Baroque and Romatic era

[henrikhank]

What are the major difference between playing music from the Baroque and Romantic era?

[prestoconfuocco]

Well, Baroque music is usually polyphonic, and romantic music is usually melody + harmony, so when playing Baroque you need to make sure all of the different voices are heard properly (Very important to take voice leading into account), and while playing Romantic you need to put your emphasis on emotional expressiveness and nuances. That's the biggest difference, though there are about a million more.

[awesom_o]

So does that mean there is no nuance or emotional expressiveness in Baroque?

And is there really no polyphony in Romantic music? Can we really get away with not hearing the different voices properly when playing Chopin or Rachmaninoff?


 

[prestoconfuocco]

I was expecting this reaction, I thought of it myself while writing the last comment
Of course, the difference between both erras isn't that simplistic, there's room for both emtion and expressiveness in Baroque and vocal understanding in Romantic.
I knew I couldn't try to explain things that simply when awesom_o is lurking about! :]

[awesom_o]

I was expecting this reaction, I thought of it myself while writing the last comment
Of course, the difference between both erras isn't that simplistic, there's room for both emtion and expressiveness in Baroque and vocal understanding in Romantic.
I knew I couldn't try to explain things that simply when awesom_o is lurking about! :]

It's ok...I know what you meant to say. I was just nitpicking!

Music history isn't as neatly divided into succinct style periods as sometimes the textbooks would have us believe.

All composers lived in the present day, and wrote what they considered to be modern music.

The instrument changed... sometimes gradually, sometimes dramatically.

The music changed to suit the instruments, and the instruments changed to suit the music.

 

[awesom_o]

https://vimeo.com/74077435

Which style period does my little piece fall neatly into?

It has plenty of counterpoint. There is plenty of emotional expressiveness. It requires plentiful use of rubato. Yet contained within a short, highly-organized classical form.

[prestoconfuocco]

The question is - how should a periodic piece usually be played. If you were to take a pianist that usually plays Baroque (Glenn Gould is a pretty typical choice) and ask him to play this piece "Baroqueishly", he'd play it with less emotoinal expressiveness (If that's even possible with a piece like that), less pedal (Or none at all, like a lot of Baroque players choose to do), and would give every voice (Almost) the same amount of attention.
BUT if you take a pianist (I'm trying real hard not to generalize too much)  that likes to play typical Romantic or Modern music (I'm so sorry for the example, but it's the best one for a player that puts all his eggs in the "expressiveness" basket) like Lang Lang he'd play it with way more rubato, pedal, and even small improvisations.
I also don't like text book generalizations, but you have to be able to simply explain musical phenomenons somehow, and that's the only way. (Except for listening to lots of music, of course)
Those generalizations might not be a 100%, but they sum up the musical preference of how composers like their pieces played in each era.
Great composition by the way, reminded me a lot of the prelude from "Suite Bergamasque". (In a good way, of course. I don't think there's a bad way.)

[awesom_o]

Glenn Gould made some of the most expressive recordings of Baroque music in the entire history of recordings.


Do you consider Lang Lang's playing to be more expressive than Horowitz's playing simply because he makes silly faces?

What does expressiveness in the playing REALLY come from?

[prestoconfuocco]

Glenn Gould made some of the most expressive recordings of Baroque music in the entire history of recordings.


Do you consider Lang Lang's playing to be more expressive than Horowitz's playing simply because he makes silly faces?

What does expressiveness in the playing REALLY come from?

In the history of Bach, yes. In the history of recordings? I wouldn't say that.
I actually used Lang Lang as a radical-negative example, of a player that doesn't know to seperate emotion from his playing. Horowitz has more emotion that a lot of musicians, but he knows how to channel it into his playing to create atmosphere, insted of just sounding (And looking) like a fool. Expressiveness is putting the emotion in first place, but without sounding whiny, or like you're trying to force tears out. (Arrau does this perefectly in my opinion.)
I guess I should have made my use of Lang Lang as an example more clear - I gave him to demonstrate that Romantic music is usually played with the emotion worn outwards, and with less attention to techincal details. (But don't get me wrong - technical details are still very important in Romantic music and Expressiveness is still important in Baroque. Like everything in music, it's not black and white, it's about subtle choices.)

[awesom_o]

But don't get me wrong - technical details are still very important in Romantic music and Expressiveness is still important in Baroque. Like everything in music, it's not black and white, it's about subtle choices.

  That sounds good!

Speaking of sounds good, listen to this:

and this:

or this:

Lest you continue to pigeonhole Gould as a stylistically limited artist who recorded Bach expressively but could never see beyond the Grandfather's intellectual confines.

[prestoconfuocco]

Glenn Gould was a great pianist. He had a very unique sound (You listen to a certain rendition and can tell almost immediately - that's Gould) that fitted Bach very well, and luckily Gould also loved to play Bach more than any other composer. (Though I have to say that I don't quite get some of his musical choices)
I've never heard him play Prokofiev, that's for sure, but I've heard him play Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, and many others, but the impact of the "Gould effect" is notable mostly in the music of Bach - he could certainly play other composers well, but his certain sound left the deepest impression in Bach. (That how he got famous, I guess - nobody before him could play Bach in such manner.)
Try for example, listening to him play Chopin's sonata no, 3, and observe for yourself - it has a very "Gouldy" sound, but in this type of piece it comes across as "off". (At least in my opinion.)
By the way, if you're interested, check out a documentary called "Genius Within: The Inner Life of Glenn Gould". It's very interesting, and fun to watch because of the soundtrack

[awesom_o]

I watched that one quite recently.

The thing with Gould is... he made some of the best recordings of his time, and he made some of the worst recordings of his time.

What is the 'Gouldy' sound, though?

What is 'Gould effect'?

How can we simplify such a great musician's work to such an extent?

[prestoconfuocco]

And it's back to me simplifying musical phenomenons and you not content with the simplification ><

[awesom_o]

And it's back to me simplifying musical phenomenons and you not content with the simplification ><

It's okay.... everyone wants things to be simple. It's natural to want simplicity.

It's hard to discuss the 'Gould' effect without oversimplifying the whole matter into 'I love it' or 'I hate it'

He certainly had a polarizing effect on people!

[swagmaster420x]

awesome_o is the ultimate devil's advocate

[j_menz]

I believe one significant difference between playing Baroque and Romantic era pieces is that baroque works were not actually written for the piano, but romantic era pieces were very much written for it.

[awesom_o]

I believe one significant difference between playing Baroque and Romantic era pieces is that baroque works were not actually written for the piano, but romantic era pieces were very much written for it.

I think that IS a significant difference, even if it isn't quite always true.  Only last week I was watching one of those videos pianostreet advertises at the top-the one on Andras Schiff and Bach.

Mr. Schiff spoke about how some of the music from the WTC simply HAD to be written with the piano in mind...as some of the written-out appoggiaturas would sound extremely unmusical on the harpsichord.

A few days after that, I was teaching a pupil who was studying a short Baroque work-Telemann, I think, was the composer. Something very similar came up.... something that we can make sound wonderful on the piano that would have been pretty clunky on harpsichord no matter how you did it.

At any rate, Baroque keyboard music was usually written just for 'keyboard'.

How is this in and of itself a difference? Musically, I mean, or philosophically, if you will....

What would we do differently, technically, or musically, as a result of something not being originally written for our modern instrument?

What could we do differently?

How would what we could do differ from what we would do?

[j_menz]

At any rate, Baroque keyboard music was usually written just for 'keyboard'.

How is this in and of itself a difference? Musically, I mean, or philosophically, if you will....

What would we do differently, technically, or musically, as a result of something not being originally written for our modern instrument?

What could we do differently?

How would what we could do differ from what we would do?

For baroque music, we must play the music on a piano, and for the romantic we must play the piano music.