If it's got that sweet, sweet counterpoint, then it's baroque (or listen if A = 415). If it's logical, simplistic and simply makes sense, then it's classical. If it's got boundless emotion, haunting melodies, but a clear form, it's romantic. If it's spicy, less formed, or even hard to listen to, it's 20th century. That's always how I remembered it.
All accurate except 20th century. Unlike the other periods, 20th and 21st century has many different styles, so that description is not gonna work for for a lot of contemporary music
Alternately: * If the words (usually in Latin) are basically the whole point and the notes appear to be an afterthought, everything is unison, and a single word is often dragged out over multiple notes, it's probably Early / Pre-Renaissance. Example: Of The Father's Love Begotten * If the parts don't seem to have anything directly to do with one another, it's probably Renaissance (unless it's very obviously Modern). Example: April is in My Mistress Face * If the elaborate technical aspects of the music itself appear to be the main point, it's probably Baroque, especially if the parts have strict mathematical relationships to one another (isomorphisms, aka counterpoint). Example: Contrapunctus IV * If the music (not the words, the music itself) appears to be trying to tell a story, it's probably Classical, unless it's very obviously Modern. Example: Pastoral Symphony * If the music (again, not the words, the music itself) makes you feel strong emotion, it's likely Romantic, unless it's very obviously Modern. Example: Op. 28 No. 15, Raindrop * Otherwise, it's probably Modern. It might be anyhow; there's a TON of Modern music. It's hard to give a single example for Modern because the number of subgenres just gained several digits. In some cases the use of modern instruments (especially electronic ones) will give it away; but plenty of Modern music uses traditional instruments. Certain subgenres can still trick you. Music that was written for ballet can be hard to pin down, for instance, and the Modern era has subgenres that mimic other eras *fairly* closely, sometimes even named after them with "neo-" prepended.
When listening to the classical music radio station in my city, I try to guess 1) approximate year, 2) country/nationality, and 3) composer. I generally do well with approximate year and country/nationality.
Feel like its important also to note that while earlier composers are much less likely to fit this bill, some later (thinking of a particular western sounding Russian) composers would sort of push the boundaries of what was considered proper and would have works that would be difficult to identify without more context than sound. That's all to say, if you like a piece, learn more about it! There's almost always something interesting or useful to know.
"Modernism" is a rather broad label here, apparently. Think for example of the impressionism in works by Debussy, Satie and Ravel, the expressionism in works by Krenek, HIndemith and Stravinsky, the Second Viennese School (also sometimes categorised as expressionism) just in the early 20th century. Then you have neoclassicism (e.g. in works by Stravinsky and Prokofiev), aleatory music, minimalism, etc etc. That could fill at least another video.
I for one would very much have wanted to know WHAT, WHAT, WHAT? I was hearing. Many years of intense listening and I feel like I'm just getting into it. So much music, so little time! (At least tell us what all the Modern stuff was, I could only place a bit of it).
Also i always had the feeling that romantic music became more and more dramatic the more time went by. For exmaple the difference between someone like Schubert or Ries in comparison to someone like Wagner or Tchaikovsky is astounding in my opinion
Excellent piece of Music-appreciation education! Well-done. I personally am aware of this, having listened mostly to classical for 63 years, having played viola, bassoon, classical guitar, and classical saxophones, as well as doing a bit of composition myself. Nevertheless, this is a refreshing summary! A few comments to add: - Era/period is certainly valuable to know, but so is the location or “school” of composition. Therefore… - While basically exactly correct, some of your comments about Baroque music are much more true of _Germanic_ Baroque music in particular. For example, Vivaldi’s music was not nearly as complex contrapuntally-speaking as Bach’s. Ironically perhaps, Vivaldi’s music is forward-looking than Bach’s, in that it more resembles the then-futuristic Classical-Era. - As for Classical-era music, I’d add that that’s where Sonata Form really “came of age.” The flow of Haydn or Mozart compositions becomes a bit more like an intellectual debate. In the Romantic Era that becomes less intellectual and more passionate, as you pointed out. - 5:37 Beethoven’s endings are often ridiculous: “Yeah yeah yeah, V I V I V I; I get it, dude, you’re ending it! Just end it already…”
Much of my music knowledge is practical rather than theoretical, so while I can mostly tell the various periods apart, I usually can´t explain how I do it. That said, this really drove home how absolutely typically Baroque our latest choir project was (a mass that was rediscovered in an archive a few decades back - Franz Xaver Richter´s Messe in C).
Amazing video as always! Although I'm sure we'd appreciate it if, for future videos, you showed the names of the pieces being played at the corner of the screen.
I wish more people talked about transitionary composers like all the galant composers from 1730 to 1780, like Quantz, the Bach sons, etc. And no, the baroque period did not end by the death of Bach - not remotely. For more than 10 years before his death, people were already composing in a different style that is called galant which eventually leads to the classical style. As far as I know, pretty much all non-Bach composers had moved on to a new style already before 1750. Bach was just really old fashioned, but it's okay, we love him. One of the very big reasons contrast between baroque and classical period is huge is because the canon skips all the transitionary composers between baroque and classical style. Also, the harps were invented much earlier than the romantic period and were definitely in the classical period and 100s of years before too. Check out Mozart's concerto for flute and harp.
@@francescoflamini9739 you are right, but there are some medieval, renaissance, baroque and classical composers for the harp. The symphony orchestra was invented in the classical period and didn't have a harp as a standard instrument, sure, but neither did romantic period orchestras. Only a select few pieces used harps here and there and it really began to get more and more common by the very end of the romantic period going into the 20th century. Edit: edited the original comment to add more information, by the way.
Totally agree with you. I would even say there are no "periods" and "transitions". There is just a continuum of constant change and musical discourse. Why are Quantz or the Bach sons considered "transitionary" and like Corelli isn't? Just because many hundred years later some historians drew up some imaginary borders between years and styles? I can see the usefulness of it, but overexeggarating it and trating them as something "real" is shortsighted.
@@csabrendeki I definitely disagree that there are no periods. Corelli is not a transitional composer based on the periods we collectively agreed upon. He was just a composer of the early baroque and one of the most popular concerti grossi composers. Claudio Monteverdi on the other hand is a high renaissance to early baroque transitionary composer.
@@Ziad3195 Corelli is "early baroque"? What does that make Legrenzi? Because the difference in style is considerable. That's what I meant. You can look at any composer and see their style as "transitional" between what came before and followed after. The style differences on the "borders" of the "periods", like you mentioned high renaissance and early baroque is so subtle that you could argue for hours where to put a composer like Gesualdo, who has though a pretty constant style in his ouevre. So if he can be rightly put in both, what does that tell us about the "periods"? That they are better considered as shorthands, but have no reality. There was no composer ever thinking "I'm a baroque composer, I need to do thing this way"... the stile antico compositions of composers as Lotti and Scarlatti ate interesting: they are written in a style that you would say is "renaissance" but they already use diatonic harmonic language ibstead of the tonal one, so they are also very much not resemble any composition of the 15th or 16th centuries... but they are also not written in a style you would call baroque. What are they then? Periodic thinking can help to understand music historical processes but to hammer down on them makes you blind for the subtleties of music historical reality.
video summarised: only voices - 1000 - 1400's music harpsichord or Loads of strings or lots of fancy trills - baroque lots of timpani or starting to use a little bit of brass - classical early romantic - DUN DUN DUN DUNNNNNN............. starting to use brass and percussion more often - romantic so much brass and percussion - 20th century
The description of baroque maybe fits Late Baroque, but you would never guess Early Baroque or Middle Baroque with that. I'm would like to to point out, that Baroque Music started around 1600 and not one hundred years later....
Yeah Baroque really is too broad a term. Monteverdi and Händel are about a hundred years apart and sound so different to me, yet are considered part of the same era
I'm partly with you on this. The early classical era, so basically the time from Handel's death to 1780 when Mozart reaches maturity and Haydn starts to compose freelance is a huge step backwards from the inticracies of the baroque period. Just like in the baroque period there is still a certain lack of individuality in expression, so that it is hard to tell composers apart in their music and the way they express their thoughts is so heavily simplified compared to what had been going on the last 100 years before them, that it is painful to listen to. But from 1780 on it starts to pick up quickly and once Beethoven enters the field it soars.
If you mean the one while he’s still talking, it’s Shostakovich’s 5th symphony If you mean the one with the performance, it’s the second movement of Prokofiev’s Scythian suite
@@hello-rq8kf sure. I'm talking in general. I just found it weird to define classical as lighter than baroque. Imo it's not what separate the two periods at all.
The impressionistic movement in music is only one out of many in the 20th century and includes mainly french composers like Debussy, Ravel or Lili boulanger. Other movements include expressionism with people like Schönberg or Berg as well as minimalism with people like John Adams or Steve Reich.
I believe trying to define genre by musical content alone is doomed to lead to unresolvable disputes and that defining it mostly by era, location and associated (sub-)culture is much more productive in facilitating meaningful discussion
Unpopular personal opinion incoming: If interesting for the first 30 seconds only = Baroque If not interesting at al = Classical If terrible to listen to = Modern If *✨️perfect✨️* = Romantic
By the way, there is no need to come to me saying "but the classical/baroque/modern period has ______ piece of music which is amazing.......". I know there is amazing music in all of these periods, that is just the general way I see it
"Modern" is The Emperor's New Clothes of music. It is only "liked" by some because it's supposed to be. Noone would actually enjoy listening to it in private, but they will when others are watching. When will we please see the emperor has no clothes on?? It's a wasteland of "look at me, I'm different". The attitude of pretty much every immature child. Instead of creating something to enjoy and build up, it's meant to draw attention to self (composer or listener) by saying the word "fart" over and over.
Go, listen to the Turangalila Symphony of Messiaen and then say that again. Or to the Requiem by Duruflé. Or to Unanswered Question by Ives. Or to Coptic Light by Feldman. I could go on.
This is a misconception, because many people also enjoy listening to film music that sprouts from the roots of Holst, Janáček or Prokofiev. Yes, also the works of Bartók, Ligeti or Penderecki in particular have lent a movie a very enjoyable soundtrack. I therefore consider the board in front of your head that prevents you from enjoying the possibilities and variety of sounds (including electronically transformed ones) to be an immature attitude.
Bro called the objectively most diverse and perfect "unenjoyable". True, there are some composers that are harder to get too in this period. But listen to one Prokofiev piece and dare to tell me that it is bad. I dare you. You can't. It's perfect.
If it's got that sweet, sweet counterpoint, then it's baroque (or listen if A = 415).
If it's logical, simplistic and simply makes sense, then it's classical.
If it's got boundless emotion, haunting melodies, but a clear form, it's romantic.
If it's spicy, less formed, or even hard to listen to, it's 20th century.
That's always how I remembered it.
All accurate except 20th century. Unlike the other periods, 20th and 21st century has many different styles, so that description is not gonna work for for a lot of contemporary music
Alternately:
* If the words (usually in Latin) are basically the whole point and the notes appear to be an afterthought, everything is unison, and a single word is often dragged out over multiple notes, it's probably Early / Pre-Renaissance. Example: Of The Father's Love Begotten
* If the parts don't seem to have anything directly to do with one another, it's probably Renaissance (unless it's very obviously Modern). Example: April is in My Mistress Face
* If the elaborate technical aspects of the music itself appear to be the main point, it's probably Baroque, especially if the parts have strict mathematical relationships to one another (isomorphisms, aka counterpoint). Example: Contrapunctus IV
* If the music (not the words, the music itself) appears to be trying to tell a story, it's probably Classical, unless it's very obviously Modern. Example: Pastoral Symphony
* If the music (again, not the words, the music itself) makes you feel strong emotion, it's likely Romantic, unless it's very obviously Modern. Example: Op. 28 No. 15, Raindrop
* Otherwise, it's probably Modern. It might be anyhow; there's a TON of Modern music. It's hard to give a single example for Modern because the number of subgenres just gained several digits. In some cases the use of modern instruments (especially electronic ones) will give it away; but plenty of Modern music uses traditional instruments.
Certain subgenres can still trick you. Music that was written for ballet can be hard to pin down, for instance, and the Modern era has subgenres that mimic other eras *fairly* closely, sometimes even named after them with "neo-" prepended.
1) Taneyev
2) Pärt
3) Respighi
4) Wagner
Medieval And Renaissance composers: “Are we a joke to you?”
I apologize with a respectful doff of a (medieval) cap
@@enjoyclassicalmusic6006 Pérotin c. 1200 is going to be pissed you forgot about him!
Hildegard of Bingen has entered the chat!
My first thought as well 😂
Classical music listeners: yes
The switch at 6:39 from Bruckner 8 to Tschaikowskys Romeo and Juliet was perfect! 👌
Thank you for making a genre of music, accessible and inviting.
When listening to the classical music radio station in my city, I try to guess 1) approximate year, 2) country/nationality, and 3) composer. I generally do well with approximate year and country/nationality.
0:53 Bach, Brandenburg Concerto No. 2, 1st movement, in case anyone is wondering :)
Feel like its important also to note that while earlier composers are much less likely to fit this bill, some later (thinking of a particular western sounding Russian) composers would sort of push the boundaries of what was considered proper and would have works that would be difficult to identify without more context than sound.
That's all to say, if you like a piece, learn more about it! There's almost always something interesting or useful to know.
Bachroque
Bach rocks!
is there a tracklist for all featured songs :DD
I know it's Baroque when it slaps.
"Modernism" is a rather broad label here, apparently. Think for example of the impressionism in works by Debussy, Satie and Ravel, the expressionism in works by Krenek, HIndemith and Stravinsky, the Second Viennese School (also sometimes categorised as expressionism) just in the early 20th century. Then you have neoclassicism (e.g. in works by Stravinsky and Prokofiev), aleatory music, minimalism, etc etc. That could fill at least another video.
I for one would very much have wanted to know WHAT, WHAT, WHAT? I was hearing. Many years of intense listening and I feel like I'm just getting into it. So much music, so little time! (At least tell us what all the Modern stuff was, I could only place a bit of it).
Great video for the Wagner stuff. Tennstedt was an unsurpassed Wagner conductor.
Also i always had the feeling that romantic music became more and more dramatic the more time went by. For exmaple the difference between someone like Schubert or Ries in comparison to someone like Wagner or Tchaikovsky is astounding in my opinion
Stravinsky: neo-classical style for a few years in the 1950's. syke.
Excellent piece of Music-appreciation education! Well-done.
I personally am aware of this, having listened mostly to classical for 63 years, having played viola, bassoon, classical guitar, and classical saxophones, as well as doing a bit of composition myself. Nevertheless, this is a refreshing summary!
A few comments to add:
- Era/period is certainly valuable to know, but so is the location or “school” of composition. Therefore…
- While basically exactly correct, some of your comments about Baroque music are much more true of _Germanic_ Baroque music in particular. For example, Vivaldi’s music was not nearly as complex contrapuntally-speaking as Bach’s. Ironically perhaps, Vivaldi’s music is forward-looking than Bach’s, in that it more resembles the then-futuristic Classical-Era.
- As for Classical-era music, I’d add that that’s where Sonata Form really “came of age.” The flow of Haydn or Mozart compositions becomes a bit more like an intellectual debate. In the Romantic Era that becomes less intellectual and more passionate, as you pointed out.
- 5:37 Beethoven’s endings are often ridiculous: “Yeah yeah yeah, V I V I V I; I get it, dude, you’re ending it! Just end it already…”
Much of my music knowledge is practical rather than theoretical, so while I can mostly tell the various periods apart, I usually can´t explain how I do it. That said, this really drove home how absolutely typically Baroque our latest choir project was (a mass that was rediscovered in an archive a few decades back - Franz Xaver Richter´s Messe in C).
Amazing video as always! Although I'm sure we'd appreciate it if, for future videos, you showed the names of the pieces being played at the corner of the screen.
Shostakovich 5 ❤❤❤❤
I wish more people talked about transitionary composers like all the galant composers from 1730 to 1780, like Quantz, the Bach sons, etc. And no, the baroque period did not end by the death of Bach - not remotely. For more than 10 years before his death, people were already composing in a different style that is called galant which eventually leads to the classical style. As far as I know, pretty much all non-Bach composers had moved on to a new style already before 1750. Bach was just really old fashioned, but it's okay, we love him. One of the very big reasons contrast between baroque and classical period is huge is because the canon skips all the transitionary composers between baroque and classical style.
Also, the harps were invented much earlier than the romantic period and were definitely in the classical period and 100s of years before too. Check out Mozart's concerto for flute and harp.
But harp was not in the orchestra.
You have to wait for Berlioz
@@francescoflamini9739 you are right, but there are some medieval, renaissance, baroque and classical composers for the harp. The symphony orchestra was invented in the classical period and didn't have a harp as a standard instrument, sure, but neither did romantic period orchestras. Only a select few pieces used harps here and there and it really began to get more and more common by the very end of the romantic period going into the 20th century.
Edit: edited the original comment to add more information, by the way.
Totally agree with you. I would even say there are no "periods" and "transitions". There is just a continuum of constant change and musical discourse. Why are Quantz or the Bach sons considered "transitionary" and like Corelli isn't? Just because many hundred years later some historians drew up some imaginary borders between years and styles? I can see the usefulness of it, but overexeggarating it and trating them as something "real" is shortsighted.
@@csabrendeki I definitely disagree that there are no periods. Corelli is not a transitional composer based on the periods we collectively agreed upon. He was just a composer of the early baroque and one of the most popular concerti grossi composers. Claudio Monteverdi on the other hand is a high renaissance to early baroque transitionary composer.
@@Ziad3195 Corelli is "early baroque"? What does that make Legrenzi? Because the difference in style is considerable. That's what I meant. You can look at any composer and see their style as "transitional" between what came before and followed after. The style differences on the "borders" of the "periods", like you mentioned high renaissance and early baroque is so subtle that you could argue for hours where to put a composer like Gesualdo, who has though a pretty constant style in his ouevre. So if he can be rightly put in both, what does that tell us about the "periods"? That they are better considered as shorthands, but have no reality. There was no composer ever thinking "I'm a baroque composer, I need to do thing this way"... the stile antico compositions of composers as Lotti and Scarlatti ate interesting: they are written in a style that you would say is "renaissance" but they already use diatonic harmonic language ibstead of the tonal one, so they are also very much not resemble any composition of the 15th or 16th centuries... but they are also not written in a style you would call baroque. What are they then?
Periodic thinking can help to understand music historical processes but to hammer down on them makes you blind for the subtleties of music historical reality.
4:00 C.P.E. Bach's cello concertos were a lot better! 😉 4:59 Never thought I'd see Steven Isserlis directing from cello Haydn's 104!
Renaissance: "Am I a Joke, to þee?..."
To me, there is an entirely different era: Beethoven. He's neither classical nor romantic. He's just Beethoven, and we love him for it.
There's certainly only one Beethoven
This is equally true of Schubert, especially in his late period.
Beethoven is typical early romantic imo
Cool educational video! 😂 ❤
yeaaaa merci beaucoup !!
video summarised:
only voices - 1000 - 1400's music
harpsichord or Loads of strings or lots of fancy trills - baroque
lots of timpani or starting to use a little bit of brass - classical
early romantic - DUN DUN DUN DUNNNNNN.............
starting to use brass and percussion more often - romantic
so much brass and percussion - 20th century
The description of baroque maybe fits Late Baroque, but you would never guess Early Baroque or Middle Baroque with that.
I'm would like to to point out, that Baroque Music started around 1600 and not one hundred years later....
Yeah Baroque really is too broad a term. Monteverdi and Händel are about a hundred years apart and sound so different to me, yet are considered part of the same era
What's the piece at 8:10 and before the funeral march?
My friends are always surprised when I tell them that I absolutely detest the classical era from classical music 😅
I'm partly with you on this. The early classical era, so basically the time from Handel's death to 1780 when Mozart reaches maturity and Haydn starts to compose freelance is a huge step backwards from the inticracies of the baroque period. Just like in the baroque period there is still a certain lack of individuality in expression, so that it is hard to tell composers apart in their music and the way they express their thoughts is so heavily simplified compared to what had been going on the last 100 years before them, that it is painful to listen to.
But from 1780 on it starts to pick up quickly and once Beethoven enters the field it soars.
8:59 what's the name? gawd I heard that in movies before.
Wagner Götterdämmerung -Siegfrieds Funeral March
@@VincentGiza-Composer Thank you Thank you! Chasing this down and comments it was used in the movie Excalibur!
@@braincraveninteresting! I don’t know that movie but I’ll check it out! Sorry if you’ve been sitting in this mystery for five months haha 😂
@@VincentGiza-Composer The movie features bits from Oroff's carmina burana.
@@braincraven interesting!
What is the piece at 10:13 ???
If you mean the one while he’s still talking, it’s Shostakovich’s 5th symphony
If you mean the one with the performance, it’s the second movement of Prokofiev’s Scythian suite
That classical era is lighter than the romantic,'s definitely! But I would say that Baroque is even lighter in tone.
strongly disagree. baroque pieces can be as dark as any romantic era piece
@@hello-rq8kf sure. I'm talking in general. I just found it weird to define classical as lighter than baroque. Imo it's not what separate the two periods at all.
Piece at 2:44 anyone? Sounds like Bach to me, lovely busy E-flat major / C minor... :)
Surprised you skipped past the Impressionist Era, or do you see that more as a subset of Romantic or Modern?
1:27 what is the name of this piece?
What is the first symphony of the Romantic pieces?
Beethoven's 3rd symphony is considered a symphony that in a way transitioned from classical to the romantic period
Early and Chant to. That doesn’t even take into Classical Chinese music, I guess trailer music would be considered 21st century.
6:41
The modern era of Classical music is often referred to as the Impressionistic era.
The impressionistic movement in music is only one out of many in the 20th century and includes mainly french composers like Debussy, Ravel or Lili boulanger. Other movements include expressionism with people like Schönberg or Berg as well as minimalism with people like John Adams or Steve Reich.
Whats the piece at 8:59
Siegfried’s funeral march, played by Klaus Tennstedt
Piece at 9:13?
Siegfried's Funeral Music from Gotterdammerung, WWV 86D (1876). Wagner
Cum grano salis:
Major chords -> Baroque
Minor chords -> Classic
Diminished chords -> Romantic
Augmented chords -> Impressionistic
Cluster chords -> Modern
I believe trying to define genre by musical content alone is doomed to lead to unresolvable disputes and that defining it mostly by era, location and associated (sub-)culture is much more productive in facilitating meaningful discussion
Lacks contemporary music
Unpopular personal opinion incoming:
If interesting for the first 30 seconds only = Baroque
If not interesting at al = Classical
If terrible to listen to = Modern
If *✨️perfect✨️* = Romantic
By the way, there is no need to come to me saying "but the classical/baroque/modern period has ______ piece of music which is amazing.......".
I know there is amazing music in all of these periods, that is just the general way I see it
unpopular indeed
Not unpopular but a dumb opinion. It's your personal taste, others might feel different entirely.
@@csabrendeki Thanks for expressing the obvious
@@Henri.d.Olivoir you are welcome.
"Modern" is The Emperor's New Clothes of music. It is only "liked" by some because it's supposed to be. Noone would actually enjoy listening to it in private, but they will when others are watching. When will we please see the emperor has no clothes on?? It's a wasteland of "look at me, I'm different". The attitude of pretty much every immature child. Instead of creating something to enjoy and build up, it's meant to draw attention to self (composer or listener) by saying the word "fart" over and over.
Go, listen to the Turangalila Symphony of Messiaen and then say that again. Or to the Requiem by Duruflé. Or to Unanswered Question by Ives. Or to Coptic Light by Feldman. I could go on.
This is a misconception, because many people also enjoy listening to film music that sprouts from the roots of Holst, Janáček or Prokofiev. Yes, also the works of Bartók, Ligeti or Penderecki in particular have lent a movie a very enjoyable soundtrack. I therefore consider the board in front of your head that prevents you from enjoying the possibilities and variety of sounds (including electronically transformed ones) to be an immature attitude.
I enjoy listening to modern music in private, and my tastes are rather conservative.
Hurz!
Bro called the objectively most diverse and perfect "unenjoyable". True, there are some composers that are harder to get too in this period. But listen to one Prokofiev piece and dare to tell me that it is bad. I dare you. You can't. It's perfect.
I simply LOSE it when someone classifies Beethoven as classical
Beethoven is classical
@@francescoflamini9739 only upto middle period
classifying him as classical or romantic is both valid imo
You should hear Beethoven's earliest works. They sound like copies of Haydn, who is 100% classical.
Beethoven was in his own league, doing his own style/period.
He doesn't fit neatly into either Classical nor romantic