Your Desert Island Era în Classical Music

[Karl Henning]

You're wrong, my friend.

I don't see how he's wrong, since the question was "how many of you?..." So your reply would be "not I," rather than "you're wrong." In my case, he's pretty much on the money. I have just occasionally ventured into [contemporaries of Haydn, Mozart and LvB] territory, and for me, there's too little value added. YMMV.

[Holden]

Despite not being able to have my beloved Beethoven, when I looked at the composers in my collection the romantic era won hands down and yes, I have included Schubert in this.

[Cato]

Sorry, I cannot do it! 

Just too many "essential" composers for me!  😇

[Lisztianwagner]

Romanticism for me, since this musical era includes many of my favourite composers; as a bonus, I'll also consider Beethoven part of it (that's true his works still had a lot of classical elements and Romantic music chronologically began after he died, but Romanticism as artistic movement had already started much before, when Beethoven was alive and clearly he was influenced by some Romantic conceptions) .

[(poco) Sforzando]

2. As a bonus, I get Haydn and Beethoven (sorry, @(poco) Sforzando, his career falls squarely within the Classical era) and, depending on the accepted chronology, even Schubert and Rossini.

But I said as much, dear Florestan. Stylistically Beethoven always remains within a Classical sense of tonality and form. I'm deliberately cheating here. But much as I love Haydn and Mozart, some of your other names while interesting (CPE Bach, Clementi, Kraus, Vorisek) are not ones I'd preserve over Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Berlioz, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, Verdi, Wagner, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky. . . .

(And Dittersdorf? please.)

[Florestan]

But I said as much, dear Florestan. Stylistically Beethoven always remains within a Classical sense of tonality and form. I'm deliberately cheating here.

That's precisely my point, Larry. No cheating allowed. If you want Beethoven, you'll have to go with Classicism. And if you want Romanticism, you'll have to go without Beethoven. 

much as I love Haydn and Mozart, some of your other names while interesting (CPE Bach, Clementi, Kraus, Vorisek) are not ones I'd preserve over Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Berlioz, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, Verdi, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky. . . .

The best thing about such games is that, although they do say something about each of us, they are ultimately just that, games.

[Florestan]

I don't see how he's wrong, since the question was "how many of you?..."

He claimed that only Que and Dave (SonicMan46) do regularly listen to Classical era music. This is wrong. Beside, two people have chosen Classical here, and they are neither Que nor Dave. By his question he implied (almost explicitly so, actually), that these two people are dishonest about it. This is also wrong.

I have just occasionally ventured into [contemporaries of Haydn, Mozart and LvB] territory, and for me, there's too little value added. YMMV

I guess it all depends on what we expect from the music, and quite possibly also, on whether it aligns with what the composers in their turn expected from the audience.

[atardecer]

It is odd how you take an obvious strength and then portray it as a weakness.  I mean how many of you honestly say that you like the classical era but then don't listen to anyone other than Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven because they all sound the same to you?  And you can say otherwise but we all know from the listening thread it is just Que and Dave regularly exploring the era.

The time we are in now where everyone can find their own path and their own voice free of the shackles of the homogeneity that inevitably creeps in with any other era is awesome and I would never, ever, ever want it to die. 

Yes, I like it that people can find their own path and be free of shackles, that's great. Those things are not what I was referring to when I said I want the era to die (and by 'die' I just mean transition to the next era - much of the music itself will live on and that is a good thing). I meant what I perceive as the relative lack of inspiration and direction in music in the last era. I would like to see an era start where a composer writes music that so many people are inspired by and it creates a lot of enthusiasm and influence. This influence can then go in as many directions as it goes. What you posted about the classical era does not have much to do with what I was saying. I specifically singled out the first half of the 20th century as (aside from Bach) my favorite, and that is largely for the variety and diversity. I also stated I don't think all the music from our  more recent era is bad. I like some of it. I may be wrong but I don't recall seeing you posting much recent music from this era you are discussing in 'What are you listening 2 now?'. I've been listening to Messiaen, Glass, Reich, Takemitsu and Partch recently among others and have posted about it in that thread. What post WWII composers have you been listening to?

[71 dB]

I'm very much in tune with Northern Germany middle baroque, even if my top favoured composers, Elgar and J.S.Bach, are not part of it (however, the latter was heavily influenced by it). In fact Nikolaus Bruhns might be up there with Elgar and J.S.Bach had he lived a much longer prolific life and we had a lot more of his music than a dozen cantatas and half dozen organ works.

My favourite eras are middle to late baroque and late romanticism. The other eras have tons of interesting enjoyable music, but I feel less "wired" for them. Enjoying the music by composers such as Buxtehude, J.S. Bach and Elgar comes quite naturally and effortlessly for me while enjoying renaissance, classicism, early romanticism or post war music takes more effort and feels "outside my comfort zone." which of course can be interesting and adventurous. I listen to those too.

[Florestan]

My favourite eras are middle to late baroque and late romanticism.

Very well. Pick one (and only one) of them for your desert island.

[Jo498]

You're wrong, my friend. If anything, @Que is a Baroque guy. And yours truly is just as committed a Classical guy as Dave ( @SonicMan46 ) is indeed, witness my posting history, the latest of which is an hour ago or so; oh, and please adduce the post where I claimed that Classical era composers other than Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven all sound the same.

Even if he's right, it seems a poor argument. I explicitly stated that I'd vote for Classical because of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven (which seems at least as rational as voting for baroque because of JS Bach!) and that the remainder would be a nice bonus.

Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven wrote A LOT of music; the only composers who take up similar amounts of my shelf space are Bach and Handel and the latter more because of bulky opera/oratorio boxes. I find nothing wrong whatsoever to vote for an era because of a few major composers. It has nothing to do with falsely pretending to listen to as much Boccherini or Vanhal as to Mozart. (Had I picked romanticism it would also have been true that I listened far more to Brahms than to e.g. Grieg or Smetana.)

Obviously the whole game is problematic because there are no sharp boundaries, epochs are of very different lengths (Classical among the shortest with only 60-80 years, depending on how the boundaries are drawn) and can still be quite heterogeneous, even if comparably strictly defined. Because of Classical is already among the most narrowly delineated, it's actually less "cheating" than some other choices that use umbrella terms or long epochs for far more different styles.

[Christo]

That's precisely my point, Larry. No cheating allowed. If you want Beethoven, you'll have to go with Classicism. And if you want Romanticism, you'll have to go without Beethoven. 

The best thing about such games is that, although they do say something about each of us, they are ultimately just that, games.

Let me play them too. :-) Of course I know your dogmatics by heart, you do enough missionary work. But I myself maintain that Romanticism starts with Beethoven 3 and 6. Those happen to be my two favorites of the nine - though I don't particularly like much German Romanticism that followed. Exceptions always acknowledged: Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Mahler.

I do like the Russians, Czechs, French. But then you're mostly talking about late Romanticism, national schools (most German Romanticists are nationalists too, sometimes overlooked). :-)

[Florestan]

Obviously the whole game is problematic because there are no sharp boundaries, epochs are of very different lengths (Classical among the shortest with only 60-80 years, depending on how the boundaries are drawn) and can still be quite heterogeneous, even if comparably strictly defined. Because of Classical is already among the most narrowly delineated, it's actually less "cheating" than some other choices that use umbrella terms or long epochs for far more different styles.

Romanticism is probably the most heterogenous era and the widest umbrella term of them all, because it lumps together composers who have almost nothing in common, such as Chopin and Mahler or Mendelsson and Liszt or Bellini and Wagner.

[Christo]

Romanticism is probably the most heterogenous era and the widest umbrella term of them all, because it lumps together composers who have almost nothing in common, such as Chopin and Mahler or Mendelsson and Liszt or Bellini and Wagner.

What about 'Modernism'?

[ando]

For the proverbial desert island you are allowed to take as many recordings as you want, on the sole condition that the music belong to one and the same era (eg, Baroque). Which one would you choose and why?

You named it: Baroque.

[atardecer]

(which seems at least as rational as voting for baroque because of JS Bach!) 

To clarify, there is a lot of Baroque music I love to listen to outside of Bach. Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Rameau, Buxtehude, Biber, D Scarlatti and more. It is just that if Bach wasn't in the Baroque it would tip the scales for me and I would choose the first half of the 20th century.

[Cato]

I'm very much in tune with Northern Germany middle baroque, even if my top favoured composers, Elgar and J.S.Bach, are not part of it (however, the latter was heavily influenced by it). In fact Nikolaus Bruhns might be up there with Elgar and J.S.Bach had he lived a much longer prolific life and we had a lot more of his music than a dozen cantatas and half dozen organ works.

My favourite eras are middle to late baroque and late romanticism. The other eras have tons of interesting enjoyable music, but I feel less "wired" for them. Enjoying the music by composers such as Buxtehude, J.S. Bach and Elgar comes quite naturally and effortlessly for me while enjoying renaissance, classicism, early romanticism or post war music takes more effort and feels "outside my comfort zone." which of course can be interesting and adventurous. I listen to those too.

That duo - and your affinity for both - could be the basis for a Master's or Ph.D. thesis in Music!

Why one has an affinity for certain composers (or eras of Music) is an interesting question: I have recently retold the story of how I discovered the score of Bruckner's Symphony VII at the public library, when I was about 12 or 13, and sensed immediately that Bruckner was the composer for me! 

Up until that moment I had liked and studied Smetana, Beethoven, Mozart, Rameau, Wagner, Dvorak, and other famous composers, but Bruckner's name and music had not hit my radar.

I have no answer after decades of self-wondering and mental wandering!  Some possibilities as to why are rather trite, and may be true nevertheless.

But that is for a different topic! 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Romanticism is probably the most heterogenous era and the widest umbrella term of them all, because it lumps together composers who have almost nothing in common, such as Chopin and Mahler or Mendelsson and Liszt or Bellini and Wagner.

If it makes you feel better, I can do without Bellini. I've never gotten through any of his operas, nor seen any live. But these divisions are mostly arbitrary, the product of music historians and music appreciation lessons. Classicism didn't suddenly die out with the death of Beethoven, as composers like Mendelssohn and Brahms continued to work within the Classical language. While on the other hand Brahms adopted the short characteristic piece for piano that was largely a Romantic innovation (though undoubtedly having roots in works like the Beethoven bagatelles).

But with the Berlioz Fantastique, already we see a new world only three years after the great Ludwig died. Despite the great Hector's reverence for the great Ludwig, Berlioz in the first movement attempts to write something like a sonata form - but those up-and-down chromatic scales in his "development" section prove he hadn't the faintest idea how to develop anything, let alone how to construct a main theme that lended itself to development in the Classical sense. And by the finale any connection to Classicism goes totally off the rails. Yet even so, in the Troyens Berlioz shows the influence of Gluck, one of his (though not one of my) favorite composers. So go figure.

So to revise my original statement without cheating: my era is the 19th century, which allows me to claim Beethoven. As well as Sir Arthur Sullivan, whose music I love though I can't agree with Hurwitz that he's England's greatest composer. Sad to say I lose Mozart, but with relief I lose Dittersdorf. And Elgar, whose language remains Romantic, can't fit because his best creative years were early 20th century.

[atardecer]

The biggest loss for me in the Medieval era would be Machaut, in the Renaissance Byrd, in the Classical era Mozart, in Romantic Brahms. These would be tragic losses and completely unacceptable. It is a good thing this choosing is just hypothetical.

[Florestan]

What about 'Modernism'?

I think it's less of an umbrella term than Romanticism, because stricto sensu modern means something relating to recent, or relatively recent, times, as opposed to older ones. In this sense, everything post 1900, especially post-1950, is modern, overlapping with contemporary from about 2000 onwards.

If I were in charge, I'd do away with such terms as Baroque, Classicism and Romanticism altogether. Not a single one of the composers active within those respective eras called themselves as such, the chronological delimitations are diffuse and for each two consecutive eras composers and works can be found which belong rather to the other one than that to which they are assigned.