Why write "baroque"? Why write "romantic"?

I have always wondered about this conundrum that revolves around trying to write music in a specific "style", whether it be renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic, etc. etc. etc. The reason it is a conundrum is that writing a piece of music in the style of a certain epoch of music can only be an imitation. It will only ever be an imitation. No one writes a "baroque" piece anymore, they only write baroque-inspired pieces, or pieces in the baroque style. The reason for this is that the composers themselves defined the epochs; the epochs did not define the composers. So my questions are these:

What was it about certain groups of composers that made their compositions be grouped together? Were there restrictions? Imitations, going on even then? In other words, did Bach not use contemporary motifs such as dissonance because he did not know about them, because he was not allowed to, or because he did not want to?

Why write in such styles today? Isn't this process limiting to artistic ideas? Was it limiting back then? Should you write a piece and then define what style it fits into or decide on a style and then write accordingly?

It depends. Romanticism is a philosophy, not just a style, and it happens to be a philosophy that I believe deeply in.

Also, if I write in any particular style, it's not because I'm trying to imitate it, I'm only writing the kind of music that makes sense to me. I, for one, am consciously rejecting the heavy use of dissonance, as I think it is extremely limited in emotional range.

Also, Bach actually abounds in dissonance...

I perosnally think that it is limiting to write in past "styles"... I find it quite "useless" to go on writting as Bach would do 300 years ago... Why do iyt, if Bachg has already done it? :D

But what inspired people in the past is the society, the fact that news did not travel fast (so it would've bene years before one could heard Beethovens 5th for example... and thus another 5-6 years for Beethoven to hear teh response of a composer to his 5th and so on...). Further more the classification we have give did not exist at that time. We call Romantism or classicisims and so on, but when you were actually living in 1800 you didn't say "Hey! I write classical music! Or romatic music!" :)

BTW, dissonance has everything to do with the premises you use it. In a 12 tone or atonal or realyl messy work, a perfect 5th will sound immensly ugly!

The whole piece sounds ugly... :D

What we call style is perhaps nothing but a composers domain, not one of the era or period. For instance, the structure and the form of symphony was changed-for-ever by LvB when he introduced Scherzo in Symph no 1, and then increased the number of movements to five in Eroica. Just imagine how much musical insight is required just to think of changing something which is held sacrosanct by EVERYBODY! In Baroque or classical period, it was almost impossible to write 'New" music since the composers were bound to obey the wishes of their mentor kings and dukes and the church. Only geniuses like Haydn or Mozart could introduce novelty within those rigid forms and rules.

So, why write in historical styles today?

Just because it's old, doesn't make it any less valid an artistic statement, there's many creative things to be said within the confines of Baroque harmonic/formal structure. Or classical, whatever...

The reason it's still valid today, is because it's still a contemporary composition. It's modern no matter what.

Even performances of 300-year-old works are 'modern' performances. Try as we might for 'authentic' performance practices, we (as a people) will never hear a piece as Bach intended, or how he would have heard it.

Writing in the style of historical works, does not a historical work make.

I think most people that imitate past styles just do it because they lack the talent to do something more... even though there are not about to confess it. It's of course easier to repeat what you've heard a thousand times at the radio or while learning music that creating original and personnal materials. But I guess these skills of historical forgery can be useful when doing film music or such... even though it leads too often to a poorly done imitation of romantic music.

But I'd like to make some 'nuances' to my comment... I guess it's alright at teenagehood to try more conventional stuff first to learn the basic of the musical theory... since you cannot build something personnal if you don't know history, theory and aesthetic of music.

I'd also wish to add that some people can write comfortable and easily wrought music just for fun and that's just fine... some people do drawing at home... why not composing.

Cheers.

I think most people that imitate past styles just do it because they lack the talent to do something more...

This works both ways though - I find plenty of folks writing atonal and avant-garde music because they lack the skill to write conventional/tonal music.

Because someone writes in historical styles doesn't make them an inferior composer...

Well it does make it a little invalid... It's out of context... (replying to Robin here...). I mean a Romantic period work has little place as a "creation" today. Not to mention baroque... or classical...

Technique, or class or success is not important on what music someone writes, but I really feel that aesthetic on it's own has a value as a message transmitter, and thus an old aesthetic is transmiting an old message by default.

Please take everything with a tad of salt, as of course there are exeptions...

And certainly people write atonal, contemporary music (which very very often is ugly to say the least), only becasue they cannot composer "normal" music. (again a little salt please...). I don't value composers in what style they write.

After all don't forget that "classical" (not the era, the period, but the general term for all orchestral or ensemble music), is out of context, out of place nad old fashioned anyway. Jazz is starting to be as well.

IF you check with people 15-16-17 years old (not music students please), chances are that beyonce, or eminem (or NIN, why not?) will be the first names to crop up, not Miles Davies, or Tansy Davies (:D), or Beethoven. But chances also are that the name "Morrowind" might prop up, or FF7... :-/

I very much find that (from personal experience), when I write for a quartet, or piano duet, it is mainly because, I either have a workshop and will get my owkr performed professionally (or very good at least), or I can play it with a friend. Otherwise all my owrks would be for a symphonic orchestra. "classical" music is a little forced. You don't get anywhere else a comment on what force to write, but classical music!

Result: It seems to me that a duet is 99% old fashioned!

Of course, value,s timbre, live instruments etc... but when there is Reaktor around and Cubase, and Csound or Max, why write for piano and flute?

Note: When talking to a director (didn't get the job) he was asking me what kind of music I write. When I mentioned "classical" he shivered a bit and told me that his film is not a "period" film. I will never do that again. It appears that directors consider "classical" music (with acoustic instrumnets actually) to be for films that deal with the "old times"... Go figure... Other wise they need a new sound, a contemporary something electronic... :-/

Well it does make it a little invalid... It's out of context... (replying to Robin here...). I mean a Romantic period work has little place as a "creation" today.

...

Out of place doesn't make it invalid. In music, as well as art, or architecture they're simply drawing on influences from the past to create something new. Is an anachronism any less creative? I don't believe so.

...

Probably invalid is a wrong word... I'm not a native speaker...

Yes, but the question is if something romatic, like writing a Ballade, is something new or not... Creative it is, no doubt about it. But if you listen to something for the first time, and reckon it could be...Chopin (whom I love as well as Rach...) and then you hear that it was writen in 2003 or something, then for me there is something not exactly right with that work.

If the composer (artist) is able to filter this and put something new in it, then certainly. But the nit won't be romantic or classical. It will be something contemporary, such as the works of Schnittke for example. :happy:

So, what you're saying is that it is impossible for someone to write a Romantic piece... but you can write in the style of a Romantic piece.

*In my own views, the composer can creat music from whatever time period hey want. Somebody has said that why should we worry about limitaitons. Well, why should we be limited to writing only in modern styles?*

*In my own views, the composer can creat music from whatever time period hey want. Somebody has said that why should we worry about limitaitons. Well, why should we be limited to writing only in modern styles?*

True. However I don't think, in writing music freely (that is, without personal or occupational guidelines set on yourself), you should be limited to any sort of style. Confining yourself to a style filters the music, and makes you add in or take away things which you normally wouldn't. It's like trying to write a story with a set number of words, or trying to paint only using a certain technique. It's great for practice, since limitations really help you deal with things, but it's not great if you want your original creative energy to be presented in the clearest way. It's entirely OK if you write a piece freely and then go "Oh, this sounds Romantic, I'll call it a Romantic piece" or "This is a blend between punk and ska, so I'll call it a Punk/Ska piece".