Why so little love for Baroque and Romantic periods?

In this section, I've noticed there are a great many divisions granted to such musical styles as "pop," "rock," "punk" and "metal." However, I am seeing only one label granted to anything that doesn't fit the "has existed only for the past 1%-4% of recorded musical history years" category, and that is arguably one of the less significant periods: Classical.

This brings to my mind a question: why do people so often lump these together as "classical"? The generic answer would be because "Classical music covers them all." But does it really? I would argue absolutely not. Lumping them together would be like referring to Earth Angel, Raining Blood, and Smells Like Teen Spirit as collectively a single category called "modern." In fact, Baroque, Classical and Romantic have, if anything, less in common with one another than punk, rock, and metal do.

Another argument could be that they "all fall under the umbrella of orchestra music." But so what? Punk, rock and metal all fall under the umbrella of "guitars, basses, percussion, occasionally synthesizers or keyboards, and a singer." Arguably, orchestras are much more diverse than rock bands are. They have upwards of 30 categories of instruments with which to rearrange the amount of each and how loudly/frequently each should be played, the songs are much longer with more variety within the same song than most modern albums have, and there's no arguing the fact that music written for an orchestra has much, much more diverse melodies with much less repetition compared to the riffs used by guitars and basses, outside of the solos that typically take up maybe 10% of a song. Classical, Baroque, and Romantic taken together encompass well over 300 years of music. Heck, each one describes about 90-100 years of music. Does anybody actually take seriously the idea that such diversity can be described in one category when we invent names for "new" types of music every 5 years?

Only about a third of what people popularly call "classical music" is actually classical music. Classical refers specifically to the period encompassed by composers like Rossini (William Tell), Mozart (Marriage of Figaro and countless other generic works), Beethoven (The Fate, Ode to Joy, Moonlight Sonata, Fur Elise), Schubert (The Trout quintet), Haydn (the "Surprise" symphony, many quartets, not to mention the national anthem of Germany), etc. Personally I find this poorly represents the other two, because these all have in common that they are focused mostly on entertainment, and often show business (many remaining Classical songs are from operas and comic operettas) rather than inspiring anything in particular. In fact, I would call it by far the weakest of the three periods in general. It inspires little thought or mental exercise, and at the same time makes it difficult to feel anything in particular.

Compared to classical, music from the Baroque period has a strong focus on depth. It has the most polyphonic arrangements in history. Within a single song, there are frequently as many as four through eight different tunes happening at the same time, blending together to form something the listener immerses himself in fully, something matched today only by Enya and a select few rock-style bands (Dream Theater and Blind Guardian notably come to mind, and to a less tuneful extent, Pink Floyd). It is easily the most flowery, "decorated" music in history. Its sheer diversity is mind-boggling. Pachelbel (Canon in D), Bach (Air from suite no. 3, Toccata and Fugue, Jesu Bleibet Meine Freude), Vivaldi (the Four Seasons), Boccherini (Menuet in A), Handel (Fireworks music, Water music, the Messiah), and Clarke (Trumpet Voluntary) are just a few of the more notable names that fall into the Baroque period. I personally cannot name two items on this entire list that have an even similar sound to each other (except for maybe Canon and Air). All inspire deep thought and all draw the listener into another world while painting a picture of something to be admired. Listening to Baroque is like hearing a painting.

Compared to the other two, the Romantic period has somewhat less absorbing depth, but easily the most "feeling" in history. Comparing the Romantic period to Baroque is sort of like comparing "Stairway to Heaven" to "Octavarium" - the latter makes you think very deeply and requires lots of analysis; the former, while still open to analysis, has much more of its focus on inspiring something you feel, something that stirs the soul more than the mind. Like its literature, Romantic music was free-flowing, occasionally Gothic in nature, and at the same time very structured - in other words, the polar opposite of Baroque in a way that not even death metal vs. country can touch. A professor of mine once called Wagner (the Valkyrie, Lohengrin) the prototype for the Romantic period, but I don't think it had one. Every Romantic composer had his own motifs in ways that Classical composers did not. Each sought individuality. Liszt (Liebestraume, Transcendental Etudes) found it through some of the most difficult high-tempo octave-breaking playing ever written for piano or any instrument (arguably the precursor to shredding on guitar). Paganini did the same on violin, even using a rudimentary form of "tapping" seen today in metal solos. Smetana (the Moldau, arguably the most beautiful tune ever written) found it through what was essentially poetry in audio form. Grieg (Peer Gynt) found it through what he once referred to in a letter to a fellow composer as "absolutely reeking of cowpies and exaggerated Norwegian nationalism," aka a tune called In the Hall of the Mountain King. Tchaikovsky found it through a mixture of both calm and intense nationalism (Overture 1812), storytelling (Sleeping Beauty, Swan Lake), and even collaborations he personally hated (the Nutcracker suite, which in itself encompasses more song-to-song diversity than the entire Classical period). Chopin went from the thunderous intensity of Fantasie Impromptu one minute to the calm of Nocturne the next. Bizet (Carmen), Brahms (the Hungarian dances), etc. add to the many feelings inspired by listening to just one mix CD from this period.

So now I ask: why, given all of this diversity and the clear differences in style between them, do we take the periods that respectively put out the most sophisticated (Baroque) and the most expressive (Romantic) music ever written and dismiss them under the umbrella of a period that does neither, and with which they have relatively little in common? And why, meanwhile, do we fail to question this even as we invent many separate categories to describe types of music of merely 50 or even 20 years that are arguably much less different from one another than these periods are?

Because that music is old fashioned and not a substantial part of the 21st century that we live in, therefore few people really care what it's called because it apparantly makes no difference to the general music listening populace.

Because that music is old fashioned and not a substantial part of the 21st century that we live in, therefore no one really cares what it's called because it makes no difference to them.

Really? The purest form of music, music untainted by "artists" more obsessed with a commercial or popular image than the music's aesthetic appeal, music of the sort that's still composed for the majority of film and theater soundtracks, that's still listened to quite regularly and recognized by more total people than the majority of 21st century musicians over 300 years later, is insubstantial? That's very interesting.

Really? The purest form of music, music untainted by "artists" more obsessed with a commercial or popular image than the music's aesthetic appeal, music of the sort that's still composed for the majority of film and theater soundtracks, that's still listened to quite regularly and recognized by more total people than the majority of 21st century musicians over 300 years later, is insubstantial? That's very interesting.

Obviously there's a reason why you feel this particular type of music is no longer getting it's dues, and regardless of your personal love for it, the vast majority of people obviously do not share the same appreciation or else we'd have more Bach and less Lady Gaga. I'm simply saying the niche for that sort of music is very small nowadays. Music evolves, shifts, and changes form, just like every other aspect of a culture.

Everything else you said [purest form of music, untainted, etc.] is purely opinion and can be debated.

Obviously there's a reason why you feel this particular type of music is no longer getting it's dues, and regardless of your personal love for it, the vast majority of people obviously do not share the same appreciation or else we'd have more Bach and less Lady Gaga. I'm simply saying the niche for that sort of music is very small nowadays. Music evolves, shifts, and changes form, just like every other aspect of a culture.

Everything else you said [purest form of music, untainted, etc.] is purely opinion and can be debated.

Not really. Actually the main reason we have more Lady Gaga and less Bach is because those in charge of the present commercialist culture are essentially forcing those "artists" down the throats of the populace, who in turn has been conditioned by that same culture to not really think about anything from an artistic viewpoint and to simply like it because it's the "cool" thing to like. The reason Lady Gaga, for instance, is popular isn't because her music is actually good - it's because it's the trendy thing to listen to. A lot of it also comes from media saturation and from her image. It isn't true that people fail to share an appreciation for more sophisticated music because it inherently has less merit, meaning, feeling, validity, etc.; it's because the majority have been actively discouraged from giving it a fresh listen, or really to do much thinking about anything that isn't being pushed by those commercialists, for the sake of profit.

As for whether music has "evolved"... well, sure, call it evolution if you like. Personally, I'd call music with fewer parts, less focus on aesthetics, less meaning, less variety and more obsession with "coolness" and commercialism more of a de-evolution.

As for whether it's getting its dues, I never said it wasn't getting dues. The fact that it's still well-known to virtually everybody 300-400 years after it was written is evidence enough that some of it is. I wonder if Lady Gaga will be remembered for her music that way in 300-400 years. *thinks it over* Yeah, that took about 3 seconds.

As for the other parts being debatable, I would hardly think it's debatable that most modern popular artists are popular more for their image than their music. Nor is it really debatable that an artist focusing on image, sales, and trendiness is tainting the purity of the music itself.

Nor does your little rant about popularity actually address the issue at hand: why modern culture tries, like with most other things, to simplify and dumb-down understanding of anything non-commercialist to the point that it displays outright ignorance of what something even is. For instance, whether Baroque and Romantic period music are "popular" has little to no bearing on whether they should be lumped in with the same name as "Classical." They shouldn't. A few centuries from now, if people do look back on the present culture, do you think Slayer, Queen, Bobby Darin, My Cheminal Romance, Marilyn Manson, Ani DiFranco, and the Rolling Stones should all be lumped together under a single genre?

I would hardly think it's debatable that most modern popular artists are popular more for their image than their music.

Yes, it is debatable. So is this:

that music is old fashioned

(That it is old is, of course, not debatable, but that it is "old-fashioned" i.e. archaic, obsolete, irrelevant, is a matter of debate).

A little less statement of opinion as fact and a little less bashing of musical styles you personally don't happen to like from both sides would make this thread more pleasant for everyone.

My view: Yes, I can understand why to a lover of Baroque and Romantic music the use of the umbrella term "Classical" to cover anything from Palestrina to Philip Glass must be galling.

However, I think you get this problem in many genres/clusters of genres.

e.g. Most fans of non-Western music deeply resent the term "world music", as it implies that anything from Brazilian samba to Hungarian folk is "the same thing really" and that the music of the USA and other English-speaking countries is far more important and should occupy the lion's share of the record shop, while the music of the rest of the planet is consigned to one tiny section at the back.

e.g. 2 it's become a standing joke in the Techno thread on this forum, that the term "Techno" seems to have expanded, as far as CoS is concerned, to encompass just about anything you can dance to! If there were more dance music fanatics on CoS it wouldn't be used this way, but as there's not enough people to object, everything with an electronic beat tends to get filed in that big lost property envelope.

I think it is inevitable that people who aren't really interested in a genre will use terms more fluidly and inaccurately. E.g. because I don't listen to much classical, I tend to use it to cover everything in my record collection from Thomas Byrd to Beethoven. I know they're very different, but they're more similar to each other than either are to the other CDs I have. However, I make clear distinctions between different sub-genres of Folk (traditional folk, Nu Folk, folk rock, folktronica, turbo folk....), whereas to people who don't like folk that much it will, understandably all just be "folk" or "rubbish stuff I don't like" :lol:. Generic terms are use differently by different people, according to their interests (in the same way that different people use files and dividers in different ways to divide their paperwork, according to their needs).

e.g. 2 it's become a standing joke in the Techno thread on this forum, that the term "Techno" seems to have expanded, as far as CoS is concerned, to encompass just about anything you can dance to! If there were more dance music fanatics on CoS it wouldn't be used this way, but as there's not enough people to object, everything with an electronic beat tends to get filed in that big lost property envelope.

Please tell me they're not including Eurotrance and Rave together under that umbrella term.

I know they're very different, but they're more similar to each other than either are to the other CDs I have.

I think this is where the issue lies. Too many people honestly believe that. But meanwhile, if you really listen to the more in-depth intricacies of any given composer, the particular emotions to which each appeals, the style of harmony each prefers, the subjects of the musical pictures they choose to paint, the ratios of instruments/solo instruments they choose to use, the styles they prefer, etc. there's really more variety from one composer to the next than there is between, for instance, rock music as diverse as black metal, emocore and acoustic.

Not really. Actually the main reason we have more Lady Gaga and less Bach is because those in charge of the present commercialist culture are essentially forcing those "artists" down the throats of the populace, who in turn has been conditioned by that same culture to not really think about anything from an artistic viewpoint and to simply like it because it's the "cool" thing to like. The reason Lady Gaga, for instance, is popular isn't because her music is actually good - it's because it's the trendy thing to listen to. A lot of it also comes from media saturation and from her image. It isn't true that people fail to share an appreciation for more sophisticated music because it inherently has less merit, meaning, feeling, validity, etc.; it's because the majority have been actively discouraged from giving it a fresh listen, or really to do much thinking about anything that isn't being pushed by those commercialists, for the sake of profit.

I agree that mainstream music nowadays is very image driven, but that is not to say that there was a black hole in music ranging from the Baroque era until now. Nor is that to say Barogue, Romantic, Classical, etc. were the only forms of music people listened to and connected with back when they were at their pinnacle either. You saying Lady Gaga isn't talented is debatable for many of her fans, who like her for their own reasons. I never said people don't share an appreciation for more 'sohphisticated' music [debatable] because it has less merit, meaning, feeling, or validity. Just that in my opinion, it's time has come and gone. The same feelings you get while listening to Vivaldi one may say they feel when listening to Lady Gaga.

As for whether music has "evolved"... well, sure, call it evolution if you like. Personally, I'd call music with fewer parts, less focus on aesthetics, less meaning, less variety and more obsession with "coolness" and commercialism more of a de-evolution.

That is a very narrow view on music as a whole. I'm no mainstream music buff by any means for my own personal views, but to say that less orchestral music somehow has less merit than Baroque completely contradicts the argument you are trying to put forth. You can't expect others to accept and agree with you when you can't afford others the same courtesy about their musical tastes and call it 'de-evolved'.

As for whether it's getting its dues, I never said it wasn't getting dues. The fact that it's still well-known to virtually everybody 300-400 years after it was written is evidence enough that some of it is. I wonder if Lady Gaga will be remembered for her music that way in 300-400 years. *thinks it over* Yeah, that took about 3 seconds.

Obviously it's not that well known if as you say, people lump Baroque, Romantic, Rennaisance, Classical, etc. all together because they can't tell the difference. And Lady Gaga is not a musical genre, she's a performer. I can think of quite a few mainstream popular artists who I believe will be remembered 300-400 years from now as innovators, just as Bach and Mozart are [Michael Jackson and Elvis come immediately to mind].

As for the other parts being debatable, I would hardly think it's debatable that most modern popular artists are popular more for their image than their music. Nor is it really debatable that an artist focusing on image, sales, and trendiness is tainting the purity of the music itself.

Yes, it is. What is pure music for you isn't pure for another person. In your opinion, orchestral music is the most pure form of music. Other will say for them it's the Blues. Others will say it's Carnatic, and still others will say the sounds made from the Djembe drum set the precedent from where all other music followed. And as a sidenote, popular artists nowadays actually have very little control of their marketing and image. The record companies hold the power.

Nor does your little rant about popularity actually address the issue at hand: why modern culture tries, like with most other things, to simplify and dumb-down understanding of anything non-commercialist to the point that it displays outright ignorance of what something even is. For instance, whether Baroque and Romantic period music are "popular" has little to no bearing on whether they should be lumped in with the same name as "Classical." They shouldn't. A few centuries from now, if people do look back on the present culture, do you think Slayer, Queen, Bobby Darin, My Cheminal Romance, Marilyn Manson, Ani DiFranco, and the Rolling Stones should all be lumped together under a single genre?

I never ranted, simply giving you my opinionated answer to your question. And my answer simply is: because in my opinion, not that many people care enough about it to care. If you like the music, you'll listen to it, no matter what category someone else lumped it into. That should have no bearing on whether you enjoy the music as it stands. I personally have no problem with these styles of music. I'm a member of my college's chamber choir, sang 2nd Soprano in Carl Orff's Carmina Burana, and enjoyed the experience thoroughly. Technically, the artists you mentioned are all lumped together into one genre: Rock. Now rock itself has many sub-genres that these artists fit into [Folk Rock, Heavy Metal, Glam Rock, Industrial Rock, etc.] but overall they are all rock musicians/bands.

Sidenote:I never meant old fashioned to mean archaic, obsolete or irrelevant. I meant it to mean what the dictionary says it means: belonging to, characteristic of, or favoured by former times. That's it and that's all.

I think the reason is a simple one - if the Classical sub-forum, meant to encompass all 'classical' music, is only going to draw a couple of hundred replies, then there really is no point in splitting it.

Supply and demand. Simple as that.