# Is there a technical argument for Baroque being the 'best' ?



## ThePendragon (Oct 12, 2016)

Hello,

I am not trained formally in music so I have to defer to people who have a technical understanding of classical music. First of all I understand to some pedants that Baroque may not technically not 'classical' but I don't think that splitting hairs is useful here. I think if you ask most reasonable people who the best three composers of all time are they would be Bach, Beethoven and mozart but most would probably not put Bach as number 1 in the order. I however, in my personal taste, put Bach as number one and there are some various pieces of less known Baroque artists (not their whole canon) that I like better than anything by Beethoven. I really can appreciate Mozart but I really don't like Beethoven all that much. My father is the same way he likes Bach and Mozart but not really Beethoven. It seems Bach defined the rules and followed them and Mozart strayed somewhat but stayed reasonably within the parameters while Beethoven try to make his own rules.

Anyway, I don't want to cause infighting between us classical music lovers here because that would be counterproductive because nowadays we are a minority. Obviously Beethoven is better than any pop artist today. Also, for all you elitists here I can appreciate pieces by modern artists like Schoenberg, despite the dissonance, but I think it is foolish to say that any modern composer can compare to the greats and I like Schoenberg despite the dissonance and I don't think humans were meant to appreciate the kind of music that modern composers make that is why it has that 'elitist' aura to it not that regular classical doesn't already. However, no you are not 'elite' for being able to appreciate music that was not supposed to sound good to the human brain in certain parts.

It seems to me that when the average joe gets into classical they are more likely to get into the Romantic era; so that cannot explain my love of Baroque. Beethoven is said to have practically started the Romantic era it but someone like Wagner I dislike with a passion. Wagner is everything I dislike about Romantic era music. I just don't like the way it sounds It is no wonder to the genocidal genetic turnip peasant scum Adolf Hitler that Wagner was his favorite artist. Also, I'm not Jewish but Wagner was an anti-semite.

So I'm not looking for arguments why Beethoven or the Romantic era are good or the best or whatnot etc... I'm looking for someone with technical formal training in music to confirm or explain my love of Baroque as the best music of all time. 

P.S. It is not that I cannot appreciate certain modern music for instance I appreciate some of phillip glasses' opera pieces but this post is not about Opera.

Thanks, 

ThePendragon


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Hello ThePendragon, welcome at Talk Classical.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ThePendragon said:


> So I'm not looking for arguments why Beethoven or the Romantic era are good or the best or whatnot etc... I'm looking for someone with technical formal training in music to confirm or explain my love of Baroque as the best music of all time.
> 
> ThePendragon


Welcome Pendragon!

Bach's music was composed under a different aesthetic and world view than that of Mozart or Beethoven. The music of each of these composers had different objectives, different values, and emphases on different technical parameters. Ones preferences for specific composers and eras is purely a matter of personal taste. It is naive to think there is going to be an objective argument showing one is superior to the others - which doesn't mean others here won't try to make one. And prepare to duck the flames coming your way for your comments on Wagner


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

ThePendragon said:


> However, no you are not 'elite' for being able to appreciate music that was not supposed to sound good to the human brain in certain parts.


Learning to appreciate atonal music usually takes a good deal of effort (unless you grew up with it). It is also richly rewarding and probably enriches one's life more than anything else an ordinary music lover could ever do to improve their life.

Whether that makes it "elite" I don't know, but it's kind of like there are people who only appreciate sugary foods (Baroque, Classical, Romantic), then there are people who also appreciate salty foods and spicy foods (Medieval, Renaissance, Modernist, Contemporary).


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Every era has composers that are just as good as any other era.

I happen to not like Baroque, but I would never say that Baroque composers are inferior to any other era.



ThePendragon said:


> Also, for all you elitists here I can appreciate pieces by modern artists like Schoenberg, despite the dissonance, but I think it is foolish to say that any modern composer can compare to the greats and I like Schoenberg despite the dissonance and I don't think humans were meant to appreciate the kind of music that modern composers make that is why it has that 'elitist' aura to it not that regular classical doesn't already. However, no you are not 'elite' for being able to appreciate music that was not supposed to sound good to the human brain in certain parts.


My favorite eras are the 20th century and contemporary. So to me, it is not foolish at all to compare modern and contemporary composers to "the greats", as you put it. To me the greats _are_: Stravinsky, Bartok, Ligeti, Penderecki, Carter, Schoenberg, Britten, Barber, Berg, etc. And I don't consider myself elite at all.

While I can appreciate the skill and knowledge that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Handel, etc, had, their music does very little for me.

I can understand why the majority of classical music listeners like those composers more than modern composers. But my sensibilities in classical music tend to appreciate music that is a challenge to listen to. There is much to be said for the feelings of catharsis after listening to a challenging piece, that I value more than music that is more easily palatable.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

No, because you can't measure the quality of music, any music, to some kind of universal standards. Each style and genre has its own standards and people wouldn't even agree on what those are. And why would you need confirmation anyway? If you are convinced that baroque is the best music, you wouldn't need outside confirmation. You are the only judge of what you like and what you think is good music, completely independent of the outside world. If you let others tell you what's good you aren't true to yourself.


----------



## JamieHoldham (May 13, 2016)

Just a quick comment before I am going to bed - and to dumb the thread and situation down alot I will put my 2 cents in here;

Every era of music has it's own level of complexity and not to undermine the rest, but with the Baroque era and the extremely contrapuntal, texture and rhythmitic heavyness of it, makes it technically (overall) the most complex era of music there has been.

However if you want to narrow it down and completley ignore eras, then the most complex music I think you would find would probally be Liszt / Chopin ect for Piano, and other composers for other specific types of "Classical" music that is outside the Baroque era.

And at the end of the day music is subjective, so just listen to what you like.

Simple.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Interesting question, ThePendragon. 

My taste in classical music is pretty much entirely focused on Baroque music. Bach is indeed #1 in my opinion, followed by Rameau, Vivaldi and Handel in no particular order. 

I felt the existence of a mathematical order in Bach's music, almost an inevitable pattern, even before I started reading music theory. It was in Rameau's book Treatise On Harmony (1722) that I found the words I needed to explain the order in Bach's music. And I was fascinated to learn how this natural harmony comes from the vibrations of a single string. Nowhere is this order more present (and creates, one might argue, perfection) than in Baroque music, and especially in Bach's music. 

Then there is also the Counterpoint, of course. I love following two (or more) completely independent, complete, and equally important melodies at the same time. While contrapuntal music is a well-known characteristic of the Baroque period, some (like Couperin) were not that brilliant at it, and Bach was its absolute master. If you enjoy and look for counterpoint in music, you would naturally be drawn to Baroque musicians and Bach in particular. 

Disclaimer: I am by no means a professional, just an amateur enthusiast.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

JamieHoldham said:


> Every era of music has it's own level of complexity and not to undermine the rest, but with the Baroque era and the extremely contrapuntal, texture and rhythmitic heavyness of it, makes it technically (overall) the most complex era of music there has been.


The Renaissance probably has equally complex counterpoint, and the Baroque in general wasn't very heavily contrapuntual compared to other eras. When people say that they usually just mean Bach, but he was a bit of an oddity in his time.


----------



## scott777 (Oct 9, 2016)

I can understand your love of Bach and reservation about more modern (especially atonal music). But it really is so subjective and relative too. I think there is no measuring stick than can be used to compare Bach with, for example, Bartok. It’s just a different thing. Bach and Haydn developed the musical language to a kind of peak, so after that a completely new kind of path had to begin.

You may have a natural inclination to enjoy well balanced, finely crafted, highly harmonious music, but for me, Beethoven is far more enjoyable than Bach, because it has emotional depth that is more realistic to me. A few years ago, I found atonal music to be impenetrable, but recently have started to get something out of it. For example, Henze’s 5th Symphony. You don’t have to analyse it or understand it, but rather feel it and let it wash over you.

It may even sound bad, or disturbing at first, but it’s relative, because Beethoven may well have disturbed some people at the time with his aggressive sounding music, just as Stravinsky did. But even Monteverdi must have sounded rather ‘dangerous’ to some.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

There are many who prefer baroque music regardless of age or classical musical experience. There are also many, such as myself, who prefer the late romantic, including Wagenr. Baroque music is the first music of "common practice era" harmony. The very pure usage of CPE harmony (Bach's music is sort of THE exemplar in music texts) combined with the polyphonic texture seem to me to be the predominant features that distinguish Baroque music. Bach still sounds like Bach even when played by a modern symphony orchestra or a synthesizer.

The music of the Romantic era uses a much more complex harmonic language and often emphasizes the ability of music to express and evoke emotions, "paint a picture" or "tell a story" with music.

I can sympathize with the desire to find the music one prefers as superior. It is sad that our culture seems to have lost the ability to discern good art from mediocre or even bad art. But even to someone well educated about music, and having no compulsion to be politically correct, there is no convincing reason to denigrate the art music of the romantic era compared to the baroque era, or vice versa.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

No doubt about it. Baroque composers wrote absolutely the best Baroque music. Don't worry about it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

One would have be very careful about criticizing Baroque music no matter what one's primary taste because it provided the foundation for most of the classical music that followed, not to mention that I think it's safe to say that most of the great Classical & Romantic era composers were influenced by it.

And then, of course, there is J.B.Bach who created a whole era within an era.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The word Baroque starts with the letter "B". "B" is for Best. Pure and simple.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> The word Baroque starts with the letter "B". "B" is for Best. Pure and simple.


"B" as in Banal. But let's not go there.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

And of course we have Bach in the Baroque Best group.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

B is also for boring.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I agree with JamieHoldham. Don't get hung up on the technical. Simply find music you like and enjoy it.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

B is for Bach and Bartók and Berio and I like all of them. 

By the way I object to the constant framing of modern classical music as something you need to put a lot of effort into and learn to listen to (and therefore is not 'natural' to the human brain). If that framing is correct I'm a genius because for me the enjoyment of a lot of modern classical music came instantly and therefore naturally (there are some exceptions by the way but in general it was a relieve that there also was something really interesting to listen to). It could of course also be that this framing is incorrect. I hope so because otherwise the rest of you would seem to be retards  or people with a flat learning curve.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Bach should take lead, no contest.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

"constant framing of modern classical music as something you need to put a lot of effort into and learn to listen to (and therefore is not 'natural' to the human brain). If that framing is correct I'm a genius"

I think it's more like enjoying a certain type of music because your brain is wired that way. 

I get nothing out of modern jazz, for example. It doesn't sound like music at all to me. I'd rather listen to hard techno music than a "music" where instruments go off on tangents totally unrelated to each other. My brain craves order and mathematical patterns which is why Baroque is #1 for me.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Remove Bach and Handel and Baroque falls quite a bit from top-notch consideration.

However, US Public Classical Radio will always set a grateful place for it at its Thanksgiving table.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Glad this thread was revived. I think Baroque is well represented by many outstanding composers. Handel, Bach, as mentioned. But also Telemann, Couperin, Purcell, and the list goes on. It's as robust as later periods in worthy composers, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Retyc (May 10, 2016)

LesCyclopes said:


> "constant framing of modern classical music as something you need to put a lot of effort into and learn to listen to (and therefore is not 'natural' to the human brain). If that framing is correct I'm a genius"
> 
> I think it's more like enjoying a certain type of music because your brain is wired that way.
> 
> I get nothing out of modern jazz, for example. It doesn't sound like music at all to me. I'd rather listen to hard techno music than a "music" where instruments go off on tangents totally unrelated to each other. My brain craves order and mathematical patterns which is why Baroque is #1 for me.


I'm sure you'd like Xenakis a lot...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

We have conflicting threads here. 

We have one poster claiming he can't get into Baroque music for the life of him, and another looking for evidence that Baroque is best.

I sure know which side Classical Public Radio in the US would take.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

> Remove Bach and Handel and Baroque falls quite a bit from top-notch consideratio


I'm guessing that you haven't heard of Rameau.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

> I'm sure you'd like Xenakis a lot...


Is that a joke?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

LesCyclopes said:


> Is that a joke?


I mean, the guy did like his math and with repeated listening one finds that his pieces are very well structured underneath the surface chaos.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

LesCyclopes said:


> I'm guessing that you [hpowders] haven't heard of Rameau.


And a host of others.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

LesCyclopes said:


> I'm guessing that you haven't heard of Rameau.


Rameau was a fine composer, but for me, a step down from Bach or Handel. I do like some of Rameau's keyboard works and excerpts from his over-long operas are very nice.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Retyc said:


> I'm sure you'd like Xenakis a lot...


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Rameau was quite the rebel. He was once asked why he didn't spend more time studying the works of the old masters. He replied, "Why should I? They didn't study mine."


----------

