Barock and Roll
February 5th, 2009 Posted in bach, classical music
Over in that post over there, R J Keefe left a comment in which he praised Baroque music for providing workable background music. I’d never come across this point of view, but can totally see where he is coming from — despite the risk of being burned at the stake for talking about Bach like that.
Baroque music (or Barock, which is how it’s been thrust in front of my eyes recently, during the reading of the Baroque Cycle books — yes yes, the title and interior spellings don’t match) has way less dynamic range and change than Classical, Romantic, etc. It doesn’t have strain-your-ear solos cascading into destroy-your-ear total orchestra devastation. It’s mostly all at the same volume. Also, the tempo doesn’t change very much.
It’s not the kind of music where you are hanging on the edge of your seat waiting for the story to unfold. There isn’t as much of a story to hear.
Or is there? Does anyone fancy arguing this one? I’m not tremendously experienced with the Baroque genre, but from what I’ve experienced it seems less like a narrative and more like word games: puns, acronyms, anagrams, palindromes. This can be beautiful, but in a more abstract, clever way. It doesn’t drag me in and tie me up like my favorite, later pieces do.
HOWEVER: I know that a lot of people totally cream their pants over Bach. What I don’t know is if they feel the same way about him as… say… Beethoven or Brahms (the stereotypical 3Bs favorites list).
February 6th, 2009 at 2:28 am
I find Baroque music brilliant to work to because of the patterns, which means Bach is especially helpful. His Goldberg Variations, Inventions and Sinfonias; Violin and Cello solo suites and Brandenburg Concerti are some of the most played pieces on my iTunes for percisely that reason.
By the same token, Daft Punk and the Chemical Brothers are as well along with quite a lot of electronica because the patterns help me stay focused. Here’s an example of what worked on my last project: http://theomniscientmussel.com/2008/04/music-to-write-books-by/
It’s not a Mozart Effect I’m after, it’s a way of calming my brain into focusing one task and repeated patterns seems to do it.
February 6th, 2009 at 4:42 am
It’s interesting to compare Baroque with Brian Eno’s descriptions of ambient music: “it must be as ignorable as it is interesting” and “on the cusp between melody and texture”. All summaries are lies, though; I can see the case for the Brandenburg concerti, but the Toccata and Fugue notsomuch.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I must confess I haven’t spent much time looking into theories about why the Baroque style differs from 19th and 20th century styles the way it does. I’m sure there are plenty of such theories.
It seems to me that the guy who really opened the floodgates was Beethoven, that wild and crazy guy. Audiences and composers both got a taste of what you could do with the existing musical resources–instruments and harmonic theory (the latter greatly expanded by old Louie, of course) that hadn’t been explored yet–and didn’t look back.
BTW, I was on a classical music mailing list some years ago with some rather odd characters on it. But the oddest was a guy who insisted that no good music at all had been written since about the 17th century, if I remember right. He wouldn’t even give any credit to the Baroque era.
February 8th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
baroque, I love it, I do not feel the need to analyse it…
February 9th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
The electronic/abient music analogies are especially interesting to me because that is exactly the genre I was really into before classical music. I’ve never thought of comparing it to baroque though, only minimalism. How about comparing Minimalism and Baroque?
One thing I would notice when listening to electronic music was the repetitions would put me into a sort of semi-meditative state. It’s been a while since I listened to that when working, so I can’t remember if it is helpful or just puts me to sleep.
Beethoven definitely seems to be the major turning point. Mozart is a bit, but nothing like the real start of the Romantics.
I don’t think I even know ANY music from before the 17th century. Well, maybe a couple of pieces…
February 10th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Indeed, I too find it easier to let my mind loose when listening to baroque music. As Miss Mussel noted, there’s a pattern behind it, yet it’s so much fun when a baroque composer goes crazy — c.f. Vivaldi in “Et in terra pax” from the RV589 Gloria, where he travels *very* far from the initial key. But, a composer or a period isn’t the only factor; it’s also *how* the music is played (go figure ;)).
For example Albinoni: he writes such “nice” baroque, rarely does he go edgy with the harmony, melodies flow rather than jump around. Try the op.9 oboe or op.10 violin concertos.
Then there’s Vivaldi: as I once read, “he sounds like he was in need of some Prozac”. I agree, and partly that’s why I love his music, but it also depends how he is played: Compare recordings from the ’70s to today’s with Carmignola or Biondi. *Worlds* apart! His music comes *alive* and becomes really *exciting* (even the hushed notes of the slow movements).
Also, I would be more careful to talk about a “turning point”. While one could certainly argue, that Beethoven didn’t (need to) write for the masses, rather what he wanted, resulting in his “wild” music, one could also say that Haydn did write for the audience, yet he also tried to surprise them with something new, for which they loved him.
So, there might also be something about how we look back at the composers from a different point in time. We’re accustomed to hearing music which would be considered *insane* in its harmonic language 350 years ago. Perhaps, one of the reasons it’s “chill-out baroque” for us? ;)