[Luchesi]

Now it's back to the most boring meta-level about which posters write worse blanket dismissals of whole periods or styles? What's the point?

This idea, new to me, that we're at the mercy of luck and happenstances during our years of adolescent brain development, explains a little about the complicated process going on, about 13 years for girls and 14 years for boys. If we don't get a love of serious music in those years, we might develop a love later but it will be different and probably less intense, because the brain chemicals have already done their developmental work. It’s over (the blank slate of youth) for that person..

The amygdala is responsible for immediate reactions including fear and flight-or-fight behavior (apparently this is important so young - for survival). This region develops early, but the frontal cortex develops later. And this part of the brain, which does the logical thinking before we act, is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.
Also, during adolescence a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and making the pathways more effective enhances every sensory experience. The myelin continues to fill in to become an insulating layer that helps cells communicate.

All these changes give us a more vibrant experience when experiencing music in those years, and then it gets all mixed up with identity, sexuality, approval from our peers etc.

Pictures of the brain in action show that adolescents' brains work differently than adults when they make decisions or solve problems.

So apparently as we're latching on to our favorite types of music, it's not a thinking process, but it's more akin to a developing instinct, like apprehension at the sound of a rattlesnake or a lion roaring.
Ah music, it's a deep subject.

 

[59540]

Now it's back to the most boring meta-level about which posters write worse blanket dismissals of whole periods or styles? What's the point?

Stick around, things will get to subjectivity vs objectivity momentarily.

 

[Captainnumber36]

This idea, new to me, that we're at the mercy of luck and happenstances during our years of adolescent brain development, explains a little about the complicated process going on, about 13 years for girls and 14 years for boys. If we don't get a love of serious music in those years, we might develop a love later but it will be different and probably less intense, because the brain chemicals have already done their developmental work. It’s over (the blank slate of youth) for that person..

The amygdala is responsible for immediate reactions including fear and flight-or-fight behavior (apparently this is important so young - for survival). This region develops early, but the frontal cortex develops later. And this part of the brain, which does the logical thinking before we act, is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.
Also, during adolescence a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and making the pathways more effective enhances every sensory experience. The myelin continues to fill in to become an insulating layer that helps cells communicate.

All these changes give us a more vibrant experience when experiencing music in those years, and then it gets all mixed up with identity, sexuality, approval from our peers etc.

Pictures of the brain in action show that adolescents' brains work differently than adults when they make decisions or solve problems.

So apparently as we're latching on to our favorite types of music, it's not a thinking process, but it's more akin to a developing instinct, like apprehension at the sound of a rattlesnake or a lion roaring.
Ah music, it's a deep subject.

Very interesting post. My psychology background really enjoyed it.

 

[Captainnumber36]

Even more than the "colors" of rhythm and melodies I think the more limited palette of instrumental/orchestral colors is what prevents me from enjoying the baroque-and-earlier eras more than I do. My love for melody and musical drama still pushes Handel into my top 5 composers, and I can appreciate intellectually (if not always be moved by emotionally) the harmonic complexity of Bach and many of his predecessors; but it's nice to come back to romantic-and-later music and hear such a diverse range of instrumental and tonal coloring that isn't relying on JUST melody and harmony, but also the subtle moods, atmospheres, and aesthetics afforded by the greater amount of instruments, not to mention the expanded concepts of tonality especially from late romanticism onward. The classical era sounds, to me, like a transitional period between the rather spartan palettes of the baroque-and-prior eras with the much more expansive palettes that came after. It's very much the point where I, personally, don't find much of anything limiting my musical enjoyment, at least with the greats like Mozart and Haydn. Maybe there's still something missing in terms of the more nuanced atmospheric/tonal elements I mentioned above, but most modern music also lacks the facility with melody and form that Mozart and Haydn possessed to, so it's more of an equal (to me) tradeoff.

Great post!

 

[Captainnumber36]

I think the greatest truth that can be said, is that every era has moving music. Perhaps Baroque and Classical has less than the Romantic/Impressionist/Modern era, which was why I created this thread, though.

 

[Captainnumber36]

I do enjoy Matthew's Passion, and Bach's Brandenburg's. His cello suites are great as well.

 

[Gallus]

One thing the classical period has a great deal of that I find less easily in other periods is humour. Haydn especially is a very funny composer. The textural clarity and formal structure of the classical period allows Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart to play with the audience's expectations in a way that is extremely difficult for a Romantic or 20th century (or even Baroque and earlier) composer to do.

 

[EvaBaron]

I think the greatest truth that can be said, is that every era has moving music. Perhaps Baroque and Classical has less than the Romantic/Impressionist/Modern era, which was why I created this thread, though.

Less moving music=lame for the most part?
I still don’t understand how you can love everything Mozart wrote when he is basically the Bach of classical music and create this thread with this title

 

[Strange Magic]

Less moving music=lame for the most part?
I still don’t understand how you can love everything Mozart wrote when he is basically the Bach of classical music and create this thread with this title

I don't want to put words in the Captain's mouth, but he may have meant that Mozart sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the classical composers, He is the Bach of classical, but all alone (in the Captain's view). I regard Beethoven as the key transitional figure, not as a full-bore classicist.

 

[wormcycle]

It puzzles me how anyone declaring "I am not interested in X" can get 5 pages of responses. Including mine.

 

[Enthusiast]

There is so much Romantic and Modernist music that I love and couldn't be without. I probably spend more of my time listening to it than I do Classical and Baroque music. But, even given this, if I had to choose to lose the music before or after, say, 1800 I would choose to lose the music after 1800. Nothing that came after works for me except in relation to the music that came earlier. I reject the idea that music grows in profundity or power as composers learn from those who came before them.

 

[wormcycle]

There is so much Romantic and Modernist music that I love and couldn't be without. I probably spend more of my time listening to it than I do Classical and Baroque music. But, even given this, if I had to choose to lose the music before or after, say, 1800 I would choose to lose the music after 1800. Nothing that came after works for me except in relation to the music that came earlier. I reject the idea that music grows in profundity or power as composers learn from those who came before them.

I do not exactly imagine my listening without Beethoven and Brahms but it is very interesting view. It is significant, I think, that 19 century German/Austrian were so immersed in studying counterpoint. Beethoven certainly, prodded by Haydn, Brahms big time. I just wonder if you can elaborate more on what do you mean by after and later in the sentence" "Nothing that came after works for me except in relation to the music that came earlier"?

 

[hammeredklavier]

Yet despite his recyclings he was also a first-class musical dramatist with a profound understanding of how to use music to illuminate character psychology and drama, arguably the best prior to Mozart.

In terms of vertical harmony? No. Neither was Gluck for that matter.
Die Wahrheit der Natur, Ein Singspiel MH 118 (1769)
youtube.com/watch?v=KXcBzebwPyA&t=1m50s
youtube.com/watch?v=I-TeHK-bVvU
youtube.com/watch?v=Mna_VPIZwGE&t=1m20s

 

[Enthusiast]

I do not exactly imagine my listening without Beethoven and Brahms but it is very interesting view. It is significant, I think, that 19 century German/Austrian were so immersed in studying counterpoint. Beethoven certainly, prodded by Haydn, Brahms big time. I just wonder if you can elaborate more on what do you mean by after and later in the sentence" "Nothing that came after works for me except in relation to the music that came earlier"?

Perhaps I was stating it too baldly but I find and understand so many of the qualities that I love in Romantic and Modern music stem from the music of the Baroque and Classical eras, sometimes expanding upon it; sometimes reacting to or contrasting with it. The Baroque and Classical are pure and are the source. That's how I hear it.

 

[Eva Yojimbo]

In terms of vertical harmony? No. Neither was Gluck for that matter.

I wasn't limiting my claim to vertical harmony. I think melody, tonal coloring, and the withholding of certain elements for later dramatic contrast are equally valid methods (in aggregate, more so) for expressing character psychology as vertical harmony. A good, and very simple, example is the way in which Handel introduces the hulking Polyphemus in Acis & Galatea with a piccolo: the ironic contrast of the monstrous beast being accompanied by the orchestra's smallest, lightest instrument shouldn't be lost on anyone, but it's very much representing his psychological smallness in contrast to his physical largeness. If we're talking vertical harmony being used for psychological expression, yes, Handel wasn't among the best; his strengths are more in the other dramatic possibilities within music. Mozart and Beethoven recognized this very well. For vertical harmony and character I'd refer to more to Purcell even than Handel.

 

[Varick]

I just find it really unartistic. It doesn't communicate deep thoughts or emotions for the most part.

A very silly statement.

It communicates thoughts and emotions, unlike a lot of pop, just not interesting ones most of the time.

The second is a much better statement. To make such a blanket declaration that alludes to all the works of J.S Bach being "lame" is quite the statement. We all are entitled to our opinion though. As someone mentioned above, you are young. If that is true, I can only hope for your sake that you eventually grow into & gain an appreciation for both periods. They both yield extraordinary things and experiences in music.

A case can be made (I will make it) that the passage of time and the increasing number of tools available to composers allows for an ever-increasing palette of "colors", rhythms, longer-winded melodies, etc that were not available to composers of earlier eras. Hence there is more to hear and more to love as we approach and reach Bartok, Martinu, Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy, even Respighi.

Eva Yojimbo responded very well to this post. Just to elaborate a bit more: When I see the confines of musical structure these old great masters had to work with, I find their music that much more impressive that they could compose massively great works within those confines. I believe it is a true testament to their greatness and genius. Knowing that when I listen to them impresses me & makes me appreciate them that much more.

V

 

[hoodjem]

I very much like most Baroque music. I appreciate some Classical music that I have heard, particularly that by Joseph Haydn and Beethoven.

I change the channel if they start playing stuff by Krommer, Danzi, Ditters von Dittersdorf, Pergolesi, and most especially Mozart. Such vapid, simpering, mellifluous, lovely, facile drivel!

 

[starthrower]

Less moving music=lame for the most part?
I still don’t understand how you can love everything Mozart wrote when he is basically the Bach of classical music and create this thread with this title

It's known as click bait and it seems to be working for 36. He changes his mind about the music he likes fairly often.