# Why do different eras sound different to one another?



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Apologies if already asked but I'm curious as to why the Baroque sounds like the Baroque and Romantic sounds like Romantic yet they both use the same keys and techniques? Why did Bach never compose something like Bruckner did?

It's all so confusing...I really don't think I will even sleep tonight. I suppose you could say they are like accents of music like a country has the same language but different accents.


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

I didn't sleep at all two nights ago, I know the feeling. 


There are many, many factors but it's worth mentioning that music's developments as they are aren't as clean cut as we categorize them (eras blend, that's another discussion)

So when speaking broadly about eras, each era (in classical) has been sort of defined by certain musical principles (or composition techniques) over others.

The classical era for instance is especially concerned with melodies and harmonies, the romantic era is particularly concerned with lyricism and expanding existing forms, the 20th c. is especially concerned with texture (more sophisticated poly-phony), contrast and creating new forms. and so on. 


Stylistically on a broad scope you'll find too many differences both between composers, country and timeframe within each period. There are too many factors for this, so for this discussion we would need to analyse the difference of style between periods from more of the perspective I outlined above :tiphat:

Hope this is of help


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

It's like asking why did Rembrandt not paint like Picasso, when their materials are practically identical......


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

beetzart said:


> yet they both use the same keys and *techniques*


This is the key (excuse the pun) here. They didn't use the same techniques, so that's one reason why they sound different.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Art Rock said:


> It's like asking why did Rembrandt not paint like Picasso, when their materials are practically identical......


I did think of that analogy and really the same principles apply across the art world, I suppose. Following that logic, poor logic maybe, but I could say why is a Rolls Royce different from a Kia Picanto? They are both cars and perform the same tasks yet very different.

I'm thinking Ship of Theseus when an era blends into another one. Bits are removed, bits are replaced etc. Although, perhaps not.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Eschbeg said:


> This is the key (excuse the pun) here. They didn't use the same techniques, so that's one reason why they sound different.


Technique is a broad term. Tchaikovsky uses the same techniques Beethoven and Mozart used. He knew how to compose sequences, and long thrilling melodies like Beethoven and Mozart. He also knew how to build up the tension and reach huge climaxes like Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

beetzart said:


> Technique is a broad term.


Agreed, it can be a broad term, which is part of the answer to your question. For two composers to sound similar, it's not enough to use the broad view of techniques. You need the much more specific view. Same thing with painters, cars, and just about anything else: the broader view you take, the further you get from details that are kind of important.

More broadly, your post raises an interesting historical point: it used to be believed that the techniques of art are somehow inherent and/or suggested in their materials. Like most beliefs pertaining to classical music these days, we have the Romantic period to thank for this one. This belief is the one that, for example, underwrites the still-prevailing view that atonality was historically inevitable based on the "inherent" tendencies of the musical material with which composers worked. (Webern: "The collapse of tonality was not our fault! It imposed itself on us!")


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

Now that I think about it, I may not get sleep tonight either  

It's nearly two in the morning and I'm hyperactive working on a piece of mine 

I can't even watch the time!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

beetzart said:


> Apologies if already asked but I'm curious as to why the Baroque sounds like the Baroque and Romantic sounds like Romantic yet they both use the same keys and techniques? Why did Bach never compose something like Bruckner did?


In a word: evolution.

What people want from music, what they think is worth doing, what audiences think is worth listening to, what resources are available, all of these change over time, along with every other aspect of culture and society. It would be far stranger if there were no different eras.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

This is actually part of the ABRSM aural exam - listen to a piece and identify its period. IThere are many pointers.

Baroque can be polyphonic whereas Classical becomes more homophonic and Romantic moves to melody and accompaniment.

Baroque melodies are not always balanced and can be heavily ornamented.

Harmonies develop as do modulations to distant keys.

Baroque rarely uses chromaticism and as we move forward we get more and more chromatic until we lose the tonal centre.

A good place to start is a crib sheet for the exam e.g.. http://www.edwardmaxwell.com/ABRSM Exams Style and Period in the Aural Tests.pdf


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

beetzart said:


> Apologies if already asked but I'm curious as to why the Baroque sounds like the Baroque and Romantic sounds like Romantic yet they both use the same keys and techniques? Why did Bach never compose something like Bruckner did?
> 
> It's all so confusing...I really don't think I will even sleep tonight. I suppose you could say they are like accents of music like a country has the same language but different accents.


You see the same sorts of changes in English Literature. It's to do with *fashion*. Each generation comes along and wants to discover new things and see the world in a new way, and people get bored with 'the same old thing'. I bet even in the Bronze Age, people got tired with 'the same old style of torque'!


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

beetzart said:


> Apologies if already asked but I'm curious as to why the Baroque sounds like the Baroque and Romantic sounds like Romantic yet they both use the same keys and techniques? Why did Bach never compose something like Bruckner did?
> 
> It's all so confusing...I really don't think I will even sleep tonight. I suppose you could say they are like accents of music like a country has the same language but different accents.


It's not really that confusing is it?

Music evolves, certain aspects change/disappear/or come in play.

For example from Baroque into Classical era: Basso continuo disappeared, motivic development got more based on shorter motives or themes (instead of longer themes), less embellishment, more simplicity, more "lightness", more use of things like crescendo, more dynamics, more variation in rhythm.......you can go on like this for some more.

So actually they use a very different set of techniques if you look at it closely. Of course it's al tonal and the melodic material is all very similar but you could say all the other aspects change dramatically through history.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

There are certain elements in each era (as noted above by Razumovskymas) which give the characteristics to the music of the three broad periods:

In baroque: Figured bass/continuo, decorated motifs, consistency and uniformity of orchestral texture, a near absence of remote modulations, use of modal 'keys', no key with more than four flat or sharp in its signature, Picardie thirds, Phrygian cadence, chains of suspensions and first inversion chords.

Most of the keyboard works reflect the capabilities and range of the instruments available. The methods of harmony still resemble more the manner of church plainsong using (often melodic) contrapuntal lines to create harmonies. In fact church music still makes up a large amount of music for the baroque period.

In the classical period: the 'tonal' system was more or less clearly established. The 'tonic-dominant' or IV/V/I harmony structure rules in this classical period. Also the polyphonic method of counterpoint for harmony gave way to 'homophony' which is basically a single melody line supported by harmonic structure (chords..triads). Chromaticism in melodies, also passing notes, appoggiaturas, contrasted with the more spare harmonic style.
It wasn't that everything from baroque just disappeared, much of it was subsumed into the 'classical' period. Counterpoint remained, but was no longer the main method of harmonic development. One obvious difference is the clarity of the melodic harmonic development. The ornamentation is more sparing and this is first evident in the bridging style known as "galant" where the melodies became less winding and shorter; more balanced melodic cadences appeared.

The biggest development is sonata form. Figured bass and continuo disappeared. Specifically church music is no longer the dominant form by the time of early 'classical.' In fact the whole era reflects the new 'enlightenment' movement.

The romantic period : Chromaticism and dissonance play a bigger part. Again the era reflects the wider culture in literature and art and reflects back onto them. The new instruments - particularly the piano - allowed a wider range of expression. Even though sonata form remains it didn't dominate in the same way as during the classical and smaller forms have an equal significance. Perhaps the most defining feature is the expression of the composer's personal thoughts and ideas in an overt manner; unlike previous periods which focus more on structure, and in the baroque period - specifically Bach - being a conduit for God.
Tonality is more developed. A wider range of harmonies started to be used, much more dissonance, thicker textures for the keyboard works using the piano's improved sustaining features. The orchestra grew larger and more powerful and the pieces written for it are broader and more experimental. The clarity of the classical period gave way to more complex textures: some phrases lacking the mirroring and balance that dominated in composers like Mozart. The biggest forms are influenced by either personal reflections and emotion and the poetic turn back to nature, probably brought about by effects of the industrial revolution.

That's the broad outline anyway.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> You see the same sorts of changes in English Literature. It's to do with *fashion*. Each generation comes along and wants to discover new things and see the world in a new way, and people get bored with 'the same old thing'. I bet even in the Bronze Age, people got tired with 'the same old style of torque'!


There is a method of deciding the age of bronze age artefacts based on how they have been evolved.
Why music have changed like this. Someone comes up with music that sounds in a different way. Other composers think: I want to make music like that too and it goes on.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Why doesn't a 1969 Impala look like a 2017 Impala?

PROGRESS, INNOVATION & EVOLUTION!!!

Same with music!!!


----------

