Anyone into Classical Music?

Vivaldi I like.

I'm always curious as to why people refer to Classical music when referring to all sorts of so-called serious music, when Classical music really only refers to music of the Classical Period, which is approximately 1750-1827, or shortly before the birth of Mozart to the death of Beethoven.

What about Stockhausen, Ravel, Stravinsky and so on? You're saying that it isn't classical music? The what is it?

Originally posted by Steinberg
The title speaks for itself I gues...

I do, except for Chopin. I had to do a report on him in seventh grade. His music was depressing and slllllllllooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww.

Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
I'm always curious as to why people refer to Classical music when referring to all sorts of so-called serious music, when Classical music really only refers to music of the Classical Period, which is approximately 1750-1827, or shortly before the birth of Mozart to the death of Beethoven.

what about renditions of the sort?

it's hyped classical music, but it's still classical music, in a sense

Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
I'm always curious as to why people refer to Classical music when referring to all sorts of so-called serious music, when Classical music really only refers to music of the Classical Period, which is approximately 1750-1827, or shortly before the birth of Mozart to the death of Beethoven.

That's not true. That's merely the 'Classical period' of 'classical music'. The two terms are quite distinct.

That's an interesting point. However, that would imply that Bach, for example, is a classical composer. He is not; he is a Baroque composer. Mozart is a Classical composer, as is Haydn, but Brahms, Schumann, and Tchaikovsky, etc. are a Romantic composers.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Hmm, difficult... It sounds very much like Britten, but that won't help if you don't know anything by Britten! 😉 It's clearly tonal most of the time, but rarely in major-minor tonality. Rhythmically and melodically, it often has a rhetorical quality. Some of it reminds of Gregorian chants. To me the suites have something deeply spiritual. A fellow cellist t ...[text shortened]... suffering, and in the end finding his way back to inner peace. I thought it was very fitting.

Thanks. Sounds interesting. I'll have to put it on my "want list".

Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
That's an interesting point. However, that would imply that Bach, for example, is a classical composer. He is not; he is a Baroque composer. Mozart is a Classical composer, as is Haydn, but Brahms, Schumann, and Tchaikovsky, etc. are a Romantic composers.

Bach is a Baroque composer of classical music. Or looking at it from the other direction, does Brahms compose Romantic music? No, that's absurd. No one would ever say that. Brahms is a Romantic composer of classical music. And, of course, Mozart is a Classical composer of classical music.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I absolutely love Shostakovitch. Ligeti is interesting, very varied. I have played the sonata for solo cello which was written early and is very traditional, reminiscent of Bach. When he left Hungary and was exposed to a wider range of modern music, his music changed drastically, and he always kept experimenting and using new ideas.

I look for that Ligeti sonata amongst my recordings but couldn't find it. You'd think that between the "Ligeti Edition" and "Ligeti Project" recordings it would've been there.

Yeah, there's quite a bit of distance between your description of the sonata and say his work for 100 metronomes which is really more interesting to listen to than you'd think.

I suppose we're just dealing with semantics here. But what then is neo-Classical? I think the term "classical" is an all-encompassing term which is very inaccurate. Although Bach brought the Baroque Period to its zenith, it can hardly be said that he is classical. I do think Brahms wrote romantic music, but he looked back to the Baroque Period and beyond (4th Symphony). Indeed, in this sense, all composers write romantic music. It can be said that Mozart and Bach wrote romantic music too, even though the Romantic Period was yet to come. Mozart's opera's are all about romance. Beethoven is a bit harder to classify, bridging as he does the Classical Period to the Romantic Period. With the breakdown of harmony following Wagner, it becomes increasingly more difficult to classify some composers, but not all.

Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
I suppose we're just dealing with semantics here. But what then is neo-Classical? I think the term "classical" is an all-encompassing term which is very inaccurate. Although Bach brought the Baroque Period to its zenith, it can hardly be said that he is classical. I do think Brahms wrote romantic music, but he looked back to the Baroque Period and beyo ...[text shortened]... ing Wagner, it becomes increasingly more difficult to classify some composers, but not all.

The Romantic period (with a capital 'R'😉 has nothing to do with romance or romantic music (with a small 'r'😉. Music from any period can be romantic, and certainly not all music from the Romantic period is romantic. The two terms are completely different, as is the Classical period and classical music.

The designations Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods are strictly chronological designations and not qualitative ones. Therefore Bach was a Baroque composer regardless of how romantic his music may have been.

I'm the boring kind of classical music lover - I start with Baroque and end with Mahler (except for bits and pieces in the 20th century) in the orchestral stuff, and Mozart to Puccini in opera. I don't collect DVDs but I have bought the (as far as I can find out) only full DVD Ring Cycle set - it's the Boulez production which I also bought in vinyl many years ago. Don't have anything to play it on yet though 🙁

The Baroque period and other periods are not chronological, but refer to the style of the time, which ends up being chronological since each man is defined by the era in which he lives, just as today. For example, in the Baroque era, the harmony changed in regular pulses and stayed within rather strict narrow key structures. In the Classical era, the harmony changed irregularly and there was an emphasis on modulation. In addition, many forms used in the Baroque era underwent dramatic changes or died out altogether. In the Romantic era, there became increased emphasis on chromaticism and transformation of form. In fact, chromaticism is basically what defines the Romantic Period. Those who lived within each period while attempting to write in the style of other periods are still defined by the period in which they lived because every person is reflected by his time, just as we are today in any endeavour. Basically, that is why I object to the term “classical music” referring to everything. When someone refers to so-called “classical music,” just what does he mean? By the definition that seems to be used, then all music is classical, in which case we need never use the term. That doesn't make sense to me. Classical music, whether with capital "C" or not, is that which was written approximately between the death of Bach and the death of Beethoven.

Far from being a connaisseur, I do like music that I understand. That can be because it is very pictoral (like Beethoven's sixth symphony, or the Sorcerer's apprentice by Dukas), or because I have had an introduction on it (like Bernstein used to do on television years ago), or because I have listened to it many times and gradually got into it. The latter is the case for most of what I listen to regularly. I could not give a top 10, there are hundreds of beautiful pieces in different genres.