Hi, guys. I know there are some music buffs in this forum. So, if you can take the time to watch the video in thisaddress at youtube (it's about baroque art.) could you tell me the name of the music playing from 1:25 min. on? And please... who's the author?
My sincere regards for you all!
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
composer? J.S. Bach. Toccata and Fugue in D minor--the toccata.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Thanks. I was almost certain it was bach. Didn't knew the music's name, though.:-)
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
However, the music is not Classical, it's Baroque.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Uh... In common usage, Baroque IS classical.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(When speaking of music, anyway.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Uh... In common usage, Baroque IS classical.
In common usage, your MOM is classical.
Edit: mini-rant: Just because a thing is in common usage, does not make it right or correct, or even helpful. I realize you didn't say it does. End mini-rant.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
This is one of the few pieces of the Bach library I can't stand. It may be that the organ is just abysmal as a solo instrument, but more likely it has to do with the fact that most performances are in equal-temperament, while the organ is the most obvious example of how flawed that system can be.
Mini-lecture: Despite historically popular misconception, Bach most likely did not employ a system of equal temperament, but rather, one of any number of possible tuning systems other than true, many of which are far more pleasant to listen to in certain keys than equal temperament, which is equally unpleasant in all keys. Studies of the well-tempered clavier pieces show that he most likely employed a system popular at the time, which favored certain keys, but made the keyboard playable in all keys. It is my opinion that Bach would have found equal temperament distasteful on principle, and doubly so in practice, especially when dealing with an organ, which allows for virtually no dynamic or pitch articulation. It comes as second nature to musicians on dynamic instruments to soften the impact of ugly intervals that are the result of equal temperament. End minilecture.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
A Bach specialist here in Boston tunes his organs and harpsichords with a quarter comma meantone temperament. He posits that Bach used that one in particular (as opposed to the "well" temperament he's credited with "creating")
A book for you, Lloyd: How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (And Why You Should Care) by Ross Duffin.
Labeling Baroque, Classical, and Romantic music as "Classical" is akin to grouping 50's pop rock, 70's acid rock, 80's punk, 90's grunge, and modern day death metal into one single category like "late 20th Century rock".
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Uh... In common usage, Baroque IS classical.
In common usage, your MOM is classical.
Edit: mini-rant: Just because a thing is in common usage, does not make it right or correct, or even helpful. I realize you didn't say it does. End mini-rant.
Considering that it is overwhelming non-specialist usage, and the poster is a non-native English speaker, I thought it unhelpful to be snobbish about whether or not it's "classical."
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Mmm, Baroque and Roll.
Posted by phianna (Member # 11767) on :
quote:Considering that it is overwhelming non-specialist usage, and the poster is a non-native English speaker, I thought it unhelpful to be snobbish about whether or not it's "classical."
I don't believe the intent was to be snobbish. I believe the intent was to provide accurate information. That's how I interpreted the original statement.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
K.Q. The term is the same in most romance languages. What I was actually referring to was the title of the movie. Eduardo used the word in his original question. Baroque art comes from the same general period of time, and, although I just read about it and was not personally playing music during that period, is grounded in the same general life view.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
The term "classical music" as ES used it is entirely justified by the fact that no simpler alternative term exists that one use to broadly refer to the Western musical tradition that we associate with figures like Bach, Beethoven and Mahler. I often come across as a substitute for "classical music" terms like "serious music" or "art music." The term "classical music" isn't anywhere near as inadequate or elitist as those, though I do agree it's imperfect.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: However, the music is not Classical, it's Baroque.
I have quite a number of friends who are professional orchestral musicians and not a one of them would make this distinction outside an academic discussion. I'm going to have to second the notion that making such a distinction with regards to this question is snobbish. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Insisting on using the specialized academic definition rather than the definition in popular use is snobbery unless one is in a specialized academic discussion.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: A Bach specialist here in Boston tunes his organs and harpsichords with a quarter comma meantone temperament. He posits that Bach used that one in particular (as opposed to the "well" temperament he's credited with "creating")
A book for you, Lloyd: How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (And Why You Should Care) by Ross Duffin.
Labeling Baroque, Classical, and Romantic music as "Classical" is akin to grouping 50's pop rock, 70's acid rock, 80's punk, 90's grunge, and modern day death metal into one single category like "late 20th Century rock".
Yeah, I was paraphrasing that book actually. I have it at hoem and was reading a few weeks ago, before I left. It's good, a little cute, but very informative and decisive about the issue of temperament in modern music. Now electronic musicians are freeing themselves from this useless system as it exists in written music. It's funny, but being allowed to ignore equal temperament in my electronic music has really opened my ears to what classical piano and organ actually *sound like*. It isn't always what it should be.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Uh... In common usage, Baroque IS classical.
In common usage, your MOM is classical.
Edit: mini-rant: Just because a thing is in common usage, does not make it right or correct, or even helpful. I realize you didn't say it does. End mini-rant.
Considering that it is overwhelming non-specialist usage, and the poster is a non-native English speaker, I thought it unhelpful to be snobbish about whether or not it's "classical."
You are entitled to be incorrect.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: However, the music is not Classical, it's Baroque.
I have quite a number of friends who are professional orchestral musicians and not a one of them would make this distinction outside an academic discussion. I'm going to have to second the notion that making such a distinction with regards to this question is snobbish. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Insisting on using the specialized academic definition rather than the definition in popular use is snobbery unless one is in a specialized academic discussion.
No. It doesn't particularly concern me that I am perceived as a snob, but you are simply excusing laziness or a lack of precision or context because this is not your area. Portraying any attempt to correct the misconception outside of "an academic discussion" (and I have additional problems with being asked to be un-academic on hatrack anyway), you ignore the fact that I an LW and AT, and many people who are involved in the academic side of music would like the public awareness of the subject to be elevated in any way it can be.
You would not chastise an engineer or a lawyer on this board for offering a correction that he felt was beyond simple semantics, and actually had an effect on the issue. As a musicologist by training, the confusion of classical period with baroque period music is glaring and obviously wrong. It doesn't really matter to me that "most people" see it this way, because most people are using a cludgy and inaccurate verbal solution that allows them to not identify the key terms in discussion, or differentiate between subjects that are substantively diverse.
This particular need of mine to harp on this small thing comes from many hours of sitting in a professor's office or my own room, or a library, trying to parse hundreds of historical and literary connections in order to arrive at a mental picture of a particular subject, that actually made sense to me. I don't expect others to do this work, but I do expect them to adopt and use the terms that are appropriate to subjects, if they know them. Part of that involves, at some point, someone being corrected. If that person is a snob, fine.
From a purely personal standpoint, you can't expect music people to dial back their vocabularies to the point of inaccuracy for the sake of comfort. That would be uncomfortable for me, because at some points in my life, possibly far from here, as a teacher or a student, it will be a real problem for me to employ certain terms that are "common parlance."
[ October 10, 2008, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Snobbery at its finest, that.
There's nothing wrong with being accurate to the point of pedantry when talking with your contemporaries.
There's nothing right about it when talking to laypersons.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In this particular case, "Baroque" in the place of "Classical" is not accuracy to the point of pedantry, and I'm not even the person that brought it up, just the one who thinks name calling is a little petty when AT was right, after all.
This is just one of those subjects that will probably never gain any traction with most people, but it matters to me in a way that extends beyond the domain of my academic discipline. I find it important in many ways that affect our views of history. And, believe it or not, it effects you in ways you don't realize. For instance, what LW and I were talking about in regards to tuning systems: the popular misconception of baroque music by non-proponents of historically informed practice actually has a pretty profound effect on the kinds of recordings and performances you are exposed to. The historical mistakes repeated by so many people actually affect our ability to listen to music and understand it, because our society for many years abandoned an aspect of musical performance that turned out to be vital. There are many reasons why modern music has developed into what it is, and this simple issue has had a really profound effect on that, and continues to have.
Music isn't science, and I don't want to think of there really being laypersons. I want to promote engagement on any level, even if my own particular mode of engagement is uninvolving to you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I want to hand out the program for my orchestra's 'baroque classical music performance' and watch heads asplode.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)