense this in Münchinger any more than I do in a performance by a string quartet (which this essentially is, in an augmented way). I DO sense that in performances on a piano given the characteristics of the piano.
> Ask the OP.


Why ask the OP? I was responding to your post where, it seems reasonable to infer, you posted an example of music _not_ "lacking in depth".


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Forster said:


> Why ask the OP? I was responding to your post where, it seems reasonable to infer, you posted an example of music _not_ "lacking in depth".


Why ask me? It's not my thread. Are you saying that no music has any "depth" at all? It's all pretty much at the same level and any "depth" is imaginary?


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's not so much the commissioned part, it's more what's produced. I don't think Michelangelo expressed great emotion in his work. It's like photography.


Holy cow, Captain! I've hardly been around this site over the last year or more (simply because I've been much more invested in other Arts such as cinema and painting), but I happened to check in and just about fell out of my chair upon seeing this.

Your earnestness and constant striving to improve is hard not to like, but this comment is just ... astounding ...if you don't mind me saying so 

Have you considered that many of Bach's supreme works might be illustrative or reflective of his own intense devotion and internal monologues or dialogues with God (and/or an intensity of belief in these taking place)? That Mozart's might be illustrative of his own life, concerns or those of his time, conflated to a vibrant, luxuriant, operatic sense of drama, comedy, etc? That Michelangelo might be trying to reach God through the divine expression of the human form in all its subtlety of composition, thought, expression and emotional longing?

(there are many more potential readings and nuances than these, of course. I'm just stating some aspects of "art" that tends to be rather prevalent in several of their key works, and may be worth re-considering if you choose to revisit them)

Fyi, Michelangelo could hardly have been more expressively unique and personal (especially revolutionary for his time, 1475-1564), is the archetype of the "tortured, introspective artist" (pre-dating Beethoven by roughly 300 years) and (with, primarily, Leonardo Da Vinci) all but invented the ideas developing from "Academic Art" -- that painting and sculpture merited the same status as architecture, and that painters and sculptors were real artists, rather than mere decorators or stone masons. He is perhaps the most influential figure in art history (all mediums, genres) on the very idea you are claiming he is not. So, may be worth a look into his works at some point. One of the greatest painters, sculptors and architects in history, plus a world class poet. If you evaluate them closely enough, you will find that he fuses these arts in compositional unison into his greatest works (all of them at once into his supreme masterpiece, the Sistine Chapel: Ceiling and Last Judgment).

Anyway, carry on... !!!


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Where you have all those simultaneous melody lines you have a problem, which is that the ear tends to be attracted to one over the other, very often but not always the upper. Munchinger is shallow because there are too many passages where he allows this to happen, reducing the music to main melody and secondary music. A deeper performance would not allow this, the depth would come from inside, deep down in the music, rather than from the surface of the music.


I see what you mean, but I don't think Münchingers AoF is a good example of this.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> I've been really enjoying Filippo Gorini's AoF on modern piano - not sure why, but I have!


Yes, Gorini lets the different voices speak as they should, but I'm afraid, that he falls short in almost every other respect.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Holy cow, Captain! I've hardly been around this site over the last year or more (simply because I've been much more invested in other Arts such as cinema and painting), but I happened to check in and just about fell out of my chair upon seeing this.
> 
> Your earnestness and constant striving to improve is hard not to like, but this comment is just ... astounding ...if you don't mind me saying so
> 
> ...


I acknowledge his immense talent and contributions to art, he's really just not my favorite. I am a van Gogh enthusiast.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

beautiful


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I acknowledge his immense talent and contributions to art, he's really just not my favorite. I am a van Gogh enthusiast.


Well we can agree on Van Gogh! He is among my favorite painters as well, and fits well into your "Romantic" era criteria -- both his Post-Impressionist (virtually Expressionist) art, his "tortured and introspective" preoccupations/confrontations through said art, and of course he is part of that time period.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That seems rather odd! :lol:


I don't know how odd it is. It's a minority POV but I'm far from alone. In fact, I think one of the reasons that romantics have such a hard time with modern, post-modern, and premodern art is that it is rarely all about emotions. Sometimes it's just about, for example, how well a guy can play a violin.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

science said:


> romantics have such a hard time with premodern art


You mean, like
Berlioz, on Palestrina: "It is quite possible that the musician who wrote these four-part psalms, in which there is neither melody nor rhythm, and in which the harmony is confined to perfect chords with a few suspensions, may have had some taste and a certain amount of scientific knowledge; but genius - the idea is too absurd! [...] The truth is that he could not write any other kind of music; and, far from pursuing any celestial ideal, his works contain a quantity of formulas adopted from the contrapuntists who preceded him, and of whom he is usually supposed to have been the inspired antagonist. If proof is wanted, look at his _Missa ad fugam_. How, then, do such works as these, clever though they may be as regards to their conquest of contrapuntal difficulties, contribute to the expression of religious feeling? How far are such specimens of the labor of a patient chord-manufacturer indicative of single-minded absorption in the true object of his work? In no way that I can see. The expressive accent of a musical work is not enhanced in any way by its being embodied in a perpetual canon."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

AfterHours said:


> Well we can agree on Van Gogh!


Btw, "*Mozart is the Van Gogh of CM*" -Captainnumber36


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, "*Mozart is the Van Gogh of CM*" -Captainnumber36


Haha, the irony 

Fwiw, I completely disagree with Captain here. Van Gogh's unusual and virtually expressionist colors, bordering on both hallucinatory and visionary, vigorously brought about by wild, spastic and torturous strokes/technique (that one might call a "torturous effort to express beauty, even a religious or "evangelical" conviction, _through_ pain") would perhaps be more comparable to some of Beethoven's late period work like his late String Quartets, Grosse Fuge, and perhaps the Piano Sonatas, where both of them seem to be confronting similar things (equal parts beauty, life, belief in God, as in death, tortured thoughts, regrets). As Van Gogh wasn't particularly ambitious (and never had the means to be even if he were), so therefore only compares in relation to smaller scaled works (and not symphonies, operas, concertos...), there is possibly a more apt parallel that could be drawn with another music artist, such as outside of Classical.

Perhaps a painter like Raphael would make a more accurate parallel with Mozart. Though with any of these major Classical figures (who, in addition to being very diverse and prolific, produced several hugely ambitious works that are rare for most painters) you would, realistically, have to (in most cases) combine multiple painters to be able to draw a really good parallel if one really wanted to take the time and try to work such a thing out.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, "*Mozart is the Van Gogh of CM*" -Captainnumber36


Ha!

…………..


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I still think he is the Gogh of CM.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I still think he is the Gogh of CM.


Ok, I concede again. Beethoven is more like Van Gogh.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Ok, I concede again. Beethoven is more like Van Gogh.


Edited and deleted.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Ok, I concede again. Beethoven is more like Van Gogh.


So which VAN do you like better?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> So which VAN do you like better?


You evil devil! .

EQUAL!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

what do you think of this guy?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

No, no, Gogh and Chopin are the ultimate combo.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I’m not sure who that is.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Is it Michelangelo?


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Is it Michelangelo?


It's a portrait of Monteverdi.


----------



## Chopin Fangirl (Apr 27, 2021)

.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> what do you think of this guy?


The Rolf Harris of Baroque music


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_That's when composers really started expressing depth in their music rather than being commissioned to create music for an event. That's my opinion, what do you think?_

I think you'd have a hard time explaining Bach's Goldberg variations using that logic ... not to mention Handel's Messiah or any other artistic masterpiece written prior to the Beethoven Eroica symphony in 1803.

People have argued and conversed and postulated for centuries over art: what is it? Is it any creation? Does it have lasting value? Does it transcend everything else? These are all good questions never adequately answered.

I read in a magazine recently many people confuse art and entertainment, as if to say the two are different. I have always had issues telling the two apart and recently had an experience that led me to think about it.

I recently saw a film nominated for a dozen Oscars called "Power Of the Dog." It was on the surface a western with a sexuality theme but, after watching the film and thinking about it, it was far more than that. In many ways nothing portrayed in the film was what we saw. It was a film loaded with metaphor and illusion. While not particularly entertaining to me it was clearly a dramatic masterpiece and a great work of art. It's a film that will be talked about for years.

I see as many as 20 films a week at home and this is not the norm. This is that one in 1,000 exception. To me this is the difference between art and entertainment: art vastly transcends entertainment and contains elements that go beyond the surface.

Getting back to music and applying this standard I cannot agree with the postulate that art in music began in the romantic19th century simply because people started writing about romantic subjects. Heck Mozart wrote an opera on the Don Juan theme, Christoph Willibald Gluck wrote a pantomime on same, and Handel wrote an opera about Julius Caesar and an oratorio on the Jewish passover. These are just a few examples from pre-romantic music.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I agree totally with the above posting. I find it odd that folks would consider romantic era music to have more depth than in previous eras. Yes, there's more histrionic displays, but that's about it.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> The Rolf Harris of Baroque music


Explain. ..............


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's when composers really started expressing depth in their music rather than being commissioned to create music for an event.
> 
> That's my opinion, what do you think?


@Captainnumber36 to be honest, I think that rigid classifications and labels are not useful.

I think that there is good music in all categories:
- Baroque music
- Classical music
- Romantic 
- Incidental music of films and videogames

To have rigid definitions of what is art and what is not is not artistic.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ART in classical didn't stART till mozART


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> ART in classical didn't stART till mozART


I suspect that if this comment were read by Hildegard Von Bingen while she was writing her _Canticles Of Ecstasy_ or _Ordo Virtutum_, or by Palestrina while composing his _Missa Papae Marcelli_, or by Giovanni Gabrieli while he penned his _Sacrae Symphoniae_, or by Monteverdi while writing _Orfeo_, or by J.S. Bach while composing his _Art of Fugue_, a common unARTful sound of a fART might have punctuated the air.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Art in Classical Music started with Classical Music.


----------



## wormcycle (Oct 14, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> In the end, I find Mozart to be pop classical.


That just shows that you have a long way to go


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

I still don’t understand your opinion about classical music. You contradict yourself too often, creating threads about Mozart being amazing but also creating bad takes like this


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Before responding to this OP, one needs to know what is considered to be the beginning of Romanticism.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Is this Pop Classical?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's when composers really started expressing depth in their music rather than being commissioned to create music for an event.
> 
> That's my opinion, what do you think?


 When exactly do you think composers stopped being commissioned to create music for an event? Did you know Aaron Copland was commissioned to compose his Lincoln Portrait by conductor Andre Kostelanetz for a patriotic concert of American music during World War II? That Claude Debussy was hired to compose his Premiere Rhapsodie for clarinet by the Paris Conservatoire to serve as their clarinet examination piece for 1910? That Igor Stravinsky's 1955 Greeting Prelude (a highly entertaining and inventive take on "Happy Birthday") was written to commemorate the 80th birthday of Pierre Monteux?

And who is Art in Classical?


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

wormcycle said:


> That just shows that you have a long way to go


With a bit of luck and time giving it will come. .........


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

EvaBaron said:


> I still don’t understand your opinion about classical music. You contradict yourself too often, creating threads about Mozart being amazing but also creating bad takes like this


Captainnumber36 admitted on this thread that he was making controversial and simplistic claims for "clickbait" purposes-- so like the strawman portrayal of David Hurwitz on steroids.


----------

