Favorite Era...

Because the common man and the intellectual can relate to it. Intense emotions and theoretical genius make truly amazing music, and romanticism appeals to both.

this is subjective, you realize...

but I meant, in threads and in the shoutbox... nobody really likes romanticism at all, so I'm curious as to where the numbers came from.

Only 3 contemporaries... =( I wonder who the other 2 are...

this is subjective, you realize...

but I meant, in threads and in the shoutbox... nobody really likes romanticism at all, so I'm curious as to where the numbers came from.

I think it's sociological to be honest. Bourdeau says that more people know The Blue Danube (the romantic piece) than the Well-Tempered Clavier (the non-romantic baroque piece). The baroque appeals to intellectuals but the Danube appeals to the layman. And the layman is the real audience that needs to be recruted for classical music to survive. Yes, it's my opinion, but it happens to be in line with the current social theories on the matter.

As for YC? I think the intelectuals like that "modern atonal" stuff, and even then, it's not all of them. Most on here like the romantic stuff, they just don't flaunt it like the modernists do saying atonality is the best thing since Swiss Cheese.

Errr...you know that the Berg Concerto is one of the most popular violin concertos of all time, right?

Swiss cheese...yech...

Errr...you know that the Berg Concerto is one of the most popular violin concertos of all time, right?

Swiss cheese...yech...

More than Beethoven, Tchaik, Brahms, Bruch, Mozart, Sibelius, Dvorack, Schumann, Bach, Vivaldi, and Mendelssohn?

More than Beethoven, Tchaik, Brahms, Bruch, Mozart, Sibelius, Dvorack, Schumann, Bach, Vivaldi, and Mendelssohn?

don't be an donkey.

he said "one of", not "the most".

And it is CERTAINLY more popular than any of Mozart's violin concerti, getting considerably more play time every year.

Only 3 contemporaries... =( I wonder who the other 2 are...

:whistling:

And the layman is the real audience that needs to be recru[i']ted for classical music to survive.

Oh.. so the only "real" audience really existed in a very short time-span and geological area of about 100 years and covering some of Europe and some of Northern America, right?

All those millions/billions of people living in other areas of the world, and other times of the world (including those 200,000 years of "homo sapiens" and such places as India, China, Japan, Southern America, indigenous peoples of america, Inuits, lapland people etc etc) are not a "valid audience" (and neither are you - since you're not living in the romantic era, therefore you do not belong to that generation of people appreciating that music, which is the generation of the people who created it too).

Way to go.

Yes, it's my opinion, but it happens to be in line with the current social theories on the matter.

Care to elaborate? I fail to see how the (which?) "current social theories" comply with your "opinion", so I would really appreciate it if you could enlighten me.

We're not talking about the whole world here. We're talking about a specific society. In this case, it would be the Western developed world where "Western Art Music" has thrived and is the antithesis to the "popular" music of the same society. Why does every theory have to apply to every society? Obviously you don't know the rudiments of sociology. Sociologists study societies, not humanity in general, which would be an anthropologist. Different purposes for different studies.

As for sociological theories, check out John H. Mueller's The American Symphony Orchestra, and Pierre Bourdieu's Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. There are several minor works, but those are the two biggies. Mueller and Bourdieu both argue that the educated upper class controls classical music versus the lower-class uneducated enjoying popular music. Fascinating stuff. While some of the data is out of date (comming from the 1950s-60s), the theories are still very relevant. And I love experiencing it first-hand when going to the NY Philharmonic in the music center of America.

...Mueller and Bourdieu both argue that the educated upper class controls classical music versus the lower-class uneducated enjoying popular music. Fascinating stuff. While some of the data is out of date, the theories are still very relevant. And I love experiencing it first-hand when going to the NY Philharmonic in the music center of America.

One could also argue that both Mueller and Bourdieu are the uneducated ones, and that their theories are hideously off base. I love hanging out with SERIOUSLY educated musicians (jazz & classical) who enjoy Brahms as much as Miles as much as Erykah Badu as much as the Beatles...

I think it's sociological to be honest. Bourdeau says that more people know The Blue Danube (the romantic piece) than the Well-Tempered Clavier (the non-romantic baroque piece). The baroque appeals to intellectuals but the Danube appeals to the layman. And the layman is the real audience that needs to be recruted for classical music to survive. Yes, it's my opinion, but it happens to be in line with the current social theories on the matter.

As for YC? I think the intelectuals like that "modern atonal" stuff, and even then, it's not all of them. Most on here like the romantic stuff, they just don't flaunt it like the modernists do saying atonality is the best thing since Swiss Cheese.

Picking two pieces from two periods and argue that one period is more popular than the other because one of those pieces is more popular than the other isn't a very convincing argument… If you compared the popularity of Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Pachelbel's canon, or Handel's "Halleluja" chorus with any Mendelssohn string quartet you'd get the opposite result.

When you compare the popularity of the Blue Danube with the Well-tempered Clavier you're not primarily comparing eras, but entirely different musical aims: The Well-tempered Clavier was a serious, intellectual examination of certain musical ideas, whereas the Blue Danube was made with the primary aim of pleasing a large audience and creating a good background for dancing (just like a lot of other popular music). But quite obviously not all romantic compositions are as simple and "functional" as the Blue Danube. The same person who listens to the Blue Danube may not like to listen to Schumann at all.

:whistling:

I love you Pli

=D

I love you Pli

=D

feels so goood!

To JT:

It's definitely on par with most of those. I mean, it's ridiculously hard (harder than most of those), so that might explain why it's less-frequently performed, but definitely on par with most of those.

(Especially since Mozart's first two concertos, most of Bach's, and most of Vivaldi's are obscure and rarely played at all. I've never even heard of the Dvorak concerto, either, and Schumann isn't that popular, I don't think.)

See QcC's post.

I'm surprised by how many ppl chose Romantic Era. like Mael said, in the shoutbox and stuff, it doesnt seem like there are many ppl who prefer the Romantic Era. but maybe im just too unobservant.

Ahem. Well, you see Qmwne235, I was, uh... drunk on, uh... Bach's music, which caused me to forget about all those other composers... yep.

Seriously, this thread still is flawed in a few ways regardless of my quite incorrect music history judgments.

You know, I thought 20th century would come out on top, but Romantic seems to be taking the lead right now.

Poor ancient/obscure eras...

I'm surprised by how many ppl chose Romantic Era. like Mael said, in the shoutbox and stuff, it doesnt seem like there are many ppl who prefer the Romantic Era. but maybe im just too unobservant.

Yeah, but I think Romantic covers a lot more bases mentally than "20th century." Favorite could be taken as favorite to listen to; that's not necessarily the same thing as where you draw specific influences from, or what you're intellectually aware of. The people who post more on the uploads sections are often not the most vocal in the shoutbox or on the discussion boards, too...

Poor ancient/obscure eras...

'Tis a pity, there's some killer music out there.

Thomas Tallis rox my world.

I put no particular era because I like both romantic and neoromantic, with a bit of 20th century thrown in. Musical boundaries are often fuzzy.

Justin: sorry it's taken a while to reply, I was looking for that particular passage:

Elliott Carter, in an interview with Andrew Ford in his (Andrew's) book "Composer to Composer: Conversations about Contemporary Music":

"It's very different today from the end of the 19th century. Then' date=' the people in society who had money were often more cultivated than they are now, and it makes a difference. We're always being condemned as being elitist in our field, but the entire repertory of classical music was written for an elite. The Beethoven symphonies were not written for the general public of Vienna.

"Composers today have got this standard of older music which encourages us to write skilfully and sensitively and full of awareness of the musical past and its wonders. And we have a different kind of audience than that music was written for. It's a very puzzling paradox. I don't think about it much.[/i']"

Ford, Andrew.

*faceplam*

You've pushed those quotes at me before juji. Should I just believe them because Eliot Carter said them? Wouldn't that be an Appeal to Authority Fallacy?

Anyway, let me be clear. Bourdieu's survey included a whole host of major works in musical literature including Beethoven, Gershwin, Strauss, Wagner, Bach, Brahms etc. I just pointed out the two extremes because those are what he uses to explain his theory. It is not biased reaserch. Perhaps you should look it up before assuming it is.

Should I just believe them because Eliot Carter said them?

*Elliot

And no, you just believe them because they make sense. When did juji say otherwise?

I just pointed out the two extremes because those are what he uses to explain his theory. It is not biased reaserch.

Then he just made a really bad decision with his example picks to demonstrate his theory. A conceptual study on one hand and a popular dance on the other? If the study isn't biased he certainly isn't selling that point well… Or you're just not selling his point well with your paraphrase.

And sorry for not "looking it up before assuming it is". You gave us some info, we argued based on what you said. You can't expect other people to substantiate your arguments by digging up sources.

Then he just made a really bad decision with his example picks to demonstrate his theory. A conceptual study on one hand and a popular dance on the other? If the study isn't biased he certainly isn't selling that point well

Well, my point is that it was written with an entirely different aim than the Blue Danube. We're comparing the popularity of a piece where popularity probably wasn't a primary goal with the popularity of a piece meant to be popular. And when we then find a difference in popularity we just reduce it to the time it was written in?

I would try to avoid belittling anybody who writes incredibly artistic music that - in a fairly obvious way - wouldn't necassarily appeal to the majority of orchestral music fans. However I do feel that there are less attempts to write incredibly competent yet approachable music today than there should be.

Often the popular pieces act as a gateway to the bigger picture. I wonder just whether Debussy would have been noticed as much if it wasn't for his Suite Bergamasque. The influence of his 'more mature' works might not have been so great if it wasn't for the comparitively simple (but in my opinion masterful) Clair de Lune. Not fully appreciating the entire history of music I can't say to what extent this is really true, but I think it makes sense to say that catchy pieces like 'Moonlight Sonata' are incredibly important, as they serve to raise the number of people interested in classical/orchestral music as a whole.

In relation to this thread, I would say that this is a problem for the modern period (c1950 onwards) although this is of course a personal opinion.