Favourite period in music history?

[Tapkaara]

All that I was saying that classical music is much more fixated on tonality than say jazz, where there is much more freedom of expression (the piece is not fixed on the page, but the performer can interpret it more freely & often depart from the fixed tonality). So I guess I'm talking more from the performers point of view (the emoition s/he adds to the piece) about the difference between classical & jazz. Sorry, I'm not a musician, so if this sounds rather incoherent, then that's the reason. That's why I think classical has less built in emotion than jazz. But, as with any music, classical can also be emotional depending on how we percieve it.

If anything, I'd say Baroque music can be very expressive, judging from the huge differences between recordings/performances of a piece like The Four Seasons. There seems to be much more freedom in the interpretation of this music than some may give it credit for...

This seems to make more sense. I guess you are saying that the improvisation in jazz injects a human (and thus emotional) element into the music which is less possible in a piece from the classical period because the interpretation of the music is limited to much stricter guidlines.

I can go with this. And that is why I feel there is a greater expanse of the human experience in music of the Romantic period. While there is no real improve in the interpretation of a typical Romantic work, it is actually written with the "improv" built in, if that makes sense.

[DavidW]

Sid I like what you said about the listener bringing their perception of the music, and I agree with that.  Whenever someone says that romantic era music is emotional, I think they confuse their perception of the music with the music itself.

If the emotion is truly built into the music, then why is it that there are many people that find romantic era music to be boring?  It's true you can find people that like classical music but don't care for that era.

Music from any period can elicit emotional reactions, and the romantic era does not have a monopoly on it, nor does it have "more emotion" than any other era.

[Tapkaara]

Sid I like what you said about the listener bringing their perception of the music, and I agree with that.  Whenever someone says that romantic era music is emotional, I think they confuse their perception of the music with the music itself.

If the emotion is truly built into the music, then why is it that there are many people that find romantic era music to be boring?  It's true you can find people that like classical music but don't care for that era.

Music from any period can elicit emotional reactions, and the romantic era does not have a monopoly on it, nor does it have "more emotion" than any other era.

It really does come down to personal taste, no doubt. While I still contend there is more to music than just rising and falling pitches, the bordem I experience when listening to the bulk of the classical period really does have more to me than it does the music itself. I just happen to hear a greater range of the human experience in Mahler than I do Mozart. Again, that's just me and not the final word on the matter.

[Gurn Blanston]

It really does come down to personal taste, no doubt. While I still contend there is more to music than just rising and falling pitches, the bordem I experience when listening to the bulk of the classical period really does have more to me than it does the music itself. I just happen to hear a greater range of the human experience in Mahler than I do Mozart. Again, that's just me and not the final word on the matter.

Maybe you are more responsive to the language that Mahler uses...



----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 29 Quartet in G for Strings Op 17 #5 2nd mvmt - Menuet: Allegretto

[DavidW]

It really does come down to personal taste, no doubt. While I still contend there is more to music than just rising and falling pitches, the bordem I experience when listening to the bulk of the classical period really does have more to me than it does the music itself. I just happen to hear a greater range of the human experience in Mahler than I do Mozart. Again, that's just me and not the final word on the matter.

I don't know why you falsely characterize my position as saying it's just "sound" or "falling and falling pitches" I didn't say that.  You invoke a false dichotomy between emotion and sound.  There is far more to music than just emotions.  It is mostly about melody, harmony, rhythm and timbre.  Now I personally find more emotional resonance in one Bach cantata than I do the entire third symphony of Mahler, and this is coming from someone that used to be an ardent Mahlerite.

[Tapkaara]

I don't know why you falsely characterize my position as saying it's just "sound" or "falling and falling pitches" I didn't say that.  You invoke a false dichotomy between emotion and sound.  There is far more to music than just emotions.  It is mostly about melody, harmony, rhythm and timbre.  Now I personally find more emotional resonance in one Bach cantata than I do the entire third symphony of Mahler, and this is coming from someone that used to be an ardent Mahlerite.

I'm not trying to falsely characterize your statements. I suppose I do not understand them. If there is no emotion in music, than it is just sound, isn't it? Sure, there is more to music that rising and falling pitches...you mention melody, harmony, timbre, etc. But it's the composer who uses these tools (melody, etc.) to convey something human, something of himself, don't you think? Even so-called absolute music (which is said to be music for music's sake) has something of the composer's humanity in it. The composer is surely expressing himself in some way. Music is much more than a mechanical, technical process. (That is, unless you are Schönberg. Yes, that was a joke.)

Is this truly a false dichotomy between emotion and sound?

I like Bach quite a bit too, and find much emotional experience in his works. Of course, how much of that is me and how much of that is the music is up for vigorous debate.

[JoshLilly]

The Gurnian Era is definitely the ultimate.

[Gurn Blanston]

The Gurnian Era is definitely the ultimate.

You have exquisite taste, sir...



----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 31 Quartet in Eb for Strings Op 20 #1 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato

[DavidW]

Arg!  You're doing it again.  I am not saying that music is mechanical (well actually it is, it's a mechanical wave but anyway) or just sound.  Look the emotion comes from you, it's just that simple.  It doesn't come from the composer.  It comes from YOU!!

Karl had phrased it this way awhile past, maybe it hammers the point home.  How long does it take to write a big, dark requiem?  Do you think the composer is in a state of tears every day for months just to write that work?  Hmm?  Do you really see music as just a vessel to communicate emotions?  I don't think that is really the primary aesthetic that describes music.

It is art, it transcends mere melodrama.  Is music meant to be emotionally stirring?  Yes of course.  But how exactly does music contain emotion?  It doesn't even make sense.  Not at all!  The emotion comes from you.  Not the composer.  You.

Music is an emotional experience there is no doubt about that.  But music does not contain these emotions.  It is not a medium for transmitting emotions.  People don't even react the same way to the same piece.  Why?  Because there was no simple "sad" emotion to convey beyond something as trite as minor vs major key.  Abstract music is so much more complex than you give it credit for.

Even Mahler, the most hysterical of composers, also wrote his symphonies to be taken as art and not just mere program music.  I mean that's what you're describing, you're trying to box all of music into a specific type of program music-- that meant to elicit specific emotional responses.  Brahms the master of classical form wrote a requiem that many consider sunny! sunny!?  Perhaps you find it sad?  Would there be something wrong with that?  Not if your realize that emotion is the perception of the listener and not the object of the music.

It's very much like how visual art itself conveys an intense reaction, yet the purpose of the work is not to contain the reaction, it is to invite it, and people don't get the same thing from the same work.  I think you're simply perceiving music in a wrong way that oversimplifies and misunderstands our participation in the work.  It's not the work that holds our reaction, it is us that reacts to it.

[ChamberNut]

I disagree.  First of all there is no emotion in music.  Period. 

Well...ok....maybe in the sense of the 'technical aspects' of note-by-note, yes I would agree.

Emotional reaction of the listener, yes of course.  But also, the performer(s), and the composer (emphasis on how to play certain sections, etc.)

[Tapkaara]

Arg!  You're doing it again.  I am not saying that music is mechanical (well actually it is, it's a mechanical wave but anyway) or just sound.  Look the emotion comes from you, it's just that simple.  It doesn't come from the composer.  It comes from YOU!!

Karl had phrased it this way awhile past, maybe it hammers the point home.  How long does it take to write a big, dark requiem?  Do you think the composer is in a state of tears every day for months just to write that work?  Hmm?  Do you really see music as just a vessel to communicate emotions?  I don't think that is really the primary aesthetic that describes music.

It is art, it transcends mere melodrama.  Is music meant to be emotionally stirring?  Yes of course.  But how exactly does music contain emotion?  It doesn't even make sense.  Not at all!  The emotion comes from you.  Not the composer.  You.

Music is an emotional experience there is no doubt about that.  But music does not contain these emotions.  It is not a medium for transmitting emotions.  People don't even react the same way to the same piece.  Why?  Because there was no simple "sad" emotion to convey beyond something as trite as minor vs major key.  Abstract music is so much more complex than you give it credit for.

Even Mahler, the most hysterical of composers, also wrote his symphonies to be taken as art and not just mere program music.  I mean that's what you're describing, you're trying to box all of music into a specific type of program music-- that meant to elicit specific emotional responses.  Brahms the master of classical form wrote a requiem that many consider sunny! sunny!?  Perhaps you find it sad?  Would there be something wrong with that?  Not if your realize that emotion is the perception of the listener and not the object of the music.

It's very much like how visual art itself conveys an intense reaction, yet the purpose of the work is not to contain the reaction, it is to invite it, and people don't get the same thing from the same work.  I think you're simply perceiving music in a wrong way that oversimplifies and misunderstands our participation in the work.  It's not the work that holds our reaction, it is us that reacts to it.

That's very well put, and I think I see where you are going with your argument, but I'm going to have to kindly disagree, at least for the most part.

I agree that the listener will experience an emotional response, and one listener's reponse may be different from someone else's. I personally do not see Brahm's Requiem to be a sunny work, for example. But I cannot help but think that, in writing such a piece, Brahms simply said "Let the chips fall where they may...I don't care if people think this work is a boatload of rainbows and unicorns. It's just music, dammit!" I'd think that he tried to inject some amount of anguish into the work to get an anguished reaction from the listener. But, alas, the composer ultimately has no control over what the emotional reaction will be from listener to listener, and the subjective experience of listening to music carries on.

Where I disagree, again, is that where you say the emotion doesn't come from the composer. I'll restate what I said above. In Brahms's Requiem, I am fairly sure he wanted to go for a certain type of emotional impact. This is why the music doesn't sound like Golliwog's Cakewalk.

Anyway, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point, but rest assured I respect your opinion and I'll let you have the last word on this.

[DavidW]

Well I agree with you on those points, so I think we found the middle common ground.

[Tapkaara]

Well I agree with you on those points, so I think we found the middle common ground.

Aaahhh! Very good! 

[greg]

My favorite period in music history is the Dark Ages because I don't know of any music that has been carried on since then. That's because I hate music. Music is so stupid. It ruins peoples' lives and causes brain cancer. It's also the reason why people die.

[Gabriel]

Another vote for the Gurnian era (which coincides with middle and late classical, by the way; classicism didn't end in 1800).

For the poll I vote "classical", anyway.

[71 dB]

Baroque is my favorite period. It provides the best combination of features I like: counterpoint, complexity, rhythms, harmony, melody, energy and beauty. Even without J. S. Bach and Handel baroque would my favorite.

0:)

[karlhenning]

Does Romantic music equal being pampered? In what way?

It was a wry reference to Henk's use of "pampered" in another thread.

[SonicMan46]

I am a cross-boundary kinda guy, and a leading opponent of the theory that the Classical Era ends at 1800... so, I will choose 'None of the Above' and add in my favorite period:

1770-1830. Easily 80% of my favorite music dates from this period, which I call the Gurnian Era.

Well, for myself, I'd probably extend the earlier date back a few decades to encompass about a century; maybe we could call this the Gurnian Epoch!   

[Josquin des Prez]

Arg!  You're doing it again.  I am not saying that music is mechanical (well actually it is, it's a mechanical wave but anyway) or just sound.  Look the emotion comes from you, it's just that simple.  It doesn't come from the composer.  It comes from YOU!!

Mmmmhh, not really.

[Chaszz]

Gurn is right, of course - there were just too many other composers, styles, and musical quality to label these years under any one composer's name, even Beethoven - as a 'poor' but maybe appropriate analogy is the moniker of Paul Whiteman in the 1920s & early '30s as the King of Jazz - yes, he led an orchestra & conducted the Rhapsody in Blue in the late '20s, but there was SO MUCH going on in jazz at the time to label the period as the 'Whiteman Era' - the 'classic period' is still fine w/ me - 

As one of the great early quantum physicists said about a then-current scientific theory, this is 'not even wrong.' There was so much great real jazz being created in the 1920s that Paul Whiteman, with his commercialized, creacley, elephantine, polite dance band should not even be mentioned as a candidate for this title (he appointed himself), next to the likes of Louis Armstrong, Bix Beiderbecke, Jelly Roll Morton, Duke Ellington, Fats Waller, Fletcher Henderson, Earl Hines and others.