# What is your least favorite classical period?



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

For me, it the Classical period.

The only "Classical" composer I could ever get into is Beethoven, though I feel he is more of a transitional figure more than anything.

I find most most music of the Classical period to be emotionally shallow and devoid of a sense of drama, for the most part. Mozart's Requiem could be the exception here, as I do enjoy the emotioanl depth of this work. But everything else sounds like tea time in Vienna to me.

Not trying to insult anyone's tatses or sensibilities, I'm just curious to know what era of music you are the least attracted to.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Contemporary era. I just can't belive that there is any good composer that does not wear Mozart or Chopin styled clothes or it's possible to see a good-quality photography of him.



> But everything else sounds like tea time in Vienna to me.


Yes, this music is very elegant and thats why I like it so much. You just can't listen to it without imagining some maginificent palace or royal gardens full of those galant monsieurs and madames.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

Baroque. In particlar the "i" ending composers.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Medieval and renaissance. Nothing wrong with it, just not my taste.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Taneyev said:


> Baroque. In particlar the "i" ending composers.


LOL, now THAT is a great response!


----------



## JTech82 (Feb 6, 2009)

The Baroque period is my least favorite. Not because I don't "get it," but I just don't like it. It just sounds like a bunch of scales with no melodic or emotional contour. The Classical Era would be my next least favorite, but I can actually stomach some of the work of Haydn and Mozart, but that's really about it.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I personally cannot stand most of the Classical-era composers. I can't stand any but the last music Mozart wrote, really for the same reason Tapkaara gave. It just lacks any substance to me. Bach is great, so is Beethoven, so are Brahms and Sibelius and Mahler... I just don't care for teatime in Vienna...


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Pre-1675 and Early Classical, that is, I like everything from Mozart on and the late Baroque composers. (Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Rameau, Telemann, Tartini)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> Medieval and renaissance. Nothing wrong with it, just not my taste.


I agree. In the mid 1990s, I borrowed a tape from the local library of Antoine *Brumel*'s _Missa et terrae motus_. I really liked it then but recently I borrowed the same thing again on CD & found it boring. This is the era I am now least interested in.

Somehow my taste has narrowed & now I basically only listen to composers of the late Romantic and C20th. I think people above have summarised well why I'm not really interested in the Baroque and Classical periods. Of those periods, I have a few CDs of *Vivaldi, J.S. & C.P.E. Bach, Telemann, Mozart & Beethoven*, but I rarely listen to them. Of those, I prefer Beethoven's _Eroica_ and _Pastoral_ symphonies. They seem to be atypical works. I suppose these are the exceptions, and I also like some of *Handel*'s works (though I don't own anything by him) & *Schubert*.

Having said that, I also listen to classical radio, and that exposes me to music from all periods, which I am happy to listen to, but not own on CD.


----------



## Guest (Mar 31, 2009)

I thoroughly enjoy all era except to-days, I feel as if some composers have lost their way.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> The only "Classical" composer I could ever get into is Beethoven, though I feel he is more of a transitional figure more than anything.


I think we're on the same page. Mozart in particular has driven me away from the whole period with what I had often felt were excessive Ablerti bass passages and predictable appoggiaturas. I've mellowed a lot toward that and do enjoy some Mozart now. I enjoy Haydn as a major influence on Beethoven.

But I do listen to much more classic period than I do twentieth century or modern period composers if they are too atonal. Of course I love Vaughan-Williams and other 20th century composers that still embrace beautiful sonorities and harmonies, but most atonal or very avant-garde composers are just saying "gfdaes iTddk od i2i3i2 adstrg Stermifeepi fleepi" to me.

None of these biases entirely stop me from trying to appreciate my least favorites however. Someday they may click.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Andre said:


> Having said that, I also listen to classical radio, and that exposes me to music from all periods, which I am happy to listen to, but not own on CD.


Yeah, I am with you there. I am occaisionally pleasantly surprised to hear a work by Haydn (or something like that) that made for a pleasant 25 minutes of listening on the radio, but I am in no rush to get to the store to buy the CD.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge (May 16, 2008)

It might be sort of surprising but I deeply enjoy all periods except the "experimental" 20th century. Perhaps the prevailing strong preference for the romantic period comes from exposure to film music which usually borrows from the romantic style.

But what if it is only a matter of "playing it right"? Shallow or predictable are definitely not what I am getting when I listen to pre-romantic stuff. Sure, there are a lot of pieces that I simply don't like, but there are also a lot of romantic pieces that I do not "get" either. Still, the same piece, especially a difficult one, can be played in a lot of different ways and some of them may be sort of lacking emotion or making it fake. But if you listen to Argerich playing Scarlatti K141, perhaps you will change your mind about "composers ending in i"


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

Well, Not surprisingly I'm going to put the twentieth century. It's an era I just can't get into at all...I'm trying!.. But so much of the music seems like an incomprensible mess to me..no tunes, no pattern and no point!!!..maybe I'll get it oneday..Hope so..


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Tapkaara said:


> I find most most music of the Classical period to be emotionally shallow and devoid of a sense of drama, for the most part. Mozart's Requiem could be the exception here, as I do enjoy the emotioanl depth of this work. But everything else sounds like tea time in Vienna to me.


And why is this? Because composers of that period were told what to write by the people who employed them. If they wanted tea time in Vienna, they got tea time in Vienna! In fact a lot of Classical music was written to accompany meals! It was Beethoven who first broke away from this tradition and do his own thing, which wasn't what everyone liked but at least he was showing his true self as an artist. I don't think it was the fault of the pre-Beethoven composers that their music sounds the way it does, but the fact remains that it does sound somewhat smothered by the constraints of the circumstances in which it came about.

Saying this, there are a lot of Classical works where the composers try to break free. You mentioned Mozarts Requiem, I totally agree, and so close to death he might have thought, "what the hell, I'll write what I want for a change!" Also, the first bars of his dissonance quartet show, in my opinion, how Mozart's music might have sounded had he been born 100 years later! Even certain Haydn symphonies (95) and quartets show a defiance of Classical orthodoxy which I think perfectly healthy. Artists are not robots and should not have bee treated as such. I think it healthy and refreshing that in today's social and political climate, composers can make up for the artistic scandals of the past.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Andante said:


> I thoroughly enjoy all era except to-days, I feel as if some composers have lost their way.


Every music was at one point contemporary music, and every time a new form of expression came along it was treated with the same hostility a lot of people have for the music of today. What we have to remember is that any form of expression is not bad or incorrect, art is art.

Saying that, I can appreciate you disliking some of the soundworlds that our modern composers create. We were asked what era we least liked and you replied honestly.

In fact, I have not yet stated which era I least like. I'll firstly begin with stating that I think there is good and bad music in every era. There is good and bad Mozart just as there is good and bad Stockhausen. However, by personal tastes repel me from the bulk of bland and repetitive orchestral suites of the Baroque era. This includes the music of Teleman, Vivaldi, Handel and Bach. Sayng this there is more music of Bach's that I like than dislike, it's just that he wrote so much stuff it's near impossible to like all of it!


----------



## kratos (Feb 24, 2009)

That thread should be a poll, and as I see I would be the only one to vote Romanticism...


----------



## bassClef (Oct 29, 2006)

Baroque & Renaissance for me too. I just can't get into it - doesn't fire me up.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Edward Elgar said:


> And why is this? Because composers of that period were told what to write by the people who employed them. If they wanted tea time in Vienna, they got tea time in Vienna! In fact a lot of Classical music was written to accompany meals! It was Beethoven who first broke away from this tradition and do his own thing, which wasn't what everyone liked but at least he was showing his true self as an artist. I don't think it was the fault of the pre-Beethoven composers that their music sounds the way it does, but the fact remains that it does sound somewhat smothered by the constraints of the circumstances in which it came about.
> 
> Saying this, there are a lot of Classical works where the composers try to break free. You mentioned Mozarts Requiem, I totally agree, and so close to death he might have thought, "what the hell, I'll write what I want for a change!" Also, the first bars of his dissonance quartet show, in my opinion, how Mozart's music might have sounded had he been born 100 years later! Even certain Haydn symphonies (95) and quartets show a defiance of Classical orthodoxy which I think perfectly healthy. Artists are not robots and should not have bee treated as such. I think it healthy and refreshing that in today's social and political climate, composers can make up for the artistic scandals of the past.


I agree with every word you've just posted! Art is not something to constrain, but to liberate, and the people of old made it to constrain. It shows in much of the music. I agree, not ALL of it, but a good smattering of it anyway.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Edward Elgar said:


> And why is this? Because composers of that period were told what to write by the people who employed them. If they wanted tea time in Vienna, they got tea time in Vienna! In fact a lot of Classical music was written to accompany meals! It was Beethoven who first broke away from this tradition and do his own thing, which wasn't what everyone liked but at least he was showing his true self as an artist. I don't think it was the fault of the pre-Beethoven composers that their music sounds the way it does, but the fact remains that it does sound somewhat smothered by the constraints of the circumstances in which it came about.
> 
> Saying this, there are a lot of Classical works where the composers try to break free. You mentioned Mozarts Requiem, I totally agree, and so close to death he might have thought, "what the hell, I'll write what I want for a change!" Also, the first bars of his dissonance quartet show, in my opinion, how Mozart's music might have sounded had he been born 100 years later! Even certain Haydn symphonies (95) and quartets show a defiance of Classical orthodoxy which I think perfectly healthy. Artists are not robots and should not have bee treated as such. I think it healthy and refreshing that in today's social and political climate, composers can make up for the artistic scandals of the past.


Best post of the thread so far. Very well put, Sir Edward!


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> And why is this? Because composers of that period were told what to write by the people who employed them. If they wanted tea time in Vienna, they got tea time in Vienna! In fact a lot of Classical music was written to accompany meals! It was Beethoven who first broke away from this tradition and do his own thing, which wasn't what everyone liked but at least he was showing his true self as an artist. I don't think it was the fault of the pre-Beethoven composers that their music sounds the way it does, but the fact remains that it does sound somewhat smothered by the constraints of the circumstances in which it came about.


Banals and generalization.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Aramis said:


> Banals and generalization.


Um... did you read the second paragraph? That rather dismisses the idea of it being a "generalization"...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

World Violist said:


> Um... did you read the second paragraph? That rather dismisses the idea of it being a "generalization"...


Not really. Also, referring to Mozart seems to be some kind of joke. He was independent composer, you can't say that his only objective was to please his master. He had a lot of troubles with employment for this reason.

Anyway, my point is that you can't generalize like this, by saying: "Classical is commercial, there are no artistic values and emotions". It reminds me of metalheads arguing about true and false metal bands. They sounds quite similiar and use almost the same arguments.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Aramis said:


> It reminds me of metalheads arguing about true and false metal bands. They sounds quite similiar and use almost the same arguments.


Aaah...Mozart...the original headbanger!


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Tapkaara said:


> Aaah...Mozart...the original headbanger!


No no no, that was Vivaldi! And before him... Palestrina??? And before him, Josquin and then that Dufay guy or whatever his name was. Headbanging masses are fun.

Just as a side note, the thing about Vivaldi at least was serious...


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

From Bach onwards, in general the later it is, the less I appreciate it. Baroque music seems to have been made in order to delight in music for its own sake; Romantic lumbers around making Big Points and missing the playfulness that gives music charm.
Boccherini is my link between Baroque and Classical: Classical forms, Baroque motivation.
The exception to the chronological rule is the beautiful music written for the guitar by Sor, Marschner and so on, and transcriptions of Scarlatti et al. For some reason, like Haydn they convey delight in music for its own sake.
In Jazz, for me there are eras that matter. The 1920s produced many astonishing things. In classical (small "s") music, it's the approach. A study by Paganini or Sor means more to me than any vast conception by Brahms. 
But we evolve, don't we?


----------



## JTech82 (Feb 6, 2009)

Mark Harwood said:


> From Bach onwards, in general the later it is, the less I appreciate it. Baroque music seems to have been made in order to delight in music for its own sake; Romantic lumbers around making Big Points and missing the playfulness that gives music charm.


Such an ill-informed statement. Not all music is supposed to "charm" people, maybe in your mind that's what you enjoy hearing, but not me. I'll take suspenseful over "charm" anyday of the week.

Here's something you can do: sit down with some Brahms, since you apparently don't care much for him, and listen to his piano concertos through a pair of good headphones and a good CD player and tell me that it isn't beautiful music that's full of emotion, sophistication, and is breathtaking.


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> Every music was at one point contemporary music, and every time a new form of expression came along it was treated with the same hostility a lot of people have for the music of today. What we have to remember is that any form of expression is not bad or incorrect, art is art.


Yes but only some stands the test of time.



> Saying that, I can appreciate you disliking some of the soundworlds that our modern composers create. We were asked what era we least liked and you replied honestly.
> 
> !


For me any Music has to at least one of the following:
It has to sound nice [to my Ears]
It has to have form that I can recognise
It has to have Rhythm
So long as it has one of these I can enjoy it if it has all three them I am very happy unfortunately some have none of these, at least none that I can discern, I am not alone with this view, That some of this music is advanced and very clever is not disputed but it appeals to only a few. Perhaps I [and countless others] are relics of the past but we are the majority. 
*EE*, To quote you signature "When all the paint has been dried, when all the stone has been carved, music shall remain, and we shall work with what remains." 
So time will tell.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

The old stuff before Bach, and the new stuff after Bartok. 

I guess I would like Baroque music more if it wasn't for that horrible harpsichord.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Aramis said:


> Not really. Also, referring to Mozart seems to be some kind of joke. He was independent composer, you can't say that his only objective was to please his master. He had a lot of troubles with employment for this reason.
> 
> Anyway, my point is that you can't generalize like this, by saying: "Classical is commercial, there are no artistic values and emotions".


Yes, as far as I'm concerned Mozart's music is full of emotion. It's not because something is uplifting or that his music leaves room for hope as opposed to despair that there's no emotion in it. It's not because you don't want to commit suicide after listening to his music that there's no emotion there.

And regardless of whether his music was 'commercial' or not, the fact that a lot of people like it - or even if it was his intention for a lot of people to like it doesn't mean that it's bad music. Writing something that is incomprehensible to 99.9% of people doesn't mean that it's good music either, no matter how much arty-farty talk it may inspire.

Mozart is an all time great. In my modest opinion it's silly to argue otherwise. One could also try to come up with arguments to try to prove that Tiger Woods can't play golf, but they ain't going to convince me.


----------



## ecg_fa (Nov 10, 2008)

>>Mozart is an all time great. In my modest opinion it's silly to argue otherwise. One could also try to come up with arguments to try to prove that Tiger Woods can't play golf, but they ain't going to convince me. <<

**Well said Gaston (as usual I might add!) . 

While I understand the question here, I can't answer it-- there isn't an era of classical music I dislike, or even dislike most of. Closest would be early Gregorian chant just because it does all seem very similar-- but even at times I love that. Just because music was written for patrons-- and aristocratic or autocratic church patrons to
boot-- doesn't mean I don't love it. I love most of Bach, Handel, Haydn, Palestrina, Monteverdi, etc. And earlier music is often very beautiful and exciting in it's own way to me. And I like a good deal of 20th century & 'modern' music too-- not everything, but quite a lot and in the recent 20 years or so I think contemporary classical music has moved beyond just 'weird for weird sake' atonality/serialism (SOME of that appeals too at times) into more 'tonic' areas, or even reusing/adapting very old ideas. I may be 
musically promiscuous, but I don't care-- it's more to savor, and I do .

Ed


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Andante said:


> Yes but only some stands the test of time.


Through analysis of historical events and trends, we can deduce that the music that had the worst reception at its premiere will become popular and stand the test of time. Most notably Beethoven's 5th, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring.



Andante said:


> It has to sound nice [to my Ears]


Music works on the concept of tonal, harmonic and melodic dissonances. It wasn't designed with consonances in mind. In any case, do you want instant gratification when you listen to music or a thoughful, profound and ultimatly more satisfying experience? To only acknowledge the face value of a piece (i.e. it sounds nice) seems to me to be a pretty shallow way of appraising art.



Andante said:


> It has to have form that I can recognise


Many contemporary works are in ternary or binary form. In the other instances, are you not willing to accept other structures? Listening to how the small melodic gestures affect the structure of a piece as a whole is as extremely satisfying when listening to either Beethoven's 5th or Xenakis' ST/4.



Andante said:


> It has to have Rhythm


I can't think of music without rhythm exept perhaps 4:33. Do you by any chance mean rhythm you can tap your foot to? Since the dawn of music, composers have been using hemiolas and syncopation to suggest rhythmic uncertainty. It's the inevitable evolution of these musics that have lead to the artistic freedoms we hear in music today.



Andante said:


> I am not alone with this view, That some of this music is advanced and very clever is not disputed but it appeals to only a few. Perhaps I [and countless others] are relics of the past but we are the majority.


I'd be interested to know what you would say to the majority of the public in the early 1800's to try and persuade them to appreciate Beethoven as the genius you know him to be. I doubt you would have much impact on their subborn and ridgid tastes.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

ecg_fa said:


> >>Mozart is an all time great. In my modest opinion it's silly to argue otherwise. One could also try to come up with arguments to try to prove that Tiger Woods can't play golf, but they ain't going to convince me. <<


I'm not trying in the least to argue that Mozart wasn't great. I just don't like his music. I agree that he was probably the greatest musical genius of the day (or several, possibly any), but that doesn't keep me from saying that I don't like his music.

For goodness' sake, if we all liked the same composers, the world of music would really be a boring place, wouldn't it?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

World Violist said:


> I'm not trying in the least to argue that Mozart wasn't great. I just don't like his music. I agree that he was probably the greatest musical genius of the day (or several, possibly any), but that doesn't keep me from saying that I don't like his music.
> 
> For goodness' sake, if we all liked the same composers, the world of music would really be a boring place, wouldn't it?


Indeed you are right Violist and that is a fact, I am afraid, so many in here cannot accept. I really do not like Mozart either, but as long as I am not being nasty about it for the sake of being nasty, please respect my opinion on it. Let's all get over the fact that not everyone who listens to good classical music is a devotee of Mozart, the greatest genius (musical or otherwise) who ever lived or will ever live.

Enough of this "us" and "them" mentality, please!


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Although I'm not given to expressing disslikes for a whole era (to much of a generalization) I can say that I find the peroid of transition between the Baroque and Classical eras quite boring. J.Ph.E. Bach, Stamitz, Boyce and others considered to be Gallant or Rococo composers I find vacuous and uninteresting.


FC


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> Enough of this "us" and "them" mentality, please!


Enough sanctimony, please.


----------



## Mr Dull (Mar 14, 2009)

Another vote against classical period which I find shallow. I would also add Romantic and Nationalist music. The main reason for the dislike of all of these periods is over exposure since they are the most played. I don't dislike composers like Mozart, Berlioz or Tchaikovsky its just that I have heard their popular pieces so many times they have become background noise. 
I also don't like the more extreme modern music even though I like Cage's sonatas and interludes and a few other odd modern pieces.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Herzeleide said:


> Enough sanctimony, please.


Herzeliede, I like you. There's no need to come at me directly like this. Please, can we not take pot shots at each other?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> Indeed you are right Violist and that is a fact, I am afraid, so many in here cannot accept. I really do not like Mozart either, but as long as I am not being nasty about it for the sake of being nasty, please respect my opinion on it. Let's all get over the fact that not everyone who listens to good classical music is a devotee of Mozart, the greatest genius (musical or otherwise) who ever lived or will ever live.
> 
> Enough of this "us" and "them" mentality, please!


Well, if it's my post you're referring to, I don't think that I'm the type of poster responsible for creating a "us" and "them" mentality. If anything I'm usually walking on egg-shells, trying to see to it that I don't offend anyone with my posts. Even more so in recent times when there has been a lot of unpleasant stuff going on.

I have no problem whatsoever accepting that not everyone likes Mozart. But I don't see anything wrong with saying that I for one love his music either.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

No, I wasn't referring to one person directly, and especially not you, Jhar. I'm just saying that there is often a very severe recation if one says they are not hung up on Mozart. It's like you have just uttered a horribel swear word to the ears of some. And then there is the "how could you?"

I have never once put anyone down for liking Mozart. Just as I would hope someone would not put me down for liking a composer that someone else did not like. My point is, we are all fans of good music, but we will often disagree on the finer points of what good music is. That should be a given, not an opportunity for others to berate you if there is a disagreement. This is what I mean by "us" and "them." We should be a collective "us" who is comfortable with the occaisional (and inevitable) disagreements on the finer points.


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

post-minimalist said:


> Although I'm not given to expressing disslikes for a whole era (to much of a generalization) I can say that I find the peroid of transition between the Baroque and Classical eras quite boring. J.Ph.E. Bach, Stamitz, Boyce and others considered to be Gallant or Rococo composers I find vacuous and uninteresting.
> 
> FC


Interesting from a musical perspective only maybe. But no real masterpieces here, just a kind of experimentation. But thanks be to those few individuals who decided to change things a little which led to greater things later...


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> No, I wasn't referring to one person directly, and especially not you, Jhar. I'm just saying that there is often a very severe recation if one says they are not hung up on Mozart. It's like you have just uttered a horribel swear word to the ears of some. And then there is the "how could you?"
> 
> I have never once put anyone down for liking Mozart. Just as I would hope someone would not put me down for liking a composer that someone else did not like. My point is, we are all fans of good music, but we will often disagree on the finer points of what good music is. That should be a given, not an opportunity for others to berate you if there is a disagreement. This is what I mean by "us" and "them." We should be a collective "us" who is comfortable with the occaisional (and inevitable) disagreements on the finer points.


Agreed.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

And by the way, that does not mean you should not defend your points vigorously or stand up for your opinions, no matter how offensive someone else may find them. I have stated very clearly, for example, my opinions on composers like Schonberg, Cage and Stockhausen. And they are not positive opinions. But it's when the discussion becomes personally mean-spirited or insulting towards a fellow member is when and where the line should be drawn.


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

JTech82 said:


> Such an ill-informed statement. Not all music is supposed to "charm" people, maybe in your mind that's what you enjoy hearing, but not me. I'll take suspenseful over "charm" anyday of the week.
> 
> Here's something you can do: sit down with some Brahms, since you apparently don't care much for him, and listen to his piano concertos through a pair of good headphones and a good CD player and tell me that it isn't beautiful music that's full of emotion, sophistication, and is breathtaking.


Hello friend.
"Not all music is supposed to "charm" people".
I didn't imply that it was; I'm saying that I most enjoy music that does.

"Here's something you can do: sit down with some Brahms, since you apparently don't care much for him, and listen to his piano concertos through a pair of good headphones and a good CD player and tell me that it isn't beautiful music that's full of emotion, sophistication, and is breathtaking."
No problem. It's all of those things. But there is a lot of music that I'd rather hear.

My apologies if my opinion, being ill-informed despite my 20 years married to a Brahms fan and player, differs from your own.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

For me it would be most of music written before Beethoven. With some notable (and, as I can see from some previous posts, clichéd) exceptions - Mozart's Requiem, and a few of Palestrina's, Bach's and Haydn's works. 

Also, at a certain point in the 20th century, I stop following the general musical train of thought. Although I like quite a few atonal works, those are really more exceptions, and when it gets to serialism and the avant-garde, I quit.

Generally, emotion, atmosphere and colour are the most important qualities of a musical piece for me. That's why I always turn to Romanticism, even though nowadays I'm occupied with (mostly tonal) 20th century music. My 4 greats - Beethoven, Liszt, Elgar, Shostakovich, after which closely follow many other romanticists, impressionists and modernists.

To quote Mr Sibelius: ''Romanticism is the innermost essence of music - what is romantic is imperishable. It always has been, and always will be, as long as people inhabit the earth.'' 

That's why you can sometimes find Romanticism even in the 17th century.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lisztfreak said:


> For me it would be most of music written before Beethoven. With some notable (and, as I can see from some previous posts, clichéd) exceptions - Mozart's Requiem, and a few of Palestrina's, Bach's and Haydn's works.
> 
> Also, at a certain point in the 20th century, I stop following the general musical train of thought. Although I like quite a few atonal works, those are really more exceptions, and when it gets to serialism and the avant-garde, I quit.
> 
> ...


So much of what you said I can say for myself. You said you were not much into what was written before Beethoven, that's where I would be a little different, as I enjoy the Baroque.

Great quote by Sibelius, by the way...I'm impresed that you know it. I think what he says is true, and what you said is true, Lisztfreak, that emotion, atmosphere and color are important in music. I could not agree more. Music that is just mechanics and theory for theory's sake generally does not tickle me.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

Tapkaara said:


> Great quote by Sibelius, by the way...I'm impresed that you know it. I think what he says is true, and what you said is true, Lisztfreak, that emotion, atmosphere and color are important in music. I could not agree more. Music that is just mechanics and theory for theory's sake generally does not tickle me.


Oh, I couldn't bear not to know such a quote from such a great musician as is Sibelius (the quality-side of his bipolar character I mean, compare the Suite mignonne or something with his symphonies... commercial crap vs. most sublime and perfect symphonic thinking). And yeah, no feeling - no music. If one makes of music an intellectual craft, than he's a scientist, or a craftsman - not an artist. I'm not trying to say there's no intellect in music, of course, take the very man mentioned above, but it has to be soaked in emotion.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Oooh Liszfreak, you must be my brother from another mother.

Hahaha, yes, Suite Mignonne vs. the 4th. Could it be the same composer?

And thank you for ackknowledging Sibelius's achivements as a symphonist...perhaps we should move these comments to the 10 Greatest Symphonists thread?

Anyway, I am 100% with you.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

Tapkaara said:


> Oooh Liszfreak, you must be my brother from another mother.


LOL! This is awesome. And it rhymes, even!

Well, it's certainly splendid (gee... now picture an old bemonocled Brit with a posh accent) to know there are people who are your musical kin.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Lisztfreak said:


> To quote Mr Sibelius: ''Romanticism is the innermost essence of music - what is romantic is imperishable. It always has been, and always will be, as long as people inhabit the earth.''
> 
> That's why you can sometimes find Romanticism even in the 17th century.


Interesting that you should say this. I just finished watching Monteverdi's _L'Orfeo_ on DVD (fantastic production well discussed in another thread) and there is a section where Orpheus comes back to the surface world after failing to rescue his love from the underworld. He's a bit miffed to put it mildly, and there are all these theorbo's and lutes hitting a harsh almost headbanging chord. I thought, "This is like some of the wilder emotions you would expect from the romantic period." It really startled me.

So yes, I agree now there were romantic tendancies in all periods.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

Weston said:


> Interesting that you should say this. I just finished watching Monteverdi's _L'Orfeo_ on DVD (fantastic production well discussed in another thread) and there is a section where Orpheus comes back to the surface world after failing to rescue his love from the underworld. He's a bit miffed to put it mildly, and there are all these theorbo's and lutes hitting a harsh almost headbanging chord. I thought, "This is like some of the wilder emotions you would expect from the romantic period." It really startled me.
> 
> So yes, I agree now there were romantic tendancies in all periods.


Particularly_ L'Orfeo_, it's a genuine avant-garde piece for its time. Also consider Mozart's Piano Concerto No.24, which I find truly ingenious. And even the accursed 'i-ending' composers (  ) - Vivaldi's Winter I always thought to be even modernistic, not just romantic.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Lisztfreak said:


> Vivaldi's Winter I always thought to be even modernistic, not just romantic.


I can see that, actually; those opening notes are quite forward-looking. I would never have believed it had been written by a Baroque composer had I not known it already. Some very creepy, strange chords for the day!


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

You want to hear a baroque piece that's forward looking? Try Bach's Bb minor prelude and fugue from book one. The prelude has resolutions that are themselves dissonances that resolve onto more dissonances! The result is quite orgasmic, although the harmonic ambiguity might put some of the more "delicate" listeners off!


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> Through analysis of historical events and trends, we can deduce that the music that had the worst reception at its premiere will become popular and stand the test of time. Most notably Beethoven's 5th, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring.


It is my understanding that in 1808 at the premier of the 5th it was the performers that were a total loss not the symphony, the orchestral playing was poor and that the program consisted of other premiere works, so at over 4 hrs the program was quite long and the theatre was very cold
To use a quote from wiki _[However, a year and a half later, another performance resulted in a rapturous review by E.T.A. Hoffmann in the Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung. He described the music with dramatic imagery]_

Similarly with 'The Rite of Spring'it was also the dancing in the Ballet that was given bad press, and the audience was divided with supporters and detractors, so it was not just the music that was given a poor reception. 
As I said only some stands the test of time



> Music works on the concept of tonal, harmonic and melodic dissonances. It wasn't designed with consonances in mind. In any case, do you want instant gratification when you listen to music or a thoughful, profound and ultimatly more satisfying experience? To only acknowledge the face value of a piece (i.e. it sounds nice) seems to me to be a pretty shallow way of appraising art.


So if you heard music that you thought sounded terrible you would still listen to it???
I usually give a piece 2 or 3 hearings then decide what to do with it. Most people evaluate a work on the first hearing with either total dislike or acceptance, after years of music I have become fixed in my listening habits there is so much music that I like so I do not spend too many precious moments on works that I know will never appeal to me.



> Many contemporary works are in ternary or binary form. In the other instances, are you not willing to accept other structures? Listening to how the small melodic gestures affect the structure of a piece as a whole is as extremely satisfying when listening to either Beethoven's 5th or Xenakis' ST/4.


Of course but again It has to have form that I can recognise



> I can't think of music without rhythm exept perhaps 4:33. Do you by any chance mean rhythm you can tap your foot to? Since the dawn of music, composers have been using hemiolas and syncopation to suggest rhythmic uncertainty. It's the inevitable evolution of these musics that have lead to the artistic freedoms we hear in music today.


Rhythm is a simple word to understand so we do not need to divide it into types. One should not have to struggle to detect it.
Again It has to have Rhythm



> I'd be interested to know what you would say to the majority of the public in the early 1800's to try and persuade them to appreciate Beethoven as the genius you know him to be. I doubt you would have much impact on their subborn and ridgid tastes.


The majority probable did like it so, I think you are referring to my tastes as stubborn and ridged well that is probably correct you do tend to get rather set in your ways and tastes as you get older, I have spent a lifetime listening and a few years playing music and have finished up with my likes and dislikes being firmly established.

I am just trying to explain my tastes


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Andante said:


> It is my understanding that in 1808 at the premier of the 5th it was the performers that were a total loss not the symphony





Andante said:


> Similarly with 'The Rite of Spring'it was also the dancing in the Ballet that was given bad press


That still doesn't overshadow the fact that pieces with the worst premieres stand the test of time.



Andante said:


> So if you heard music that you thought sounded terrible you would still listen to it???


I hope never to waste my life listening to music I thought was poorly composed or poorly performed. If a piece contains unusual dissonance or new sounds, I don't instantly start thinking of ways of criticising it because I'd get much more enjoyment out of simply enjoying the music for what it is - art.



Andante said:


> Of course but again It has to have form that I can recognise


I agree, maybe a few analysis lessons could remedy your displeasure.



Andante said:


> Rhythm is a simple word to understand so we do not need to divide it into types. One should not have to struggle to detect it.


I have never listened to a piece where I struggled to detect rhythm. I've listened to peices that have rhythmic ambiguity and that I could never be able to transcribe, but then again, music shouldn't all be crotchets and quavers.



Andante said:


> The majority probable did like it


No they hated it. It was the minority who appreciated his genius and the minority who wrote the reviews and quotations that you have probably read. Even Handel only started gaining popularity in the 1880's. What would you say to this majority who explicitly rejected good music?



Andante said:


> I am just trying to explain my tastes


Can we have them without the side-order of ignorance?


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> Can we have them without the side-order of ignorance?


For someone of tender years you have a lot to learn my friend maybe time will help you.


----------



## lemarquis (Mar 8, 2009)

Wow, I thought I was alone in my dissatisfaction with the classical period. The Baroque was so much more rich and textured to me. Classical is too clean and perfect, it had to wait for the romantic era to breath life into it. Of course Beethoven and Schubert are the grand exceptions, but they stood astride both eras.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

lemarquis said:


> Wow, I thought I was alone in my dissatisfaction with the classical period. The Baroque was so much more rich and textured to me. Classical is too clean and perfect, it had to wait for the romantic era to breath life into it. Of course Beethoven and Schubert are the grand exceptions, but they stood astride both eras.


Oh my God..the heresy! Let's see how many will respect that opinion...!


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

After getting into it, I can honestly say that my least favorite period is contemporary, avant-garde stuff. I liked only few XXth century composers and those are Vaughan Williams, Mahler and Prokofiev. Avant-garde and classical music is, to me, a paradox. I enjoy a lot of avant-garde music labeled as jazz or rock, but how can composer standing in relief to everything that was in music before be considered as classical? I don't think that classical instruments were made for making cacophony or anything like this.

And I find most of neo-romantics simply annoying.

So I shall stick with this boring, washed from emotions classicism. Damn, where are my stockings?



> Oh my God..the heresy! Let's see how many will respect that opinion...!


Funny how majority feels persecuted. Is it only me, or are you recently trying to act like some kind of victim? Stop crying, please.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Aramis said:


> After getting into it, I can honestly say that my least favorite period is contemporary, avant-garde stuff. I liked only few XXth century composers and those are Vaughan Williams, Mahler and Prokofiev. Avant-garde and classical music is, to me, a paradox. I enjoy a lot of avant-garde music labeled as jazz or rock, but how can composer standing in relief to everything that was in music before be considered as classical? I don't think that classical instruments were made for making cacophony or anything like this.


This, too, is heresy. Watch the intolerance begin...!


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

I'm not a big fan of the Baroque Era. I'm beginning to come around to the Classical Era though, especially the work of Haydn and Mozart. I can appreciate the Classical period's approach much more than Baroque.

Perhaps in time, I'll warm up to the Baroque period more. I do enjoy some of Handel's work though like "Dixit Dominus," "Ode For Saint Cellia's Day," "Messiah," and most of his "Concert Grossos."


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

It's hard to say, I can really say I enjoy almost equally all periods, but there are some specific styles I don't have a grip with. The first is the School of Notre-Dame, I really enjoy the melodic invention of late medieval monody, but Leonin and Perotin are quite a melodic loss to a very, very, very primitive 2 part counterpoint, it's rather repetitve and boring. Ars Nova and, firstly, Machaut give a much more interesting face in poliphony, and I do like the Messe de Nostre-Dame.

Another period not my favorite is Italian Bel Canto, I mean, I really do enjoy Rossini, he is so funny, and so inventive, if not always the most sophisticated composer arround, he surely knows how to compose an opera, and then, we have the dulliest composers of all time, Bellini has an incredible melodic writing which can in its best moments compensate for the harmonic dulliness, I even manage like Norma and other operas, but I can't stand Donizetti's fear of modulation and squareness of rythm, dull melody and very few dramatic sense. Early Verdi can sometimes let Bel Cantos inadequacies to the level of paroxysm: oohm pa pa meters and complete evasion of modulation, but his rather raw melodies and the viscerous drama make him able to compensate it, and I like Attila, Macbeth and even Nabucco.

And obviously there are several of 20th cenetury composers I don't like, such as the more extreme avant-garde, like the electroacustical composers, and not all Ligeti and all Berio satisfy me. I also don't like the "melodic" 20th century easy music like Menotti or Corigliano. But otherwise, I count Messiaen as one of my very best.

As for Mozart, if the thematic fragmentation of his G minor string quintet doesn't touch one as dramatic, I really can't imagine what would.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Oh, I could never understand the point of Bel Canto. I suppose I could put this, but that isn't a "period." So I can't. But I can say it's my least favorite style, really.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

French Grand Opera of Meyerbeer and others can be perhaps even more infuriating, hardly I've heard such banal, pretensious music and such bad librettos, oh God, it's awful. In a very strange case, Berlioz managed to compose a monumental opera almost without forebearers and offspring (except far away Gluck) such as Les Troyens.


----------



## andruini (Apr 14, 2009)

I have to go with Baroque, definitely.. It's just hard for me to find the individual voice (if there's any) of each composer, except maybe Bach.. It all sounds the same to me most of the time..
That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy some composers, though.. Notably Bach, Handel, Purcell and Scarlatti, but that's about it..


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

andruini said:


> I have to go with Baroque, definitely.. It's just hard for me to find the individual voice (if there's any) of each composer, except maybe Bach.. It all sounds the same to me most of the time..


This can't be said of much of the Classical period?


----------



## andruini (Apr 14, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> This can't be said of much of the Classical period?


I suppose you're right.. I can't find the difference between any minor Mozart and Haydn symphonies, but I'd still rather listen to that than italians pounding on harpsichords incessantly.. Bottom line is none of these two eras showed any real emotion, save some exceptions, and since emotion is what makes music interesting, at least for me, they're my least favorite..

I don't mess with any major Mozart works, though.. Sure, he wrote some really generic pieces, but at his most inspired you can't deny his power..


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

andruini said:


> I suppose you're right.. I can't find the difference between any minor Mozart and Haydn symphonies, but I'd still rather listen to that than italians pounding on harpsichords incessantly.. Bottom line is none of these two eras showed any real emotion, save some exceptions, and since emotion is what makes music interesting, at least for me, they're my least favorite..
> 
> I don't mess with any major Mozart works, though.. Sure, he wrote some really generic pieces, but at his most inspired you can't deny his power..


Agreed. His powers cannot be denied. But it's how those powers make us feel as individuals is what will vary.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

There is as much emotion in classical music as there is in romantic music - the only thing it lacks in comparison is bombast.

But the emphasis in classical music is on grace and beauty of melody and form, proportion and balance. Elegance of character and perfect balance are the main characteristics. One rather amusing comment I've read awhile ago is that baroque was the period of polyphony, classical the period of homophony and everything that followed the period of cacophony.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

jhar26 said:


> There is as much emotion in classical music as there is in romantic music - the only thing it lacks in comparison is bombast.
> 
> But the emphasis in classical music is on grace and beauty of melody and form, proportion and balance. Elegance of character and perfect balance are the main characteristics.


Well, I think there more differences between Romanticism and Classical. Yes, there is more bombast in the Romtanic period, but musical form became more rhapsodic and less contricted by the rules and "grace" of the classical symphony. So, there are certainly structural differences. And I think, perhaps, the most important difference is the KINDS of emotions that differ between the two periods. The Classical period was concerned with, mostly, an out-going cheeriness and assuredness. (Not saying ALL Classical is like this, just saying it was the trend.) Now, we get into Romanticism where orchestras got bigger and emotional breadths got wider. The bumptious sunshine of Mozart begins to get covered with the darker clouds of Beethoven and everyone after him. Music now takes a dramatic turn towards exploring more complex human emotions, in a more complex way.

Anyway, that's just my assesment of the salient differences between Classicism and Romaticism.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

I think classicism here is overly misunderstood, there is no more cheerfulness in Mozart than in Schumann. And there are simply no rules regarding form in the classical period, these were layed in early Romanticism by Czerny and some other Beethoven students. Most classical compositions find their unique formal solutions, and the large scale view which Beethoven Haydn and Mozart have are seldom, if ever, equaled in Romanticism, every bar has its meaning in the large scale view and at least to me this is fascinating, a sonata form by Schumann could live without some bars, but not a Beethoven sonata.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

World Violist said:


> Oh, I could never understand the point of Bel Canto.


The point is music as beautiful as this sung by voices as glorious as those of these two sopranos....


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

bdelykleon said:


> I think classicism here is overly misunderstood, there is no more cheerfulness in Mozart than in Schumann. And there are simply no rules regarding form in the classical period, these were layed in early Romanticism by Czerny and some other Beethoven students. Most classical compositions find their only formal solutions, and the large scale view which Beethoven Haydn and Mozart have are seldom, if ever, equaled in Romanticism, every bar has its meaning in the large scale view and at least to me this is fascinating, a sonata form by Schumann could live without some bars, but not a Beethoven sonata.


Well, there are always exceptions. Schumann I would not consider a "dark" composer; many of his works contain the same joy and whatnot that one finds in Mozart, say. What about Mendelssohn, then, if we are going to talk about the early Romantics? Or Schubert? These two composers certainly helped usher in a new kind of "darkeness" and deep introspection that seems to personify the movement.

As for classical being "misunderstood," what makes you think that is the case here in the forum. I kind of can't stand the assertion that is sometimes made in here that if you don't like something, it's merely that you don't understand it. That is to say, we are not as "educated" on the topic as someone who does like it.

I think I understand Classisism just fine. But I merely do not enjoy it as much as other styles.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> Well, there are always exceptions. Schumann I would not consider a "dark" composer; many of his works contain the same joy and whatnot that one finds in Mozart, say.


What I often fail to understand is when non-Mozart fans object to him on the basis of that they find that his music sounds too happy. I for one think that his music covers a lot more ground than that. Every emotion is present in the music of Mozart. In fact, as demonstrated in his operas especially (but in his other music too) his understanding of the human species and what makes them tick, and his ability to translate that in glorious music is almost without equal in my opinion. But be that as it may - what is wrong with 'happy' sounding music anyway? Joy is an emotion too. I don't see why music that makes us consider jumping under a train would as a rule be better.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> Yes, there is more bombast in the Romtanic period, but musical form became more rhapsodic and less contricted by the rules and "grace" of the classical symphony.


You are severely misinformed about the classical period. As a corrective to your idea that form during the classical period was more 'contricted' I can recommend Charles Rosen's book _Sonata Forms_.

Also, many Romantic composers themselves would have disagreed with your description of Mozart as 'bumptious sunshine'; the _Sturm und Drang_ of Haydn and Mozart's music was symptomatic of the Counter-Enlightenment and led some commentators (for example, E.T.A. Hoffmann and Johann Reichardt) to describe Mozart and to a lesser extent Haydn as Romantic composers.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> As for classical being "misunderstood," what makes you think that is the case here in the forum. I kind of can't stand the assertion that is sometimes made in here that if you don't like something, it's merely that you don't understand it. That is to say, we are not as "educated" on the topic as someone who does like it.
> 
> I think I understand Classisism just fine. But I merely do not enjoy it as much as other styles.


Bdelykleon is absolutely correct in what he says. Classicism clearly _is_ misunderstood, something you've already demonstrated by stating falsehoods.

Education clearly facilitates (greater) understanding of a period or repertoire of music, or just a single composer. I am greatly in favour of education, and I firmly believe that if someone immerses themself in a genre or period music, studies it, performs it and reads about it, they are bound to have a greater understanding of it than someone who lazily dismisses a revered period of music history on the most ridiculous grounds, and in the process reveals his exiguous knowledge about that period.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> What I often fail to understand is when non-Mozart fans object to him on the basis of that they find that his music sounds too happy. I for one think that his music covers a lot more ground than that. Every emotion is present in the music of Mozart. In fact, as demonstrated in his operas especially (but in his other music too) his understanding of the human species and what makes them tick, and his ability to translate that in glorious music is almost without equal in my opinion. But be that as it may - what is wrong with 'happy' sounding music anyway? Joy is an emotion too. I don't see why music that makes us consider jumping under a train would as a rule be better.


An excellent post. Mozart's expressive range knew no boundaries.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Schubert


This is the keyword. Schubert was born and trained before romanticism became fashionable in music. His early works are more classical than romantic, at least in form. Symphony no. 5 is wonderful piece, but his later symphonies, more influenced by romanticism are pretentious and sometimes even terrible.

Pretentious - this is another keyword. Those words used to describe romantic music: powerful, emotional, passion, sweet cakes, bla-bla-bla, can be replaced with only this one: pretentious. And overblown. I just hate brass usage in late romanticism. Those crappy and banal frazes, which, as I guess, were mentioned to be majestic and emotional. But it's a parody. Dum... DA-DA-DA-DAM! Add some timpani, and you will get one big kitsch.

The romanticism is great in theory. I adore many early romantic composers, but the whole thing was out of control pretty soon. There were some great pioneers in the beginning of romanticism and masses of later followers. And they make me sick.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Aramis said:


> This is the keyword. Schubert was born and trained before romanticism became fashionable in music. His early works are more classical than romantic, at least in form. Symphony no. 5 is wonderful piece, but his later symphonies, more influenced by romanticism are pretentious and sometimes even terrible.
> 
> Pretentious - this is another keyword. Those words used to describe romantic music: powerful, emotional, passion, sweet cakes, bla-bla-bla, can be replaced with only this one: pretentious. And overblown. I just hate brass usage in late romanticism. Those crappy and banal frazes, which, as I guess, were mentioned to be majestic and emotional. But it's a parody. Dum... DA-DA-DA-DAM! Add some timpani, and you will get one big kitsch.
> 
> The romanticism is great in theory. I adore many early romantic composers, but the whole thing was out of control pretty soon. There were some great pioneers in the beginning of romanticism and masses of later followers. And they make me sick.


Well, since you don't like the trappings of Romantic music, should it mean that you are ill-informed on what makes Romantic music work they way it does?

Absolutely not. I would never come down on anyone who doesn't like this type of music. Why? Because I understand that well-informed Classical listeners will not always like the same things for all sort of reasons.

***Don't bother with a reply. I've placed you on my ignore list so I don't have to read your nonsense again. Maybe I'll be able to enjoy the forum again, and not worry about having my conversations with others maligned by this catty little boy. Ah...thank heaven for ignore features.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

What's with all the unnecessary bickering back and forth in this thread. There's no need in it guys. Let's be more respectful of each other's opinions.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> What's with all the unnecessary bickering back and forth in this thread. There's no need in it guys. Let's be more respectful of each other's opinions.


That's what I've been saying from day one. Maybe others should realize if you don't care for a style of music, it doesn't mean you are ill-informed on it, maybe it just means you don't like it.

Unfortunately, respect is not often shown by those who think they are always right. After all, they are right, so why show any false respect to people who are just dead wrong. So, I'll just ignore the egos in here, but thankfully, there are not too many, so I can go about my business and enjoy the nice people, and not be bothered by those who seek to cause trouble.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> What's with all the unnecessary bickering back and forth in this thread. There's no need in it guys. Let's be more respectful of each other's opinions.


I don't think that forum is place for people to adorate each other and keep saying "yes, you're right", and so on. I've been though "nice" and "respectful" boards before, and it's boring when you can't put some fire to discussion and not be called rude. To hell with political correctness. And if it's necessary, please make some announcement on forum's main page, so people registering here can know what they should expect. "Welcome to our forum, be sweet or be gone", for example.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Back on topic, and at least trying to avoid the most ad hominem remarks (and to better my English, my last message came full of grammatical errors). I would like to ask if it is Tapkaara's view that rhapsodic writing is better than a more formal one, if so it would be the first time I've ever seen this because even the most romantically overblown composer would like to have some coherence in his writing.

Just to state it simply pick up a Romantic piano sonata, say Schumann's second and one of Haydn, curiously the one who has the model to follow is Schumann and not Haydn (I've read Sonata Forms, its a great book indeed), Schumann modulates a lot in the Sonata, much more than Haydn, but specially in the development there are some most extreme writing in far away keys, but in terms of thematic development is some points behind Haydn, because in Schumann you can pick off some bars, change their order, that it wouldn't make much difference (both the tonal center and the home key are much less meaningful in Schumann than in Haydn), but in haydn, every modulation and every step in the thematic development has a meaning, you can't pick of some bar at risk of losing the overall narrative of the movement, you may loose the way to the minor key, or the modulation to the subdominant which predates the recapitulation. For me, and I think for most people, wheather aware or not of that, this makes the movement more coherent and easy do perceive as a whole, in Schumann this does not happen, and it is sometimes very difficult do mantain the attention to his sonata forms, they are too much uneven and don't sustain the same level of interest throughout the movement. Brahms, Dvorak and Mahler are a different story, but this seems to happen with all other romantic composers, that's why all of them succeed at less Classical forms like piano miniatures, songs, ballads, opera, symphonic poem (or symphony as the Fantastique) etc.

I'm no music specialist, I'm a Greek Professor, but I love music, and I'm pretty sure that studying it enhaces my awareness and my love for this great art. I would recomend everyone to study more music. Just like Eulenberg's motto "Wer liest, hört mehr" 'Who read, listen more'.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Nothing wrong with fire. Disrespect is different. So, Aramis, if you like being called an ill-informed idiot for not liking the pretentiousness of Romantic music, I'm glad I could add some spice to your classical discussion here.


Looks like ignoring function should be improved.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> I don't have you on ignore, Aramis.





> I've placed you on my ignore list so I don't have to read your nonsense again


Smarten up?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Herzeleide is on my ignore list, not you. Have you smartened up?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I seemd kind of obvious that you said this to me, when combination of the posts above was Herzeleide's-yours-mine-yours... nevermind.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Aramis said:


> I don't think that forum is place for people to adorate each other and keep saying "yes, you're right", and so on. I've been though "nice" and "respectful" boards before, and it's boring when you can't put some fire to discussion and not be called rude. To hell with political correctness. And if it's necessary, please make some announcement on forum's main page, so people registering here can know what they should expect. "Welcome to our forum, be sweet or be gone", for example.


Then I guess you'll be one of the first ones to go, Aramis. Whether you like it or not, this forum has guidelines. Follow them or don't, that is your choice, but don't expect the moderators to allow you back on if you continue a reckless form of behavior.

Without order, there's chaos.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Anyway, you are not on ignore, I just have one person. So, we move on from here.

Anyone else? What is YOUR least favorite period of music?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Then I guess you'll be one of the first ones to go, Aramis. Whether you like it or not, this forum has guidelines.


I would like to remind you that this is my first and only account, since I had no need to create another one after being banned.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

“To talk well and eloquently is a very great art, but an equally great one is to know the right moment to stop.” (W.A. Mozart)


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Aramis said:


> I would like to remind you that this is my first and only account, since I had no need to create another one after being banned.


You don't have to remind me of anything, Aramis. I'm clearly aware of what happened to me, so I think that alone should give you reason to be more respectful of people and to follow the guidelines of this forum.

I have nothing against anyone on this forum. I'm merely trying to make people a little bit more aware to the fact that a bad behavior has consequences.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Strange that though copious posts have been deleted, Tapkaara's insult of me as a 'catty little boy' is still left to stand.


----------



## kg4fxg (May 24, 2009)

*Impressionism*

My least favorite would be impressionism, like Debussy or Ravel. Impressionist music came from without not from within ones self. External stimuli were extremely important here. It is an interesting study but not my favorite.

The music usually went along with painters like Pissaro, Monet, Degas, Manet & Renior. The poets were Verlaine, Mallarme, and Baudelaire.

It is an interesting study that should not be overlooked.

Bill


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

kg4fxg said:


> My least favorite would be impressionism, like Debussy or Ravel. Impressionist music came from without not from within ones self. External stimuli were extremely important here. It is an interesting study but not my favorite.
> 
> The music usually went along with painters like Pissaro, Monet, Degas, Manet & Renior. The poets were Verlaine, Mallarme, and Baudelaire.
> 
> ...


 So are you going to tell us *why* you don't like it?

To be quite honest, it takes a certain kind of listener to appreciate impressionism just like it does to appreciate Baroque, Classical, or the Romantic periods.

By the way, Ravel was probably one of most versatilely amazing composers in all of music. He was influenced by the impressionism of Debussy, but his music goes much more deeper than that. Spanish music, Baroque, Mozart, and jazz can be found in his music. He was also one of the best orchestrators in the history of classical.

Don't confuse Debussy with Ravel. They are two entirely different composers.


----------



## kg4fxg (May 24, 2009)

*Ravel*

Thanks for pointing that out. I have trouble with Debussy "Prelude a l'apres midi d'un faune" but "La Mer" is not bad. I have about 26 pieces by Debussy. I keep telling myself to listen several times before making a judgement.

Ravel "Daphnis Et Chloé" is not bad either. I also keep several pieces by Erik Satie in my library.

Thanks for the point about hearing so much of other composers in Ravel's music.

Some music I like in the first hearing, others it takes a while to warm up to? I just keep buying any books on music used at amazon and studying all I can to understand the pieces and composers.

Thanks
Bill


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

kg4fxg said:


> Thanks for pointing that out. I have trouble with Debussy "Prelude a l'apres midi d'un faune" but "La Mer" is not bad. I have about 26 pieces by Debussy. I keep telling myself to listen several times before making a judgement.
> 
> Ravel "Daphnis Et Chloé" is not bad either. I also keep several pieces by Erik Satie in my library.
> 
> ...


You're quite welcome, Bill.

The thing you have to understand about Debussy is that he was trying to do something very different with music. He was looked down upon back in his time, because of the direction he chose to go in. His music is so individual that it only takes two measures for me to identify that it's Debussy.

Checkout this YouTube video where Simon Rattle talks about impressionism and Debussy's music. Please excuse the fact that it's an older video, but the points he makes about it should be considered.






Hope this helps you understand him a bit more. By the way, "Prelude a l'apres midi d'un faune" is a beautiful piece of music. This composition is actually played in this video I have provided.


----------



## kg4fxg (May 24, 2009)

*Sir Simon Rattle*

Thank you for pointing out that Youtube video of Sir Simon Rattle and Impressionism. I have so much to learn - Thank you!

I really love this forum, it makes you think. I certainly don't have all the answers at 46 years of age, but I have a several years left to find them.

I only hope I can learn and share my love for music, art, & literature with my four year old daughter as she grows up. She already takes violin lessons from the Gwinnett Symphony Orchastra's concertmaster.

I can't thank you enough for your replies and your insight.

Bill


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

kg4fxg said:


> Thank you for pointing out that Youtube video of Sir Simon Rattle and Impressionism. I have so much to learn - Thank you!
> 
> I really love this forum, it makes you think. I certainly don't have all the answers at 46 years of age, but I have a several years left to find them.
> 
> ...


You're welcome Bill. I think once you get a grasp of impressionism you will not only understand Debussy and Ravel better, but Szymanowski, de Falla, Delius, Bax, Vaughan Williams, Saint-Saens (even though he reportedly hated Debussy's music), Respighi, Albeniz, Kodaly, among others who were influenced by Debussy and Ravel.

Sharing music with loved ones is a wonderful thing that should never be taken for granted.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Nearly all of my recordings and concerts that I go to perform music of the late Baroque, Classical and early Romantic periods. Music at the end of our day, is meant to be listened to and enjoyed (unless you're also making a living out of it by performing/studying it). What works for one may not work for the other.

Having said that, I find it as the period of the music during which it was composed approaches today/contemporary, the more difficult it is for me to understand what the composer was on about. The works tend to "go on and on and on". I'm not a musician. Perhaps my ears are superficial, or I happen to have a pair of ears from Handel's opera house or Mozart's Viennese court! But I simply find a Handel opera, or a Mozart piano concerto much more uplifting (when played by historically informed ensembles) than a Wagner opera or a Tchaikovsky piano concerto.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2010)

Mirror Image said:


> You don't have to remind me of anything, Aramis. I'm clearly aware of what happened to me, so I think that alone should give you reason to be more respectful of people and to follow the guidelines of this forum.
> 
> I have nothing against anyone on this forum. I'm merely trying to make people a little bit more aware to the fact that a bad behavior has consequences.


I am sending you a message, as well as Seasons greetings, you and a few other strong characters are are truly missed


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Andante said:


> you and a few other strong characters are are truly missed


Speak for yourself on that one.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

For me anything before 1650, and anything after 1920. I like Debussy especially some of his piano works. Can't really take to Rennaissance music though.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

My least favorite would be the baroque period because of its lack of large-scale instrumental forms. It's interesting to study the forms of the period, for educational purposes... like the Bach WTC Preludes from Book II and the Scarlatti sonatas that approach true sonata form, but they never quite reach the ideal Exposition - Development - Recapitulation format (until the classical period). For purely recreational listening, however, baroque instrumental music can be difficult to enjoy, as well as other forms of the baroque period, simply because all the burgeoning new musical styles have not reached their evolutionary apex yet. The best music of the period is unquestionably found in the oratorios and other choral musics, genres that I generally dislike listening to.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2010)

Tapkaara said:


> Speak for yourself on that one.


Now now Tap, tis the season to be jolly  forgive but don't forget


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Andante said:


> Now now Tap, tis the season to be jolly  forgive but don't forget


Well, I do not forget. And I avenge.


----------

