Baroque Form/Structure Discussion

Juji, you are reading too much into my comment. Simen claimed that there are YC members who are 'bigshots pointing fingers, not even commenting on the music' (exact quote). Based on your claim that 'Vox Saeculorum people live an illusion' (also exact quote), I'm merely putting the two and two together. As far as I'm concerned both Simen's and your claims may be true, or false.

As for categorically stating that 'all baroque composers are dead', I'm glad you agree that if strict contemporaneity criterion is applied consistently, it merely means 'all non-contemporary composers are dead'.

However, I believe that the musical world is big enough for more than one point of view. If Simen said 'I am baroque composer because I write baroque music', who are we to dispute such a personal statement? Your definition of baroque music may differ from his, but who are we to infringe on his freedom of thought?

It would be akin to disputing one's gender identity. David Buechner (a brilliant pianist) apparently felt he was a woman trapped in a man's body. He (she) is now Sara Davis Buechner after gender reassignment surgery. Who are we to dispute such a personal conviction?

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Buechner-David.htm

If Simen said 'I am baroque composer because I write baroque music', who are we to dispute such a personal statement? Your definition of baroque music may differ from his, but who are we to infringe on his freedom of thought?"

That's the problem here - it's not "his" or "my" definition of "baroque music", but the historical definition of baroque music (and art/architecture/life in general).

Unfortunately, you didn't realise that my joke about Elvis being dead (or not) was a serious one: Elvis is dead. Yet there is quite a significant amount of people who actually believe that Elvis is not dead and is, in fact, still alive (probably drinking beers at some far-away motel/bar in the middle of the desert, along with Alexander the Great and Jim Morrison). The fact that Elvis is dead is, as the word says, a fact. He was found dead by his fiancee and proclaimed dead. "Death was officially pronounced at 3:30 pm at the Baptist Memorial Hospital." (according to wikipedia). Now, these people claiming that Elvis is alive might say whatever they want. They can even say they've flown to Mars by farting lightning from their bums and they spoke to Darwin. However, that's merely a belief, it's not a different definition of something. If we define Elvis chronologically, he was born in December 8, 1943 and died in July 3, 1971. These people may claim their "personal definition of Elvis is that of: December 8, 1943 until today", well.. see where the problem is? I could as easily claim that my personal definition of Queen Victoria's lifetime is that she's still alive, but how much validity would such a statement give me over claiming that the current Queen of England should not be Queen of England because Queen Victoria is still alive?

So what makes you think that SimenN has a "personal definition" of "Baroque" (music, arts, dance, architecture, whatever) which is equally as valid as the actual definition of Baroque (which is defined in terms of the then current artistic, cultural, social and historical status - and by "historical/chronological" I don't mean to say there is a certain date or day that Baroque started, and a certain day that Baroque finished - but the general definition is that Baroque wasn't in 300 BCE, and that Baroque didn't finish in 1970).

Just because people liked Elvis so much so as to deny his death doesn't mean he is not dead. Replace "Elvis" with "Baroque music", and you've got what I (and SSC, but you didn't seem to read his replies) have been trying to say all along.

All baroque composers are dead.

Is there anything else you'd like to be cleared out for you? How much clearer must we make things?

As for categorically stating that 'all baroque composers are dead', I'm glad you agree that if strict contemporaneity criterion is applied consistently, it merely means 'all non-contemporary composers are dead'.

In reality, yes. All non-contemporary composers are dead. Not much to say to that really, it should be obvious to anyone. It's like saying "everyone living today wasn't living 200 years ago."

However, I believe that the musical world is big enough for more than one point of view. If Simen said 'I am baroque composer because I write baroque music', who are we to dispute such a personal statement? Your definition of baroque music may differ from his, but who are we to infringe on his freedom of thought?

Oh but that's the wonderful part of posting scraggy like that in public. If you make your beliefs public and post stuff like that for others to see, the least you can expect is commentary. If you don't want comments/opinions, don't post it in public. It's our right just as it is his to comment and/or criticize what he's saying.

Not he, nor anyone, gets special treatment and shouldn't really. I agree with Juji that people who insist on reliving the past to the extent they become delusional is problematic. But, likewise, I'm fine with it when it comes to their musical composition choices.

What I'm not fine with is what that means for everything else. It's one thing to say that you like writing in X style and do so (I've written myself quite a few style copies too,) and another completely different when you start making claims (like many already have) that the only "good" music is Baroque music, etc etc, attacking everything else. One thing doesn't necessarily lead to the other, but it often DOES and we've seen in the forum already enough of those types of comments.

Plus, I think that ultimately the problem is that if people write in X style to avoid reality I think that is a poor decision. If it's an educated decision I have no problem, but when it's simply remaining in the comfort zone and never bothering to see what else is out there, I fail to see how that could help anyone except if all they use their music for is mental masturbation.

Like a balanced education, today we have the benefit of being able to study many different composers and styles and seeing people just remain entrenched/stuck into a single little idea because they are ignorant of everything else makes me frankly rather sad.

the historical definition of baroque music (and art/architecture/life in general).

the actual definition of Baroque (which is defined in terms of the then current artistic, cultural, social and historical status - and by "historical/chronological" I don't mean to say there is a certain date or day that Baroque started, and a certain day that Baroque finished - but the general definition is that Baroque wasn't in 300 BCE, and that Baroque didn't finish in 1970).

So it boils down to the historical definition of baroque music. That's fine, except that treatises on western music history (e.g. Grout & Pallisca) is silent on the revivalist Baroque movement. These treatises cover baroque music from the historical point of view, but they do not seek to formulate an exclusive boundary of what is NOT 'baroque music'.

I find the exclusive standard of contemporaneity in music appreciation absurd, because we may not always know the historical origin of certain pieces. Say in a blind test you are presented a selection of lesser known 18th century and idiomatic contemporary baroque music. Would you not be able to appreciate any of them unless the identities are revealed? Or would you appreciate something less after it is revealed as contemporary baroque? Do you see the artificial distinction?

And for that let's hear a fine example from none other than VS:

Glen Shannon Trio Sonata No 1, 3: Andante

If it's an educated decision I have no problem, but when it's simply remaining in the comfort zone and never bothering to see what else is out there, I fail to see how that could help anyone except if all they use their music for is mental masturbation[/b'].

If I was using a signature, that phrase would definitely find itself there :P

And yes - that's exactly it. Qcc writes tonal music, but he's doing so in a very informed manner. And Cardew ended up writing very easy tonal pieces by the end of his life (although that was due to his political involvements at the time), but he did not do so out of ignorance (definitely not Cardew) (I do find those pieces utterly boring and stupid when compared to his other stuff, though, but that's just me..). Skempton writes tonal music, Laurence Crane writes tonal music, but they're not doing so out of ignorance - and consequently (and obviously) their music does not sound like classical, baroque or romantic music.

cygnusdei: do you even read what we write? or what you write, in fact?

I've said this so many times in various threads on YC that I've started to feel sick:

a piece of music (or any piece of art) is created within certain historical, cultural and social context.

A piece of music is MORE than just how it sounds like. Why do you think people pay vast amounts of money to specialists to verify that a painting is a real Rembrandt and not just a copy, or just a painting by one of his contemporaries? Because the painting is NOT just the visual aspect of it - it's not just how it looks like, but also the fact that this painting comes from a certain period in time, and was created in a certain historical, cultural and social context.

Now, can you or can you not see what we're talking about? Do you honestly believe that it doesn't matter who painted that painting as long as it looks nice? Do you honestly believe that a fake Rembrandt should have its place in a museum with actual paintings from Rembrandt's time? Do you honestly think that a fake Rembrandt has the same artistic value as a real one? Why doesn't it?

What you're presenting us is a situation in which you have people creating musical museum exhibits that belong to a certain era and expect them to enter museums and be shown along with exhibits of the actual time they're trying to simulate.

It's just not going to happen, and there's a good reason for that. And if you can't figure out the reason, I am afraid the argument stops right here.

BTW, that piece is dreadful. I think most people would insult Baroque composers terribly if they ever said it's "baroque". It's clearly written in a pretty much pop approach to baroque music.

And if you've actually been to his website, you'll see he refers to his pieces as "Renaissance Flemish-style pieces", not as "Renaissance Flemish Pieces" - and the difference between the two is what we've been trying to make clear. And I believe we have, but it seems your mind is too clouded from your passion of that music, just like those people who deny that Elvis has died.

But according to you, Elvis has every right to be alive!

But he's dead.

Do you honestly think that a fake Rembrandt has the same artistic value as a real one?

Wait wait wait a second now.

I really DO think that a fake Rembrandt is just as cool as the real thing, as the only difference (if it's a good copy!) is historical relevance, which has nothing to do with my perception of it looking cool or having artistic merit.

However, the merit would go to Rembrandt, not to the copycat. ;x

That's my point - aesthetically, there might be little difference, so it might be equally as cool.

But in its totality, it isn't.

Which is why the whole world gives kudos to Rembrandt and not the copycats (although I do admire their skill)

That's my point - aesthetically, there might be little difference, so it might be equally as cool.

But in its totality, it isn't.

Which is why the whole world gives kudos to Rembrandt and not the copycats (although I do admire their skill)

Well, I guess totality including non-artistic aspects.

Cuz, if it's only for the pretty drawing, you might actually like the copycats better sometimes!

Trying to put words in my mouth is not going to work.

And last time I checked, Glenn Shannon did not try to pass his work as Telemann's.

The difference between "baroque composers" and "composers writing in the musical style of the period which we now call 'baroque'" is exactly the same as the difference between "I'm writing Renaissance Flemish music" and "I'm writing Renaissance Flemish-style music".

What words did I put in your mouth? :(

Are you sure it's not 'I am a composer who lives an illusion and deny to accept the actual now we live in' ?

----

To Requiem: apologies for littering your thread with off-topic discussion....

I never wrote any concerto grosso, but an excellent model would be Handel's twelve, Op. 6. I think a bulk of them are written for 4 voices only (can be easily assigned to string quartet), which is amazing considering what he achieved with them. Here you can view and play the entire Op. 6 no. 2 (just install a free Scorch plug-in):

http://www.sibeliusmusic.com/cgi-bin/show_score.pl?scoreid=82596

I'd attempt one but I only have GPO, with sucky string samples.

Oh, and contrary to what Mael said, I think most concerti grossi are in 4 movements: slow-fast-slow-fast.

Fairly sure.

[...'] unfortunately the Vox Saeculorum people live an illusion and deny to accept the actual now we live in, just like that wanker artist, David McDermott who thinks he can live in the 1900's. [...]

link

Unless you're part of the group (I don't know if you are) (although I think you said you're not part of the group).

And if you are part of the group, then which part of my replies did you not understand? You still haven't said a single word about the Elvis analogy. Or the museum analogy. Or the Rembrandt analogy. You just seem to repeat the same things over and over and over again without seemingly reading any of the stuff we write. And we have to make what we write clearer and clearer so it's easier for you to understand, but it doesn't seem to have any effect on you. You're too much in love with Elvis.

I usually focus only on the relevant points to avoid wall of text. But since you asked:

1. A Rembrandt painting is valuable because it is an artifact, i.e. it is a singular, irreplacable, perishable physical object. The same kind of value could be assigned to Mozart's original handwritten manuscripts, for example. But music has a different kind of value: it is not meant to be appreciated as a physical object, but as a design (intellectual property) and auditory execution. The fact that there are millions of extant CDs in the world bearing Bach's Brandenburg Concertos does not diminish their value, for their value lies in Bach's design.

2. Contemporary baroque composers (or so they are called) do not run a clandestine operation, trying to pass their works as the works of 18th century composers. From what I read on VS website, they are genuinely passionate about preserving the dying art of baroque music.

3. I never said anything about attesting to someone else's life or death. What I said was, if someone has a genuine conviction about music writing (in this case baroque music), who are we to ridicule ('mental masturbation') or dismiss it outright ('live an illusion')? I gave an example of David Buechner, who is now Sara Davis Buechner. You may think the definition of male and female is clear cut, but obviously not to him. He thought he should be a woman - who are we to question and ridicule him? Incidentally you didn't respond to this example.

And no, I'm not a member of VS.

Please, excuse my ignorance, but what does VS stand for?

3. I never said anything about attesting to someone else's life or death. What I said was, if someone has a genuine conviction about music writing (in this case baroque music), who are we to ridicule ('mental masturbation') or dismiss it outright ('live an illusion')? I gave an example of David Buechner, who is now Sara Davis Buechner. You may think the definition of male and female is clear cut, but obviously not to him. He thought he should be a woman - who are we to question and ridicule him? Incidentally you didn't respond to this example.

The reason we didn't respond to that example is because it is rather poor considering the issues of gender are entirely different than issues of musical taste and/or ignorance. Oh, unless you're into over-simplification to the point those crucial differences don't matter anymore.

Speaking of which, there's such a thing as context which you are completely ignoring concerning my "mental masturbation" comment. But hey, since quote-mining is allowed...

I am a composer who lives an illusion and deny to accept the actual now we live in

What a surprise!

Once again, trying to put words in my mouth is not going to work.

Anyway, from this thread I see a rather disturbing sentiment against creative freedom. I believe that creative freedom is a composer's fundamental right - any attempt to diminish it should be viewed with skeptical eyes. Mods: what's your opinion on enshrining some universal tenets into YC's board rules?

they are genuinely passionate about preserving the dying[/b']...

dead.

...art of baroque music.

Alexander: VS is for Vox Saeculorum.

P.S. To cygnusdei again: You still haven't shown where I've put words in your mouth. Instead, you put words in your mouth claiming that I did. Therefore you put acts on my fingers, which they did not perform. Savvy?

Alexander: VS is for Vox Saeculorum.

Thanks, Juji! :)

But according to you, Elvis has every right to be alive!

Since you asked.

The Vox Saeculorum people believe that the baroque era is not dead and still exists.

The "elvis is not dead" people believe that Elvis is not dead and still exists.

You said that the Baroque music has every right to be written today - that it's not impossible to write baroque music today.

I said that what you said is equal to saying that Elvis has every right to be alive - but he's dead. It's not possible for Elvis to live today, regardless of how much people who love Elvis want him to be alive.

You obviously did not understand my Elvis analogy, otherwise you would have understood that what I said was merely a more funny way of saying "But according to you, baroque music has every right to be alive." - which is what I meant to say, but I wanted to show you that that statement is as silly as "Elvis has every right to be alive.".

Do you want me to come and spoon-feed you clarity so you can comprehend things that a monkey would have written an essay about by now?

Your analogy doesn't work because while Elvis is dead, baroque music is not.

Look, you are but one person in this whole community. Is it possible that not everyone agrees with your point of view?

It's not a point of view!

Elvis is dead, that's a fact!

Baroque music is dead, that's a fact!

It's not a matter of "if everyone agrees that Elvis is dead". Elvis is dead, by definition of "Elvis".

Baroque music is NOT music that sounds like something. Baroque music is music composed in some historical, cultural and social context, and as a result these pieces composed in that era share some common characteristics which are evident in the musical aesthetic of them. But the pure musical aesthetic of those pieces (i.e. the audible result we get when these pieces get performed) is NOT Baroque music - it's a result of their property of being Baroque pieces. So two pieces might sound similar, but one might be baroque, while the other isn't. Bach is Baroque, Glen Shannon is not. They might sound similar, but Glen Shannon is not Baroque. Do you see the distinction?

In fact, to claim that a piece of music is Baroque simply because it sounds like a piece composed in the Baroque era would be a fallacy (I think it's a form of the post hoc thing).

Baroque music is defined as "music under certain historical, cultural and social context of Western countries approximately between the period of 1600 to 1750" (dates are from Grove) (and they are not precise dates, as I mentioned before - they're meant to limit down the timespan of the baroque era; obviously, Alexander the Great wasn't Baroque, and also 1970's is not Baroque).

This certain historical, cultural and social context is no more. Therefore, Baroque music IS dead. No one can compose Baroque music anymore. Nor Gregorian chants. Nor common practice music. Nor romantic music. You can of course compose music that tries to imitate the style of the X era, or X-inspired music, but it's not going to be X music, because X (in the aforementioned examples) is something that has passed and is defined according to its historical, cultural and social context which is now gone and can no longer be reproduced.

That's what I've been trying to tell you!

And now my post looks like a Marvel comic because of all the exclamation marks!

Give it up, juji. The more ridiculous the point-of-view, the more strongly some people will believe it.

Cygnus: Baroque revivalist music does not equal baroque music, and anyone who says otherwise is just wrong.