Importance of Baroque and Classical eras.

[schwartzer]

The romantic era was filled with great composers and great music. Many people's favorite composers belong to this period. I did some research on some "Favorite composers" threads, and most answers included Romantic composers such as Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Liszt and Beethoven (which I really think belongs to the Romantic era).

Sure, there were answers like Mozart and Bach, and they were very common, but I felt other composers that belong to these periods such as Scarlatti and Vivaldi (Classic and Baroque, respectively) didn't get proper attention.

I think it's no secret to say that most people prefer the romantic composers. I can see why. The introduction of works with a lot of emotional feeling put into them, melodic pieces, and also because it's the era with the most composers.

But what is the question of this thread? Everytime my conservatory receives a new student who is eager to play Moonlight Sonata and Für Elise, the teachers make sure that this student studies some Bach and Mozart works before engaging into the Romantic era. How important do you think this is? Do you think a student with no Classic or Baroque background will suffer when he gets to a more advanced level?

[j_menz]

I think it's no secret to say that most people prefer the romantic composers.

Nope, most people prefer pop songs.

[visitor]

I prefer bananas

[awesom_o]

Do you think a student with no Classic or Baroque background will suffer when he gets to a more advanced level?

What you have said is a paradox. A student with no Classical or Baroque background cannot get to a more advanced level. The more advanced level involves having mastery of those styles.

[m1469]

But what is the question of this thread? Everytime my conservatory receives a new student who is eager to play Moonlight Sonata and Für Elise, the teachers make sure that this student studies some Bach and Mozart works before engaging into the Romantic era.

There is a difference between having somebody play Bach and Mozart before Moonlight and Fur Elise, vs. Bach and Mozart before the entire Romantic era.
 

Do you think a student with no Classic or Baroque background will suffer when he gets to a more advanced level?

Suffer as they advance in development?  No (until they do).  There is more than one type of advancement.  Suffer in a way that keeps a person from Mastery of the craft?  Yes.  

Understanding the chronology of musical development, how it all fits together, and being capable of appropriately utilizing styles, are not the same thing as learning pieces in "chronological order" in conjunction with the learner's own chronological life and development.  Knowing the placement of these styles in a musically masterful way is not actually a matter of linear learning, it is a matter of seeing a larger picture all at once, and where the individual aspects fit within it in contrast to and/or along with the rest.

[outin]

Do I think that my learning suffers because I detest most classical era music and cannot force myself to study it? Yes, I am sure that is the case.

Do I think that my learning suffers because of my disinterest in Bach and his musical language?
Yes, it probably does.

I can only hope that my interest in other baroque keyboard music will compensate a little...

[nystul]

Chronological order is good for a music history class but makes no sense for learning an instrument.  For learning an instrument it makes sense to go from simple to complex and from easy to demanding. 

There are downsides to letting students jump into Fur Elise or Moonlight Sonata very early, but they have nothing to do with Beethoven's era.  One is that the student will only be able to play the easy excerpts, and now few people even know that Fur Elise has a B and C section and Moonlight Sonata has fast movements.  The other is that even the slow movements kind of demand a skillful tone.  Nevertheless someone will be prepared to play Fur Elise and many romantic works long before they are ready to take on Bach's more advanced works.

In terms of exposing music students to the history and development of Western music, I think that baroque and classical eras get plenty of coverage.  Problem is that music didn't start with Bach, and we don't learn enough about early music and Renaissance music.  Of course early music is choral music which makes it hard to shoehorn into instrumental study.

[inverted]

I think that in my own experience being led away from Romantic pieces for a while is good for keeping my playing fresh and adaptable. After learning pieces like Moonlight mvt. 1, Gymnopedie 1, etc. it was good to move onto Mozart and start trying to tone my legato, which was becoming blurry and over-reliant on pedal. I even went bach (forgive me) to WTC prelude 1 and tried to see what it would be like to play it minus pedal.

[thalbergmad]

Attempting the romantics without a good knowledge and experience of earlier styles is like building a mansion without footings.

Thal

[schwartzer]

I'm liking the input so far.

But thal, why is that?

I was never really a fan of Baroque/Classical periods. Yet, I learned Bach's 2nd prelude in C minor WTC 1 with the fugue, along with Mozart's fantasy in D minor and the K545 piano sonata. I'll be honest. If I could play romantic pieces instead of those, I'd definitely would. It's not that I don't like these periods, I just think romanticism is much better.

It's been a while since I don't touch other earlier periods' works. But my teacher is eager to teach me some Bach pieces after we're done with our current piece, which to my immense happiness, happens to be the Appassionata Piano Sonata by Beethoven.

[thalbergmad]

I just think romanticism is much better.

Me too, but the likes of Bach, his sons, Mozart, Scarlatti & Clementi are the foundations of piano playing and the route to good technique.

Without them, we would not have Beethoven or Liszt.

Thal

[ahinton]

Me too, but the likes of Bach, his sons, Mozart, Scarlatti & Clementi are the foundations of piano playing and the route to good technique.

Without them, we would not have Beethoven or Liszt.

That's absolutely correct (although you didn't mention Haydn!) - but then it's been a case of constant evolution, especially when you consider the challenged set by some of Bach's immediate predecessors - and not only immediate ones, either; a glance through the keyboard music of Byrd tells much. If anyone has asked Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt and Alkan about this they would all have agreed.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

That's absolutely correct

Well, that don't happen very often.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

Attempting the romantics without a good knowledge and experience of earlier styles is like building a mansion without footings.

Thal

That sounds very biblical and some of us think it therefore must be true.

But although every teacher seem to force us to play the earlier era's, is there any evidence that we really cant play romantic pieces properly without that experience?

I kind of doubt that.

Gyzzzmo

[awesom_o]

But although every teacher seem to force us to play the earlier era's, is there any evidence that we really cant play romantic pieces properly without that experience?

The proof tends to lie in the pudding in this regard.

People who can make a Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, or Brahms Concerto sound good can also make a Mozart or Beethoven Concerto sound  good.

If you don't even have the technique and musicality to make a (relatively simple) Mozart Concerto sound really beautiful, what chance do you stand against a Concerto written 100 years later that is over twice as long and contains five times as many notes?

 

[m1469]

If you don't even have the technique and musicality to make a (relatively simple) Mozart Concerto sound really beautiful, what chance do you stand against a Concerto written 100 years later that is over twice as long and contains five times as many notes?

Because the audience has a greater chance of falling asleep?  And the performer has a greater chance to hide wrong notes?  

[gyzzzmo]

The proof tends to lie in the pudding in this regard.

People who can make a Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, or Brahms Concerto sound good can also make a Mozart or Beethoven Concerto sound  good.

If you don't even have the technique and musicality to make a (relatively simple) Mozart Concerto sound really beautiful, what chance do you stand against a Concerto written 100 years later that is over twice as long and contains five times as many notes?

 

First, i've heard enough students that are much better at playing baroque/classical era's than romantic ones and visa vers (and if it wasnt the case, it still wouldnt have been proof).

Secondly, Mozart requires a different kind of musicality than for example Debussy or Rachmaninov. So its not like a lower level requirement (at least musically), its just different. And again even it were the case, it still wouldnt be proof that somebody cant play a Rachmaninoff concerto without having baroque in his education.

[m1469]

Even if teachers (and students) believe it's true to develop a certain proficiency (or, even "mastery"  ) with earlier styles before tackling later styles, what is the content of that proficiency, exactly?  What are the exact set of skills required in the earlier styles that directly translate -in chronological order of learning alone- to the ability to perform Rachmaninoff later on?  hmmm?  And how many works should it be, exactly, and by whom, exactly?  One composer?  Two?  One work from each composer ... or all?

From what I observe, most people blow through Baroque and Classical era, not actually learning that much nor mastering them (though they may have still gained *something* in the process), mainly because there is the belief that it's necessary to eat those vegetables to grow big and strong like Popeye the Piano Man!    How many students across the world, or even professionals for that matter, are truly able to wow an audience (of any sort) with mastery of Bach or a sublime understanding of Mozart?  And plenty of those individuals are blowing through Chopin Etudes and fiercely furrowing their brow in the mountains of Rachmaninov!

[m1469]

My new regime for my students will include mastering every work by every composer in every era in chronological order of when the composers were born, linked to the chronological order of my student's life -and that includes Schumann, Thal!  - before anybody can tackle a single note from a composer born even one day later than the one before.  Oy vey!

Just imagine the tough life of those individuals born in 400 years from now  


PS - why the world has so many great mans? 

[awesom_o]

Secondly, Mozart requires a different kind of musicality than for example Debussy or Rachmaninov.

What is different about the 'kind' of musicality?

As far as I am concerned, Mozart requires musicality. Debussy requires musicality. Rachmaninoff, also, requires musicality.

Tell me, in what way is the musicality required for Debussy different from that required for Mozart, or Rachmaninoff?

[m1469]

Tell me, in what way is the musicality required for Debussy different from that required for Mozart, or Rachmaninoff?

The manner in which they (build toward a) cadence (or don't).

[gyzzzmo]

The manner in which they (build toward a) cadence (or don't).

Thanks for explaning it for me. My english isnt that bad, but trying to put musical differences like that in words instead of showing it on the piano would have been quite hard for me

[thalbergmad]

How many students across the world, or even professionals for that matter, are truly able to wow an audience (of any sort) with mastery of Bach or a sublime understanding of Mozart?  And plenty of those individuals are blowing through Chopin Etudes and fiercely furrowing their brow in the mountains of Rachmaninov!

Rather depends on the audience. The romantics perhaps would be more generally appreciated by the infrequent listener. Even the blockheads I work with appreciate Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff as the power and brilliance are clearly evident.

Perhaps one has to have played Bach and Mozart to be bowled over by a performance.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

My new regime for my students will include mastering every work by every composer in every era in chronological order of when the composers were born

Good idea, then they would have retired by the time they got to Finnissey.

Thal

[m1469]

Thanks for explaning it for me. My english isnt that bad, but trying to put musical differences like that in words instead of showing it on the piano would have been quite hard for me

Who said it was for you?  People like me may have a different agenda than those who have the luxury of being immersed 24/7 in their own little musical nests, that they've built and had help building over the span of their entire lifetime.  But, hey, if your ability to play something in a way which enlightens something in particular for me, especially something which moves my entire being towards progress, I will be more than thrilled to listen  

[awesom_o]

The manner in which they (build toward a) cadence (or don't).

This doesn't explain how different musicality is required for Debussy, Mozart, or Rachmaninoff.

As far as I am concerned, having musicality means being able to understand and render successfully the music of  all three of those composers.

[m1469]

This doesn't explain how different musicality is required for Debussy, Mozart, or Rachmaninoff.

As far as I am concerned, having musicality means being able to understand and render successfully the music of  all three of those composers.

If you have the requisite musical understanding, it does, actually.  And of course it's related to playing it, or perhaps I should say ... "rendering" it ...   - who said it wasn't?

But perhaps, most of all, I ought to be just so thrilled that somebody of such a stature took the great personal risk of speaking directly to me, instead of merely around me.    

*goes back to sight reading Bach*

[goldentone]

I did some research on some "Favorite composers" threads, and most answers included Romantic composers such as Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Liszt and Beethoven (which I really think belongs to the Romantic era).

Beethoven is tricky.  I used to believe he was a romantic period composer too.  There's nothing that compares to the freedom of the Eroica in all of his work.  But then notice that the fourth is a retreat from that freedom.  The Eroica was dynamite.  To me it is interesting to wonder what was going on psychologically there.  As Rachfan pointed out to me, Beethoven's writing remained in the Viennese classical form, though branching out into a freer form of self-expression.  So it is probably accurate to regard Beethoven as a bridge between the classical and romantic periods.  I would say he birthed the seed of romanticism.

[schwartzer]

Beethoven is tricky.  I used to believe he was a romantic period composer too.  There's nothing that compares to the freedom of the Eroica in all of his work.  But then notice that the fourth is a retreat from that freedom.  The Eroica was dynamite.  To me it is interesting to wonder what was going on psychologically there.  As Rachfan pointed out to me, Beethoven's writing remained in the Viennese classical form, though branching out into a freer form of self-expression.  So it is probably accurate to regard Beethoven as a bridge between the classical and romantic period.  I would say he birthed the seed of romanticism.

But think about his late works. The Appassionata and the Hammerklavier. I can't imagine these being created in a period other than the romanticism.

[outin]

The "eras" themselves are very superficial...there's so much variance between the composers that are considered being from the same pariod and there are so many different styles inside these eras. Also earlier composers have elements in their work that  are closer to later music than what was written in their own era.

I cannot see western music as a linear evolution from Bach (or things before him) to Schoenberg. It's more like a tree that divides into several thick branches which in turn have their own development, but sometimes also get back together...Hmmm...it seems the tree analogy is too simple as well

When one starts to listen to less known music from different eras, it's easier to see this, not all Romantic era composers wrote like Chopin or Liszt and not all Baroque composers wrote like Bach...

[khantallis123]

How is Vivaldi underrated?
He is to the "average" (a.k.a.below average classical music haters) world though.
My uncle used to say to me when I was playing baroque music or earlier, "Baroque people didn't know real music". He likes smoking and rock(heavy metal). I wonder how he even KNEW the word, "Baroque". He also has a strong disliking of French 17-18th century paintings.  You know how a sh** he is.

[schwartzer]

How is Vivaldi underrated?
He is to the "average" (a.k.a.below average classical music haters) world though.
My uncle used to say to me when I was playing baroque music or earlier, "Baroque people didn't know real music". He likes smoking and rock(heavy metal). I wonder how he even KNEW the word, "Baroque". He also has a strong disliking of French 17-18th century paintings.  You know how a sh** he is.

Go ask 85% of the population (perhaps not that much) if they know a work of Vivaldi other than his The Four seasons' spring allegro. He definitely doesn't get the attention he should. Most people don't even know a composter other than Bach from the Baroque period.

[khantallis123]

Yes, I agree. These are the "average" ones I was talking about..

[kevin69]

This doesn't explain how different musicality is required for Debussy, Mozart, or Rachmaninoff.

As far as I am concerned, having musicality means being able to understand and render successfully the music of  all three of those composers.

I'm not sure if i agree with this or not.
As a listener, there is some music i can appreciate for the skill of the composer and the musicians, but it still doesn't particularly speak to me. Its just not my taste, or i lack the experience that the musicians are aiming for. Other pieces of music do speak to me.
Surely this will always be reflected in my playing: there will be some pieces that i am more in tune with and that i will perform better than others, and i'll never be truely successful in playing pieces that i don't feel fully connected to, i'll just be playing a technical exercise rather than performing music.

And isn't knowing the difference the essence of musicality?

[pianoplunker]

What you have said is a paradox. A student with no Classical or Baroque background cannot get to a more advanced level. The more advanced level involves having mastery of those styles.

  I agree and dont agree, a paradox indeed. I agree that mastery of those styles leads to the technique required for more advanced levels ( I'll assume any style ? )  But if one were to start with a stride style like rag-time as an example, would they not have a skill set for Chopin Waltzes or even the magnificent Ballade 1 ? I dont think this can always be defined as this before that

[pianoplunker]

The romantic era was filled with great composers and great music. Many people's favorite composers belong to this period. I did some research on some "Favorite composers" threads, and most answers included Romantic composers such as Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Liszt and Beethoven (which I really think belongs to the Romantic era).

Sure, there were answers like Mozart and Bach, and they were very common, but I felt other composers that belong to these periods such as Scarlatti and Vivaldi (Classic and Baroque, respectively) didn't get proper attention.

I think it's no secret to say that most people prefer the romantic composers. I can see why. The introduction of works with a lot of emotional feeling put into them, melodic pieces, and also because it's the era with the most composers.

But what is the question of this thread? Everytime my conservatory receives a new student who is eager to play Moonlight Sonata and Für Elise, the teachers make sure that this student studies some Bach and Mozart works before engaging into the Romantic era. How important do you think this is? Do you think a student with no Classic or Baroque background will suffer when he gets to a more advanced level?

So is it assumed that Romantic is more advanced than Classic or Baroque ?     

[awesom_o]

So is it assumed that Romantic is more advanced than Classic or Baroque ?     

It is mistakenly assumed....

[awesom_o]

  I agree and dont agree, a paradox indeed. I agree that mastery of those styles leads to the technique required for more advanced levels ( I'll assume any style ? )  But if one were to start with a stride style like rag-time as an example, would they not have a skill set for Chopin Waltzes or even the magnificent Ballade 1 ? I dont think this can always be defined as this before that

Chopin Waltzes require more than just 'a skill set'!
 
Sure, rag-time and stride would prepare your LH for the jumps you might encounter in a Chopin Waltz. But what about the phrasing, the pedaling, and the rubato? Those are the most important things in Chopin, after all!

[gyzzzmo]

Maybe people just dont really want to admit that Bach actually is a pretty decent way of gaining some of the technique that is required for pieces that are more enjoyable for most: those from the romantic era.

Common sense would disagree that Baroque and Classical would be required for anything, but Bach is definitely more fun than Hanon

[awesom_o]

Common sense would disagree that Baroque and Classical would be required for anything, but...

? What are you talking about?

[gyzzzmo]

? What are you talking about?

Why on earth would a piece from an earlier era be a prequisite to be able to play a later piece properly?

That goes against common sense. The only thing you could maybe say that Baroque and Classical era pieces are more complex for the left hand, and are therefore better for developing technique (especially for easy to intermediate levels) compared to romantic music where the left hand is often relatively easy compared to the right.

But thats more from a practical point. I actually doubt that musically the earlier era's are that important for playing the romantic pieces, as some claim.

[awesom_o]

Why on earth would a piece from an earlier era be a prequisite to be able to play a later piece properly?

First of all, I never said anything about 'prerequisite' (I'm guessing that's what you meant when you wrote 'prequisite').

Second of all, there is no such thing as playing any piece 'properly'!

[gyzzzmo]

First of all, I never said anything about 'prerequisite' (I'm guessing that's what you meant when you wrote 'prequisite').

Second of all, there is no such thing as playing any piece 'properly'!

First of all, i never said that you did, secondly.... Ofcourse people can play a piece 'properly'. Its just that not everybody realises that there are more ways to do so.

[pianoman53]

First of all, I never said anything about 'prerequisite' (I'm guessing that's what you meant when you wrote 'prequisite').

Second of all, there is no such thing as playing any piece 'properly'!

Ofc there is such a thing as 'properly'.

[awesom_o]

What is 'proper' to you might be highly improper to me. What is 'proper' to me might be highly improper to somebody else!

That's why I have to say: there is no such thing as 'proper': you can play in a manner that is compelling, or you can play in a manner which is not compelling.

[pianoplunker]

Maybe people just dont really want to admit that Bach actually is a pretty decent way of gaining some of the technique that is required for pieces that are more enjoyable for most: those from the romantic era.

Common sense would disagree that Baroque and Classical would be required for anything, but Bach is definitely more fun than Hanon

I find that I am a better rock/pop player if I have been merely practicing Bach and/or  Beethoven. No mastery of Bach or Beethoven - but maybe the things we do when we practice those is what rolls into rock (pun intended). I dont know why for sure.  But last night I played in a rock band in a night club and played fantastic. The other musicians were giving me unusual props and asked what I have been doing. My only explanation is Beethoven Rondo a Cappricio in G which I have been practicing lately.. I havent been practicing rock at all ! The last time I had an extraordinary rock performance was when I had been practicing Bach WTC stuff.  Hanon is a great reference for learning all the scales. That's what I would consider as a step  to everything else

[pianoman53]

If you are so close minded so that you can't hear what's proper for other people, then sure.
Though, then I would rather say that you're a bad listener, rather than that the playing.

Then there are obviously different grades of proper playing, but that's probably understood by most people.

[j_menz]

Then there are obviously different grades of proper playing, but that's probably understood by most people.

I, it seems, am not one of them.

I can only play a piece in a way that is "proper" for me. Anything else is fake, and would, I believe, seem so to any listener. If you don't like my "proper" then feel free to listen elsewhere.  I may even have several different "propers" for a piece, and I may play in a way than only more or less approximates a "proper" way. None of those seem grades of proper, though.

Perhaps you might elaborate what you meant.

[gyzzzmo]

I, it seems, am not one of them.

I can only play a piece in a way that is "proper" for me. Anything else is fake, and would, I believe, seem so to any listener. If you don't like my "proper" then feel free to listen elsewhere.  I may even have several different "propers" for a piece, and I may play in a way than only more or less approximates a "proper" way. None of those seem grades of proper, though.

Perhaps you might elaborate what you meant.

Maybe i can help mr pianoman out: Martha Argerich might not be content if she played a piece as how you do it, because she probably has higher technical expectations before something is graded 'proper' for her. Same story for somebody who is less accomplished than you, but then the other way around.

[j_menz]

Maybe i can help mr pianoman out: Martha Argerich might not be content if she played a piece as how you do it, because she probably has higher technical expectations before something is graded 'proper' for her. Same story for somebody who is less accomplished than you, but then the other way around.

No. My 'proper" is independent of my ability - hence the "and I may play in a way than only more or less approximates a "proper" way". I accept that there are degrees of ability, but that does not equate to grades of "proper", merely how closely one gets to playing it "properly".