# Appreciating 18th Century Music



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

The 18th century is musically, every bit as worthy as the following and preceding centuries, some would argue more, perceiving it to be the golden age. I will not make any such claims, and merely want to start a discussion for expanding curiosity, knowledge, and aural affinity for the multitude of styles and the great music within them. 

With the exception of Bach, and Early Beethoven and some Mozart, Handel, Haydn and Vivaldi, the 18th century is often looked down on by those accustomed to the individuality of the 19th, the wiles of the 20th, and the novelty of the 21st. I would rather the naysayers acknowledged it to be a more foreign aesthetic, which it is in truth, rather than an inferior and formulaic one occasionally transcended. The same attention which is deservedly bestowed on serialism and its cousins, is also well placed in the multitude of styles present throughout the 18th. But the comparison with Serialism is perhaps less apt than a comparison with Jazz, which like much of the music in the 18th century, is thought of more as a language of patterns to explore endlessly, than a mystifying ether from which masterpieces are born.

It's a matter of getting immersed wholly in the musical thinking of the time. I know from experience that it is in no way inferior to 19th century music. There is a discipline and work ethic, as well as inventiveness and laboratory like quality to each composer's expansive oevres. There are the gems that strike out to the romantically attuned and modernist ears, but once we get entirely free from those lenses, the picture starts to look different. One can make a canon based on the entire classical repertoire, and include such 18th century compositions and composers as are typically considered 'best,' or one can develop a focus on it that frees us from the shackles of the great canon, and recognize a new canon unto itself, rooted in the period. Or we can even avoid canonical thinking altogether, and just devour piece after piece.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I would agree with you that the average Concert Hall experience shortchanges the 18th Century. The typical Concert Season
for most Orchestras has repetoire ranging from Haydn to Shostakovich, and that is a fairly narrow time slice. Recordings tend to follow what Orchestras play.
18th Century and earlier music tends to fall to Chamber or Period Ensembles and these tend not to be as thick on the ground or as supported as a traditional Symphony Orchestra


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I really do not understand OP's like this one.

I play with two community orchestras and we perform and appreciate music from 18th, 19th, 20th and even the 21st century. We can have just as much fun playing John Williams and Schoenberg as we do playing Mozart or Bach.

I have attended festivals with appreciative audiences that have performed music from all periods.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> I really do not understand OP's like this one.
> 
> I play with two community orchestras and we perform and appreciate music from 18th, 19th, 20th and even the 21st century. We can have just as much fun playing John Williams and Schoenberg as we do playing Mozart or Bach.
> 
> I have attended festivals with appreciative audiences that have performed music from all periods.


If you perceived something that you didn't like, can you be more clear? I want this to be another good discussion thread.

I am just advocating for the 18th century. I am a promoter and lover of this music and am responding to the relatively less vocalized interest here on talkclassical. I see and talk about so much music from that time here, that has relatively little discussion compared to 19th and 20th century music.


----------

