# Baroque music and baroque architecture



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

*Baroque music and Baroque architecture*










It will be no problem to find people on TC who love Baroque music. But do there still exist people who love Baroque architecture just as much as Baroque music? My guess is that they will be hard to find. Therefore the investigation of this thread: only when you feel the same for Baroque architecture as for Baroque music, please raise your voice and explain why...


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I like Baroque paintings more than Baroque music.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

TxllxT said:


> It will be no problem to find people on TC who love Baroque music. But do there still exist people who love Baroque architecture just as much as Baroque music? My guess is that they will be hard to find. Therefore the investigation of this thread: only when you feel the same for Baroque architecture as for Baroque music, please raise your voice and explain why...


That is very impressive, but I wouldn't want to have to dust it.


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

The architecture is beautiful to look at, but not very practical and just exudes waste of resources and manual labour.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Superbly practical - raises the mind to God. This is the church attached to the school I went to:










"Modern" Baroque- it dates from 1910. It's based on the Church of the Gesù 











and Namur Cathedral


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I love Baroque architecture. It is so splendid, marking the beginning of a new way of thinking towards the Enlightenment period, out of the dark Medieval period. Look at the pictures, it is such grand and uplifting. It feels assuring and *that is the point of good art.*


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Prefer the music over the art. Some examples of the art are overly ornate for me. But Taggart's examples are indeed beautiful and elegant.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

I love both Baroque music and Baroque architecture. But they strike me as having almost nothing in common. Baroque music tends to be highly unified, with the same rhythms and melodic patterns being maintained throughout an entire piece (especially in Vivaldi and Bach, for example). Baroque architectural designs, on the other hand, often juxtapose contrasting colors and shapes.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Just like the music, can be a bit overwhelming sometimes. I do like the second Empire architecture much more.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I enjoy the pictures in this thread of the architecture, but admittedly, I'm not overly familiar with it. I do know I find Gothic Architecture interesting.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Pugg said:


> Just like the music, can be a bit overwhelming sometimes. I do like the second Empire architecture much more.


I have been wanting to ask for a while now, who is the beautiful woman in your avatar?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I have been wanting to ask for a while now, who is the beautiful woman in your avatar?


Renée Fleming, America's people, opera diva, soon to be retired from performing opera.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Pugg said:


> Renée Fleming, America's people, opera diva, soon to be retired from performing opera.


She is stunningly beautiful.


----------



## PJaye (May 22, 2015)

Those three shots all have such similar architectural elements, but what a difference with what they did with that. The first one has a really evocative use of color with the whites and pastels. It really gives it a distinctive look, it seems to me anyway; and what a contrast between the second and last one with its stark uniformity. It almost looks like it could float away. I'd like to hear that pipe organ echoing around in that church with the pastel colors.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Superbly practical - raises the mind to God. This is the church attached to the school I went to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I love Baroque music, but I'm not a fan of baroque painting or architecture. I find it too crowded and fussy. That's not to say that there won't sometimes be baroque interiors that I love - but in general, no.

For example, I love the photo of St Aloysius' church in Glasgow that my spouse posted (see above), but I think it's because of the dome with its stained glass and painting and rich colours, and also the pattern of circle shapes - it's actually much simpler and more striking than baroque usually is, maybe because (so Tag tells me) it was put up in 1910 when Art Nouveau must have had much more of an influence.

PS When it comes to baroque music, even, I think it's the melodies that attract me more than the clever counterpoint or elaborations - and I like early music, and of course folk music, even more than baroque. I'm a pure and simple soul - well, *simple*, anyway.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> For example, I love the photo of St Aloysius' church in Glasgow that my spouse posted (see above), but I think it's because of the dome with its stained glass and painting and lovely colours - it's actually much simpler and more striking than baroque usually is, maybe because (so Tag tells me) it was put up in 1910 when Art Nouveau must have had much more of an influence.


Definitely. Round the corner - at the back of the school was the Glasgow School of Art - designed by Rennie Mackintosh which opened in 1909.



PJaye said:


> Those three shots all have such similar architectural elements, but what a difference with what they did with that. The first one has a really evocative use of color with the whites and pastels. It really gives it a distinctive look, it seems to me anyway; and what a contrast between the second and last one with its stark uniformity. It almost looks like it could float away. I'd like to hear that pipe organ echoing around in that church with the pastel colors.


The organ certainly made a fine sound and the church has wonderful acoustics in general.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Taggart said:


> Definitely. Round the corner - at the back of the school was the Glasgow School of Art - designed by Rennie Mackintosh which opened in 1909.
> 
> The organ certainly made a fine sound and the church has wonderful acoustics in general.


Neo-Baroque is not the same as Baroque. Compare how heavily original is all the marble and the cupola construction in a typical Baroque church while Neo-Baroque uses lightweight constructions with steel in the cupola and lots of fake painted marble. I find the 19th century neo-styles more theatrical, more interestingly 'fake' than the Baroque real thing.

But to turn to the music: is the organ of your Glasgow church made for Bach or for late 19th century compositions à la Cesar Franck or Widor?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

TxllxT said:


> But to turn to the music: is the organ of your Glasgow church made for Bach or for late 19th century compositions à la Cesar Franck or Widor?


When I was there, it was mainly used for hymns and plainchant. On one occasion, we had to learn to sing the Gloria from Mozart's requiem for a special occasion. I had a quick look at the parish website and found this:



> Today, the 12 noon Sunday Mass at St. Aloysius, offers something markedly different from most liturgical celebrations in the West of Scotland in respect, both of the music and the manner of serving. Various settings of the Mass, including Plainsong, the polyphonic masters such as Palestrina, Victoria, William Byrd, the classical style of Haydn and Mozart, works by Mendelssohn, Elgar, Fauré, and modern composers including Britten, Oldroyd, Darke, Rutter, Mawby and others, are rendered in an inspiring manner, and contribute to the reverential atmosphere of the occasion.


So I suspect that it was mainly aimed at plainchant and classical music. We heard little romantic or more modern music.

I also note that they have an organ restoration fund.


----------



## Marinera (May 13, 2016)

I think it's easy to love Baroque architecture. It's all about visual effects like loads of ceiling paintings, and I like when it drowns in lots of sclupture, while architects became really innovative with structures. Don't know what not to like, an ultimate eye candy, with unbelievable level of craftsmanship and artistry involved. Contemporary architecture is just so utilitarian in comparison with baroque..


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Marinera said:


> I think it's easy to love Baroque architecture. It's all about visual effects like loads of ceiling paintings, and I like when it drowns in lots of sclupture, while architects became really innovative with structures. Don't know what not to like, an ultimate eye candy, with unbelievable level of craftsmanship and artistry involved. Contemporary architecture is just so utilitarian in comparison with baroque..


As Louis Sullivan of the Chicago school of architecture stated, "form follows function". Practically the complete opposite of Baroque architecture's intent. That's the interesting evolution of architecture... art for art's sake vs. utilitarian. But I also see beauty in modern architecture. Maybe not so different in appreciation of both Baroque and modern music.


----------



## Marinera (May 13, 2016)

quietfire said:


> The architecture is beautiful to look at, but not very practical and just exudes waste of resources and manual labour.


Practicality is overrated.

By the way I don't know how practical it is to watch tvs, listen to music or watch sports live or on tv either. Not to mention that I don't think that humanity's only and primary concern should be with practicality when every single one of us is born at one point and die basically only a little later. Yeah, I just feel that practicality is an answer to everything.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'd rather be in Barcelona admiring the modernist Gaudí's secular works. I always feel more comfortable amidst the less hypocritical heathens.I stay away from that awful Church he designed.


----------



## Marinera (May 13, 2016)

Richard8655 said:


> As Louis Sullivan of the Chicago school of architecture stated, "form follows function". Practically the complete opposite of Baroque architecture's intent. That's the interesting evolution of architecture... art for art's sake vs. utilitarian. But I also see beauty in modern architecture. Maybe not so different in appreciation of both Baroque and modern music.


Both absolutely valid philosophies in my opinion. Still some even contemporary architecture is not designed completely with purely practical approach in mind or should I say utilitarian. The most practical to construct and use would be a square or rectangular shape. And we still see enough of those 'containers' around.But then you have something like the Gherkin appear in London, or what about all those bent shapes of Melbourne opera house. Zaha Hadid did also enough of those wavy bent walls, and though they are minimalistic decoratively speaking, they are not exactly practical per se. And all those vast spaces to loose a dinosaur or two inside..and for what concert halls, operas? Not the best use of space in already very crowded cities with serious overcrowding problem.


----------



## Harmonie (Mar 24, 2007)

I think Baroque architecture is downright gorgeous! It's one of my top favorite architectural styles, if not the top.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I love Baroque music, but I'm not a fan of baroque painting or architecture. I find it too crowded and fussy. That's not to say that there won't sometimes be baroque interiors that I love - but in general, no.
> 
> For example, I love the photo of St Aloysius' church in Glasgow that my spouse posted (see above), but I think it's because of the dome with its stained glass and painting and rich colours, and also the pattern of circle shapes - it's actually much simpler and more striking than baroque usually is, maybe because (so Tag tells me) it was put up in 1910 when Art Nouveau must have had much more of an influence.
> 
> PS When it comes to baroque music, even, I think it's the melodies that attract me more than the clever counterpoint or elaborations - and I like early music, and of course folk music, even more than baroque. I'm a pure and simple soul - well, *simple*, anyway.


Pure and simple, or simple, never hurts anyone.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Not long ago I started putting together a "rough draft" of greatest sculptures/architecture and found several amazing Baroque examples, including those shown here on this thread (perhaps its most impressive era overall) . 

So far I didn't find sculptures, as a whole, to be nearly as impressive in terms of overall scope, emotion and concept as the Baroque Classical Music period, but they are still well worth pouring over with many rewards. I don't think it's an art form that accomplished the same breadth of vision as music's greatest works and I think this is mainly because of the sheer labor, time and funds/resources necessary to create a work of sculpture or architecture far outweighs that of composing a piece of music. For instance, as incredible as many of these are, they certainly don't accomplish the overall vision and emotional/conceptual impact and synthesis of Bach's Mass in B Minor or St. Matthew Passion, or the Goldberg Variations, or Vivaldi's Four Seasons, or Handel's Messiah, or many other possible examples. They're more comparable to a single movement Organ work, or Cantata. To sculpt a single scene can require months or years of intensive, detailed work, as can be surmised by just viewing any one of those on this thread. A commensurate "scene", relative in breadth and scope and emotional/conceptual significance to one of these sculptures, can be found in a single movement of, say, Bach's Mass in B Minor,such as the opening Kyrie eleison -- with still 26 more to go for the complete work and its full emotional/conceptual/creative impact and scope (a "rough" analogy as not all the movements cover the same breadth as the 1st) 

Still, though, in regards to the craft of sculpture/architecture, these and many others are quite stunning. Artistic pinnacles of their genre and shouldn't be missed by anyone interesting in Visual Art.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

quietfire said:


> The architecture is beautiful to look at, but not very practical and just exudes waste of resources and manual labour.


Yikes. I disagree quite strongly. I think Art inspires thought, imagination, probably many aspects in the development of cultures, a greater ability to understand others, and is extremely important to humanity and the great minds of the world to have it as prevalent as possible.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I like everything about baroque, literature, painting, sculpture, architecture... music, too, but probably the least. It's probably different from these other forms of baroque art because of the nature of music itself, music is abstract... and other baroque art is always very material, even when making illusionistic effects or raising the soul to the abstract _through_ the material. It's worldly, even when it condemns the world. This topic is very complex and probably worth an essay at the least, if not a book or two.

When I look at baroque architecture, I'm sort of hearing the sounds of a full romantic symphony orchestra in my head!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

hpowders said:


> I'd rather be in Barcelona admiring the modernist Gaudí's secular works. I always feel more comfortable amidst the less hypocritical heathens.I stay away from that awful Church he designed.



wow, to me while I love his other works I think that the Sagrada familia is (or better was, sadly the idea of completing it is ruining it aesthetically) one of the great masterpieces of all time.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Marinera said:


> Both absolutely valid philosophies in my opinion. Still some even contemporary architecture is not designed completely with purely practical approach in mind or should I say utilitarian. The most practical to construct and use would be a square or rectangular shape. And we still see enough of those 'containers' around.But then you have something like the Gherkin appear in London, or what about all those bent shapes of Melbourne opera house. Zaha Hadid did also enough of those wavy bent walls, and though they are minimalistic decoratively speaking, they are not exactly practical per se. And all those vast spaces to loose a dinosaur or two inside..and for what concert halls, operas? Not the best use of space in already very crowded cities with serious overcrowding problem.


by the way, even rationalism wasn't often very rational. Was rational thinking of humans as they were robot or boxes, but many of those ugly, cold boxes weren't exactly inviting from an aesthetic point of view.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

AfterHours said:


> So far I didn't find sculptures, as a whole, to be nearly as impressive in terms of overall scope, emotion and concept as the Baroque Classical Music period.


For instance this one to me is a stunning masterpiece: 
Giuseppe Sammartino - Cristo velato


----------



## Marinera (May 13, 2016)

norman bates said:


> by the way, even rationalism wasn't often very rational. Was rational thinking of humans as they were robot or boxes, but many of those ugly, cold boxes weren't exactly inviting from an aesthetic point of view.


 But they are very fond of rationalizing, which is a completely different matter alltogether.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

norman bates said:


> For instance this one to me is a stunning masterpiece:
> Giuseppe Sammartino - Cristo velato


Yes, rivals Michelangelo's Pieta in terms of emotional conviction displayed with the human form.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

This comparison is confused by the fact that Tiepolo, the greatest visual artist of Bach's time, is classified as "Rococo" rather than Baroque. But of course the greatest "Baroque" painter, Rubens, compares perfectly well to Bach.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Magnum Miserium said:


> This comparison is confused by the fact that Tiepolo, the greatest visual artist of Bach's time, is classified as "Rococo" rather than Baroque. But of course the greatest "Baroque" painter, Rubens, compares perfectly well to Bach.


I do feel Rubens painted several works that could stand alongside many of Bach's "lesser" masterpieces, such as various Cantatas or single movement Organ/Keyboard Works and others. But in my evaluations of all his significant works, I didn't find any single work that reaches the astonishing emotional/conceptual depth and visionary scope of the Mass in B Minor, St Matthew Passion, Goldberg Variations, St John Passion, Art of Fugue, or the WTC. A better correlation to me would be Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel (Ceiling + Last Judgement), which (in my opinion) is the greatest work of art of any kind (Painting, Classical Music or otherwise). So, although I don't feel even Bach matched/surpassed Michelangelo's unbelievable masterpiece, I would say he came close with the Mass in B Minor, and approached such accomplishment to a gradiently lesser degree by the other works I mentioned above. Whereas Rubens, as amazing as he was and while being heavily influenced by Michelangelo, never approached such an overwhelming (and impossible?) level of emotional/conceptual depth and visionary scope in any of his works. Doesnt mean you're "objectively wrong" of course -- just my subjective take on it.

NOTE: By using Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel as an example, I am not referring to it as a Baroque painting, although it heavily influenced the period.


----------

