# Sorry For My Classically Uneducated Mind, But I Need Help With Classical Subgenres



## Metalheadwholovesclasical (Mar 15, 2008)

I am wondering what all of the classical subgenres are, definitions, and examples (sound clips would be great! But if you dont want to, just names of composers would be a great help) Because I am only a teenager, and I do not know anyone that is into classical music such as myself, I think you guys would be a great help. So if anyone were here to help me out on this, I would greatly appreciate it.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Dude - I am also a metal head who likes classical. Actually I liked classical long before I liked rock. I did it backwards. If you like metal or hard rock and you also like classical, I'd wager you also like what we used to call progressive rock back in the 70's, but that's a whole different topic.

I'd like to help out, but I'm afraid you're doing a report or something -- although it IS summer. It's a really huge question. What we refer to as classical spans maybe 600 years of music, so there's a lot of room for hundreds of subgenres.

To make all that easier to understand and keep track of, music scholars break it down into periods of music. There's a chart about halfway down the page on this web link that sort of expalins the different periods or eras of music:

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

You see from the chart that the baroque era was about the longest, and the classic period was the shortest. So why do we call it classical? I don't know. I've always wondered.

Then within these periods are many, many different genres - concertos, symphonies, quartets, motets, etc. And to complicate things, a symphonie in the classic period is something very different from a symphony in the romantic period.

So it doesn't work like "who's the best representative of Nu Metal" or "what's the greatest Thrash band." For classical it works better to ask who represents a period best, even though they may compose quartets, and symphonies, and operas, all at the same time.

I'm no scholar though, so don't take my word as gospel. This is just my take on it. I envy you - you're getting into a lot of cool stuff. But then so am I still. It never really stops.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2008)

Weston, I think you did very well, indeed. 

I was going to say to MHWLC something along the lines of "start by not thinking of 'classical' as a genre," but you said pretty much the same thing but much more eloquently.

I think that that idea about the word "classical"--that it's a category like "rock" or "jazz" or worse, like "metal" or "hip hop"--has been hampering conversations about music for decades. For one, the term covers hundreds of years of music, so it can hardly mean a particular style or genre. Indeed, even "symphony" is a broader term (includes more various things) than say C & W. (One thing that keeps classical fans so dedicated must surely be that five minute of practically any piece that can be called "classical" has more variety than many entire albums of other genres, than even some of the narrower and more defined genres in toto.)

That's one of the things that's so off-putting about the many musics included in that broad term: it's too much information, too contradictory, too complicated, takes way too much effort to enjoy. But jeez, what a nice reward for whatever effort one makes, eh?

None of that is to suggest any difference in quality. Obviously there is good music in any genre. Given that classical covers such a large span of time, it's silly to argue that classical music is better. The comparison, on the level of what the words mean, is simply not equivalent. (Though, having said that, one has to acknowledge that even "rock" and "jazz" are terms that have grown way past any identifiable, recognizable, inarguable sound or style. Which is fine, so long as you're always aware, when you use words like that, of what their limitations are!)

But that's not what you wanted to hear, was it? Hah. We all have our hobby horses here, and I've just given mine a good ride.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Below are a few websites which provide some basic information on the timeline of western music in general. They're all simply written, and meant for beginners, so don't expect anything complex or sophisticated (which I guess will suit your requirements).

1. "A brief history of Western Music"

Really simple material: http://www.lakestatepublications.com/nug1.html

2. "From Stone Age to Rock"

Slightly more information. With this one, the main schools/periods/eras are listed down the left side, and further information is provided in the boxes on the right. You'll see "Baroque", "Classical" etc listed: http://www.iacta.com/yolanda/stoneagemenu.htm

3. "Classical.Net: Composer Information Lists"

This lists the main composers by period. If you follow the various links you'll find all sorts of other information relating to these composers: http://www.classical.net/music/composer/dates/comp9.php

4. "Music of the Classical/Romantic Era"

Further basic material: http://cnx.org/content/m11606/latest/

5. "The Music Chamber"

Lots of fascinating material here, mainly about the history of the symphony and chamber music. Follow the internal links: http://library.thinkquest.org/27110/noframes/homepage.html

6. "Classical Music Navigator"

This one starts to get rather more involved, but it's very good in identifying the main works of various composers and in classifying their output. Also it gives a useful dictionary of musical terms. Some of the more seasoned posters on this Board may find this source quite useful if they are not already familiar with it: http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/music/index2.htm


----------



## Haruki (Jul 15, 2008)

Really vaguely...

There are three VERY broad periods (I'm not worrying about pre-Baroque music for now)

Baroque Period-Composers like Bach, Handel, Telemann, Vivaldi, and Scarlatti. The music was characterized by counterpoint, long passages and themes, and a lot was composed for high courts' entertainment. 

Classical Period-Composers like Mozart, Haydn, Clementi, Boccherini. The music in general sounds "clearer", has shorter passages, and is less complex than baroque music, which often had complicated intertwining of different parts and voices. Also, stuff like dynamics and different keys were explored. 

Romantic Period-Composers like Brahms, Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert (to a degree?), Tchaikovsky, Liszt. The music is characterized by more emotional and free-form/flowing than rigidly structured. More keys and dynamics were explored as were composition forms (like short songs, very long "programme" symphonies (like Beethoven's 6th or 9th) )

Hope I helped (and that I am accurate lol)


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

Haruki, thanks for that clear, concise offering. To show my gratitude, I'd like to mess it up a bit.
Outside the guitar repertoire, I have little interest in the Classical genre, as narrowly defined, and none in the Romantic at all. I can't get enough of Baroque chamber music though, and as it moves into the Classical era I do enjoy Locatelli and Boccherini, the latter very much. So, in my own mind, I distinguish such early Classical works from those of the Big Names by labelling them by one of their salient characteristics: Rococo.
So I ask this of the knowledgeable folks out there: how much validity or usefulness do you see in Rococo as a label? 
Please excuse my lack of nous in this field; I'm just curious.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Haruki said:


> very long "programme" symphonies (like Beethoven's 6th or 9th) )


Beethoven's 9th does not have a "programme" associated with it.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Mark Harwood said:


> how much validity or usefulness do you see in Rococo as a label?


I can't answer this in terms of music ('not my period'), but in terms of the decorative arts and painting, I'd say it's enormously useful. Instantly the word conjures up a certain 'something' that all Rococo ceramic art, furniture, pictures etc have in common. The moment you attach the label you start to want to qualify it, of course (if you're talking about _great_ art of the period), but there is this recognisable thread that runs through all of it.

If it's there in the visual arts, I'd be surprised if it were not present in the music, too.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> I am wondering what all of the classical subgenres are, definitions, and examples (sound clips would be great! But if you dont want to, just names of composers would be a great help) Because I am only a teenager, and I do not know anyone that is into classical music such as myself, I think you guys would be a great help. So if anyone were here to help me out on this, I would greatly appreciate it.


One way of looking at it is to ask what musical high art is for, what historically its function or objective has been. When people do it -- write those squiggles on bits of paper or tap away on a computer -- what are they trying to achieve?

The answer is that people in the West have used the high art musical form, at least since the middle ages, to explore perennial human problems: death, love, war, suffering. patriotism, nature and God. During that time -- roughly 1000 years -- they've explored those topics using different musical structures, from mediaeval plain chant to modern atonality, minimalism and the various other boxes of tricks deployed by living composers.

Occasionally nihilism breaks out, and composers deny their music means anything -- it's just sound. Or corrupt European courts took over and used high art music as backdrop to flirting and gossip. But they've always been in the minority with most music artists trying to engage with the big questions.

So music is like all the other high art forms: novels, poetry, painting, sculpture, etc. It engages with the perennial questions -- just like a Shakespeare play -- but the nature of that engagement changes as one generation rebels against the last and addresses the problems from a different angle, using different forms in an attempt to achieve the same objective, with varying degrees of success.

Until c. 1900 it was easy to catalogue the forms used -- they were dictated by church and nobility who paid the musicians and demanded bang for their buck. It's a bore but you could consult Wikipedia and list the various categories on a piece of paper. But since then, with the exception of Stalin and a few other politicians, musicians broke free of prescribed form, the market took over from the private sector, and they produce whatever sound they want and their paying audiences can stand. That's why modern high art musical form is so varied and produces such anger in the hearts of musical conservatives, who long for days when bishops and barons dictated musical form.

According to this analysis to go on about concertos and counterpoint and the 19th century Romantic symphony misses the point. They're just the same words spoken in different languages. The important thing is to understand the language, not to count the commas in its construction.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

purple99 said:


> Until c. 1900 it was easy to catalogue the forms used -- they were dictated by church and nobility who paid the musicians and demanded bang for their buck. It's a bore but you could consult Wikipedia and list the various categories on a piece of paper. But since then, with the exception of Stalin and a few other politicians, musicians broke free of prescribed form, the market took over from the private sector, and they produce whatever sound they want and their paying audiences can stand. That's why modern high art musical form is so varied and produces such anger in the hearts of musical conservatives, who long for days when bishops and barons dictated musical form.


I think that the media and technology has also something to do with that though. Whenever there's a new development in music today the radio, cd's, magazines, etc make sure that the rest of the musical world knows about it very quickly. In pre-20th century times a new development took much longer to have an impact because it took much longer before the rest of the world knew about it and was able to influence other composers and find an audience.

Maybe todays composers also need to worry less about being popular. If the music of a composer of old wasn't liked in the city that he worked in he was in trouble. If your work is released on a global scale by way of cd and is promoted by radio and such it's more likely that you will find an audience. The exposure may be small and the audience you find not big enough to bring you 'fame' - but it's still more substantial than would have been possible pre-20th century - especially for composers who write music that the vast majority of listeners regard as difficult.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

The brilliance of your intervention, purple, is such that it seems almost impertinent to question any of it (because I suspect the query arises from my lack of understanding rather than a failure in your argument), but when I reached this last paragraph I began to feel uncomfortable:



purple99 said:


> According to this analysis to go on about concertos and counterpoint and the 19th century Romantic symphony misses the point. They're just the same words spoken in different languages. The important thing is to understand the language, not to count the commas in its construction.


Is this really so? While taking all those main points about the use of art to explore the big 'Life' themes, do the differences really boil down merely to different languages? Isn't there something else - a different kind of world view - that finds expression through the art as it changes through history, and which is more than a merely linguistic difference?

To examine the Rococo label again, here's Fragonard's 'Swing':










and, from the following century, Renoir's:










There's a shift in world view, here. Renoir's picture could no more have been painted in the C18th than Fragonard's (except as pastiche) could have been painted in the C19th. Something huge has happened (I guess we might label it 'Romanticism') that caused these painters to view the world in completely different ways.

So yes, Mozart is writing music that deals with the same big life issues that Wagner deals with, and yet the differences aren't merely linguistic; isn't there something else - a not unimportant something else - that needs addressing, and which finds expression through the language differences? I think that what's the labels (baroque, rococo etc) are attempting to convey - however inadequately they may do it - and why they're worth having.

I'm wondering, though, if you might say that's exactly what you meant, and that my use of the term '_merely_ linguistic' is misguided. In other words, would you say the language differences are themselves expressions of the differing world views, and that there's nothing 'mere' about them?


----------



## periodinstrumentfan (Sep 11, 2008)

If i'm not mistaken the Rococo period in the visual arts coincide with the Gallant style in music. 

...Haydn's early works fall under the Gallant style.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> I think that the media and technology has also something to do with that though. Whenever there's a new development in music today the radio, cd's, magazines, etc make sure that the rest of the musical world knows about it very quickly. In pre-20th century times a new development took much longer to have an impact because it took much longer before the rest of the world knew about it and was able to influence other composers and find an audience.
> 
> Maybe todays composers also need to worry less about being popular. If the music of a composer of old wasn't liked in the city that he worked in he was in trouble. If your work is released on a global scale by way of cd and is promoted by radio and such it's more likely that you will find an audience. The exposure may be small and the audience you find not big enough to bring you 'fame' - but it's still more substantial than would have been possible pre-20th century - especially for composers who write music that the vast majority of listeners regard as difficult.


I'm not sure that's true.  In the 18th century, for example, classical music was basically a rich men's club. Performers and composers were like butlers, who ran about the European courts and great houses, administering to their clients' needs. So when some rich guy in, say, Italy got himself a new musical butler, his rich mates in Paris wanted some of the action. New styles spread like wildfire as the nobility competed with each other to have the best orchestras, composers and opera houses under their control.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Elgarian said:


> I'm wondering, though, if you might say that's exactly what you meant, and that my use of the term '_merely_ linguistic' is misguided. In other words, would you say the language differences are themselves expressions of the differing world views, and that there's nothing 'mere' about them?


Yes! Revolutions occur in science when language has to be renewed or invented to accommodate a discovery -- think Einstein and the concept of space-time, or new words to describe descoveries in an atom-smasher, or new stars and planets. The same occurs in music.


----------

