# Favorite Era?



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well?

Personally I like the Romantic era, large scale symphonic works are just the thing but I still enjoy music thats is mostly diatonic and tonal. So early 20th century also fits the bill (i.e. stravinsky, VW) but im not a big fan of things like Ligeti and Xenakis at all.

BAroque for me is slightly too shallow. while i admire its melodic complexity the lack of dissonances, dynamics and simple meters render it slightly dull.

Classical is a bit the same but I much prefer it.

Renessaince and anythign before it are just ugly to me.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Oh and sorry if this has been done before.


----------



## kg4fxg (May 24, 2009)

*Romantic*

I would have to say that my favorite is the Romantic or Post Romantic period. But as this forum has taught me, there is a whole world that I have not discovered yet. Been getting into Bartok lately which is way out for me.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I voted for Romantic, but my favorite really is the late-Romantic/early 20th century. I noted that both eras were options on the poll, but Romantic is probably more accurate for me for the sake of this voting. Much of the mid to late 20th century is not music I enjoy very much. So, again, for the sake of this poll, Romantic is the closest to my tastes.

I do enjoy baroque music and renaissance, even medieval. My least favorite is the Classical period, as heretical as that is.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Like Tapkaara and kg4fxg, my favorite era is the Romantic period, but love the early 20th Century period too.

I'm least fond of the Baroque, Classical, and Modern periods.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

What is the difference between 20th century and modern music? I guess modern music is anything composed since January 1, 2000?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> What is the difference between 20th century and modern music? I guess modern music is anything composed since January 1, 2000?


Modern or "Contemporary" started as of 1975 and proceeded into our present time. 20th Century is lasted from 1900 to 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Not to nit pick, but technically the 20th century lasted until Jan. 1, 2001. But since that's not very intuitive, most people use the 2000 date. Same with the year 1900 being the last year in the 19th century.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

emiellucifuge said:


> BAroque for me is slightly too shallow. while i admire its melodic complexity the lack of dissonances, dynamics and simple meters render it slightly dull.


There are plenty of dissonances and odd meters in Baroque music. Well -- in Bach anyway. But if it sounds dull to you then it just doesn't speak to you, I guess, and it may never. I have similar issues with the Classic era. But there are plenty of other things that do speak to you, so it's not a problem in any way.

I couldn't respond to the poll because I like most eras equally well - early music to the present day. The exception is the Classic era which I find to be too simple in texture compared to the Baroque, and not bombastic enough compared to the Romantic.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Weston said:


> The exception is the Classic era which I find to be too simple in texture compared to the Baroque, and not bombastic enough compared to the Romantic.


But Mozart was a genius! But Mozart was a genius! But Mozart was a genius!


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Simple in texture? Finale of the Symphony no, 41, String quartets op. 20, Grosse Fugue (!), "Der Welcher wandert diese Strasse" of the Magid Flute, and on and on... The Classical period starts out as simpler but with the influence of Bach and Handel it achieves once more the complex textures of late baroque, some time even mor complex because apparently more simple: Take any of the mature string quartets of Haydn and single out theme and accompaignment, it is impossible sometimes you discover yourself puzzled how theme becomes accopaignment and accompaignment becomes theme in a brilliant and sublte approach to classical "simplicity", the music of the three geniuses of this era has a large scale view and a control of its means unrivalled.

This is one of the reasons I like Classicism most.


----------



## BuddhaBandit (Dec 31, 2007)

Mirror Image said:


> Modern or "Contemporary" started as of 1975 and proceeded into our present time. 20th Century is lasted from 1900 to 2000.


You can't really put dates on it, MI. The "Modern" period is much more a matter of style than a chronological period- John Cage composed 4'33", an iconic modern piece, in 1952. By contrast, Piston's second violin concerto, which is not a "modern" piece, was composed in 1960.

I voted for 20th century, but I both the Classical and Modern eras are equally dear to me.


----------



## kg4fxg (May 24, 2009)

*Periods....*

I have a had time with the periods also.

I wanted to set up my iTunes library to help me learn more about a composer. So I turned to this website.

www.classicalarchives.com

You can go to this website for an explanation of the periods. I visit it frequently as I used it to classify composers. One composer could span two periods, what do you do? I decided to look up all composers in my library and classify them based on this website.

For example, all my composers in iTunes read like this....

Manuel de Falla (1876-1946); ESP
Manuel is listed as Modern Period

Arvo Pärt (1935-); EST
Arvo is listed as Contemporary Period

Erik Satie (1866-1925); FRA
Satie is Impressionist Period

I tried to used their periods to classify all my music.

Medieval
Renaissance
Baroque
Classical
Romantic
Late- / Post-Romantic
Impressionist
Modern
Contemporary

It is a bit of work but nice to have all the composers in iTunes match this format. And I learn something each time I browse through my library.

Of course I imported all my CD's into iTunes, but you could do the same with Microsoft Access. One place to know what do I have before I buy that CD for the second time.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

BuddhaBandit said:


> You can't really put dates on it, MI. The "Modern" period is much more a matter of style than a chronological period- John Cage composed 4'33", an iconic modern piece, in 1952. By contrast, Piston's second violin concerto, which is not a "modern" piece, was composed in 1960.


DId john Cage realy compose 4'33 ? 



Weston said:


> There are plenty of dissonances and odd meters in Baroque music. Well -- in Bach anyway. But if it sounds dull to you then it just doesn't speak to you, I guess, and it may never. I have similar issues with the Classic era. But there are plenty of other things that do speak to you, so it's not a problem in any way.


YEs there are but at the time anything that sounded too odd or scary was forbidden or feared by the church so there are definite limits, it all sounds a bit too fancy and pretty much like the classical era - though Baroque has an advantage over classical for its textures in my opinion.

I agree with a lot of people, late romantic early 20th century is what I like most


----------



## yohji_nap (Jul 2, 2009)

I love the music of late Renaissance to middle Baroque most, and a few 20th century composers (Cage, Stockhausen, some Xenakis and some Feldman..). The music of the Classical era just irritates me most of the time (with the exception of a few pieces by lesser known composers, i.e. some of Ernst-Wilhelm Wolf's keyboard sonatas, a few works by CPE Bach, Anton Reicha's piano fugues, etc.). The Romantic era, well, is kind of hit and miss with me. I like many pieces by Beethoven and Schubert, but loathe equally many pieces by them. Can't stand Schumann or Chopin for some reason. *shrug*



emiellucifuge said:


> BAroque for me is slightly too shallow. while i admire its melodic complexity the lack of dissonances, dynamics and simple meters render it slightly dull.


If I may, I'd like to recommend listening to lute music (unless you have a problem with the sound of the instrument). Late 16th and early 17th century stuff is very free rhythmically, because it is firmly rooted in improvisation. The performers should be good, though. I suggest Hopkinson Smith's recordings of Kapsberger (mainly for the free toccatas) and Denis Gaultier (Andromede, the Lenclos tombeau, etc.). Or maybe listen to harpsichord works by composers inspired by lutenists, i.e. Froberger's suites (Remy's recording is nice, as is Leonhardt's) or Louis Couperin's unmeasured preludes (Francois' grandfather; there are many nice recordings).

There are also organ pieces by Peeter Cornet (early 17th century) which kind of tear up the rhythmic conventions of the day, but one has to have a good ear for polyphony to hear this, and, well, good luck finding recordings of his music


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Thanks, ill try and have a listen


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

Romantic would be too broad of a term, I would have to say I m a turn of the century guy, late 19th/Early 20th Century.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

JoeGreen said:


> Romantic would be too broad of a term, I would have to say I m a turn of the century guy, late 19th/Early 20th Century.


Romantic isn't any broader a term than "Baroque" or "Classical," but I see why it would be broad as composers from pre-Romantic periods have "Romantic" tendencies in their music.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Romantic isn't any broader a term than "Baroque" or "Classical," but I see why it would be broad as composers from pre-Romantic periods have "Romantic" tendencies in their music.


Just like composers like Mendelssohn or Brahms have "Classical" tendencies in their music.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Truth be told, the eras of classical music have a lot of overlap, and there are no clean, clear and convenient border lines between them.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

JoeGreen said:


> Romantic would be too broad of a term, I would have to say I m a turn of the century guy, late 19th/Early 20th Century.


It seems a lot of people share this opinion.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I think there should be at least two Romantic periods: Early and Late. This is hardly an idea unique to me. Your earlies could be Schubert, Chopin, Berlioz, etc, with lates like Mahler and Strauss. Perhaps there should also be a mid-Romantic to cover Wagner, Liszt, etc. But the music os Schubert IS different enough from Strauss, say, to merit different periods.


----------



## handlebar (Mar 19, 2009)

This was tough as I love the romantic and the 20th century American era as well. Oh well. Torn between two lovers....

Jim


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I don't think the 20th century should be there - there are no other "centuries" there anyway, plus it overlaps with romantic and modernist periods.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I think there should be at least two Romantic periods: Early and Late. This is hardly an idea unique to me. Your earlies could be Schubert, Chopin, Berlioz, etc, with lates like Mahler and Strauss. Perhaps there should also be a mid-Romantic to cover Wagner, Liszt, etc. But the music os Schubert IS different enough from Strauss, say, to merit different periods.


Agreed. Actually, the "true" Romanticism is the one by Chopin and Schumann; Mahler, Strauss and Wagner (Liszt being a transitional figure) did what should (and sometimes is) called late-romanticism. THe styles are very different to be grouped together.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

My favourite by far is Twentieth Century repertoire. Second would be between Romantic & Classical. I also don't mind contemporary classical. Least favourites would be the others...


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> I think there should be at least two Romantic periods: Early and Late. This is hardly an idea unique to me. Your earlies could be Schubert, Chopin, Berlioz, etc, with lates like Mahler and Strauss. Perhaps there should also be a mid-Romantic to cover Wagner, Liszt, etc. But the music os Schubert IS different enough from Strauss, say, to merit different periods.


And then you got your Berlioz who would have sounded quite fine among the late Romantics.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

JoeGreen said:


> And then you got your Berlioz who would have sounded quite fine among the late Romantics.


Um, to some degree I agree. His Requiem sounds like it could be a later romantic work, certainly.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I would probably go with the Romantic era (broad as that term may be)... in spite of the fact that God... I mean J.S. Bach, and Mozart were not of that time.


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> Um, to some degree I agree. His Requiem sounds like it could be a later romantic work, certainly.


what about the _Symphonie Fantastique_? Or _Damnation of Faust_?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

JoeGreen said:


> what about the _Symphonie Fantastique_? Or _Damnation of Faust_?


Parts of Symphonie fantastique sound more early romantic to me. The third movement, for example. But I generally agree with you, Berlioz could have been a later romantic than his sound lets on.


----------



## Zuo17 (Jul 8, 2009)

I would choose the Romantic era, because when I first got started into classical music, I listened to composers from that era. However, through the influence of my Band teacher, I am starting to like Baroque music. Baroque music is so simplistic, yet it carries beauty!

This is a tough decision...... I would vote Romantic, then Baroque, then Classical. Maybe even 20th century...(_I'm thinking of Sibelius...maybe he deserves his own category for the poll? =P_)

Until again,
Zach


----------



## kg4fxg (May 24, 2009)

*Pre 1960*

Actually anything before 1960 or the civil rights movement! Smack - did I say that? Shameful.

Sorry, all I hear in Atl is black rap music - I also makes me violent and want to go kill someone like the lyics say. I really need to invest in those Bose QC2 headphones.


----------

