Baroque Composing in the Modern Era

I was thinking-

Would it be possible to write truly classical music (by this I mean from the renaissance period up to, say, the year 1900) in the modern era without being influenced by the popular music and more modern comopostions (such as pieces by Stravinsky and Debussy) of our own time?

Perhaps this is just a stupid thought, but I'm wondering what your opinion on this is.

Hmm. Well I think that if you've heard it, there's no way not to be influenced by it even if it's in a very small way.

One way to aviod sounding 'modern' is to pay attention to the same things that Mozart et al paid attention to. But that being said, even they were influenced by those who went before them. You can also ignore all types of music that you don't want to be influenced by. (When in Rome, do like the Romans. But if you don't like what the Romans do, go away.) To not be influenced one way or another by something that you know is to be dead in mind and soul.

Our point in history is both a blessing and a curse. In the long run, there is nobody forcing us to write in a given way. This means that we can take what we like from ALL areas of music and continue to shape the history of music.

Leo, what you say is true, but I tend to remember most things that I hear, and if they're floating around in my head, I sometimes can't help but have them affect me if I'm trying to come up with a very Baroque theme. What would you do then?

Yes, once we've heard, it is hard to forget. That is why I said, "If you don't like what the Romans do, go away." Meaning, if you know that you've heard a piece composed by Mr(s). XYZ and you didn't care for it, don't listen to music by Mr(s). XYZ anymore. This seems hasty to base an opinion of a composer on one listening but my view is that life is too short to listen to crappy music. Because of this belief, I never have my music performed unless I know that it is top notch and the best possible work I'm able to put out.

I get incredibly irritated when I listen to bad music. The worst part of it is that I know I'll never get that time back. Mr(s). XYZ has stolen that time from me and if it wasn't worth it, I'm not likely to give them a second chance. Like eating somewhere that serves bad food. Are you going to go back? Music is soul food so if the chef is poor, I won't be back.

This message makes me seem like an old man. Ha! Like I have only days to live or something. I'm not old (28), but I'm not getting any younger. In the past few months especially, I've been pushing myself to see what I can do in the shortest amount of time. When I studied myself like that, I noticed that I can get a lot of good work done in the time it would take to listen to bad music. For this reason, I surround myself with the kind of music that I want to write and soak it in. Not to try and mimic the writing style of Beethoven, Liszt etc. but to try and figure out how to think the same way they did.

The way Bach came up with his themes, I speculate, is that he wrote quickly and wasted NOTHING. He had a 'mood' he wanted to create and then he created it. I bet that early on, this included a lot of experimentation but later he had learned what he needed to so it all became second nature. He also wrote with 4 points of view. All the pieces in the Well Tempered Clavier show a physical, emotional, spiritual, and mental plane.

One trick that I've tried when writing a particular style is to take the first chunk of measures of a piece that I liked in that style and finishing it my own way. I'd never pass this off as my own music but it is interesting to see where our minds will take others ideas. If you try this, you can also go back and change the 'borrowed' material to your own. Or, use a Baroque piece as your guide and fill in the notes. Meaning, start the piece in the correct key, go the same number of measures as Bach does, then go where he goes. Measure for measure.

Personally, I've not had much luck composing in the Baroque style. I admire all who can do so effectively because I view it as a difficult style to write in. Bach was quoted as having said, "Anybody who works as hard as I can do the same."

I hope this helps.

Cheers!

Why should the mentioned keys be avoided?

Geeze, I would hardly ever be so cruel as to write a piece in more than four flats or sharps in the first place. I play plenty of music myself, and I hardly ever come across classical or romantic music written in keys like that.

Simply because they weren't used in the Baroque period. I'm presuming because of the high amount of accidentals in a key (specifically enharmonic notes, such as B# and E#) that would create difficulty during practise at that time, but that's only a conjecture.

what about the Bach preludes and fugues?

He certainly did not shy away from writing in keys with multiple accidentals.

It has nothing to do with stylistic concerns, and more to do with incidental facility with writing in keys with less accidentals. Baroque instruments were not tuned in such a fashion as to allow as much movement from key to key. A harpsichord needed to be retuned if a piece were in a different key (this is before the installation of equal temperament).

I think each key had it's own specific effect because of the tuning systems used... C for instance was a very "joyful" or happy key because it was tuned (realitively) perfectly... the further you get away from C, the more jarring even the consonances would be. In a concerto, for instance, one could make tension build by modulating to a less stable key. In other words, "far out" keys weren't illegal, they were used for special effect.

Bach's use of equal temperament probably wasn't wholly equal... I think there have been a few essays that state that Bach's tuning was meant to make each key individual... I think.

Even Beethoven talked about the use of specific keys for specific things. Eb, for example was his heroic key. He said that Ab was the key of forgiveness. He also said that he couldn't stand to listen to anyone, instrumentalist or singer, perform a work of Mozart outside of the original key. Beethoven believed that Mozart knew what the different keys implied. Mozart, however, was more likely to have written the music to suit the specific performers needs. There are several examples of this in his letters to his father.

Zentari makes a good point about "Bach's use of equal temperament not being wholly equal." Bach's music played on a modern piano sounds horrible. Bach's music played on an antique harpsichord or a new harpsichord that has been built well sounds incredible. I had the great fortune to hear the Goldberg Variations played on a Keith Hill harpsichord. (He is a modern builder in the US. His instruments sound unreal!) As well as other works of Bach. The difference is night and day between a really good harpsichord and a modern piano. Because of this experience, I can't stand to listen to Glenn Gould, or anybody else for that matter, play Bach on piano anymore.

I think Mozart wrote music in keys that his performers could handle in a style that would match the mood of the key.... I don't think this was anything overly intentional on his part... he just naturally did it.

I think Mozart wrote music in keys that his performers could handle in a style that would match the mood of the key.... I don't think this was anything overly intentional on his part... he just naturally did it.

There are letters that he wrote to his dad that say very clearly that aspects of arias needed to be a specific way for such and such a performer. He even went so far as to suggest different texts to librettists that would suit some situations better. This shows that he was aware of what he was doing and not just naturally. He didn't write often of exact situations (mostly operas) to his father but when he did, there was pretty solid detail. The book is called "Mozart's Letters; Mozart's Life" published by Norton. I highly recommend the book. The editor left in all Mozart's spelling errors (many!) and goofy little side notes, word games etc. This is a great insight into Mozart the man.

Cheers!

I just want to chime in on the tuning. I'm probably a little bit off my rocker here, but I'm studying this with a musicologist who specializes in the late Renaissances/Baroque time, and he has many problems with equal temperament.

For one, Bach didn't use equal temperament. He used well-temperament. Equal temperament didn't catch on until someone found a way to mathematically divide the octave perfectly between 12 tones. True equal temperament is rarely used because the third of the chord usually stands out too much and the fifth is generally (I believe) flat, keeping any overtones from ringing out. This is why wind players and brass players learn the hard way that they have to play so differently when in an orchestral setting - string players generally learn early how to tune a chord in an ensemble.

Individual keys were used because most keyboard players used "well-tempered" instruments. What this means is that the tuner would start with one key (usually C) and tune it perfectly based on fifths, instead of tuning every key based on an intervalic relationship from each other key. This was NOT done so each key would sound unique, but so commonly used keys (ones that fall more idiomatically under the fingers) would sound better. As a result, playing in some keys (such as Ab, F#, C#) would have many sour tones. There are still surviving church organs which were built in this fashion, where minor dissonances can become quite bracing and jarring. The same tuning system, however, will turn out the richest, most beautiful C Major chord you have ever heard. To hear the Bach C-Maj prelude played on a well-tempered keyboard instrument and then having to go back to electric pianos is like being fed a spoonful of honey and then given a rock.

In addition, the WTC studies were not meant to be played in cycle. He wrote them partly as a compositional exercise, partly as music for his students and children. They're also meant to be played on a clavier, which is smaller and could probably be re-tuned with much more ease than a modern piano (fewer strings per key, fewer keys).

Second, a note on performing. I'm doubting performers complained about difficulty. Someone who chose to devote time to performing went all out, and since pretty much all music was written and a student would probably spend a good 8 to 10 hours a day practicing and give at least 4 performances a week (between church and other events) I'd think they had no problem reading music or playing difficult music. This is the same reason that European violinists are able to play Paganini and Ernst's showcase pieces without going through all those body-damaging and sound-killing contortions that American violinists confuse as artistic movement. They know their stuff because they're immersed in it.

Sorry to jar everyone away from their dicussion of key signatures, but my original question was:

Would it be possible to write truly classical music (by this I mean from the renaissance period up to, say, the year 1900) in the modern era without being influenced by the popular music and more modern comopostions (such as pieces by Stravinsky and Debussy) of our own time?

QUOTE]

Perhaps. I write music in an impressionism, classical, and diconent, at the same time. It makes sense.

Im a publisher. check my website. Home Page

Matt, could it have been that the dissonances that occur when one tunes the more-often-used keys better a thing that led to composers feeling that each key had its own use?

Well, certain areas have certain rules. People are effectively being taught how to write in the styles of baroque and classical music. So one could potentially immitate pretty well the style.

Don't see the reason though...

Matt, could it have been that the dissonances that occur when one tunes the more-often-used keys better a thing that led to composers feeling that each key had its own use?

Oh, definitely. I'm a strong proponent of well-tempered instruments, since that's essentially how we play instruments without fixed-pitch; we can just adjust better on a stringed instrument.

I think that some of the sharper, bracing dissonances only bother us because 1) most people don't like too much "unresolved dissonance" and 2) Our ear is too used to the imperfect consonances of equal temperament.

And to answer the question, I think it may be possible, but I also think it's pointless. To say "I will only write in a style reflecting music up to the 18th century" is like saying that the 2 centuries following didn't happen and that music hasn't in fact been evolving. Also, to be blunt, the music won't be any good compared to the people who were writing it. If you're outside of an era and you want to write inside it, the only way you can "truly" do so is to write without innovating, which flies in the face of composition in the first place. Every Baroque composer was an innovator in their own right. Bach and Handel are really the logical last steps in the Baroque style, after which further innovation would really require a re-invention (the Classical era, CPE Bach, etc)

I think it's cool to want to write in antiquated styles, especially if you're trying to find ways to incorporate them into your own writing, but you shouldn't stick your head in the sand and deny that the last 200 years of music ever happened.

And to answer the question, I think it may be possible, but I also think it's pointless. To say "I will only write in a style reflecting music up to the 18th century" is like saying that the 2 centuries following didn't happen and that music hasn't in fact been evolving. Also, to be blunt, the music won't be any good compared to the people who were writing it. If you're outside of an era and you want to write inside it, the only way you can "truly" do so is to write without innovating, which flies in the face of composition in the first place. Every Baroque composer was an innovator in their own right. Bach and Handel are really the logical last steps in the Baroque style, after which further innovation would really require a re-invention (the Classical era, CPE Bach, etc)

I think it's cool to want to write in antiquated styles, especially if you're trying to find ways to incorporate them into your own writing, but you shouldn't stick your head in the sand and deny that the last 200 years of music ever happened.

beautifully put.

concise and to the point without being offensive.

Bach was considered old fashioned in his day. Some said he was going backwards. So, in that regard, if writing 'antique' music was good enough for Bach, it should be good enough for us.

Leo, this is plainly bad thinking.

don't see any reason to follow Bach's footsteps, or actually write what they wrote 200 years ago. Reason? It's been done before!

If people, of course, want to get stuck to the old time, that's perfectly acceptable, but it seems somewhat autistic to stay behind 200 years or so, for no good reason really.

I mean this is why newer composers are not Romantics or Classicals, but neoromatics and neo classicals, which makes a world of difference. :D

The same people that called Bach backwards were the same people that called Brahms and Mendelssohn backwards. Bach was a pioneer. He combined the keyboard writing of Buxtehude, the concerti of Vivaldi, the oratorio of Handel, the Mass, and the fugue all into one concise voice. Listen to Bach's violin partidas and sonatas. Do you know of any previous composer that wrote polyphony for (traditionally) single-voiced instruments?

let me also say: Bach did start out writing antiquated styles. But he also re-tooled them and developed them. Compare his preludes to those of Buxtehude before him; they are completely different. Compare his fugues to those of others before him; they're also very different. Compare his concerti with those of Vivaldi, etc. Also, who else before him wrote dramatic unstaged cantatas?

Matt, I agree entirely.

I used to want to write Baroque music, and Baroque music only, but now, when I try and write music without intending to sound Baroque, I get something that does sound Baroque, due to the fact I've studied so much of it, but doesn't sound exactly like Bach, or Handel, like some of my previous attempts, it sounds sort of neo-baroque, if such a thing exists.

Also, I fully realise that the last two centuries of music have existed and have proven to be an excellent example of progress in music - afterall, it was within these 200 years that Bach's writing was finally looked at and his writing techniques put into practise as what we now call music theory. :D

I don't think that Bach's musical ideas are the basis of all music theory.

Musical theory has been around since considerably before Bach. Counterpoint, harmony, form and structure, all things that were expounded upon by multiple musical authors and published as teaching works.

If you actually study counterpoint and harmony, you realize that there are a great many other authors whose work is seminal to the apprenticeship of musical theory. As a matter of fact, Bach never really wrote any didactic works, none that are in use today. During the teaching of counterpoint and harmony, you will analyze works of Bach, but they will not be the basis of the theory you learn. They will be a part of it.

During your studies you even risk spending a considerably larger chunk of your time studying the works of Beethoven and Wagner. I know, I've done it... and now I teach it.