Baroque Vs. Classical

[Conserative Morality]

Given a choice between the two, which do you prefer? Baroque music, or Classical?

Baroque here, I simply cannot stand Classical.

So how about it Generalites?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

If it's not Baroque, don't fix it.

[Conserative Morality]

If it's not Baroque, don't fix it.

[Intangelon]

Given a choice between the two, which do you prefer? Baroque music, or Classical?

Baroque here, I simply cannot stand Classical.

So how about it Generalites?

Preference between genres in this case is kinda silly because it's not just different music, it's different eras in time. They're different music played by different ensembles -- with different instrument technologies. No clarinets in Baroque, not much harpsichord in Classical.

[Treznor]

Why do I have to pick one or the other? I like both. The point at which I cease to appreciate Classical is when you get idiots like Aaron Copland calling dissonance "musical."

[Hungramy]

[/quote]
YES!! i win the internet!

[Intangelon]

Also, a piano concerto (your Classical example -- solo piano with orchestral backing) is a completely different form on a completely different instrument than your harpsichord quartet (a consort of four harpsichords and nothing else).

You chose vastly different tempi as well.

[Intangelon]

Why do I have to pick one or the other? I like both. The point at which I cease to appreciate Classical is when you get idiots like Aaron Copland calling dissonance "musical."

Good thing that Copland wasn't a Classical era composer.

WIthout dissonance, you can't have much tension in music. Dissonance serves as a direct (and vital) contrast to consonance in music, whether harmonic, melodic or rhythmic.

[Treznor]

Why do I have to pick one or the other? I like both. The point at which I cease to appreciate Classical is when you get idiots like Aaron Copland calling dissonance "musical."

Good thing that Copland wasn't a Classical era composer.

WIthout dissonance, you can't have much tension in music. Dissonance serves as a direct (and vital) contrast to consonance in music, whether harmonic, melodic or rhythmic.

I know, there are different periods of music. But they still play his music on my favorite radio station, and I change the channel whenever they do. Call it "Modern Classical" or "Dissonant Classical" or what have you, when dissonance becomes the dominant trait in a musical piece my brain translates it as noise.

[Xilcoatl]

Classical here mate, I like them both, but classical is my stuff.

[Minnas]

Both.

[Sarkhaan]

Of the two, I'd lean towards classical, only because basso continuo drives me slowly insane after enough time. That said, I like both. I'd spring for romantic any day, however.

[Eofaerwic]

I have to say I like both, but I prefer Classical over Baroque if I had to choose, I find the harmonies both more pleasant to listgen to and better a conveying a story or overall emotional structure than Baroque.

[Muravyets]

Why do I have to pick one or the other? I like both. The point at which I cease to appreciate Classical is when you get idiots like Aaron Copland calling dissonance "musical."

Good thing that Copland wasn't a Classical era composer.

WIthout dissonance, you can't have much tension in music. Dissonance serves as a direct (and vital) contrast to consonance in music, whether harmonic, melodic or rhythmic.

I know, there are different periods of music. But they still play his music on my favorite radio station, and I change the channel whenever they do. Call it "Modern Classical" or "Dissonant Classical" or what have you, when dissonance becomes the dominant trait in a musical piece my brain translates it as noise.

Are you sure it's Copland you're thinking of? I don't think he's all that dissonant. In the ear of the be-hear-er, I guess.

Oh, and dissonance is a fundamental musical concept. It was used in various ways even by the Baroque and Classical composers.

[Muravyets]

And in re the OP question:

I don't choose according to era or school. I like or dislike individual composers, regardless of their period or style. There is no style of music that I would say I universally like or dislike.

[JarVik]

Given a choice between the two, which do you prefer? Baroque music, or Classical?

Baroque here, I simply cannot stand Classical.

So how about it Generalites?

I love the more bombastic qualities of Baroque so it wins. While I like classical to an extent its not as good.

I love a good fuge (sp?)

[Conserative Morality]

And in re the OP question:

I don't choose according to era or school. I like or dislike individual composers, regardless of their period or style. There is no style of music that I would say I universally like or dislike.

So you like all styles equally?

[Intangelon]

Good thing that Copland wasn't a Classical era composer.

WIthout dissonance, you can't have much tension in music. Dissonance serves as a direct (and vital) contrast to consonance in music, whether harmonic, melodic or rhythmic.

I know, there are different periods of music. But they still play his music on my favorite radio station, and I change the channel whenever they do. Call it "Modern Classical" or "Dissonant Classical" or what have you, when dissonance becomes the dominant trait in a musical piece my brain translates it as noise.

I call it neo-Classical, 'cause that's what it's called. I'm struggling to hear much dissonance for its own sake in Copland, and it's certainly not Copland's "dominant" trait. Listen to Appalachian Spring or "Fanfare for the Common Man".

You want dissonance for it's own sake, you have Schönberg, who did it via mathematical formulae. You have Varese, who did it to express the dissonance of postwar life. You have Penderecki, who used it to express the tragedy and senseless violence of things like the concentration camps or victims of atomic blasts. You had Ives, who seemed to do it just for the hell of it.

It isn't supposed to be soothing. Now, when dissonance is used as a deliberate contrast to consonance, it's unavoidable and very necessary to provide variety, energy and direction to a piece. The resolution of dissonance is the goal in that case, and can be spectacularly effective.

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

Good thing that Copland wasn't a Classical era composer.

WIthout dissonance, you can't have much tension in music. Dissonance serves as a direct (and vital) contrast to consonance in music, whether harmonic, melodic or rhythmic.

I know, there are different periods of music. But they still play his music on my favorite radio station, and I change the channel whenever they do. Call it "Modern Classical" or "Dissonant Classical" or what have you, when dissonance becomes the dominant trait in a musical piece my brain translates it as noise.

Are you sure it's Copland you're thinking of? I don't think he's all that dissonant. In the ear of the be-hear-er, I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFOSZh3szNw

(Mind you, I love that piece, but it's undeniably pretty dissonant.)

OP: I'm not going to choose. I like Bach a good deal, but then I also like Haydn and Beethoven. Each period has its good music and its bad music, and I try to listen to only the good music from each one.

On the other hand, as a rule, I definitely prefer Baroque and Classical music to Romantic music, and can't understand so many people's preference for the latter. (Yes, there's also good Romantic music that I do listen to, but not nearly as much of it.)

[Intangelon]

I love the more bombastic qualities of Baroque so it wins. While I like classical to an extent its not as good.

I love a good fuge (sp?)

Fugue.

If you've not heard bombast in Classical era music, you've not listened to enough.

Check out Mozart's Requiem (K.626), or the first movement of Symphony No. 25 (K.183). It doesn't get more bombastic than Mozart's Sturm und Drang until Beethoven gets ahold of it.

[Intangelon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFOSZh3szNw

(Mind you, I love that piece, but it's undeniably pretty dissonant.)

OP: I'm not going to choose. I like Bach a good deal, but then I also like Haydn and Beethoven. Each period has its good music and its bad music, and I try to listen to only the good music from each one.

On the other hand, as a rule, I definitely prefer Baroque and Classical music to Romantic music, and can't understand so many people's preference for the latter. (Yes, there's also good Romantic music that I do listen to, but not nearly as much of it.)

Ah -- I had forgotten about his piano works. I was thinking more about his orchestral stuff. Thanks for the reminder. *smacks own head*

[Muravyets]

And in re the OP question:

I don't choose according to era or school. I like or dislike individual composers, regardless of their period or style. There is no style of music that I would say I universally like or dislike.

So you like all styles equally?

That would appear to be a variation of what I said, yes.

EDIT: I'm talking about classical music (the generic title, not the specific period mentioned in the OP). With popular music, there are definitely genres I dislike more than others.

[Conserative Morality]

That would appear to be a variation of what I said, yes.

I find it hard to believe that you like Techno every bit as much as Jazz, but hey, to each their own, I suppose.

[Treznor]

I know, there are different periods of music. But they still play his music on my favorite radio station, and I change the channel whenever they do. Call it "Modern Classical" or "Dissonant Classical" or what have you, when dissonance becomes the dominant trait in a musical piece my brain translates it as noise.

I call it neo-Classical, 'cause that's what it's called.

That's fine.

I'm struggling to hear much dissonance for its own sake in Copland, and it's certainly not Copland's "dominant" trait. Listen to Appalachian Spring or "Fanfare for the Common Man".

Those are exactly what I think of when I think of dissonance as the dominant theme. When the melody doesnt so much flow from one theme to the next as hop around haphazardly.

It's my problem, really. Copland's work makes me want to smash the speakers so I don't hear it any longer.

You want dissonance for it's own sake, you have Schönberg, who did it via mathematical formulae. You have Varese, who did it to express the dissonance of postwar life. You have Penderecki, who used it to express the tragedy and senseless violence of things like the concentration camps or victims of atomic blasts. You had Ives, who seemed to do it just for the hell of it.

Now you're just being cruel.

It isn't supposed to be soothing. Now, when dissonance is used as a deliberate contrast to consonance, it's unavoidable and very necessary to provide variety, energy and direction to a piece. The resolution of dissonance is the goal in that case, and can be spectacularly effective.

I don't listen to music because it's soothing. Bach has both soothing and energetic pieces. Mozart's music is particularly energetic, and Elgar is no slouch either. I listen to music because it's inspiring. Dissonance doesn't inspire me, it annoys me. When it becomes less melodic and more random, it registers in my brain as noise.

[Muravyets]

That would appear to be a variation of what I said, yes.

I find it hard to believe that you like Techno every bit as much as Jazz, but hey, to each their own, I suppose.

You missed my edit. Which I typed because I anticipated that you would move your goalposts by bringing in stuff that is not part of your own topic, just so you could try to "pounce" on something.

EDIT: And by the way, I do like Techno as much as I like Jazz.