# The Music Periods Classifications - Whyfor Art Thou?



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I was struck this morning while reading one of the Mozart threads - not by a car, but by a memory. When I began _voluntarily_ listening to classical music, I paid no attention to Periods. Mozart and Beethoven went onto the record changer with Tchaikovsky and Dvorak, and the pleasure resulting was uncontaminated with history. I noticed that Mozart was a melody guy, and Tchaikovsky had 'orchestral colors', and Beethoven got pretty emotional (I accidentally started in the middle), and Sibelius made eery music - but I listened to all of it the same way, with my mind (and maybe sometimes my mouth) open.

So... Just what exactly has all this Period divvying up done for me, except to bring ratiocination in to hinder my appreciation for the _music_?

[Note: This is about the music I heard when I started; I didn't hear the Bachs or Stravinsky or Bartók until later, and they are another story.]


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Music is music, the period or style is just a basic starting point.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Much like you Hilltroll72 I listened to anything and everything but as my knowledge of classical music grew I came to see that understanding the music's place in history is important in understanding the "development" of music. Is it important in enjoying a piece? Probably not but it does give perspective to style and the use of instrumentation. 

Unlike you I do not believe that learning about periods has hindered my enjoyment but just the opposite. It helps me place a composer in the context of their contemporaries. This is valuable only in that certain composers shine and stand out head and shoulders above their contemporaries, and why there are those such as Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky etc. who are considered "the greats" and have earned their place in music history as such. 

Kevin


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I too began listening to music without any clue as to where it fit on the calendar, but knowing whereabouts a composer "goes" has been helpful in further explorations and getting away from the received wisdom/popular choices. For me, while the actual listening to music is of course the most important thing, my music experience is a larger package than that; I also get a kick out of knowing the history, following trends, making comparisons, adding a new composer to my experience, owning a music collection, and so forth. Possessing extra knowledge has never been a hindrance to me.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

When I started listening to classical music (almost back when when it was just called music) it all sounded alike to me. Piano music sounded like piano, orchestral music sounded like orchestra, and that's all. Even though I enjoyed it, it wasn't until I gradually absorbed knowledge of music history that it became a more and more diverse and therefore richer experience.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> hinder my appreciation for the _music_?


has it? how can it? surely you either like a piece of music or you don't, regardless of all the extraneous information you might have learned about the history of music etc.


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

I don't think knowing more about a piece hinders your love for it. Why do you bother knowing _anything at all_ about music? You can simply listen to it, and it can be a beautiful experience to you. However, knowing the details of the style and times the composer lived in don't subtract from the experience. I know a lot more about music now than when I first started hearing it. Right now I can still appreciate and love the sound of a piece of music. But do I hear more or less?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Regarding the posts so far, my response is: If you are thinking about the music, you ain't listening to it. All of that reading and cogitation has to be kept out of the way. In the Beginning, you don't need a place to segregate that stuff, or the discipline to keep it there, because you don't _have_ any stuff.

Lets look at one example (of many) that's a Period-breaker: Haydn's Sonata in E flat, Hob XVI/52.

I have heard several recordings of this work wherein the performer treated the music as a sort of late Baroque study piece for technically 'advanced' students. In fact that was the standard/acceptable interpretation for... a long time.

Listen to Sokolov play the piece; now it is much different, effective as Haydn-flavored late Mozart, and not resembling Baroque at all.

Listen to Weissenberg play it, in a 1982 recital. Now it pretty much defies categorization in any Period. It has become virtuosic salon music... but is it by Cramer? Maybe Chaminade? Haydn - nah, doesn't sound like a _Haydn_ sonata.

And if you have been busy trying to figure out what Period it's from, _you ain't been listening to the music._


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

Even if we put aside the helpfulness of music periods in understanding musical styles and how music history progressed, I think the periods help me organize my music, at least. It allows me to sort out the various styles and composers in my head. Otherwise, the only way I could organize music in my head or in my collection is by alphabetical order, which isn't very helpful or meaningful.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Lets look at one example (of many) that's a Period-breaker: Haydn's Sonata in E flat, Hob XVI/52.
> 
> I have heard several recordings of this work wherein the performer treated the music as a sort of late Baroque study piece for technically 'advanced' students. In fact that was the standard/acceptable interpretation for... a long time.
> 
> ...


you can still do, although you might need to leave your thinking "outside", so to speak, before engaging. Can't you just enjoy the three of four renditions separately, though? - enjoy then for what they are and not because either of them is the correct interpretation (whatever that means).


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Regarding the posts so far, my response is: If you are thinking about the music, you ain't listening to it. All of that reading and cogitation has to be kept out of the way. In the Beginning, you don't need a place to segregate that stuff, or the discipline to keep it there, because you don't _have_ any stuff.


I completely disagree. In fact, if you're thinking about the music, you're probably listening to it with a greater concentration - and if you're me, or virtually anyone I know, that doesn't hinder your enjoyment of the music itself. The performer of a piece of music has to listen to every detail of what they're doing and concentrate, thinking about explicit details with dynamics, tempo, articulation, rhythmic variation, phrasing, melody, and the general characters, moods, styles, and subtleties associated with the piece. That's a lot of thinking when you _play_ music, and all of your thinking should be about music and only music there.

In the beginning, the first time you hear some music played, do you necessarily always fall in love with it? Or do some pieces of music take time and learning about the musical language to enjoy more? I've found when talking to fellow musicians in orchestra, and music teachers, that it's usually the latter.



Hilltroll72 said:


> Lets look at one example (of many) that's a Period-breaker: Haydn's Sonata in E flat, Hob XVI/52.
> 
> I have heard several recordings of this work wherein the performer treated the music as a sort of late Baroque study piece for technically 'advanced' students. In fact that was the standard/acceptable interpretation for... a long time.
> 
> Listen to Sokolov play the piece; now it is much different, effective as Haydn-flavored late Mozart, and not resembling Baroque at all.


When music falls in between periods, I actually think that's perhaps the most interesting time to consider questions like that. What style is the music in, really? Baroque or classical? Classical or romantic (often with Beethoven)? Oftentimes, the answer is a little bit of both. I don't think that's a distracting thought. It definitely helps in understanding what the piece, and the composer, is trying to achieve. Now, differences in interpretation can bring to mind different styles. I've heard Bach played heavily romanticized, and Chopin nocturnes played on a harpsichord. But I don't think the interpretation defines what period it's from - I think time period defines what time period it's from 



Hilltroll72 said:


> Listen to Weissenberg play it, in a 1982 recital. Now it pretty much defies categorization in any Period. It has become virtuosic salon music... but is it by Cramer? Maybe Chaminade? Haydn - nah, doesn't sound like a _Haydn_ sonata.


If it doesn't sound like a Haydn sonata, I suppose that's the fault of the performer. Generally speaking, that means they're not paying too much attention to the goals of the composer.



Hilltroll72 said:


> And if you have been busy trying to figure out what Period it's from, _you ain't been listening to the music._


Why do you have to spend _lots of effort_ to figure out what period a piece of music is from? If some piece has characteristics of both baroque and classical styles, or both classical and romantic styles, then _at least you have a general idea_ of where the composer is coming from and what they're trying to achieve! But I don't need someone to tell me that I'm not listening to the music when thinking allows me to understand the point of the music better!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I can think of a few reasons why there is so much classification. Here's one theory:

Being aware of the music within its stylistic context can be entirely persuasive, more than knowing _anything else _about the piece. For example, I like to tell my story about Glazunov. For one thing, I wasn't that knowledgeable about much Classical music, I was just coming to realize that Russian composers interested me. So when I listened to Glazunov's music for the first time, and looked at his dates, 1865-1936, I automatically assumed "Ok, this is what this era sounded like. I guess people wrote romantic stuff well into the 20th century." It only came later after reading some rather disparaging critics say that Glazunov was "old-fashioned." What? How is something already 100 years old be _extra_ deemed old-fashioned? That didn't make sense until I started looking up things about "innovative composers," and then I realized that this was something that's pretty important in the classical critical world. A composer who wasn't very innovative and original was looked down upon, and composers "ahead of their time" were glorified, though not all. Ah! That makes sense! That's why there's so much emphasis on analyzing composers that way. So, rather than being an issue of Era, it's about one's _placement _stylistically in the era, a spectrum of whether or not they were "ahead of their time." And _that_, I've realized, makes all the difference in categorizing, classifying, and criticizing composers.

Let me explain in simpler terms what I mean. When I heard Glazunov for the first time, I was aware of his quality, style and his date while I was unaware of his _context_, but as soon as I was aware, it changed my opinion of him (from excited to rather ashamed/embarrassed for a while, but that's gone). This case can be applied to many different scenarios, to the many scenarios that have already been mentioned. An orchestra is an orchestra, a piano piece a piano piece. There's something lost when one begins to look at the context of a composer, and compare their quality and style to others of their time, or before or after. A certain freshness, even timelessness can be sullied. I think a case in favor of my theory is what has happened to many composer's reputations over time. Bach looked old-fashioned in his time, but after time passed, that context was lost from memory, and his reputation was regained in the 1800s. In a backwards sense, Mahler didn't earn fame because he was too ahead of his time, but as time passed, he "came into fashion," it simply took a while for his negative context to go away, and then he gained universality, like Bach. And that's happened with so many other composers too, Glazunov is a rising example. Why? People are beginning to ignore such critical statements as "he's too old-fashioned" as of any relevance, because time distances us from his context, and music is simply _music _again. "One's time will come."

Summary:
Free, unbiased listening comes from unawareness of the context of a piece, regardless of knowledge of style, date, etc. because context is what will ultimately influence criticism.

Beware of what critics say, it might do much more influence on you than you realize.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ah, this has been interesting conversation. I had no idea you people were going at listening to music as if you were working at being musicians and/or musicologists. I had the notion that even musicians could turn the cogitation off and listen _empty headed_, and let the music fill it up. I admit it ain't always easy, but... jeez, I'm beginning to feel privileged; maybe a weirdo, but I'll take it.


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

Usually you already have some preconceptions about music when you listen to it... unless you want me to be a brainless zombie every time I play a CD. No, you don't need intense concentration when you listen to music, I only suggested that's the case when you play it.

But as I said earlier, I don't think that kind of stuff subtracts from the listening experience _at all_.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

For perspective on one guys music from period X to another's from period Y, I never got much. Awareness of the general development of harmony, usage, form is a bit of an intellectual thrill, but I don't get much connectivity adding that to any particular piece from any era.

What I do get, if you have gained a sense of the general ethos of the period, is much more a sense of how truly outrageously modern, advanced, is the music of Chopin... often thought of as a 'pretty music' composer where much of his music is both wild and radical.

Ditoo, the "modernity" of most of the composers from the past comes more to the fore. It is impossible for us to 'go back' and have the mentality of a contemporary of the past ages, but some notion of it can make what you hear the equivalent of seeing Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel Murals pre and post cleaning 

Sometimes hearing a HIP performance can work similarly, i.e. Rameau on original instruments begins to sound like what it actually was, not just the timbres, but the fact it was some fiendishly difficult music, at the top of demands on the players' virtuosity, and that translates into the same notes at the same tempo of a sudden becoming that much more intense and truly exciting.

Knowing some theory, what is / was / wasn't done at the time can also bring you that extra dimension, and ditto for form.

The eras were assigned when, I believe rightly, it was recognized there was this huge body of work spanning centuries which seemed to still be in play, and some historical perspective, and naming of era and style, would help for those who wished to discuss it.

If you're viewing paintings, you don't even need to know the name of the three primary colors to enjoy, or really, understand - most fundamentally, what you are looking at. I believe music is quite the same.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Hilltroll, If context, time, place etc. were not important then why would music companies, and the artists, provide liner notes for CDs, or cover notes on LPs? Hmm? Obviously these must be important to many classical music listeners or they wouldn't wast money and resources on it. Can you honestly say you don't read the liner notes either before, during or after listening to the music. Having such information or knowledge does not hinder me from letting the music take me where it will. Music is both a subjective and objective art in my opinion. I do think for the listener it is more subjective but not totally so. 

Kevin


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Ah, this has been interesting conversation. I had no idea you people were going at listening to music as if you were working at being musicians and/or musicologists. I had the notion that even musicians could turn the cogitation off and listen _empty headed_, and let the music fill it up. I admit it ain't always easy, but... jeez, I'm beginning to feel privileged; maybe a weirdo, but I'll take it.


I'm (perhaps) infamous for not having / getting "associations" when I listen, either literal, pictorial, and I often find myself paying no attention to sung text, even when in my own language, at least upon an initial auditioning. Ergo: I don't need or necessarily want the background, the "story," need to know anything about the composer. [I think many do feel such a need, and then period may come as strongly into that as the rest.] I'm happy to initially do without, believing the piece has to stand on its own two legs as a piece, nothing less.

I'm trained to some nth degree or another, and I manage to be swept away when listening to anything new to me. The thinking does kick in pretty quickly -- especially if something is not working for me, or something very new, or outside my listening spectrum is going on -- but otherwise, I'd rather go for the ride on the sound alone, and ask questions (if any came up) of it later.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kevin Pearson said:


> Hilltroll, If context, time, place etc. were not important then why would music companies, and the artists, provide liner notes for CDs, or cover notes on LPs? Hmm? Obviously these must be important to many classical music listeners or they wouldn't wast money and resources on it. Can you honestly say you don't read the liner notes either before, during or after listening to the music. Having such information or knowledge does not hinder me from letting the music take me where it will. Music is both a subjective and objective art in my opinion. I do think for the listener it is more subjective but not totally so.
> 
> Kevin


I actually often enough have not bothered to read the liner notes -- I also generally know the music I'm purchasing a recording of, so any squibs, scholarly or not, don't interest me - much. I purchase based on performers and conductor,

They're provided because the majority like them, simples. Though "informative," they are about as necessary as a number of terse paragraphs hung on a wall next to a painting you are looking at.

There's more than me out there who go about it this way


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Ah, this has been interesting conversation. I had no idea you people were going at listening to music as if you were working at being musicians and/or musicologists. I had the notion that even musicians could turn the cogitation off and listen _empty headed_, and let the music fill it up. I admit it ain't always easy, but... jeez, I'm beginning to feel privileged; maybe a weirdo, but I'll take it.


Well, yes, you are a weirdo...( inserted for the benefit of anyone who thinks I am serious) but setting that aside, I agree with you. My first experiences of classical music were immediate, unthinking, emotional. Holst's Mars was scary, Saint-Saens' 'Aquarium' was creepy. First and foremost, they still retain that power, despite what I now know about these composers, the music and the whole darn thing.

Yes, coming to understand 'periods' is useful if you want to know about 'the _development _of music', but I can't think of anything I know about the _development _of music that helps in any way to understand the music itself.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Regarding the posts so far, my response is: If you are thinking about the music, you ain't listening to it. All of that reading and cogitation has to be kept out of the way. In the Beginning, you don't need a place to segregate that stuff, or the discipline to keep it there, because you don't _have_ any stuff.
> 
> Lets look at one example (of many) that's a Period-breaker: Haydn's Sonata in E flat, Hob XVI/52.
> 
> ...


But if you have no interest in classical periods, how do you know Sokolov's performance doesn't resemble Baroque? And if you're trying to decide whether Weissenberg's performance sounds like Cramer or Chaminade, why are you busy doing this when you should have been listening to the music?

Or do you actually think that the people responding to this thread spend their entire time fretting about the historical placement of the music they're listening to?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> But if you have no interest in classical periods, how do you know Sokolov's performance doesn't resemble Baroque? And if you're trying to decide whether Weissenberg's performance sounds like Cramer or Chaminade, why are you busy doing this when you should have been listening to the music?
> 
> Or do you actually think that the people responding to this thread spend their entire time fretting about the historical placement of the music they're listening to?


You are making unwarranted assumptions (and done some misreading), and you state them clearly enough so that I can respond; thanks for that.

I have listened to enough recordings, and read enough liner notes - and a few books - to know some of the data. I am telling you that this knowledge doesn't help me connect with music _while I'm listening to it_. If I think about what I heard after I'm done listening, that isn't music, it's _thinking *about*_ music; musicological stuff of a sort. The musicology isn't the music. I will never have to perform the music, or even analyze it, so all that thinking is a kind of recreation (not re-creation).

I have the impression ( haven't looked there) that Mr. Magle's other forum is performer/professional oriented. Talk Classical is a Classical music general purpose forum; we don't need to know the jargon, and professionals participate 'at their own risk'. There seem to be a lot of members who like to play with the jargon, and _philosophize_ about its meaning, and put thoughts in the minds of long dead composers - and that's no skin off me. I just try to remind you amateur folks that music is for listening to first, and thinking/talking about later. _PetrB_, for instance, says that he practices what I'm preaching - and he is a professional musician - so I know I am not alone. Anyone care to join us?

My purpose in starting this thread has been served; thanks to all of you for responding.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You are making unwarranted assumptions (and done some misreading), and you state them clearly enough so that I can respond; thanks for that.
> 
> I have listened to enough recordings, and read enough liner notes - and a few books - to know some of the data. I am telling you that this knowledge doesn't help me connect with music _while I'm listening to it_. If I think about what I heard after I'm done listening, that isn't music, it's _thinking *about*_ music; musicological stuff of a sort. The musicology isn't the music. I will never have to perform the music, or even analyze it, so all that thinking is a kind of recreation (not re-creation).
> 
> ...


The "unwarranted assumptions" were deliberate, and rhetorical.
"I am telling you that this knowledge doesn't help me connect with music _while I'm listening to it_." - this is (by and large) true for me too, and I suspect for others. But that wasn't what you seemed to be asking in the OP - indeed you seemed to imply that thinking about music history before or after listening was detrimental to the actual listening experience.
At least nobody apologised to you for not listening to music the correct way.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think it doesn't matter whether you are interested in the historical context or not. Listen how you want to listen. 

I'm a history guy myself, but I won't insist everyone do it like I do it.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> I think it doesn't matter whether you are interested in the historical context or not. Listen how you want to listen.
> 
> I'm a history guy myself, but I won't insist everyone do it like I do it.


On the other hand, I insist that if you ain't doing it _my_ way, you are screwing up.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> On the other hand, I insist that if you ain't doing it _my_ way, you are screwing up.


I feel I somewhat should defend "the other way." after all, once in the bath, you're in the water, and thinking something about the bath does not necessarily diminish your appreciation of the sensation of being in the water


----------

