The most esoteric period?

[James]

One could say that liking classical music these days is a sort-of esoteric pursuit to begin with (i.e. intended-for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest) .. but for the sake of this poll which Era/Period do you feel is the most esoteric? You can base it on your own experience/exposure. The poll is far from perfect and there is some overlap when we reach modern/contemporary periods .. but just think it through and try to rationalize things as you see fit and pick one.

[DavidW]

I'm going with the Renaissance.  People listen to baroque music, and they listen to medieval chant but in between those two is a huge blind spot for many listeners including myself.

I don't think that contemporary classical is an unpopular as you think it is.

Despite the popularity of the late baroque, the early and middle baroque are so poorly explored by many that it was tempting despite the great figures that are well recorded.

The only ones I really feel confident are well represented are 19th and 20th century music.  They are recorded, performed and listened to more than anything else.

[The new erato]

Late medieval/early renaissance for me as well. I'm a big fan but don't find so much interest in it by others.

[prémont]

Medieval, without doubt.

[Mandryka]

To some extent Jordi Savall has actually made medieval music quite popular. And there was even a group of singers  called The Medieval Babes who used to even feature on popular classical music radio stations.

My choice will be contemporary electro-acoustic music, experimental music. That's not exactly a period, but it's a major strand I think in recent music. Even Luc Ferrari is obscure, composers like Francisco Lopez, Iancu Dumitrescu and Francis Dhomont even obscurer.

Of course the period is more complex, and encompasses all sorts of well appreciated composers, minimalists, Adams, Luther -Adams etc. So maybe I haven't answered your question at all. Sorry.

I'll go for medieval. Early medieval.

[Bogey]

I'm going with the Renaissance.  People listen to baroque music, and they listen to medieval chant but in between those two is a huge blind spot for many listeners including myself.

Agree completely. When I was looking for Tudor time period music there was not a ton:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,17749.msg478585.html#msg478585

That prebaroque period has some wonderful music....just harder to find and find someone that has reviewed it.

[DavidW]

I would say medieval and renaissance music, though not that popular in comparison to other eras is easily accessed and approachable and doesn't really require much to understand and get. It is fairly straight forward.

I absolutely disagree.  It sounds quite alien to our ears because while much of the music is simple chant (though some are staggeringly complex beyond what we're used to) it was composed with such a different aesthetic that to fully appreciate it we have to be educated on the form and function of the music.

And baroque era music is characterized as homophonic in nature and not polyphonic.  To call the baroque era "far more complex" is a gross misrepresentation of the change in style.

[EigenUser]

I'm going to vote for 20th-century. Early music and baroque music is very complex, but it is usually possible to enjoy on at least a superficial level without having to get it all figured out. Of course, understanding it does allow a whole other, deeper level of appreciation.

On the other hand, a lot of stuff written in the 20th-century is difficult to enjoy without having some sort of understanding of what the composer is trying to do. It's easy to dismiss composers like Ligeti, Stockhausen, Cage, or Crumb as "garbage". It is far more difficult to actually get an idea of what they are doing and why they are doing it. Once you do, then it is easier to judge whether the music is appealing or not (which depends on personal taste).

[Mandryka]

I absolutely disagree.  It sounds quite alien to our ears because while much of the music is simple chant (though some are staggeringly complex beyond what we're used to) it was composed with such a different aesthetic that to fully appreciate it we have to be educated on the form and function of the music.

In fact today, because of this discussion, I listened to some music by Notker Balbulus and really, this music is too hard for me right now.  But it's only one element of the medieval style. I have no problem appreciating Ars Antiqua. I love most of the music in the Carmina Burana manuscript, especially the sacred music. The recording of music from  the Martim Codex by Studio der Frühen Musik is something I treasure, I listen to troubadour music from them and Savall with great pleasure.

So what you're saying seems to me not totally right, just as I wasn't totally right to think that 21st century music is the most esoteric, just because electro-acoustic experimental music is often perceived as a major challenge.

[Mandryka]

I'm going to vote for 20th-century. Early music and baroque music is very complex, but it is usually possible to enjoy on at least a superficial level without having to get it all figured out. Of course, understanding it does allow a whole other, deeper level of appreciation.

On the other hand, a lot of stuff written in the 20th-century is difficult to enjoy without having some sort of understanding of what the composer is trying to do. It's easy to dismiss composers like Ligeti, Stockhausen, Cage, or Crumb as "garbage". It is far more difficult to actually get an idea of what they are doing and why they are doing it. Once you do, then it is easier to judge whether the music is appealing or not (which depends on personal taste).

What I think is true is that people often get all up tight about music which is not tonal. The reasons are probably to do with the way we're surrounded by tonal popular music from birth, so we become habituated. But in my experience you don't need to have an idea of what Stockhausen etc were doing and why to enjoy their music, any more than you have to do with, e.g. J S Bach. You need to sit back, relax, smoke a joint and listen to the music, that's all.

This reminds me of a discussion here where someone asked how they're supposed to listen to a fugue. And the answer is, you just listen.

[DavidW]

We are straying from the topic, this isn't a Early Music vs. Baroque thread .. but the Baroque is certainly polyphonic and more complex in all areas of music .. rhythm, melody, harmony, tone color .. anyway, in my opinion none of these periods is particularly esoteric ..

No you're wrong.  This is basic Music 101.  Homophonic texture is one in which the voices have dependent rhythm.  Notice that I said dependent and not identical.  I'm not saying that baroque era music is monophonic, but the whole point of that era and the classical era is moving away from the complex polyphony that characterizes the renaissance era.

The ignorance displayed in your post proves my point, you listen to alot of classical music, but you apparently have almost no knowledge of what characterizes renaissance era music and how it differs from baroque.  If early music was less esoteric there would be no debate here.

[DavidW]

In fact today, because of this discussion, I listened to some music by Notker Balbulus and really, this music is too hard for me right now.  But it's only one element of the medieval style. I have no problem appreciating Ars Antiqua. I love most of the music in the Carmina Burana manuscrippt, especially the sacred music. The recording of music from  the Martim Codex by Studio der Frühen Musik is something I treasure, I listen to troubadour music from them and Savall with great pleasure.

So what you're saying seems to me not totally write, just as I wasn't totally right to think that 21st century music is the most esoteric, just because electro-acoustic experimenal music is often perceived as a major challenge.

I agree with this, there are some schools that are relatively easy to listen to, and others that are challenging.  But it's all strange and takes an open mind.  Just like that experimental music that you mention.

My problem with pointing out more modern music is that the challenging, experimental works are not the dominant form of musical expression.  Neoromanticism is more popular, and is relatively accessible, has been recorded relatively frequently.

Following your train of logic, it might be more interesting to discuss what aspects of each era are esoteric.

[Mandryka]

I just want to mention something about medieval music. In Southern France, Medieval Music seems to be a real part of popular culture. You go to any street market, Saturday artisanal market, and it's not uncommon to see a little band singing and dancing medieval music with authentic instruments. I wouldn't be surprised if the music and dance is taught in schools.  I just wonder whether there's a connection between medieval music and the re-emergence of minor cultural identities - Niçoise, Provencale, occitan, euskara . . .

This is just my impression, it may not even be true of France.

[Marc]

[....]
This reminds me of a discussion here where someone asked how they're supposed to listen to a fugue. And the answer is, you just listen.

And listen again.
And again ....
And ....

Anyway: to me, early medieval is on pole for the poll.

[Mandryka]

This is your experience and that's fine .. but historically it never went down like that at all, and it still is an issue with most folks for one reason or another..  most folks marginalize or reject it (so it's not like Bach at all, who is widely loved) and it does ask & require more on the part of the listener to really understand & figure out .. this forum is a microcosm of the larger picture out there to a certain extent - and it's seen here. And sure, things are a little better now than they were .. but folks have, and will-have an easier time with early music & listening to it, than the more radical stuff that was created in the 20th century. This is certainly the case.

I know people the feel uncomfortable about the  avant garde, but I believe that that's very often because they tonal-holics, and they're not curious enough to suffer the cold turkey involved in ridding themselves of their addictions. It's not a question of understanding. It's lack of curiosity and addiction to certain sound patterns.

Parenthetically I wouldn't over estimate the extent to which Bach is widely loved, my feeling is that beyond a very small subset of his music, people don't listen to very much. Though there are certain traditions which are dutifully followed (endure a passion Easter time, that sort of thing, listen to some uplifting bit of a Brandenburg Concerto when they're in need of a boost.)

[Karl Henning]

I feel that the most esoteric period is from 5:30 - 7:15 AM (Eastern)

[Jo498]

I would say medieval and renaissance music, though not that popular in comparison to other eras is easily accessed and approachable and doesn't really require much to understand and get. It is fairly straight forward.

o.k., if this is all so simple and straightforward please explain to me in one brief post how an isorhythmic motet works and how I can detect this structure by listening as someone with only a little knowledge of music theory and not much experience in listening to this music. I probably didn't try hard enough and lost patience to early. I am completely at sea with the renaissance stuff and I have been listening to Bach fugues for many years without such problems.

IMO it is obviously wrong that baroque music is more complex than 15th and 16th century polyphony. Even highly complex baroque music like the Art of Fugue (which is an exception, "standard baroque" is far less complex than Bach Fugues) is MUCH easier to listen to for most listeners, because it is harmonically modern, the subjects are easier to grasp and it is not all a cappella singing

[prémont]

I feel that the most esoteric period is from 5:30 - 7:15 AM (Eastern)

[EigenUser]

The only Renaissance composer I know well is Johannes Ockeghem. That is some extremely complex music. I love his masses, particularly Missa Prolationum (perhaps the poster-child of polyphonic complexity) and the Missa fors Seulment. The Missa Prolationum is a four-voice double canon, meaning (as I approximately understand it) a pair of voices sings one melody in canon, one voice at a slightly faster tempo than the other (hence the prolate in the Latin title -- pulling apart). The other two voices do the same thing, but with a different melody.

So far, anyone with a basic set of music skills could do this very easily. The catch is that it had to fit the style of the time -- no "unresolved dissonances" like we have in the 20th-century. Trying to do this with two canons going on with set tempi relationships is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube -- you know, you fix one thing and suddenly the other half is ruined, etc. It must have been great fun for someone like Ockeghem, who could actually make it work.

Arghh!  All this talk of complex music makes it seem like it has to be complex to be good!! I love complex music because it is fun to listen for different things and it is awesome when it works out.

But, consider, say, Morton Feldman. If I had any scores of his, I doubt that they'd be filled up with pencil marks like my copy on the Ligeti PC (*cue Feldman expert to walk in and sternly tell me how complex his music actually is* ). However, I find an emotional attachment to his music that seemingly transcends any need for complexity and analyticity. The guy had a real artistic ear.

[Ken B]

Interesting discussion. To some of you though I must say, you keep using that word 'esoteric'. I do not think it means what you think it means ...

In general +1 to DavidW.