A quick intro to Classical Music
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
A quick intro to Classical Music
Intentions and Terms
I thought I’d write a brief introduction to Classical Music, because... well, I didn’t really get that far into the thought. I guess because lots of people ask where to start and what they might like – and maybe some people here might appreciate a few words of guidance. If not, maybe writing it will clarify my thoughts for the next time someone does actually ask me. It seems that there’s a lot of curiosity about classical music these days, but not a lot of remaining knowledge in the general community, so...
To be clear, I’m not a professional musician, critic, music historian, music theorist, or anything along those lines. I’m just a lifelong classical music fan, and I probably know a lot more about the subject than the average non-expert person these days does.
And to begin with, we need to define ‘classical music’. For some people, that means anything ever written that doesn’t have a popstar singing in it (and maybe some things that do). For others, it means specifically music composed by the artistic establishment of western Europe between 1730 and 1820 – or possibly only 1750 to 1792.
For my purposes, I’ll split the difference, and identify “classical music” with what normally springs to mind with those words: music of the so-called “Common Practice Period”, which is to say approximately AD 1600 to AD 1900 in Europe, and to a lesser extent in European colonies, particularly in the New World. [There are no exact dates; some people would push the beginning up to 1650, for example]. Almost all the composers or pieces you might think of as “classical” fall within this period, or is later music consciously imitating it. I’ll also, however, make some remarks on earlier and later developments.
My original intention here was to write a few brief words on the background leading up to the Common Practice, write a brief description of the three Eras within this Period (Baroque, Classical and Romantic (note that ‘Era’ and ‘Period’ can sometimes be swapped, as terms), followed by a brief explanation of the major genres of Common Practice music, and then a rough run-down of some major names to look out for in approximate tiers of importance.
However, my initial brief words have turned out... not to be. So... it may take me a little while to get through this. Nonetheless, I’m still hoping for it to be pretty brief, rather than an in-depth description. [this will necessitate some unfair simplifications along the way, needless to say]
In the meantime, if you have any questions about anything (that I’ve said, or that you’d like me to say), or want to correct me, or just have anything to add yourself, please do.
[Oh, and to get it out of the way, the #1 shibboleth for classical vs pop fans: if in any doubt at all, call it a “piece”, not a “song”. This may not be objectively important, but it’s the easiest way to signal that you’re actually taking the genre seriously (and avoids triggering the PTSD of all us poor classical music fans who have been repeatedly asked “what’s your favourite song?” and have had no idea how to answer...)]
Anyway, because things rarely make sense unless you know where they came from, I’ll start with a little narrative explanation of how we got to the point where classical music started...
I thought I’d write a brief introduction to Classical Music, because... well, I didn’t really get that far into the thought. I guess because lots of people ask where to start and what they might like – and maybe some people here might appreciate a few words of guidance. If not, maybe writing it will clarify my thoughts for the next time someone does actually ask me. It seems that there’s a lot of curiosity about classical music these days, but not a lot of remaining knowledge in the general community, so...
To be clear, I’m not a professional musician, critic, music historian, music theorist, or anything along those lines. I’m just a lifelong classical music fan, and I probably know a lot more about the subject than the average non-expert person these days does.
And to begin with, we need to define ‘classical music’. For some people, that means anything ever written that doesn’t have a popstar singing in it (and maybe some things that do). For others, it means specifically music composed by the artistic establishment of western Europe between 1730 and 1820 – or possibly only 1750 to 1792.
For my purposes, I’ll split the difference, and identify “classical music” with what normally springs to mind with those words: music of the so-called “Common Practice Period”, which is to say approximately AD 1600 to AD 1900 in Europe, and to a lesser extent in European colonies, particularly in the New World. [There are no exact dates; some people would push the beginning up to 1650, for example]. Almost all the composers or pieces you might think of as “classical” fall within this period, or is later music consciously imitating it. I’ll also, however, make some remarks on earlier and later developments.
My original intention here was to write a few brief words on the background leading up to the Common Practice, write a brief description of the three Eras within this Period (Baroque, Classical and Romantic (note that ‘Era’ and ‘Period’ can sometimes be swapped, as terms), followed by a brief explanation of the major genres of Common Practice music, and then a rough run-down of some major names to look out for in approximate tiers of importance.
However, my initial brief words have turned out... not to be. So... it may take me a little while to get through this. Nonetheless, I’m still hoping for it to be pretty brief, rather than an in-depth description. [this will necessitate some unfair simplifications along the way, needless to say]
In the meantime, if you have any questions about anything (that I’ve said, or that you’d like me to say), or want to correct me, or just have anything to add yourself, please do.
[Oh, and to get it out of the way, the #1 shibboleth for classical vs pop fans: if in any doubt at all, call it a “piece”, not a “song”. This may not be objectively important, but it’s the easiest way to signal that you’re actually taking the genre seriously (and avoids triggering the PTSD of all us poor classical music fans who have been repeatedly asked “what’s your favourite song?” and have had no idea how to answer...)]
Anyway, because things rarely make sense unless you know where they came from, I’ll start with a little narrative explanation of how we got to the point where classical music started...
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
What is Common Practice?
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
- Ser
- Smeric
- Posts: 1542
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:55 am
- Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Read the third paragraph of the intro post.Pole, the wrote:What is Common Practice?
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Salmoneus wrote:lem here was that virtually nothing was known about Greek music, but with a little research and a whole lot of imagination, that was a surmountable obstacle.
Galilei’s innovation was the so-called stile recitativo, in which he would chant a text, half singing and half speaking, with a rhythm close to the natural rhythm of the word, with little or no actual melody, and very minimal accompaniment – the occasional plucking of a lute.
Was that the Galilei, or someone with the same name?
Interesting to learn that Baroque started out as something very simple compared to the previous period, and only became complex and elaborate afterwards - after all, these days, when the word "baroque" is used as an adjective, it's basically synonymous with "elaborate".
For me, Baroque music is probably the earliest musical style that I can actually relate to, but that might be because I'm used to it - you don't hear Baroque music as often as pop these days, but still a lot more often than earlier music.
I think you need to correct a few of your links - syntax errors.
Edit: And thanks!
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
What I find interesting about this particular piece is that there are several points in it where the notes, to me, sound like something you'd expect to hear shortly or inmediately before the end of a piece, but each time, the piece simply goes on.Salmoneus wrote: [and, just because nobody else is ever going to link you to Marin Marais pieces, let’s throw in the delightful Sonnerie de Sainte-Geneviève du Mont-de-Paris, another chaconne, combining the sounds of viol and violin (plus harpsichord).
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Broadly speaking, it's diatonic tonality with functional harmonic progression. In essence, music between ~1600 and ~1800 usually conforms to the conceptual framework of dividing the octave into 12 tones, of prioritising 7(ish) of those tones during any part of a piece of music, of allowing two formulas for producing the prioritised 'scales' for each tone of the octave (which we call 'minor' and 'major'), of juxataposing notes (usually from the prioritised scale) in space or time to create "harmonies", and of creating patterns in which harmonies are followed by which, with a particular emphasis on starting and ending the piece with the same harmony, and on "returning" to that harmony through commonly recognised pathways.Pole, the wrote:What is Common Practice?
This all seems pretty obvious to us today - to pop music fans more than to modern classical fans, in fact (because while classical music of the 20th century frequently violates the rules of common practice in all sorts of ways, popular music is more conservative and is more likely to obey the traditional rules, with some variations (like using slightly altered 'blue' scales in some genres, some changes in which harmonic transitions are permissable, etc)). However, before 1600 much of that was not the case, and in some other culture none of it has been the case.
It also includes stuff about rhythm, I guess, though that's less often mentioned: common practice music generally has multiplicative metre (pulses can be evenly and symmetrically divided into sets of sub-pulses), and is based around the grouping of sets of two pulses, with sets of three pulses also found but usually only at the highest level. [i.e. triplets are much less common than non-triplets, and quintuplets, for example, are extremely rare]. It also generally has the same metre shared in all voices. These things contrast with some non-European cultures, and occasionally with some mediaeval music. And there are other minor things, like common practice tunes almost always end with a note beginning on a stressed beat.
You might also say that it also typically involves the use of certain families of European instruments, though that might be called more a historical accident than a core part of the practice.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Vincenzo Galilei - father of Galileo Galilei. Ironically, the man whose sermon accused Galileo was Tomasso Caccini, presumably (given the surname, the common time period, and the fact that everyone involved lived in Florence) a relative of VG's Camerata colleague Giulio Caccini, though not an immediate relative so far as I'm aware.Raphael wrote:Salmoneus wrote:lem here was that virtually nothing was known about Greek music, but with a little research and a whole lot of imagination, that was a surmountable obstacle.
Galilei’s innovation was the so-called stile recitativo, in which he would chant a text, half singing and half speaking, with a rhythm close to the natural rhythm of the word, with little or no actual melody, and very minimal accompaniment – the occasional plucking of a lute.
Was that the Galilei, or someone with the same name?
Perhaps because you're used to it, but it's also because we still live in the shadow of the Common Practice - not everything conforms to it now, but it's still, as it were, the default. If you listen to pop music, you're familiar with the fundamentals of Baroque harmonic progression. [sometimes exactly: Ralph McTell's "Streets of London", Kylie Minogue's "I Should Be So Lucky" and Oasis' "Don't Look Back In Anger", among others, are, for example, heavily indebted to the ostinato bass from Pachelbel's canon.] Mediaeval and renaissance practices, however, are almost entirely dead today outside of some modernist classical music, so most people today cannot understand them. We can think they sound pretty enough, to be sure, but we don't really "get" them in the way the original audience would have, because they're written in a musical language that's foreign to us.
For me, Baroque music is probably the earliest musical style that I can actually relate to, but that might be because I'm used to it - you don't hear Baroque music as often as pop these days, but still a lot more often than earlier music.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
It's probably because of the form of the piece. It repeats on two levels: it's a series of melodic variations, and they're built over a repeating harmonic pattern (and bass line); both the bass line and the variations come to a natural conclusion, so yes, it sort of sounds like it's ending all the time. Because in a way it is: rather than being a continual tonal arc, it's a series of complete tonal arcs strung in order, hanging together mostly on the development of rhythms, timbre and volume.Raphael wrote:What I find interesting about this particular piece is that there are several points in it where the notes, to me, sound like something you'd expect to hear shortly or inmediately before the end of a piece, but each time, the piece simply goes on.Salmoneus wrote: [and, just because nobody else is ever going to link you to Marin Marais pieces, let’s throw in the delightful Sonnerie de Sainte-Geneviève du Mont-de-Paris, another chaconne, combining the sounds of viol and violin (plus harpsichord).
More generally, the Baroque can sometimes sound either longwinded or repetitive because its syntax was not as regularised as it became in the succeeding Classical era (when more care was taken about things like questioning and answering phrases).
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- So Haleza Grise
- Avisaru
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:17 pm
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
I was kind of hoping this would be a link to Britten's Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra
Duxirti petivevoumu tinaya to tiei šuniš muruvax ulivatimi naya to šizeni.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Sorry to disappoint.
The Classical Era
Recap and audio links:
Note to self: "recaps" shouldn't be longer than what they recap...
Also, a note on the weird letters and numbers in the titles of pieces...
Composers wrote lots of pieces of music, which makes it hard to identify which piece is meant (particularly when translating between languages, and particularly when many 'names' are taken as descriptions that are partly subjective). This was particularly a problem in the Classical, when composers were insanely productive, but mostly in a small number of genres. Haydn has at least 104 symphonies, for example. "Symphony in A" isn't enough to identify them.
One way to deal with that is to number the symphonies. But early composers tended not to number their symphonies themselves, and as symphonies reached different publishers and concert halls in different orders, there was no definitive, objective order to number them in. Composers didn't set out to write, nor did impressarios advertise, their "fourteenth symphony" - they just advertised "so-and-so's latest symphony!" Later scholars can number the works, but sometimes doing so conflicts with an existing established numbering. Haydn's symphonies, for instance, are numbered, but the traditional numbering is not chronological - because, as the privately-employed composer grew more famous, he published "new" symphonies that were actually things he'd written years or decades earlier but that hadn't previously been performed publically. Some composers/publishers even, duplicitously, published the same work twice with different names or numbers. Besides, numbering within a genre runs into the problem of defining genres - is it a sinfonia, or a symphony, or sinfonia concertante, or a concerto grosso, or a concertante symphony, or...?
So, scholars of particular composers went back and constructed would-be comprehensive catalogues of exactly what was written, attaching a number to each work. Most of these catalogues are chronological, or attempt to be, but some instead categorise by genre. Unfortunately, different scholars came up with different catalogues - a new piece was discovered, or an old piece realised to be misattributed, or, in chronological catalogues, a piece realised to be associated with the wrong composition dates, and so forth. [originally, these catalogues were drawn up ad hoc by biographers as appendices; later, writers had to include not only lists of works but also complicated conversion tables to explain how their list corresponded to all the lists in all the other biographies]. To make things slightly clearly, catalogue numbers are therefore accompanied by an abbreviation to indicate the catalogue. Fortunately, for most composers a particular catalogue has achieved predominance.
So, for instance, there are half a dozen modern ways of counting Bach's works (and thus working out which "Toccata in D" or "Prelude in E" somebody means), but in practice one virtually only ever sees things listed with a "BWV number" (Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis). Similarly, Mozart's works are almost always identified by their K-number (for Koechel). More obscurely, for example, William Friedemann Bach gets Fk (Falk) numbers, while CPE Bach gets Wq (Wotquenne) numbers. Vivaldi gets RV numbers, for "Ryom-Verzeichnis".
This tends to only be an issue in the Baroque and the Classical. Before that, nobody cares enough, and not enough is really known, so things tend to be identified by what book they were published in originally (so far as we know). Kind of like referring to pop songs bytheir name and what album they first appeared on. During the Classical, publishers began attaching "opus numbers" - their own numbering of published works. Opus numbers, written "Op.", have two potential problems - first, not everything got formally published; and, second, things aren't always published in a logical order, or may even be published with two numbers. However, as time went on, opus numbers got to be a more and more reliable way of identifying works, so they're the default for Romantic, and many modern composers. [later, Op numbers stopped being tied strictly to publishing schedules, and composers assigned their own Op. numbers, effectively as part of the name of the piece]. Beethoven straddles that line, so most of his works get an opus number, but there are enough that he never published that there are also many works with "WoO" numbers instead (Werke ohne Opuszahl), referring to a scholarly catalogue of unpublished works (Fuer Elise is WoO 59 (and occasionally Bia 515)). Schubert didn't publish much while alive, so he gets D numbers. Dvorak didn't publish all his stuff, but more particularly his publishers really dicked everyone around with what numbers they gave things, so his works are often known by B numbers. Debussy was all hipster and didn't like labels man so he refused to give his works opus numbers, so now everything has to be labelled with L numbers. Etc. But for most composers, it's "Op."
[notably, opus numbers don't always refer to a single piece, when several pieces were published in a single omnibus edition, in which case the pieces are known by "opus" and then "number".
Thus, one sonata by Beethoven may interchangeably be known as "the Moonlight" (nicknames were a common early way of being clear which piece you were talking about), the "Quasi una fantasia" (the subtitle he gave the piece, but confusingly also to another piece, so this is ambiguous, but everyone knows which one you mean), "Piano Sonata in C# minor" (or C#-moll), "Piano Sonata no. 14", "Opus 27, number 2", or any combination of the above. Probably ideally "Piano Sonata no. 14 in C#-minor "Quasi una fantasia", Op. 27 no. 2 ("Moonlight")". ]
The Classical Era
More: show
More: show
Also, a note on the weird letters and numbers in the titles of pieces...
Composers wrote lots of pieces of music, which makes it hard to identify which piece is meant (particularly when translating between languages, and particularly when many 'names' are taken as descriptions that are partly subjective). This was particularly a problem in the Classical, when composers were insanely productive, but mostly in a small number of genres. Haydn has at least 104 symphonies, for example. "Symphony in A" isn't enough to identify them.
One way to deal with that is to number the symphonies. But early composers tended not to number their symphonies themselves, and as symphonies reached different publishers and concert halls in different orders, there was no definitive, objective order to number them in. Composers didn't set out to write, nor did impressarios advertise, their "fourteenth symphony" - they just advertised "so-and-so's latest symphony!" Later scholars can number the works, but sometimes doing so conflicts with an existing established numbering. Haydn's symphonies, for instance, are numbered, but the traditional numbering is not chronological - because, as the privately-employed composer grew more famous, he published "new" symphonies that were actually things he'd written years or decades earlier but that hadn't previously been performed publically. Some composers/publishers even, duplicitously, published the same work twice with different names or numbers. Besides, numbering within a genre runs into the problem of defining genres - is it a sinfonia, or a symphony, or sinfonia concertante, or a concerto grosso, or a concertante symphony, or...?
So, scholars of particular composers went back and constructed would-be comprehensive catalogues of exactly what was written, attaching a number to each work. Most of these catalogues are chronological, or attempt to be, but some instead categorise by genre. Unfortunately, different scholars came up with different catalogues - a new piece was discovered, or an old piece realised to be misattributed, or, in chronological catalogues, a piece realised to be associated with the wrong composition dates, and so forth. [originally, these catalogues were drawn up ad hoc by biographers as appendices; later, writers had to include not only lists of works but also complicated conversion tables to explain how their list corresponded to all the lists in all the other biographies]. To make things slightly clearly, catalogue numbers are therefore accompanied by an abbreviation to indicate the catalogue. Fortunately, for most composers a particular catalogue has achieved predominance.
So, for instance, there are half a dozen modern ways of counting Bach's works (and thus working out which "Toccata in D" or "Prelude in E" somebody means), but in practice one virtually only ever sees things listed with a "BWV number" (Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis). Similarly, Mozart's works are almost always identified by their K-number (for Koechel). More obscurely, for example, William Friedemann Bach gets Fk (Falk) numbers, while CPE Bach gets Wq (Wotquenne) numbers. Vivaldi gets RV numbers, for "Ryom-Verzeichnis".
This tends to only be an issue in the Baroque and the Classical. Before that, nobody cares enough, and not enough is really known, so things tend to be identified by what book they were published in originally (so far as we know). Kind of like referring to pop songs bytheir name and what album they first appeared on. During the Classical, publishers began attaching "opus numbers" - their own numbering of published works. Opus numbers, written "Op.", have two potential problems - first, not everything got formally published; and, second, things aren't always published in a logical order, or may even be published with two numbers. However, as time went on, opus numbers got to be a more and more reliable way of identifying works, so they're the default for Romantic, and many modern composers. [later, Op numbers stopped being tied strictly to publishing schedules, and composers assigned their own Op. numbers, effectively as part of the name of the piece]. Beethoven straddles that line, so most of his works get an opus number, but there are enough that he never published that there are also many works with "WoO" numbers instead (Werke ohne Opuszahl), referring to a scholarly catalogue of unpublished works (Fuer Elise is WoO 59 (and occasionally Bia 515)). Schubert didn't publish much while alive, so he gets D numbers. Dvorak didn't publish all his stuff, but more particularly his publishers really dicked everyone around with what numbers they gave things, so his works are often known by B numbers. Debussy was all hipster and didn't like labels man so he refused to give his works opus numbers, so now everything has to be labelled with L numbers. Etc. But for most composers, it's "Op."
[notably, opus numbers don't always refer to a single piece, when several pieces were published in a single omnibus edition, in which case the pieces are known by "opus" and then "number".
Thus, one sonata by Beethoven may interchangeably be known as "the Moonlight" (nicknames were a common early way of being clear which piece you were talking about), the "Quasi una fantasia" (the subtitle he gave the piece, but confusingly also to another piece, so this is ambiguous, but everyone knows which one you mean), "Piano Sonata in C# minor" (or C#-moll), "Piano Sonata no. 14", "Opus 27, number 2", or any combination of the above. Probably ideally "Piano Sonata no. 14 in C#-minor "Quasi una fantasia", Op. 27 no. 2 ("Moonlight")". ]
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Thanks for posting this!
EDIT: BTW, at least in Germany it has become the norm not to use von with artists (musicians, writers) who were not born with this predicate of nobility; I assume the thinking is that while an earlier, class-based society may have seen ennobling them as a necessary sign of respect, our current society is able to appreciate them without giving them an aristocratic title. If you'd refer to CWB as "von Gluck" or to, say, Schiller as "von Schiller" in intellectual German society, you'd be regarded as an old fogey in the Jacob Rees-Mogg vein.
Do you mean Christoph Willibald Gluck? There's no umlaut ü in his name; is that hypercorrection or an early case of Heavy Metal umlaut?C.W. von Glück
EDIT: BTW, at least in Germany it has become the norm not to use von with artists (musicians, writers) who were not born with this predicate of nobility; I assume the thinking is that while an earlier, class-based society may have seen ennobling them as a necessary sign of respect, our current society is able to appreciate them without giving them an aristocratic title. If you'd refer to CWB as "von Gluck" or to, say, Schiller as "von Schiller" in intellectual German society, you'd be regarded as an old fogey in the Jacob Rees-Mogg vein.
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Oddly enough, for some reason, I've always thought of Beethoven as von Beethoven, but I've always thought of Schiller just as Schiller.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Hypercorrection. Although since I always pronounce it without the umlaut, I'm happy enough to have gotten it wrong! Thanks!hwhatting wrote:Thanks for posting this!Do you mean Christoph Willibald Gluck? There's no umlaut ü in his name; is that hypercorrection or an early case of Heavy Metal umlaut?C.W. von Glück
[/quote]EDIT: BTW, at least in Germany it has become the norm not to use von with artists (musicians, writers) who were not born with this predicate of nobility; I assume the thinking is that while an earlier, class-based society may have seen ennobling them as a necessary sign of respect, our current society is able to appreciate them without giving them an aristocratic title. If you'd refer to CWB as "von Gluck" or to, say, Schiller as "von Schiller" in intellectual German society, you'd be regarded as an old fogey in the Jacob Rees-Mogg vein.
Hmm. I'm afraid I'm rather uneasy about this. Isn't it incredibly elitist, to retrospectively strip titles from people who weren't "entitled" to them by birth, saying that only birth titles should be accepted? Stripping all of them and pretending Germany has never had aristocrats or an honours system would be one thing, but going through and selectively de-grading only those whose titles weren't from blood seems... distasteful.
More generally, I think it's respectful to at least attempt to refer to people by the names they themselves choose to go by, within reason. Gluck chose to be known as "von Gluck". He was generally known, during the period of his fame, as "von Gluck", and was legally recognised by that name. If he, his friends, his family, the general public, and the legal and administrative system of his time all consider his name to be one thing (and something that doesn't degrade anyone else - it's not like "King", which you could at least argue was insulting to non-kings by asserting a ruler-ruled relationship), I don't see what moral position modern Germans are in to retrospectively change the man's name for ideological reasons! [let alone if the ideology is really that only those born with 'von' in their names should be allowed to have it].
There's also an additional complication here, in that Gluck's title isn't even German (or Austrian). It was bestowed by the Papal States. So I don't think even the German government has the authority to retrospectively strip him of that title. [As I understand it, Austria has legally stripped the "von" from people's names, but Germany hasn't; but even so, I don't know if the Austrian laws apply to dead people, and presumably they cannot apply to the title awarded by other countries?] I suppose anti-Catholics might argue there was a moral duty to oppose the Pope in this regard (would I call someone 'sir' if they were knighted by Mugabe?), but given that everyone involved is dead and buried centuries ago, that seems a little bigoted.
Does this extend to non-Germans? Are French names, for instance, stripped of the 'de'? Are English knights not called 'sir' on German TV, or by German interviewers? What about English aristocrats, or royals? [it seems so bizarre that awards of merit should be censored, while privileges of birth should still be displayed - this seems so backward!] Would it be OK to, say, refer to "President Clinton" in Germany?
Also, just in pratical terms: does this only apply to the abbreviated "von", or does it also apply to the full "Ritter von"? That is, can the fact of the title be discussed (but not respected in the name), or is it not to be mentioned at all?
What about Germans who were just born with 'von' in their names, but have no claim to any titles? Are they treated as pretenders? And what about people like Lars von Trier, who simply added the 'von' to his own name - is he "Lars Trier" in Germany? (Likewise von Stroheim?)
It seems easier to just be an old fogey on the issue, I think, and stick with just using people's real names...
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Which is actually relevent to the plot! (so to speak). As it happens, Beethoven did exploit the tendency for Germans to mishear his name as 'von Beethoven', or to make a false equivalency between 'van' and 'von'. In his custody battle with his sister-in-law, he attempted to have the case heard in the court of nobility (where he had friends), hoping people would think his name either was, or was equivalent to, "von Beethoven". Unfortunately, his sister-in-law was wise to the trick, and had him cross-examined to make him prove his nobility - and of course his 'van' was neither a sign of aristocracy nor a title granted to him, but just an old part of his name, 'van' being more common among commoners in the Netherlands than 'von' was among commoners in Austria. As a result, the case was redirected to the magistrate's court, where he lost.Raphael wrote:Oddly enough, for some reason, I've always thought of Beethoven as von Beethoven, but I've always thought of Schiller just as Schiller.
So keeping his "von" when taking it from, say, Gluck, is ironic - because Gluck really was legally the Ritter von Gluck, whereas Beethoven only ever pretended to be "von Beethoven"...
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
@Sal: Honestly, I don't care either way on the "von" issue, I just wanted to inform you about current attitudes in Germany. Part of that attitude is "if you were born into that silly caste, have fun with it, but any self-respecting non-aristocrat should reject being coopted into that caste". Anyway, nobody is stripping any titles from anyone officially, it's about how people usually refer to those artists and writers. As I said, Gluck is normally referred to as Gluck or Christoph Willibald Gluck, without "Ritter" or "von".*1)
There's the added complication that "von" may not always be a predicate of nobility; like the "van" in Beethoven's name (who is either "Beethoven" or "Ludwig van Beethoven", but rarely "van Beethoven" and almost never "Ludwig Beethoven"), there is also "von" as an indicator of origin in commoner names. Anyways, Lars von Trier is usually reffered to either by his full name, by "von Trier" or by "Trier" (the last may be a rarer due to the possible confusion with the city of the same name, which also makes it difficult to compare Google hits). As French de has the same issues and people often don't know whether de is or isn't a predicate of nobility in a specific case, it's all over the place.
Concerning titles, the line between what is seen as either respect of titles or as fawning spittle-licking, depending on your viewpoint, is addressing people with "Herr / Frau" plus title (e.g. Herr Baron = respect / fawning) or "Herr / Frau" plus last name (including any von's) - e.g. Herr von Münchhausen = disrespect / the normal way to address anyone).
Talking about knighted Brits, Germans may or may not use the "Sir", but people would normally leave it out - it's mostly e.g. "Richard Attenborough"; if a German uses "Sir Richard Attenborough", it's a sign of a certain anglophilia or showing off one's knowledge of the English title system (these two reasons may overlap). As for American presidents, my (non-verified) impression is that the usage of "Präsident Clinton" / "Bill Clinton" / "Clinton" is distributed the same way as their English equivalents.
*1) Additional note: if you look at German sources from the 19th / early 20th century, you'll notice that in aristocratic circles it was usual to drop the "von" - it was understood. An aristocrat would use it only when introducing himself in circles where his status was unknown. Insisting on the "von" in your name among nobles marked you as an upstart, using the "von" referring to nobles marked you as a commoner.
There's the added complication that "von" may not always be a predicate of nobility; like the "van" in Beethoven's name (who is either "Beethoven" or "Ludwig van Beethoven", but rarely "van Beethoven" and almost never "Ludwig Beethoven"), there is also "von" as an indicator of origin in commoner names. Anyways, Lars von Trier is usually reffered to either by his full name, by "von Trier" or by "Trier" (the last may be a rarer due to the possible confusion with the city of the same name, which also makes it difficult to compare Google hits). As French de has the same issues and people often don't know whether de is or isn't a predicate of nobility in a specific case, it's all over the place.
Concerning titles, the line between what is seen as either respect of titles or as fawning spittle-licking, depending on your viewpoint, is addressing people with "Herr / Frau" plus title (e.g. Herr Baron = respect / fawning) or "Herr / Frau" plus last name (including any von's) - e.g. Herr von Münchhausen = disrespect / the normal way to address anyone).
Talking about knighted Brits, Germans may or may not use the "Sir", but people would normally leave it out - it's mostly e.g. "Richard Attenborough"; if a German uses "Sir Richard Attenborough", it's a sign of a certain anglophilia or showing off one's knowledge of the English title system (these two reasons may overlap). As for American presidents, my (non-verified) impression is that the usage of "Präsident Clinton" / "Bill Clinton" / "Clinton" is distributed the same way as their English equivalents.
*1) Additional note: if you look at German sources from the 19th / early 20th century, you'll notice that in aristocratic circles it was usual to drop the "von" - it was understood. An aristocrat would use it only when introducing himself in circles where his status was unknown. Insisting on the "von" in your name among nobles marked you as an upstart, using the "von" referring to nobles marked you as a commoner.
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Thank you for this great series! I've been thinking about getting into classical music for ages, but never really managed to do it... maybe this will help me.
Funny, that's exactly what I feel about classical music.Salmoneus wrote:We can think they sound pretty enough, to be sure, but we don't really "get" them in the way the original audience would have, because they're written in a musical language that's foreign to us.
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Thanks for posting this! I learned a lot.
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť
kårroť
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Agreed!mèþru wrote:Thanks for posting this! I learned a lot.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Thank you.
Note that I've decided to put the next split in possibly the "wrong" place, a bit early, so at to be able to do the end of romanticism and modernism all together.
The Romantic
Illustrations
(NB - Mahler and Rachmaninov should chronologically go in the next post, but I mention them here as, as it were, late culminations of earlier trends)
Note that I've decided to put the next split in possibly the "wrong" place, a bit early, so at to be able to do the end of romanticism and modernism all together.
The Romantic
More: show
More: show
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A quick intro to Classical Music
So, to recap:
Baroque:
Split between very simple popular music and polyphonic religious music; over time the polyphone comes back into the popular stuff and it gets really complicated. Other common features include strong, but unnuanced emotions (very happy happy, very sad sad), vocal virtuosity, rapid harmonic progressions, long melodies. Tend to be small ensembles, with weaker instruments (if you're hearing a period instrument performance).
Classical:
Emphasis on symmetry. Simple harmonies; short, 'balanced' melodies. Generally 'modern' instruments and ensembles (though the harpsichord is still around at this point alongside the early piano), but everything is smaller and weaker.
Romantic:
Becomes 'richer'. Bigger ensembles, richer timbres. Increasing use of more unusual harmonies.
I also thought I'd share a couple of amusing youtube clips that seem relevent. First, this and even more so this seek to demonstrate that if you re-orchestrate Shostakovich for electric guitars, what you get is kind of death metal.
More seriously, this and this are pleasant little mash-ups of around 100 classical tunes (or bits of them) in a bit over 10 minutes, playing over the top of one another. It seems like a fun and quite impressive little bit of messing about, but it actually demonstrates something very serious. The reason you can superimpose fragments of everyone from Pachelbel through to Scott Joplin over the top of one another and still have something that sounds nice is because they are all following the Common Practice. What they're all doing is building a harmonic progression (sometimes very simple indeed) according to certain rules, in a certain given set of scales and rhythmic patterns, and then finding melodies that fit within and define for the listener (in mandated ways) those harmonic progressions. This means that you can pretty easily match up snippets of harmony between composers, and the chances are good that the melodies will harmonise with one another (since they're harmonising with the same harmonic framework). Sure, you may have a bit of a different rhythm when Joplin comes in (likewise a lot of early Baroque composers, absent here, from an era when syncopation was also fashionable), and you may need to throw in more accidentals (deviations from the normal keys) for the Romantics, but all of these guys are basically playing by the same rules. You could also add in tunes from most modern popular music, and a lot of jazz. Notably, however, you couldn't combine this music anything like as easily with mediaeval or (for the most part) renaissance polyphony, or with 20th century modernism; you also couldn't do it with, say, Indian or Chinese or Indonesian traditional music - because there again we're outside the Common Practice.
Baroque:
Split between very simple popular music and polyphonic religious music; over time the polyphone comes back into the popular stuff and it gets really complicated. Other common features include strong, but unnuanced emotions (very happy happy, very sad sad), vocal virtuosity, rapid harmonic progressions, long melodies. Tend to be small ensembles, with weaker instruments (if you're hearing a period instrument performance).
Classical:
Emphasis on symmetry. Simple harmonies; short, 'balanced' melodies. Generally 'modern' instruments and ensembles (though the harpsichord is still around at this point alongside the early piano), but everything is smaller and weaker.
Romantic:
Becomes 'richer'. Bigger ensembles, richer timbres. Increasing use of more unusual harmonies.
I also thought I'd share a couple of amusing youtube clips that seem relevent. First, this and even more so this seek to demonstrate that if you re-orchestrate Shostakovich for electric guitars, what you get is kind of death metal.
More seriously, this and this are pleasant little mash-ups of around 100 classical tunes (or bits of them) in a bit over 10 minutes, playing over the top of one another. It seems like a fun and quite impressive little bit of messing about, but it actually demonstrates something very serious. The reason you can superimpose fragments of everyone from Pachelbel through to Scott Joplin over the top of one another and still have something that sounds nice is because they are all following the Common Practice. What they're all doing is building a harmonic progression (sometimes very simple indeed) according to certain rules, in a certain given set of scales and rhythmic patterns, and then finding melodies that fit within and define for the listener (in mandated ways) those harmonic progressions. This means that you can pretty easily match up snippets of harmony between composers, and the chances are good that the melodies will harmonise with one another (since they're harmonising with the same harmonic framework). Sure, you may have a bit of a different rhythm when Joplin comes in (likewise a lot of early Baroque composers, absent here, from an era when syncopation was also fashionable), and you may need to throw in more accidentals (deviations from the normal keys) for the Romantics, but all of these guys are basically playing by the same rules. You could also add in tunes from most modern popular music, and a lot of jazz. Notably, however, you couldn't combine this music anything like as easily with mediaeval or (for the most part) renaissance polyphony, or with 20th century modernism; you also couldn't do it with, say, Indian or Chinese or Indonesian traditional music - because there again we're outside the Common Practice.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!