# Baroque vs Classic Music: What's the difference?



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

I can clearly identify when a piece of music is Baroque or Classical. 

However, when i attempt to verbally explain the difference to myself or others it turns out a bit vague like 'Baroque music has a more continuous flow' and 'Classical music has more suspensions and build ups', etc.

So, I'm interested in your characterisations of the difference between Baroque and Classical music. Perhaps even with analogy to human speech or other points of reference. Musical analysis is also welcomed.

Also interested in how to describe the difference in phrasing.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

It depends if I am explaining vocal or instrumental music. A big part of the Baroque is vocal of course. I explain to non-musicians by saying typically there is an opening, a middle contrasting part and the repeating the opening with embellishment, whereas Classical don't often have that rigid structure and it is more free flowing to some extent. As for instrumental music, I explain that Baroque is much like jazz; there is a bass line (i.e. basso continuo) and a treble line with the melody. The more imaginative composers in the Baroque will embellish the two lines with voices or separate lines. In Classical, there is often a main theme and then the theme is developed into variations not necessarily relying on treble or basso continuo support.

I mean the above is just simplification in a hundred words of course.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Baroque music:
Is ornamented 
Is polyphonic later in the period
Composers weren't picky about instrumentation: pieces were transcribed for several instruments
Music used Basso Continuo
Genres like concerto grosso
Forms like ritornello and the fugue
Orchestras tended to be small
Movements tended to be shorter
Movements tended to have one mood
Little transition between dynamics changes

Classical Period:
Most music was homophonic
Clearer textures
Larger orchestras
Fortepiano replaces harpsichord
Sonata form invented
Movements get longer
Genres like string quartet, symphony, piano trio
Some expression but most music was emotionally restrained
Parts are for one instrument most of the time-- no transcriptions
Movements can vary in mood
Crescendos and Decrescendos


----------



## Simon23 (Dec 8, 2020)

Most of baroque (exept Bach and Handel, of course) are primitive and monotonous. It was created using the same templates. 
Classical - is the period of complication and development of music. More contrasts, especially inside the individual parts. Fortepiano and large orchestra - a great innovation, which essentially made the classical music what it is.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

RogerWaters said:


> the difference between Baroque and Classical music.


baroque concerns the subject of absolute monarchy, while classicism does that of the people and, subsequently, a revolution... baroque depicts the kings power as unperturbed and unchallenged, while classicism portrays it as besieged by all sorts of intriguers, adventurers, black magicians, and subverters; its no more safe from being called a "tyranny" and thus deposed.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> baroque concerns the subject of absolute monarchy, while classicism does that of the people and, subsequently, a revolution... baroque depicts the kings power as unperturbed and unchallenged, while classicism portrays it as besieged by all sorts of intriguers, adventurers, black magicians, and subverters; its no more safe from being called a "tyranny" and thus deposed.


Sir this is an Arby's.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

Simon23 said:


> Most of baroque (exept Bach and Handel, of course) are primitive and monotonous. It was created using the same templates.
> Classical - is the period of complication and development of music. More contrasts, especially inside the individual parts. Fortepiano and large orchestra - a great innovation, which essentially made the classical music what it is.







You call this monotonous????


----------



## Simon23 (Dec 8, 2020)

HerbertNorman said:


> You call this monotonous????


Not specifically this. You can find exceptions to each rule (if you want to). For me, rule - is 500 Vivaldi's concertos,500 Scarlatti's sonatas and sea of composers, indistinguishable from each other.

For next epochs, graphomancy was no longer characteristic, by the way.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I can clearly identify when a piece of music is Baroque or Classical._

The most obvious differences are expansion of ideas, volume or sound, and variation in pacing -- the same can be said for the difference between classical and romantic era music. In each case the ideas are more voluminous and more well-developed, the differences in volume of sound greater (in part because of newer or different instruments), and greater variations in pacing.

Another more subtle difference is much music from the baroque era was dominated by the church or religion while music from the classical period became more human or more about people, if you will. There is also a symmetry to classical era music that isn't typically apparent in music from the baroque.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

I've always thought of Baroque music being less overtly linear than the eras that followed it. I'm not saying linear narratives don't exist in Baroque because that's verifiably false, but in general less emphasis is placed on it.


----------



## WhateverDude (Jun 21, 2019)

Baroque concentrates on 'sticking to the plan' .... Retaining the mood. Classical moves on from the original idea. It investigates development and variation. Baroque is like a 4 year old child, it stays in the house. Classical is like a teenager that refuses to be grounded. Romantic is a teenage girl who expects to be taken out for a meal. Modern is when you drink too much at the meal. Minimalist is when she never gets a boyfriend again and never goes out... ever .... It's quite simple


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

From a technical point of view. Baroque in more principally contrapuntal and polyphonic -- the intricate weaving together o f single horizontal lines. After a transition period in which composers floundered about, classical developed a more vertical, chord-based language in which shifting key relationships determined the apparent motion of the music. The difference can be described as polyphony vs. homophony.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Simon23 said:


> Not specifically this. You can find exceptions to each rule (if you want to). For me, rule - is 500 Vivaldi's concertos,500 Scarlatti's sonatas and sea of composers, indistinguishable from each other.


If you thought those were crazy, look at Telemann's 1000 cantatas or Graupner's 1400 cantatas.

Whereas Michael Haydn wrote 40 masses (and a few dozens of other stuff), but look at the timbral variety. (Compare with Zelenka's, for example):









Robert Levin Mozart Lecture Part 1: The Slow Movements and The Human Formula




"I think what one notices the most about these is how different they are. There isn't a formula for a Mozart slow movement, he would say "but there's no formula for human beings".

Classical-era professional composers also had to be prolific, but not to the way Telemann was (which I find somewhat nauseating).

"The music collection of the Salzburg cathedral contains more sacred vocal music of the mid-18th century (ca. 1730-80) than any other period. An inventory of this large collection, recently undertaken by this writer at the request of Domkapellmeister Prof. Josef Messner, shows that Mozart's predecessors and colleagues in the archbishop's service are represented by an imposing amount of liturgical music. Among these musicians none seems to have been more industrious than *Johann Ernst Eberlin* (1702-62). There is evidence in the number of works preserved: a thematic catalog contains, so far, approximately 70 Masses, Mass fragments and Requiems, 160 motets and other smaller works, 37 litanies, 14 sequences and hymns, 35 settings of individual or grouped vesper psalms, and 3 Te Deum. This list does not include the large amount of sacred music in the vernacular. Aside from such first-hand evidence there is the well-known testimony of Eberlin's younger colleague, Leopold Mozart. In his report on the Salzburg musical establishment in 1757, the older Mozart singled out Eberlin for his industry and speed in composing, comparing him to Alessandro Scarlatti and Telemann. At the time of Leopold Mozart's writing Eberlin had risen, from the position of fourth organist in 1725, to the highest rank of Hof-und Domkapellmeister (1749) and had recently been granted the added honorary appointment of Titular-Truchsess.
Both Leopold and his son thought highly of Eberlin's ability; from their testimony and from other evidence it appears that Eberlin's reputation was primarily based on his contrapuntal works. Wolfgang Mozart's remarks are significant: while eventually he modified his high opinion of Eberlin's keyboard works (the only works to be published during the composer's lifetime) he continued to esteem his vocal writing."
<Johann Ernst Eberlin's Motets for Lent / Reinhard G. Pauly / Journal of the American Musicological Society (1962) 15 (2): 182-192.>

I've always thought it's interesting to compare these side by side (in terms of mood changes, formal organization, sense of space, incorporation of operatic/dramatic elements, etc):


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Simon23 said:


> Most of baroque (exept Bach and Handel, of course) are primitive and monotonous.


Lol, so Handel is now not monotonous and primitive?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> Also interested in how to describe the difference in phrasing.


"Melodies tended to be shorter than those of baroque music, with clear-cut phrases and clearly marked cadences." https://courses.lumenlearning.com/m...theory/chapter/review-of-classical-era-music/


----------



## Simon23 (Dec 8, 2020)

To Ethereality:

I am not a big fan of Handel, but objectively he is much more interesting than most of his contemporaries.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

MarkW said:


> From a technical point of view. Baroque in more principally contrapuntal and polyphonic -- the intricate weaving together o f single horizontal lines. After a transition period in which composers floundered about, classical developed a more vertical, chord-based language in which shifting key relationships determined the apparent motion of the music. The difference can be described as polyphony vs. homophony.





larold said:


> Another more subtle difference is much music from the baroque era was dominated by the church or religion while music from the classical period became more human or more about people, if you will. There is also a symmetry to classical era music that isn't typically apparent in music from the baroque.


Here are some interesting cases; the use of expressive emphasis with dynamics is clearly Classical:

Responsoria in coena domini, MH 276: 
I. In monte Oliveti
II. Tristis est anima mea
III. Ecce vidimus eum
IV. Amicus meus
V. Judas mercator pessimus
VI. Unus ex discipulis meis
VII. Eram quasi agnus innocens
VIII. Una hora
IX. Seniores populi

In parasceve, MH 277: 
I. Omnes amici mei
II. Velum templi scissum est
III. Vinea mea electa
IV. Tamquam ad latronem existis
V. Tenebrae factae sunt
VI. Animam meam dilectam
VII. Tradiderunt me
VIII. Jesum tradidit impius
IX. Caligaverunt oculi mei

In sabbato sancto, MH 278: 
I. Sicut ovis
II. Jerusalem surge
III. Plange quasi virgo
IV. Recessit pastor noster
V. O vos omnes, qui transitis per viam
VI. Ecce quomodo moritur Justus
VII. Astiterunt reges terrae
VIII. Aestimatus sum
IX. Sepulto domino


----------



## BobBrines (Jun 14, 2018)

Simon23 said:


> Most of baroque (exept Bach and Handel, of course) are primitive and monotonous....


In other words, I don't like it so it is bad. Spoken as a true worshiper of Romantic symphonies that drone on for hours.

Now that I have committed the exact same sin.... I have collected 600 Vivaldi RV numbers, all of the numbers opuses, operas and oratorios of Handel, all of the wind music plus others of Telemann, let me say this about Vivaldi: IMO 300 of his concerti are worth another listen, 300 were worth hearing and the rest were a waste of time.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The harpsichord is a dead giveaway for baroque music! But seriously, I can tell by the harmonies. They have a certain character of sound. Just like the way you can tell a bebop melody when you hear Charlie Parker, Fats Navarro, or Bud Powell.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Simon23 said:


> Not specifically this. You can find exceptions to each rule (if you want to). For me, rule - is 500 Vivaldi's concertos,500 Scarlatti's sonatas and sea of composers, indistinguishable from each other.
> 
> For next epochs, graphomancy was no longer characteristic, by the way.


It was characteristic. Critics, media campaigns ("Mozart effect") and random luck (forgotten composers, no surviving copies of works etc) have created the modern musical canon. You (and me) have never heard the names of 99 % of composers from the past eras. Wagner alone spawned a crowd of imitators (creating a fashionable style/trend). 
The story of Vivaldi is a good example of modern resurrection in popularity of a composer that was quickly forgotten.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Vivaldi#Posthumous_reputation
Many of Bach's sons and grandsons were more renowned as composers than than him.
Some years ago there were 30 000 new songs uploaded daily (Spotify). Let's say that some % of this is modern classical music. What is the chance that modern day classical music composers can get heard? (Considering that now you need only a computer and software to compose and playback music.)


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

BobBrines said:


> In other words, I don't like it so it is bad. Spoken as a true worshiper of Romantic symphonies that drone on for hours.
> 
> Now that I have committed the exact same sin.... I have collected 600 Vivaldi RV numbers, all of the numbers opuses, operas and oratorios of Handel, all of the wind music plus others of Telemann, let me say this about Vivaldi: IMO 300 of his concerti are worth another listen, 300 were worth hearing and the rest were a waste of time.


Don't like this reaction either... I am a lover of the romantic repertoire from the word go...yet not all of it tbh, I found it hard to get my teeth into Mahler or Bruckner!!! 
Regarding the Baroque , not a fan from the first hour (barring pieces of Händel and Bach's repertoires or Albinoni and Vivaldi's most famous pieces) but I am trying... I give everything a go.
Please keep it polite and stop stigmatizing...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BabyGiraffe said:


> It was characteristic. Critics, media campaigns ("Mozart effect") and random luck (forgotten composers, no surviving copies of works etc) have created the modern musical canon. You (and me) have never heard the names of 99 % of composers from the past eras. Wagner alone spawned a crowd of imitators (creating a fashionable style/trend).
> The story of Vivaldi is a good example of modern resurrection in popularity of a composer that was quickly forgotten.







Sure, Vivaldi is one of the more interesting composers, and I also like this stuff:






but there's also a lot of stuff that's just plain "grating", (feels like AI wrote it), such as:









(the fugue in C major @44:27 is cute though)


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

I think it's easy on first glance to think a lot of non-Bach Baroque is cookie-cutter, which if we're just being real a lot of it is and can even apply to Bach too (...though I did see one post where AbsolutelyBaching could distinguish every single cantata from each other! that's impressive!!!). You could say that about a lot of different kinds of music though. There's a lot of Baroque pieces I've heard that don't reinvent the wheel whatsoever, and can't tell them apart if you asked me too, but that doesn't bother me at all. But if you look deeper there's lots of it that's richly expressive and exciting and lots of interesting things to hear at any given moment. I learned about Johann Gottlieb Graun and Jan Zelenka from the Baroque on YouTube thread and really love their music, especially the former. They may not be as objectively good as Bach (if I dare use that dirty word) but that doesn't play a role in my enjoyment of music. Telemann is also objectively inferior to Bach IMO but I enjoy them both for very different reasons, ableit Bach much more obviously.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I think it's easy on first glance to think a lot of non-Bach Baroque is cookie-cutter, which if we're just being real a lot of it is and can even apply to Bach too (...though I did see one post where AbsolutelyBaching could distinguish every single cantata from each other! that's impressive!!!). You could say that about a lot of different kinds of music though. There's a lot of Baroque pieces I've heard that don't reinvent the wheel whatsoever, and can't tell them apart if you asked me too, but that doesn't bother me at all. But if you look deeper there's lots of it that's richly expressive and exciting and lots of interesting things to hear at any given moment. I learned about Johann Gottlieb Graun and Jan Zelenka from the Baroque on YouTube thread and really love their music, especially the former. They may not be as objectively good as Bach (if I dare use that dirty word) but that doesn't play a role in my enjoyment of music. Telemann is also objectively inferior to Bach IMO but I enjoy them both for very different reasons, ableit Bach much more obviously.


What is considered objectively good music today? Extreme technical exercises or almost unplayable stuff that doesn't even sound good (of course, I am talking about modern "avantgarde" music)?
I am not sure that there is such thing as objectively good music.
You can be pretty sure that most people even in Bach's time were not caring about religious music, counterpoint in 5 voices etc.
The whole idea that you have to be original or need to compose hard to be played stuff is something from 19th century.


----------



## Simon23 (Dec 8, 2020)

BabyGiraffe said:


> It was characteristic. Critics, media campaigns ("Mozart effect") and random luck (forgotten composers, no surviving copies of works etc) have created the modern musical canon. You (and me) have never heard the names of 99 % of composers from the past eras. Wagner alone spawned a crowd of imitators (creating a fashionable style/trend).
> The story of Vivaldi is a good example of modern resurrection in popularity of a composer that was quickly forgotten.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Vivaldi#Posthumous_reputation
> Many of Bach's sons and grandsons were more renowned as composers than than him.
> Some years ago there were 30 000 new songs uploaded daily (Spotify). Let's say that some % of this is modern classical music. What is the chance that modern day classical music composers can get heard? (Considering that now you need only a computer and software to compose and playback music.)


To be honest, I don't need to listen to the 99 % of composers from the past eras. I just don't have enough time for this. I think, that time has put everything in its place and determined the significance of each composer. With the exception, perhaps, of the composers of the XX century. Media companies have very little to do with this. But the popularization of the Baroque now has an artificial, media nature. This is my opinion.


----------



## Simon23 (Dec 8, 2020)

BabyGiraffe said:


> The whole idea that you have to be original or need to compose hard to be played stuff is something from 19th century.


What's wrong with being original? I think this is just one of the signs that distinguishes great composers from ordinary ones.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

BabyGiraffe said:


> *What is considered objectively good music today? Extreme technical exercises or almost unplayable stuff that doesn't even sound good (of course, I am talking about modern "avantgarde" music)?*
> I am not sure that there is such thing as objectively good music.
> You can be pretty sure that most people even in Bach's time were not caring about religious music, counterpoint in 5 voices etc.
> The whole idea that you have to be original or need to compose hard to be played stuff is something from 19th century.


For this question I'm going to direct you to the pleasant, cordial, lovely thread in progress right now: Great avant-garde music vs. Average/Mediocre avant-garde music

I don't believe Bach's music was necessarily greater because it was technically more complex or demanded more skill to play, rather I think his music has far greater profundity than any of his contemporaries. The complexity and his overall skill of composition plays a big part in my opinion, but not just by virtue of that fact. Virtuosity or technical complexity are very low priorities on the list when it comes to my enjoyment of music.

EDIT: Come to think of it, you'd think that the words you'd tire of hearing are cliches like "overrated" and "underrated", but honestly, it's actually "objective" and "subjective" that are BY FAR the most overused and overhashed words and arguments on this forum if you ask my (_subjective_) opinion


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I can clearly identify when a piece of music is Baroque or Classical._

The most obvious differences are expansion of ideas, volume or sound, and variation in pacing -- the same can be said for the difference between classical and romantic era music. In each case the ideas are more voluminous and more well-developed, the differences in volume of sound greater (in part because of newer or different instruments), and greater variations in pacing.

Another more subtle difference is much music from the baroque era was dominated by the church or religion while music from the classical period became more human or more about people, if you will. There is also a symmetry to classical era music that isn't typically apparent in music from the baroque.

Another change was the use of minor key music to denote greater drama and tragedy. These were not typical characteristics of baroque music and gained favor and popularity in the classical era...that went on to be exploited far more greatly in the romantic 19th and ugly 20th centuries.

Franz Josef Haydn, one of the greatest innovators in music history, was again here one of the first to use the technique. He did so with minor key music in his so-called sturm und drang (storm and stress) symphonies which were about those numbered 30 through 70 in his catalog written during the 1760s and 1770s. Some of them have nicknames like "the passion," "the lamentation" and "mourning."


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

larold said:


> _I can clearly identify when a piece of music is Baroque or Classical._
> 
> Another change was the use of minor key music to denote greater drama and tragedy. These were not typical characteristics of baroque music and gained favor and popularity in the classical era...that went on to be exploited far more greatly in the romantic 19th and ugly 20th centuries.
> 
> Franz Josef Haydn, one of the greatest innovators in music history, was again here one of the first to use the technique. He did so with minor key music in his so-called sturm und drang (storm and stress) symphonies which were about those numbered 30 through 70 in his catalog written during the 1760s and 1770s. Some of them have nicknames like "the passion," "the lamentation" and "mourning."


That seems false to me. I can think of many examples of minor key Baroque music where the tone is very explicitly mounrful and dark, and I doubt that's because our pespectives have been biased by association of minor keys with being 'dark' that was created in the Classical Era.

If you're just saying it was exploited more to make the darkness more pronounced, I can see that though


----------



## Simon23 (Dec 8, 2020)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I don't believe Bach's music was necessarily greater because it was technically more complex or demanded more skill to play, rather I think his music has far greater profundity than any of his contemporaries. The complexity and his overall skill of composition plays a big part in my opinion, but not just by virtue of that fact. Virtuosity or technical complexity are very low priorities on the list when it comes to my enjoyment of music.


Yes, of course. His music has far greater profundity than any of his contemporaries. That's what I wanted to say, too, but maybe I couldn't find the right words. 
I have previously heard the theory, that Bach's music has a "cosmic" (divine) character - that is, he was like a conductor of this music from the Universe. Despite my complicated attitude to religion, I find a certain meaning in this.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Sir this is an Arby's.


An Arby is what?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

janxharris said:


> An Arby is what?


It's a joke, the idea of someone going on a long-winded angry rant (usually political) and a service worker has to remind them they're in a fast food establishment.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> It's a joke, the idea of someone going on a long-winded angry rant (usually political) and a service worker has to remind them they're in a fast food establishment.


It's a fast food chain?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> someone going on a long-winded angry rant


mine was nothing of the sort, rather succinct and peaceful.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

janxharris said:


> It's a fast food chain?


Yes. And the joke gets funnier with each additional explanation.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

amfortas said:


> Yes. And the joke gets funnier with each additional explanation.


They might not have them in Britain



Zhdanov said:


> mine was nothing of the sort, rather succinct and peaceful.


Oh I'm sure it was, the quip was just funny in context.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Simon23 said:


> What's wrong with being original? I think this is just one of the signs that distinguishes great composers from ordinary ones.


The only thing that distinguished the great from ordinary when they were alive was their popularity and wealth...
And later the critics. But why would anyone care about fame after his own death? It is better to live well. This is practical way of thinking that served well professional musicians in any era. 
Romantic myths about originality, rebellion against society norms, forbidden love, tragic geniuses etc cliches are just... no comment.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Some good explanations of the differences here. I feel more at home with baroque music for some reason, the music has more spiritual gravitas I think, (which is why in the classical era when composers were writing sacred works they would generally use baroque techniques) obviously there is a wealth of great music in both eras. 

I can't believe hammeredklavier said Buxtehude's organ works were grating and compared them to AI. :scold:

That video he posted is one of my favorites.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> I feel more at home with baroque music for some reason, the music has more spiritual gravitas I think, (which is why in the classical era when composers were writing sacred works they would generally use baroque techniques).


I don't think calling anything containing imitative counterpoint "baroque" is an insightful way to look at the stuff. We must remember Bach's B minor mass or Handel's Messiah were actually composed around the end of the Baroque era, and they actually sound quite different from 17th century "high Baroque music" such as Biber or Purcell - as much as "religious music" from 1780s~1790s sound different from Bach and Handel. Scholars have even found rococo/galant elements in Bach's late music, such as the Musical offering. I'm sure the "symmetry" of the Goldberg variations has something to do with this as well. They shouldn't be the "standard" of what all Baroque music is supposed to sound like - it would be like using Richard Strauss to represent the entirety of Romanticism.

"Baroque techniques" are a vague concept too. Compare, for example, "Ev'ry valley shall be exhalted" from Handel's Messiah with "Panis vivus" from Mozart's Litaniae de venerabili altaris sacramento K.243. Is Handel the one being "Classical"? Or is Mozart the one being "Baroque" in this case? (And the "Pignus futurae gloriae" double fugue sounds nothing like anything Bach and Handel wrote).

Even the kyrie from Mozart's requiem, to me, conveys a "Classical" feel; I don't know how to describe it, but with instrumental/vocal effects, it conveys a "sense of drama and urgency" completely different from music of the earlier half of the 18th century. Compare J.E. Eberlin's Benedixisti domine and Mozart's Misericoridias domini, (which I linked to, in post [#13]) -you'll see what I mean.

Likewise, with its frequent mood changes, the Laudate pueri dominum from Mozart's Vesperae solennes de confessore K.339 also strikes me as very "Classical". I can see what you mean by "spiritual gravitas" in pre-Classical music, but expression of "innocent piety" is also an important part of what I consider as "ideal" liturgical music. I think the Classicists, with their sense of "clarity" and "purity" in taste, are expressive with that sort of sentiments. I consider stuff like the credo movements from Michael Haydn's Missa sancti Gotthardi or Missa sancti Leopoldi quite expressive in that regard. Also Look at Mozart vesperae K.339:
"Magna opera domini exquisita" [ 4:30 ]
"Gloria patri et filio" [ 24:51 ]

"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:1-4)

"Michael's influence on Romanticism is also reflected in the writings of E. T. A. Hoffmann, who praised Michael's sacred music above that of older brother Joseph's. Franz Schubert is known to have visited the grave of Michael Haydn in order to gain inspiration for writing sacred music. After one of these visits, Schubert wrote in a letter to his brother the following epitaph:
"I thought to myself, 'May thy pure and peaceful spirit hover around me, dear Haydn! If I can ever become like thee, peaceful and guileless, in all matters none on earth has such deep reverence for thee as I have.' (Sad tears fell from my eyes. . . .)""


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think calling anything containing imitative counterpoint "baroque" is an insightful way to look at the stuff. We must remember Bach's B minor mass or Handel's Messiah were actually composed around the end of the Baroque era, and they actually sound quite different from 17th century "high Baroque music" such as Biber or Purcell - as much as "religious music" from 1780s~1790s sound different from Bach and Handel. Scholars have even found rococo/galant elements in Bach's late music, such as the Musical offering. I'm sure the "symmetry" of the Goldberg variations has something to do with this as well. They shouldn't be the "standard" of what all Baroque music is supposed to sound like - it would be like using Richard Strauss to represent the entirety of Romanticism.
> 
> "Baroque techniques" are a vague concept too. Compare, for example, "Ev'ry valley shall be exhalted" from Handel's Messiah with "Panis vivus" from Mozart's Litaniae de venerabili altaris sacramento K.243. Is Handel the one being "Classical"? Or is Mozart the one being "Baroque" in this case? (And the "Pignus futurae gloriae" double fugue sounds nothing like anything Bach and Handel wrote).
> 
> ...


You have some points I agree with, I certainly enjoy much of what Mozart did in his sacred works, and no it is not simply pastiche, but it is clearly influenced by baroque and I think my general statement holds true. It's definitely not the same thing as using R Strauss to represent all of romanticism. One can make general statements like mine and it is more clarifying in my view than trying to frame Bach and Handel as classical era composers. At that point I think you are the one just obfuscating the issue.

I find the baroque era in general better suited towards the spiritual side of music from Monteverdi forward, (and in fact even in music preceding baroque/Monteverdi) I'm not just speaking about Bach and Handel. I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment. The classical style's origins are in comic opera giving it a naturally lighter feel. In some ways the style itself was a reaction against the 'gravitas' of the baroque. The period also coincided with the age of so called 'enlightenment' an intellectual movement that is in itself partly about a moving away from God/spirituality.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> At that point I think you are the one just obfuscating the issue.


How? Maybe you're the one who should explain how Mozart's final symphony, K.551 (a secular work) is less "Baroque" than Missa sancti Trinitatis in C major, K.167, for example. Both, to me, are written in the same exact idiom. (I actually wrote about this stuff many times. Harnoncourt called Mozart's final 3 symphonies an "instrumental oratorio". Shostakovich called K.551/iv a Köln cathedral.) So once music of the same idiom as K.551 is set to Latin ordinary text, -it suddenly becomes music "insincere in expression"?
Btw, it's sometimes baffling to me why "people who don't even believe God exists" are especially so picky about what kind of music must be played or sung in praising God.



tdc said:


> The classical style's origins are in comic opera giving it a naturally lighter feel.


So? They weren't trying to mock or make jokes about religion with it, were they? Again, read the final lines of my previous post.



tdc said:


> I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment.


https://www.bartleby.com/library/prose/692.html
Berlioz: "Every one follows the words on the book with his eyes; not a movement among the audience, not a murmur of praise or blame, not a sound of applause; they are listening to a solemn discourse, they are hearing the gospel sung, they are attending divine service rather than a concert. And really such music ought to be thus listened to. They adore Bach, and believe in him, without supposing for a moment that his divinity could ever be called into question. A heretic would horrify them, he is forbidden even to speak of him. God is God and Bach is Bach."

https://books.google.ca/books?id=GTorDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA24
"Ave verum corpus (K. 618). The intimate and fervent religiosity of this short masterpiece seems to conform precisely to Berlioz's ideal of religious music.
'This is not just religious music, it is really divine and worthy of the dwellers of Heaven. It is the ideal manifestation of pious serenity, of mystical love, of ecstasy. God dictated it; an angel wrote it.'"

http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johann_Sebastian_Bach
"Tchaikovsky did not show the slightest interest in the early music movement which emerged in the 1850s and has been gaining in strength ever since, leading to a revival of the works of Bach and Handel. For although (as he told me himself) he would every now and then play piano fugues by Bach when he was alone, he always felt that the latter's cantatas and major vocal works were "real classical bores."



tdc said:


> but it is clearly influenced by baroque... I'm not just speaking about Bach and Handel.


I know, but we should be careful in "labeling" stuff. Classical liturgical stuff is a natural outgrowth from the Baroque, just as the opera is from the Baroque counterpart (arias and recitatives) the symphony is from the Baroque sinfonia, for example.



tdc said:


> I find the baroque era in general better suited towards...


Really? How much "gravitas" do you feel in the horn in the Quoniam tu salus of Bach's B minor, for example? Let's not be pretentious with this issue. The Baroque trumpet "sticking out" in the Gloria and Sanctus feels like an elephant singing in a savanna, to me, as if it's some kind of pastoral "programme music". But I won't presume to discuss the "sincerity" of the music.

I don't personally agree with Jeremy Denk in his rant, but I think these words of his are directed at people like you:

"I know everyone discusses the Goldbergs as if born from the mind of God in some beautiful Olympian harmony-paradise." 
"The capstone of these is the Quodlibet, with its good humor and generosity of spirit, reenacting (so they say) Bach family parties where they would mash up various tunes, dazzle each other with contrapuntal mastery. Now, the words of the tunes are perhaps jokes, references that we can probably no longer get; everyone has their own idea what it all means. This lost joke which no one agrees about is the last laughing straw for me."



tdc said:


> The period also coincided with the age of so called 'enlightenment' an intellectual movement that is in itself partly about a moving away from God/spirituality.


"The Age of Enlightenment was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries."
It actually overlaps into the Baroque period by a considerable margin.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

^^ I don't even really know what you're going on about. My impression of the music is just that. I think there is some truth to what I said considering how much classical composers borrowed from the baroque in composing their sacred works, its a simple fact. Yes Mozart was influenced in other works too, its part of the 'inner texture' point I made in another thread. There is more baroque in Mozart I think than most other classical era composers, its likely part of the reason I am drawn to his music more than others from that era.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I like Mozart's sacred music as much as other sacred music, I think it is so good because it is heavily indebted to the baroque.


----------



## Carmina Banana (Feb 13, 2021)

hammeredklavier makes many good points. In particular, I think we need to keep in mind that there is not a clear dividing line between the baroque and classical eras. In fact, music historians don't agree on exactly where that line is. Personally, I am fine with it being a gray area. Further, I think the classical masters, while writing in the newest, snazziest styles, continued to value baroque composers. I find it interesting that Beethoven, when at his wit's end, finishes a piece with a giant fugue (not always, but you know what I mean). 
I think there are a couple of things that each era valued. 1.In the baroque, multiple, independent lines were important. In the classical era, it was more important to feature a simple "natural" melody by itself. 2.In the baroque, harmonies often occurred as a result of counterpoint. In the classical era, harmonies were used more deliberately to create a structure.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> ^^ I don't even really know what you're going on about. My impression of the music is just that. I think there is some truth to what I said considering how much classical composers borrowed from the baroque in composing their sacred works, its a simple fact. Yes Mozart was influenced in other works too, its part of the 'inner texture' point I made in another thread. There is more baroque in Mozart I think than most other classical era composers, its likely part of the reason I am drawn to his music more than others from that era.


You should also look at composers such as Georg von Pasterwitz (1730~1803) , Johann Adolph Hasse (1799~1783) , Franz Xaver Richter (1709~1789) , Michael Haydn (1737~1806). Michael Haydn, for example, actually at times sounds like he belongs in a slightly older side of the Salzburg tradition.
I feel this when comparing stuff like Mozart's Missa longa (1775) with Michael's Missa sancti hieronymi (1777), which have similar formal design and thematic resemblances. I'm not sure if this means "more baroque" to you or not. 




 (I like the harmonies at 13:24 and 14:34)




 (5:32 and 7:15)

I was also saying that I've never understood some people's logic that the Classical-era style can be used effectively in other fields such as the opera or secular music, but not in religious music. If you find "similarities" in terms of voice-leading style and stuff between the late Baroque and Classical, its because the late Baroque and Classical are so close in timeline. I'm not sure if you know; stuff like this is what makes up the bulk of Mozart's output of Catholic music:




Bach and Handel are great. But I'm of the opinion that the Classicists' expressions are also totally valid for the reasons I told you in the previous posts.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Both are legitimate ways to express "elegance"; the latter sounds more "refined" to me.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I like Michael Haydn's sacred music, it sounds like a hybrid of baroque and classical to me. 

Here are some of Charles Rosen's thoughts on the matter: (some of his ideas I agree with, but not all). 

"The classical style is at its most problematic in religious music."

"Things were not improved after 1770 by a style firmly rooted in the rhythmic techniques of Italian comic opera. This produced settings of the mass which appear strikingly irrelevant to the text - not only to us today but to contemporaries as well and even, it appears to the composers themselves."

"...given the nature of classical texture and rhythm, it was more difficult than in the early part of the century to encompass an imposing and lengthy opening movement...the style of the high baroque, with a heavy contrapuntal texture and the almost indefinitely extensible phrase, can provide some of this weight. One avenue open to the classical composer of religious music is therefore, archaism. An imitation of the high baroque style, a moribund but not buried tradition by the 1780's had the advantage that a reference to the past always has in religion: using the contrapuntal style was like continuing to address God as 'thou'..."

"Mozart was the greatest of parodists."

He then points out that Mozart's Requiem was in part what inspired the revival of baroque technique that happened after Beethoven and was very important to composers like Chopin and Schumann. 

He also suggests it was Beethoven who was the first to create a truly classical sacred music but states:

"It was left for Beethoven to reconcile the liturgical tradition with the classical style, and paradoxically by evading the problem altogether; both his masses are frankly concert pieces, and more effective outside than inside a church."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

^I take Rosen's utterances of late 18th century liturgical music with a a grain of salt cause he didn't really seem to know much about its composers. I doubt he knew the influence of the Et incarnatus est from Michael's Missa sancti Gabrielis MH17 on Beethoven's missa solemnis. He (like Donald Tovey) just didn't seem to have much insight into the topic.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> Here are some of Charles Rosen's thoughts on the matter....


This is the problem with those people who only think of Bach and Handel when it comes to Mozart's K.427 and K.626 (I don't think Rosen ever demonstrated knowledge outside of that.) , and refuse to look at the full historical context in which Mozart wrote music. It doesn't seem so insightful to me. There's constant change occuring in terms of style every decade, you can't really pigeonhole it as "Baroque". Saying that the "sense of drama and urgency" in the Dies irae from Michael's requiem (1771) or the "constant switching of mood between light and darkness" in the credo from Mozart missa brevis in F, K.192 (1774) are "Baroque" is to me just as ridiculous as saying Brahms is not Romantic. Maybe you should show me examples of liturgical music from the pre-1750 eras that does any of that.
Again, music of the 1780s~1790s only derives from music of the 1740s~1750s, as much as music of the 1740s~1750s derives from music of the 1700s~1710s. People commented on this HIP performance of Mozart's D minor concerto K.466 that it sounds "Baroque".
















We might as well call all kinds of stuff in Mozart "Baroque", such as Die zauberflote, or symphony in D, K.504 (with its French overture-like opening), right? Would that be "insightful" though?



hammeredklavier said:


> I think the "Salzburgian-ness" of this work is largely overlooked by many people today





hammeredklavier said:


> Even the kyrie from Mozart's requiem, to me, conveys a "Classical" feel; I don't know how to describe it, but with instrumental/vocal effects, it conveys a "sense of drama and urgency" completely different from music of the earlier half of the 18th century. Compare J.E. Eberlin's Benedixisti domine and Mozart's Misericoridias domini, (which I linked to, in post [#13]) -you'll see what I mean.
> Likewise, with its frequent mood changes, the Laudate pueri dominum from Mozart's Vesperae solennes de confessore K.339 also strikes me as very "Classical".


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

RogerWaters said:


> I can clearly identify when a piece of music is Baroque or Classical.
> 
> However, when i attempt to verbally explain the difference to myself or others it turns out a bit vague like 'Baroque music has a more continuous flow' and 'Classical music has more suspensions and build ups', etc.
> 
> ...


What you say is basically true, I prefer baroque over all later music for that I tend to get orgasm from something I feel as consisency in things.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I've always thought of Baroque music being less overtly linear than the eras that followed it. I'm not saying linear narratives don't exist in Baroque because that's verifiably false, but in general less emphasis is placed on it.


Technically correct, rhythmically baroque music is more complex, while later music tend to sound complex in tonal textures but simple in melody and rhythm, which means, almost reducible in primitive eastern tonal systems.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> This is the problem with those people who only think of Bach and Handel when it comes to Mozart's K.427 and K.626. (I don't think Rosen ever demonstrated knowledge outside of that.) , and choose not to look at the full historical context in which Mozart wrote music. It doesn't seem so insightful to me. There's constant change occuring in terms of style every decade, you can't really pigeonhole it as "Baroque". Saying that the "sense of drama and urgency" in the Dies irae from Michael's requiem (1771) or the "constant switching of mood between light and darkness" in the credo from Mozart missa brevis in F, K.192 (1774) are "Baroque" is to me just as ridiculous as saying Brahms is not Romantic. Maybe you should show me examples of liturgical music from the pre-1750 eras that does any of that.
> Again, music of the 1780s~1790s only derives from music of the 1740s~1750s, as much as music of the 1740s~1750s derives from music of the 1700s~1710s. People commented on this HIP performance of Mozart's D minor concerto K.466 that it sounds "Baroque".
> 
> 
> ...


See you kind of lose me here. I think my point was simple and self evident, and I can simply listen to the music and hear with my ears the baroque influence, and how it tends to be heavier in the sacred music and in my view, rightly so. Charles Rosen agrees with me. I don't think my point is even controversial. But apparently you don't like the implications so you are bending over backwards to try to refute it. I obviously touched a nerve and it seems like what you tend to do when you disagree with a point is cram a whole bunch of quotes, passages, technical jargon and speculations into a post, which to me does the opposite of providing insight, it makes things less clear, confused. It is a technique called obfuscation. It doesn't really shed light on anything in particular that is significant. To me it is similar to what you perceive in some of Chopin, called 'scale spam'.

So people hear baroque influences in some of Mozart's other pieces too, so what? I'm not surprised, I already addressed that. There is nothing wrong with baroque influence in music it also appears in the romantic era and in modernism as well.


----------



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

I’m not sure I’m completely satisfied with these answers but I don’t know much about the technical aspects of music which I’m sure are put well here. I tend to prefer baroque music to classical and romantic periods, but not necessarily to music after that. One thing I’m not exactly sure of is what people mean by “classical.” They’re including or excluding romantic music? Anyway, there’s a sense in late Renaissance through baroque. I can’t put my finger on it. It has to do with openness and discovery and unselfish-conscious creativity and authenticity. Maybe it’s also the feeling of pre-clock time. Some of the early baroque/late Renaissance also have an almost avant-garde sensibility. I’m thinking of the keyboard output of someone like Frescobaldi.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

J.S. Bach and Handel are composers who are firmly baroque, can you name one source that calls these composers 'classical'? It doesn't mean they have no elements of classicism in their music, things are not completely black and white, it doesn't mean we cant make basic statements about music categories.

Composers like CPE Bach and Stamitz are _transitional_ composers between baroque and classical, their music stylistically is distinct from Bach and Handel. We can use our ears and hear the difference between these categories, its not all just a big blur.

When I listen to Mozart's Requiem I'm referring to the influence of J.S. and Handel. No one should confuse those two stylistically with Stamitz or CPE Bach, or any classical era composer.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

milk said:


> I'm not sure I'm completely satisfied with these answers but I don't know much about the technical aspects of music which I'm sure are put well here. I tend to prefer baroque music to classical and romantic periods, but not necessarily to music after that. One thing I'm not exactly sure of is what people mean by "classical." They're including or excluding romantic music? Anyway, there's a sense in late Renaissance through baroque. I can't put my finger on it. It has to do with openness and discovery and unselfish-conscious creativity and authenticity. Maybe it's also the feeling of pre-clock time. Some of the early baroque/late Renaissance also have an almost avant-garde sensibility. I'm thinking of the keyboard output of someone like Frescobaldi.


'Classical' can be used as a blanket term for all the styles you've described, but it can be used also to refer to a specific period of music between roughly 1730-1820. So, not romanticism. Haydn, Mozart and Boccherini are examples of classical era composers.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

tdc said:


> 'Classical' can be used as a blanket term for all the styles you've described, but it can be used also to refer to a specific period of music between roughly 1730-1820. So, not romanticism. Haydn, Mozart and Boccherini are examples of classical era composers.


Not beethoven? what, in formal terms, makes him not classical?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> See you kind of lose me here. I think my point was simple and self evident, and I can simply listen to the music and hear with my ears the baroque influence, and how it tends to be heavier in the sacred music and in my view, rightly so. Charles Rosen agrees with me.


What's so hard to understand about my posts? Church music went through enormous changes at the hands of the 18th-century Classicists. Just listen to Mozart K.257, for example, which I posted earlier. Does this sound like something composed around 1700 to you? It's also baffling to me why you take what that one pianist guy said as absolute truth, when it's obviously doubtful how much insight he really had regarding the topic.
Btw, the fact was that incorporating Mediterranean operatic elements into church music was what Bach and Buxtehude (Membra Jesu Nostri) also tried doing. Maybe Rosen should have keep his mouth shut about topics he didn't know much about.



hammeredklavier said:


> "...one of the complaints about Bach was that his cantatas were too operatic. More than any other composer he introduced the Italian opera style into church music, something his predecessor Johann Kuhnau had always resisted." <Bach Cantatas Website: "Bach and Opera">
> I think people tend to overlook the fact Bach was interested in bringing operatic elements into other types of music, and was pretty forward-looking in this regard - the development of the "Neapolitan mass", the "stilus ecclesiasticus mixtus" or mixed church style, which combined traditional contrapuntal choruses with coloratura solo arias and ensembles, which theoreticians such as J.J. Fux and M. Spiess opposed.


What kind of things really qualify as "Baroque influence" to you anyway? You don't think arias and recitatives were invented in the Classical period, do you?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> When I listen to Mozart's Requiem I'm referring to the influence of J.S. and Handel. No one should confuse those two stylistically with Stamitz or CPE Bach, or any classical era composer.


I also hear a lot of Johann Ernst Eberlin, Johann Adolph Hasse, and especially Michael Haydn, in Mozart's requiem. I think C.P.E. Bach's late music, such as the Hamburg symphonies are fully Classical.


tdc said:


> the revival of baroque technique


One common misconception (myth) about the Classical period is that its composers stopped writing counterpoint with the death of J.S.Bach. But the so-called "decline/revival of counterpoint" never actually happened. As I said in another thread https://www.talkclassical.com/47507-mozart-mass-c-minor-3.html#post1992424 I also hear a lot of Leopold Mozart, Michael Haydn in Wolfgang's K.427. Again, look at composers like G. Pasterwitz, or F.X. Richter of the Mannheim school. Richter came up with the contrapuntal symphonic style as early as 1760. 
Btw, Mozart's fascination with Bach and Handel during his Vienna period was only significant as his fascination with G. Benda (whom Mozart regarded as his "favorite of the Lutheran kapellmeisters" in 1778). Stuff like Die zauberflote adheres to the tradition of German-language melodrama pioneered by Benda. 








If you love "labelling" stuff that much, why don't you then "label" the modal Credo movement from Bach's B minor as "Renaissance"?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> J.S. Bach and Handel are composers who are firmly baroque, can you name one source that calls these composers 'classical'?





hammeredklavier said:


> Scholars have even found rococo/galant elements in Bach's late music, such as the Musical offering.


-----



tdc said:


> It doesn't mean they have no elements of classicism in their music, things are not completely black and white, it doesn't mean we cant make basic statements about music categories.


Exactly. Musical styles changed gradually, never stopping.

"In the spring of 1783, when his father hesitated to send some of his own sacred compositions to Vienna, Mozart encouraged him to do so with the argument that Kenner knew full well, "that *musical taste is continually changing and what is more, that this extends even to church music, which ought not to be the case...*""
http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf

This is why I said:



hammeredklavier said:


> music of the 1780s~1790s only derives from music of the 1740s~1750s, as much as music of the 1740s~1750s derives from music of the 1700s~1710s.


What's so hard to understand about my posts? I don't get it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> "The classical style is at its most problematic in religious music."
> "Things were not improved after 1770 by a style firmly rooted in the rhythmic techniques of Italian comic opera. This produced settings of the mass which appear strikingly irrelevant to the text - not only to us today but to contemporaries as well and even, it appears to the composers themselves."


"It was the prosaic and pedantic reformer, Emperor Joseph II, who took up the papal regulations for the Austrian dominions. In an imperial rescript of 26 January 1754 he banned timpani and trumpets from the church and sought to restrict the instrumental accompaniment of church music generally. He succeeded only partially, *for the love of festive orchestral Masses ran far too deep in Austria*, but that is another story." http://christermalmberg.se/documents/musik/klassiskt/mozart/mozart_verk_massor.php

Well, Neapolitan orchestral masses - the clergy and the people liked them back then - the music served its purpose; inspired profound feelings of devotion and worship in the people at the time. 



 But isn't it weird some guy 200 years later finger-points at them and calls them "problematic"? It reminds me of some people on TC who complained in a vague manner about "flawed ideologies" in Wagner's music.
I have no idea what Rosen means by "settings of the mass which appear strikingly irrelevant to the text" either. Do go through the music I posted, the ones that became models for Beethoven's missa solemnis, for example (Mozart's K.257 or Michael's MH17). See how moods of the music change with the texts such as "et incarnatus est" - "crucifixus" - "et resurrexit", through their through-composition. Rosen's writing regarding this topic strikes me as quite "amateurish" at best.



tdc said:


> using the contrapuntal style was like continuing to address God as 'thou'..."


Again, Mozart's symphony in C, K.551 and his Missa sancti Trinitatis in C, K.167 are written in the *same idiom*. It's funny how some people talk as if Woody Allen's quote about the symphony; "it proved the existence of God", or Shostakovich's quote; "it is a cathedral of Köln" is valid, but the mass, which is pretty much music of the same idiom set to Latin ordinary text, is "problematic". 
It's like obsessing over what appears on the surface rather than the essence. I guess Rosen can be rather unintelligent sometimes.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

F.X.Richter was a highly retrospective composer, as attested by his treatise on music "Harmonische Belehrungen"， published in 1760 AD, where he theoretically adhered to the austere contrapunctal styles of his predecessors like Antonio Caldara and Johann Fux.

Clearly, some composers did intend to adhere to whatever the norms their predecessors set up, the eager of following the trend had not been as evident as later people think to be in the generation of middle 18th century in church music. That Mozart highly venerated Michael Haydn is a fact, like JS Bach venerated Georg Bohm and Dietrich Buxtehude, but it did not stop them from generating brilliant independent personal benchmarks in their own compositions. Did they on purpose follow the idea of going after the *fashionable styles*? highly questionable, we are tended to brand ancient people as stupider than us simply because they are older.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> Scholars have even found rococo/galant elements in Bach's late music, such as the Musical offering.


The Galant Style was from France, starting with J.B Lully and Franssois Couperin`s dramatic writings: operatic but never rejected older norms of contrapuntal austerity. New styles not rejecting the older norms, no mystery here. How come people have to fixate on the idea of new style has to reject the older styles? :lol:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

RogerWaters said:


> Not beethoven? what, in formal terms, makes him not classical?


Beethoven can be considered classical certainly, but his sound is unique and I consider him a composer in the grey area between eras, not fully classical, not fully romantic. Rosen considered him classical. I listed those three for clarity because they just have a sound that I consider over all more typical of the classical era aesthetic.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> If you love "labelling" stuff that much, why don't you then "label" the modal Credo movement from Bach's B minor as "Renaissance"?


I don't have a problem with acknowledging _elements of renaissance _in Bach's mass. They are there. Its not the same thing as calling it a renaissance work. I don't think you really understand my point, because that is all I'm saying in regards to sacred music from the classical era as well. I said they often used 'baroque techniques', I'm not labelling them baroque works.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

*Tommaso Traetta* - 'Antigona' [1772] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigona_(Traetta)











_There is a story, told by the Traetta association in Bitonto, that he left St. Petersburg under threat of assassination by the empress-it seems he was enraged that she insisted on a happy ending for Antigona, and in revenge put music for Polish independence into the final chaconne. He left in time, but his librettist was poisoned._


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> "It was the prosaic and pedantic reformer, Emperor Joseph II, who took up the papal regulations for the Austrian dominions. In an imperial rescript of 26 January 1754 he banned timpani and trumpets from the church and sought to restrict the instrumental accompaniment of church music generally. He succeeded only partially, *for the love of festive orchestral Masses ran far too deep in Austria*, but that is another story." http://christermalmberg.se/documents/musik/klassiskt/mozart/mozart_verk_massor.php
> 
> Well, Neapolitan orchestral masses - the clergy and the people liked them back then - the music served its purpose; inspired profound feelings of devotion and worship in the people at the time.
> 
> ...


I've asked you this before, but who exactly do you conduct conversations with? It certainly can't be with other actual human beings, as this is your fourth post in a row...


----------



## Saxman (Jun 11, 2019)

What is the difference between them? About 100-150 years!


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> There is a story, told by the Traetta association in Bitonto, that he left St. Petersburg under threat of assassination by the empress-it seems he was enraged that she insisted on a happy ending for Antigona, and in revenge put music for Polish independence into the final chaconne. He left in time, but his librettist was poisoned.


Typically red-neck hill-billy _Le-Roi_ mentality, sad for us easterners, many of our fellow countrymen still have this village emperor complex, desiring superfacial flatteries: see nothing, hear nothing.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Listen to Bach.

Then listen to Mozart.

Do you hear the difference?


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Many 18th century music theorists were conservative, while the most famous Johann Mattheson was pro-italianization, later theorists like Albrechtsberger and Kirnberger were conservative, retrospective to the schools of JS Bach and Johann Fux. The former was the teacher of Beethoven and a good friend of lifetime, but the musical styles of teacher and student are a century apart; the latter was a great venerator and a student of JS Bach, his comments on JS Bach was the important factor of subsequent revival of Bachs works, but his musical works survive in meagre amounts, are dismissed as uninspiring for his era. 

However we must not forget one of the greatest influencer of musical trends in the middle 18th century: J.A.Hasse, his italianate music was hugely influential even is believed to have influenced JS Bach and Jan Zelenka, both are his seniors by more than 10 years. The transition from barqoue to classic in music was not evident untill Mozart, it is basically inconsiderate to think the baroque age ended with JS Bach, I would say with J.A.Hasse, whose music went out of trend in 1770s and who died in 1783. A lot of conservative vocal music written by the generation of JS Bachs children and students surely can be considered as baroque as well.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> I've asked you this before, but who exactly do you conduct conversations with? It certainly can't be with other actual human beings, as this is your fourth post in a row...


They're my replies to tdc, as I've indicated in the posts. What's wrong with them?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Ariasexta said:


> Many 18th century music theorists are conservative, while the famous Johann Mattheson was pro-italianization, later theorists like Albrechtsberger and Kirnberger were conservative, retrospective to the schools of JS Bach and Johann Fux. The former was the teacher of Beethoven and a good friend of lifetime, but the musical styles of teacher and student are a century apart; the latter was a great venerator and a student of JS Bach, his comments on JS Bach was the important factor of subsequent revival of Bachs works, but his musical works survive in meagre amounts but are dismissed as uninspiring for his era.
> However we must not forget one of the greatest influencer of musical trend of middle 18th century was J.A.Hasse, his italianate music was hugely influential even thought to have influenced JS Bach and Jan Zelenka who both are his seniors by more than 10 years. The transition from barqoue to classic in music was not evident untill Mozart, it is basically inconsiderate to think the baroque age ended with JS Bach, I would say with J.A.Hasse, whose music went out of trend in 1770s and who died in 1783. A lot of conservative vocal music written by the generation of JS Bachs children and students can be considered as baroque as well.


I have doubts whether they should be called "conservatives" simply because they wrote church music and counterpoint. Again, calling Mozart's Missa sancti Trinitatis in C, K.167 "Baroque" is to me is like calling his symphony in C, K.551 "Baroque". (I've been always disturbed by this.) It's also baffling why people don't make direct comparisons between Baroque and Classical "church composers", like J.S. Bach, F.X. Richter, J.G. Naumann, G. Pasterwitz, Michael Haydn. The current "dogma" in the "academic circles" is to deem stuff like Boccherini absolutely as the "Classical style", and brand anything of the era that seems different from that as "not being Classical". I feel the paradigm (the way to look at the history) is outdated, with too many "paradoxes".



hammeredklavier said:


> Here are some interesting cases; the use of expressive emphasis with dynamics is clearly Classical:
> Responsoria in coena domini, MH 276:
> I. In monte Oliveti
> II. Tristis est anima mea
> ...


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> They're my replies to tdc, as I've indicated in the posts. What's wrong with them?


Your posts are full of musical knowledge and often interesting, but tdc is right, you sometimes obfuscate and barrage people with entire slabs of information. Four posts in a row to someone is intense. It's the conversational equivalent of a battering ram.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> I have doubts whether they should be called "conservatives" simply because they wrote church music and counterpoint. Again, calling Mozart's Missa sancti Trinitatis in C, K.167 "Baroque" is to me is like calling his symphony in C, K.551 "Baroque". (I've been always disturbed by this.) It's also baffling why people don't make direct comparisons between Baroque and Classical "church composers", like J.S. Bach, F.X. Richter, J.G. Naumann, G. Pasterwitz, Michael Haydn. The current "dogma" in the "academic circles" is to deem stuff like Boccherini absolutely as the "Classical style", and brand anything of the era that seems different from that as "not being Classical". I feel the paradigm (the way to look at the history) is outdated, with too many "paradoxes".


Like many romantic "composers" and "commentators" who wilfully branded and insulted early composers based on their ignorance and arrogance thinking enshrining JS Bach will just make enough excuses for their fashionable prejudice against the older music.

Starting from Schumann calling CPE Bach non-creative against his father untill Hans von Bülow calling old composers except for JS Bach as cretins . It is sad that many people in later centuries were tended to take pride in brutality and arrogance. We can be no better if not much worse. Nobody stopped them from learning from the old but themselves.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> "Mozart was the greatest of parodists."
> He then points out that Mozart's Requiem was in part what inspired the revival of baroque technique that happened after Beethoven and was very important to composers like Chopin and Schumann.


I've always thought that the way to resolve with a "final melody" in the "domine jesu" resembled that of K.516/i, and the sense of consolation of the "recordare" reminded me of K.516/iii. All these expressions are distinctively Mozartian.
Not only that, I'm certain Mozart's requiem looks forward to Schubert and Bruckner, as I mentioned in the thread <Why didn't Schubert finish his 8th Symphony?>:
"The "transition" from the turbulent 1st theme to the serene 2nd theme and the sense of contrast in the first movement somewhat remind me of those of another unfinished work ; Mozart's confutatis - voca me" (post1997143)
"the orchestration at the end of the second thematic section (in the first movement's exposition) is somewhat reminiscent of Mozart's recordare, wouldn't you agree? It is as if Schubert was thinking of his own impending death and thinking of some funeral music of his predecessors, most notably Mozart's." (post1997223)

Also, you seem to be suggesting that Mozart is "heaviest" in his liturgical stuff. You might perceive differently, but I think there's a lot of moments in Mozart's secular stuff that are just as "heavy", for example-
K.345: 



 (15:32~16:02)
K.366: 



K.477: 




Btw, I think this wasn't the only time Rosen talked nonsense; he also claimed that late Beethoven is stylistically closer to Joseph and Mozart than early Beethoven is.



> Charles Rosen used the song (Adelaide) to exemplify his claim that, somewhat paradoxically, Beethoven actually drew closer to the compositional practice of his predecessors Haydn and Mozart as his career evolved:
> 
> With age, Beethoven drew closer to the forms and proportions of Haydn and Mozart. In his youthful works, the imitation of his two great precursors is largely exterior: in technique and even in spirit, he is at the beginning of his career often closer to Hummel, Weber, and to the later works of Clementi than to Haydn and Mozart ... The equilibrium between harmonic and thematic development so characteristic of Haydn and Mozart is often lost in early Beethoven, where thematic contrast and transformation seem to outweigh all other interests. Beethoven, indeed, started as a true member of his generation, writing now in a proto-Romantic style and now in a late and somewhat attenuated version of the classical style, with an insistence on the kind of broad, square melodic structure that was to find its true justification later in the Romantic period of the 1830s. The early song Adelaide is as much Italian Romantic opera as anything else: its long, winding melody, symmetrical and passionate, its colorful modulations and aggressively simple accompaniment could come easily from an early work of Bellini.


----------



## LAS (Dec 12, 2014)

I wish someone would speak to the quality you can identify within 1 or 2 measures. It must have to do with orchestration. Perhaps also with harmony, but I'm not musically educated enough to speculate.

In particular, how can you identify Mozart as Mozart and Bach as Bach, often within one or two measures?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Ariasexta said:


> However we must not forget one of the greatest influencer of musical trends in the middle 18th century: J.A.Hasse, his italianate music was hugely influential even is believed to have influenced JS Bach and Jan Zelenka, both are his seniors by more than 10 years. *The transition from barqoue to classic in music was not evident untill Mozart, it is basically inconsiderate to think the baroque age ended with JS Bach,* I would say with J.A.Hasse, whose music went out of trend in 1770s and who died in 1783. A lot of conservative vocal music written by the generation of JS Bachs children and students surely can be considered as baroque as well.


This is incorrect. In fact, it's way off. The transition is evident in the music of CPE Bach from (at latest) 1740 and in Italian symphonies even earlier.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

^"In fact, it is not known when W.F. Bach composed it, only that it almost certainly dates from the Dresden years (1733 -1746), according to research on details of the manuscript."
https://www.allmusic.com/compositio...-in-f-major-dissonant-f-67-br-c2-mc0002658701







hammeredklavier said:


> https://thenextvivaldiproject.home.blog/2019/12/12/antonio-caldara-and-the-baroque-sinfonia/
> "Different from a concerto, his Sinfonia in C major had all the musical contrast of an opera - something symphonists were working to capture in later centuries."


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> This is incorrect. In fact, it's way off. The transition is evident in the music of CPE Bach from (at latest) 1740 and in Italian symphonies even earlier.


CPE Bachs only created his own new styles in his late years in Hamburg starting from 1768, while maintaining the baroque style untill the end of his life in 1788. I think it is correctly to take CPE Bach as the true finale of the baroque age. If it is true that PE Bach pioneered the classic age, that he was only an inspiration of the beginning of the new, and the end of the old.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

^This Hamburg symphony (Wq.183 no.3) written by Emanuel in 1775 reminds me of Mozart's K.550/iv:





M. Haydn - P 24, MH 425 - Symphony No. 33 in B flat major (1786)




the use of the brass at 2:27 reminds me of Mozart K.550/i.

And again, there is a constant stereotype that stuff like Boccherini is the norm, the true representative or standard of the entire Classical style; although it is not completely wrong to think that way, -I feel it over-represents the Classical style. And Bach tends to over-represent the Baroque.



hammeredklavier said:


> *Missa sancti Gotthardi* (1792) - credo
> I like the harmonies at "crucifixus" [ 2:27 ~ 3:09 ] and "amen" [ 6:03 ~ 6:15 ]


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Ariasexta said:


> CPE Bachs only created his own new styles in his late years in Hamburg starting from 1768, while maintaining the baroque style untill the end of his life in 1788. I think it is correctly to take CPE Bach as the true finale of the baroque age. If it is true that PE Bach pioneered the classic age, that he was only an inspiration of the beginning of the new, and the end of the old.


This is nonsense. I don't believe you actually know his music. The Prussian sonatas and the early symphonies from the 1740s are in a personal style that has already left the Baroque behind.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> This is nonsense. I don't believe you actually know his music. The Prussian sonatas and the early symphonies from the 1740s are in a personal style that has already left the Baroque behind.


I have his concertos from Philips, and harpsichord concertos by Gustav Leonhardt, I know stylistically they are from his father a good disstance, especially his sonatas, however, still not as forward as Haydn which I still consider as late Baroque in terms of his works without fortepiano.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Wikipedia said:


> Baroque music is a period or style of Western art music composed from approximately 1600 to 1750.
> 
> The Classical period was an era of classical music between roughly 1730 and 1820.


Wikipedia, the arbiter of all arguments.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> Baroque music is a period or style of Western art music composed from approximately 1600 to 1750.


I do not follow that, many theoretical works written by JS Bachs pupils and children never show any ideas of _purposeful _invention of new styles. Mozart and Beethoven are the major composers of the classical era: 1770-1840. I listen according to my own version of period terminology.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

NoCoPilot said:


> Wikipedia, the arbiter of all arguments.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Ariasexta said:


> I do not follow that, many theoretical works written by JS Bachs pupils and children never show any ideas of _purposeful _invention of new styles. Mozart and Beethoven are the major composers of the classical era: 1770-1840. I listen according to my own version of period terminology.


The parts of this that are relevant are wrong. Theoretical works tend to codify existing practice, not invent new styles. You apparently don't know Bach's sons or their music. Three of them had a clear propensity for stylistic innovation. Your version of period terminology is … idiosyncratic (not accepted by anyone in the field of musicology). Haydn is a Classical Era composer. He, along with Mozart and Beethoven, considered CPE Bach a guiding light of the style they practiced. The death of Beethoven is taken as the end date for the Classical Era, although by that time the Romantic movement in music was already underway. Did you invent all of your misinformation yourself?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

To me, Emanuel Bach is too "theatrical" in terms of mood (not in a bad way) to be considered Baroque.
keyboard concerto in E minor Wq.15




symphony in C major Wq.182:3




(compare them with M. Haydn; Missa sancti nepomuceni 



 / Missa sancti hieronymi 



 - another "point of reference" for the Classical idiom)

And a lot of his works are explicitly Classical, with use of symmetrical phrases and cadences:













Emanuel Bach sonatina for 2 harpsichords and orchestra in D major




Mozart symphony No.20 in D major


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Keyboard Concerto in G Major, Wq. 16, H. 419: III. Allegretto 



Fortepiano Concerto No.12 in A Major, KV 414: I. Allegro 



 (this may not be the best example to make comparison, but just look at the general style)

C.Ph.E. Bach Concerto For Harpsichord & Fortepiano 



Mozart: String Quartet No.19 In C, K.465 - "Dissonance" - 4. Allegro molto


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

LAS said:


> In particular, how can you identify Mozart as Mozart and Bach as Bach, often within one or two measures?


Bach's music is contrapuntal. Mozart's (often) has one melody that is accompanied by the other instruments.

Bach's music tends to be complex, with longish development albeit marching towards an inevitable cadence. Mozart's music tends to be simpler, with quicker cadences.

Bach's music is often in a minor key. It contemplates its twists and turns, it agonises. Even when it's in a major key, it has a tendency to change to a minor key. Mozart's music is usually in a major key, more of a happy tune than a cerebral contemplation.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

LesCyclopes said:


> Bach's music is contrapuntal.

















LesCyclopes said:


> Mozart's (often) has one melody that is accompanied by the other instruments.


"General Bach" (including some hundreds of recitatives and arias in his cantatas) isn't any more "contrapuntal" than these:





























"He [Chopin] said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords. That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. *He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint.*"
< The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, by Carl Schachter, P. 57 >

also, see [post2013394]





































LesCyclopes said:


> Bach's music tends to be complex, with longish development albeit marching towards an inevitable cadence. Mozart's music tends to be simpler, with quicker cadences.


Long melodies don't always lead to greater complexity. Baroque music is heavily based on binary forms, which aren't more elaborate than its Classical counterparts in terms of formal organization. (See Mozart K.497/i, K.497/iii)



hammeredklavier said:


> In Idomeneo, the first aria melts into the following recitative, even as the overture had melted easily into it. This is an anticipation of the techniques of Wagner, but that apostle of musical continuity was well into his forties when he decided that this was the right way to write overture and aria. Mozart knew as much early in his twenties.
> The most famous of the Wagnerian methods of continuity is the leitmotif: the short recurrent theme that carries reminiscences and new implications with every new appearance. But a hundred years before Wagner's Tristan, Mozart, in Idomeneo, experimented with something quite similar, our second new advance over earlier operatic writing: the brief, recurrent phrase pervading the score, changing its form, instrumentation, harmonization, and rhythm as it develops its ever new-associations. On the first page of the overture we hear of these. It is a five-note descending figure:


One-movement Sonata Cycle



LesCyclopes said:


> Bach's music is often in a minor key. It contemplates its twists and turns, it agonises.







"There are twists and turns which will take hours to describe accurately, even to a classroom of Harvard music students." -L. Bernstein on Mozart K.550 






LesCyclopes said:


> Even when it's in a major key, it has a tendency to change to a minor key.























"Well I hope you'll share with me my beliefs that this is an extraordinary movement, and how different from the ethos or the feeling of a Baroque concerto of the sort that we experienced with Bach and Vivaldi. *Baroque concertos usually just have one mood for a movement.* Mozart is full of many different moods. And that helps make these classical movements very exciting, very dramatic." -Craig Wright on Mozart K.466 https://www.coursera.org/lecture/introclassicalmusic/14-1-piano-concerto-in-d-minor-Ab36b

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/s...-modern/chapter/doctrine-of-the-affections-e/
"Here you'll find a brief explanation of the Doctrine of the Affections. Like the use of basso continuo, the practice of composing music that expressed a single emotion (affect) is unique to the Baroque era. Later composers wanted the freedom to express contrasting emotions in a single piece of music. One of the most noticeable results of Baroque composers' adherence to the Doctrine of Affections was the practice of breaking a longer text up into shorter phrases and setting each as a *separate movement with music designed to express a single emotion or affect.*"



LesCyclopes said:


> Mozart's music is usually in a major key, more of a happy tune than a cerebral contemplation.


<Mozart's deceptive simplicity> explained by Rob Kapilow:





https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations
"The piece is eighty minutes long, and mostly in G major. Just think about that for a minute. Then (without a bathroom break) think very similar thoughts for 79 more minutes, winding around the same basic themes, and then you will have some idea of what it's like to experience-you might even say survive-the Goldbergs. Let's not delude ourselves. No amount of artistry and inspiration (sorry Glenn, not even you) can make you forget that you are hearing 80 minutes of G major; it's like trying not to notice Mount Everest. Not only is it G major, but it is always, (nauseatingly?) the same sequence of harmonies within G major. ....
I know everyone discusses the Goldbergs as if born from the mind of God in some beautiful Olympian harmony-paradise." -Jeremy Denk

There are sections in the Art of the fugue that are like (although I still think it is a masterpiece):
View attachment 143081

View attachment 143082

these don't mean more "twists and turns" to me than:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


>


Uh, hammeredklavier, there is counterpoint in all three of those examples, including the cello suites (implied, as in the prelude of the fifth suite). Yes, Bach is more contrapuntal than Mozart.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Uh, hammeredklavier, there is counterpoint in all three of those examples, including the cello suites (implied, as in the prelude of the fifth suite).


But what exactly is "implied counterpoint"? By that sort of logic, wouldn't what Chopin said of Mozart ("there's counterpoint in all of Mozart") also be true?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> But what exactly is "implied counterpoint"? By that sort of logic, wouldn't what Chopin said of Mozart ("there's counterpoint in all of Mozart") also be true?


I don't think so. It's there if you sense it and if you sense that that's the intent. Implied counterpoint is there when you feel that -- despite being played by an essentially single-line melodic instrument -- there are different independent voices carrying a melodic line, as in the 5th cello suite prelude that I mentioned, or the chorale-like sarabande from the 6th suite. I don't feel much counterpoint in the following. I feel a vocal aria, and it's beautiful, but it's not Bachian. It's Mozartean. Sorry, but it's just not true that anything Bach could do, Mozart could do better (or just as well). They're different. Which isn't to say that Mozart couldn't write stunning counterpoint himself. I just don't feel it's the essence of his music as it is with Bach's.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

hammeredklavier - You are crazy if you think I am going to watch 30 different YouTube links because a stranger on the internet thinks it's an appropriate reply to a short comment I have made about how I feel about the differences between Mozart & Bach's music.

Use your words if you have something to say.

Try to understand that "tends to be" and "often" don't mean "definitely is, 100% of the time" and "always".

And please, for the love of God, unclench. We're having a conversation about our thoughts and relationship with the music we love, not fighting for our lives in a Roman arena.


----------

