Baroque Vs. Classical

[Holy Cheese and Shoes]

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.

Would you like a side of Toccata with that, supersized?

[Yootopia]

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

Why

I personally enjoy dubstep about equally as much as latin music (Buena Vista Social Club and their offshoots etc.). Different music for different moods and all.

As to this ridiculous debate - classical, because it's less brash.

[JarVik]

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.

Thanks, I do like #25, but as you might guess I'm not exactly a music major, or even good a typifing genres much, but I like a bit of omph, though If I'm stuck in rushhour, something calmer is good for my nerves.

[Muravyets]

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

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

I'm not disputing that Copland used dissonance. I'm just questioning the implication that his work in general is so dissonant that a person who doesn't like dissonance would lunge for the tuner knob any time he comes on the radio. I mean, seriously, how grating can Appalachian Spring or Rodeo really be?

[Secruss]

I prefer the atonal noises of industrial machinery and the ocean.

[Treznor]

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

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

I'm not disputing that Copland used dissonance. I'm just questioning the implication that his work in general is so dissonant that a person who doesn't like dissonance would lunge for the tuner knob any time he comes on the radio. I mean, seriously, how grating can Appalachian Spring or Rodeo really be?

Like I said, Copland's work brings out the Hulk SMASH! in me. You may not consider it very dissonant, but to me it's positively hideous.

[Northwest Slobovia]

WRT OP: Either is fine; I'll listen even to some 20th century stuff, but Cage is just noise. (Insert usual smartass remark about 4'33" being his best composition.)

I'm listening to more Baroque these days, but that's simply because I find its smaller dynamic range more suitable to playing in the background while I work. For focused listening, I think I'm listening to mostly Romantic stuff these days.

[Western Mercenary Unio]

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

Hey, techno can be good. I just don't listen to it. In response to the OP, I don't know I don't listen to much of either. I like both, but I'd have to listen some more to decide.

[Stargate Centurion]

You chose vastly different tempi as well.

This was my first thought as well.

As to the OP - I don't have very discerning tastes. I'll listen to almost anything. That includes lots of Baroque-era music (a close friend is a crazy-intense Baroque violinist) and lots of other music as well.

[Western Mercenary Unio]

Like I said, Copland's work brings out the Hulk SMASH! in me. You may not consider it very dissonant, but to me it's positively hideous.

Does it also bring Hulk Speak out?

[Conserative Morality]

Hey, techno can be good. I just don't listen to it. In response to the OP, I don't know I don't listen to much of either. I like both, but I'd have to listen some more to decide.

I'm not trying to influence you at all

[West Failure]

I love Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi then a huge gap until Faure and Ravel.

[Muravyets]

I prefer the atonal noises of industrial machinery and the ocean.

True story: Once upon a time, when I was a kid, on a family vacation in Maine, we were having a picnic on the rocks along the shore of Arcadia National Park in Mount Desert Island. For lunchtime music, my mom cranked up the boombox and popped in a tape of Camille Saint-Saen's Symphony #3 in C minor (the "Organ" Symphony) -- one of my all-time favorite pieces of music. And we gradually realized that the waves of the incoming ocean tide were becoming perfectly timed to the music. Finally, with the last movement, the waves were swishing and swirling and crashing explosively into the rocks in perfect coordination with the music. It was like a fireworks display. Other people passing by or having lunch even started applauding the show of nature. It was the single most perfect coincidence I've ever experienced.

This was the music in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4U0y8zZm28

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

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

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

I'm not disputing that Copland used dissonance. I'm just questioning the implication that his work in general is so dissonant that a person who doesn't like dissonance would lunge for the tuner knob any time he comes on the radio. I mean, seriously, how grating can Appalachian Spring or Rodeo really be?

Actually, my reaction regarding almost all of Copland's "neoclassical" or "Americana" music -- practically everything he wrote after 1930 -- is boredom. I simply don't like it as much as his earlier, more dissonant stuff. Therefore, if Appalachian Spring (or Fanfare for the Common Man, or the Third Symphony, or quite a bit of other music) comes on the radio I'll turn it off, simply because it doesn't interest me.

I'm not going to try to understand Trez's ears. Instead, we can quiz him about other composers: Do you like Bartók? Stravinsky? Ives? Berg? Boulez?

[Western Mercenary Unio]

I'm not trying to influence you at all

Of course not. You're totally neutral.

[Conserative Morality]

Of course not. You're totally neutral.

Of course. I'm like the Switzerland of this Baroque period vs. Classical period debate.

[Muravyets]

Actually, my reaction regarding almost all of Copland's "neoclassical" or "Americana" music -- practically everything he wrote after 1930 -- is boredom. I simply don't like it as much as his earlier, more dissonant stuff. Therefore, if Appalachian Spring (or Fanfare for the Common Man, or the Third Symphony, or quite a bit of other music) comes on the radio I'll turn it off, simply because it doesn't interest me.

I'm not going to try to understand Trez's ears. Instead, we can quiz him about other composers: Do you like Bartók? Stravinsky? Ives? Berg? Boulez?

I would be surprised if he answered yes to any of those, if in fact it is dissonance that turns him off, as opposed to just being turned off by Copland.

For myself, it's yes to Bartok, Stravinsky and Boulez, no to Ives and Berg, in keeping with my earlier remark about judging individual composers.

[Western Mercenary Unio]

Of course. I'm like the Switzerland of this Baroque period vs. Classical period debate.

Of course. I gotta go, this headache is killling me.

[Intangelon]

I prefer the atonal noises of industrial machinery and the ocean.

True story: Once upon a time, when I was a kid, on a family vacation in Maine, we were having a picnic on the rocks along the shore of Arcadia National Park in Mount Desert Island. For lunchtime music, my mom cranked up the boombox and popped in a tape of Camille Saint-Saen's Symphony #3 in C minor (the "Organ" Symphony) -- one of my all-time favorite pieces of music. And we gradually realized that the waves of the incoming ocean tide were becoming perfectly timed to the music. Finally, with the last movement, the waves were swishing and swirling and crashing explosively into the rocks in perfect coordination with the music. It was like a fireworks display. Other people passing by or having lunch even started applauding the show of nature. It was the single most perfect coincidence I've ever experienced.

This was the music in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4U0y8zZm28

Sweet serendipity. Outstanding!

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

Actually, my reaction regarding almost all of Copland's "neoclassical" or "Americana" music -- practically everything he wrote after 1930 -- is boredom. I simply don't like it as much as his earlier, more dissonant stuff. Therefore, if Appalachian Spring (or Fanfare for the Common Man, or the Third Symphony, or quite a bit of other music) comes on the radio I'll turn it off, simply because it doesn't interest me.

I'm not going to try to understand Trez's ears. Instead, we can quiz him about other composers: Do you like Bartók? Stravinsky? Ives? Berg? Boulez?

I would be surprised if he answered yes to any of those, if in fact it is dissonance that turns him off, as opposed to just being turned off by Copland.

For myself, it's yes to Bartok, Stravinsky and Boulez, no to Ives and Berg, in keeping with my earlier remark about judging individual composers.

*shrugs* It's possible to dislike dissonance in some cases and like it in others, depending on how it's used.

I like Bartók (except when he lets his pieces go on too long) and Stravinsky (almost invariably). I dislike the other three I listed for various reasons, mostly because I don't think they're as good, although my opinions are naturally subject to unpredictable change (there was a time when I didn't like Bach, for instance).

[Bears Armed]

Bearroque, of course...

[Muravyets]

Sweet serendipity. Outstanding!

It really was an outstanding moment. Chalk it up as proof of the "Golden Mean" or something. Whatever. I was glad I got to witness such a thing.

And remembering makes me wonder what Secruss thinks the origins of music are? Is he really under the impression that there is no music in the ocean or in the running of machines? Music is in the mind of the listener, and it comes out of the natural rhythms of the world, which are determined by physics -- but a physicist or mathematician could explain it better than I ever could.

Another memory -- when I was learning blacksmithing so I could demonstrate it at a museum, after we had been hammering away for a while, one of the other students asked "I wonder what kind of music would go best with this work?" And the teacher said, "I can't think of any." And I thought, "Are you fucking kidding me? Hammer + anvil = PERCUSSION. There is no music that DOESN'T go with this work! Hello!" And one time after that, I had the song "Isn't it Romantic" stuck in my head one day, and I spent the whole day hammering to that tune.

*shrugs* It's possible to dislike dissonance in some cases and like it in others, depending on how it's used.

I like Bartók (except when he lets his pieces go on too long) and Stravinsky (almost invariably). I dislike the other three I listed for various reasons, mostly because I don't think they're as good, although my opinions are naturally subject to unpredictable change (there was a time when I didn't like Bach, for instance).

Personally, I would not say one was better than another. I'd say I liked one better than the others. I grew up with a classical musician (my grandfather), so I had music theory and analysis around the dinner table through most of my formative years, so even the composers I don't like I wouldn't say are less talented or accomplished than others. For instance, I personally can't stand Mahler. His music makes me feel like I'm trapped in a stuck elevator with a person who speaks very very slowly and very very droningly and has a whole shitload to say about something very dull. But I wouldn't say Mahler is not good at composing music. Just that I don't like what he's good at.

[Intangelon]

It really was an outstanding moment. Chalk it up as proof of the "Golden Mean" or something. Whatever. I was glad I got to witness such a thing.

I've had similar moments. Singing with part of my choir on a raft trip and having every rest between phrases be a sizable dip in the Class 2 section. It didn't make me see God, but it made me much less of an atheist.

And remembering makes me wonder what Secruss thinks the origins of music are? Is he really under the impression that there is no music in the ocean or in the running of machines? Music is in the mind of the listener, and it comes out of the natural rhythms of the world, which are determined by physics -- but a physicist or mathematician could explain it better than I ever could.

Why else would a regular series of repeated beats be called a pulse? The physics of sound play a large role in musical study and performance/behavior. The vibrating string vibrates over its whole length AND over fractions of its length. For an example of a sound that doesn't do that, listen to a pure sine wave. Soulless. It's the interplay of multiple, fractional vibrations that give sounds their timbre -- their relative richness.

Another memory -- when I was learning blacksmithing so I could demonstrate it at a museum, after we had been hammering away for a while, one of the other students asked "I wonder what kind of music would go best with this work?" And the teacher said, "I can't think of any." And I thought, "Are you fucking kidding me? Hammer + anvil = PERCUSSION. There is no music that DOESN'T go with this work! Hello!" And one time after that, I had the song "Isn't it Romantic" stuck in my head one day, and I spent the whole day hammering to that tune.

Excellent. I washed dishes when I was a pizza delivery driver with no orders to schlep. The process involved seven steps, and I invariably sang Pink Floyd's "Money" as I worked. Others would join in, and when I was on shift, the scut-work always got done faster.

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

*shrugs* It's possible to dislike dissonance in some cases and like it in others, depending on how it's used.

I like Bartók (except when he lets his pieces go on too long) and Stravinsky (almost invariably). I dislike the other three I listed for various reasons, mostly because I don't think they're as good, although my opinions are naturally subject to unpredictable change (there was a time when I didn't like Bach, for instance).

Personally, I would not say one was better than another. I'd say I liked one better than the others. I grew up with a classical musician (my grandfather), so I had music theory and analysis around the dinner table through most of my formative years, so even the composers I don't like I wouldn't say are less talented or accomplished than others. For instance, I personally can't stand Mahler. His music makes me feel like I'm trapped in a stuck elevator with a person who speaks very very slowly and very very droningly and has a whole shitload to say about something very dull. But I wouldn't say Mahler is not good at composing music. Just that I don't like what he's good at.

Well, the whole point of writing music is to get people to listen. If a composer can't gain an audience, they're (by the very definition) not as good as the ones who can.

Mahler, for instance, I can't stand either -- but the fact that lots of people listen to him indicates that he's doing something to hold the attention of people who would otherwise not take ninety minutes out of a busy modern schedule to listen to some dead guy's symphony. Someone like Schoenberg, on the other hand, has never gained much of an audience, and therefore one must conclude that his twelve-tone works, at least, are not very good or interesting. Otherwise people would listen to them more -- stands to reason, no?

To clarify, therefore: For me, at least, Bartók or Stravinsky is more successful at capturing and sustaining my interest than Ives or Berg. Therefore they are better in that sense, subjectively.

[Muravyets]

Well, the whole point of writing music is to get people to listen. If a composer can't gain an audience, they're (by the very definition) not as good as the ones who can.

Mahler, for instance, I can't stand either -- but the fact that lots of people listen to him indicates that he's doing something to hold the attention of people who would otherwise not take ninety minutes out of a busy modern schedule to listen to some dead guy's symphony. Someone like Schoenberg, on the other hand, has never gained much of an audience, and therefore one must conclude that his twelve-tone works, at least, are not very good or interesting. Otherwise people would listen to them more -- stands to reason, no?

To clarify, therefore: For me, at least, Bartók or Stravinsky is more successful at capturing and sustaining my interest than Ives or Berg. Therefore they are better in that sense, subjectively.

I'm not going to argue with anyone over their personal taste and their reasons for it. I'll just say that I do not equate quality with popularity. If I did, I would have to say that "Dancing With the Stars" is art, and I'm not going to do that. The twelve-tone technique may not be aesthetically accessible to a great many people, but among musicians, as well as others, it is not just valid but brilliant. I believe that art is valid if it makes its point, even if that point is interesting or exciting only to a few people.

I also do not agree that the point of writing music, or making any art, is to get people to listen to it. I believe getting an audience is Step 2, not Step 1 of being an artist. Step 1 is to find the best way to say whatever it is that is on your mind. THEN you figure out who wants to pay attention to what you have to say and how to bring your work to them. If you do Step 1, then you're an artist, whether you have an audience or not. If you put Step 2 before Step 1, then you're the producers of "Dancing With the Stars."