Baroque & Romantic

A comment on the differences between romantic and baroque music; it was originally written as a complement to a small music guide.

ROMANTIC MUSIC. It is true that the appeal is quite immediate. There is a lot of passion involved, it is extremely easy to understand it and the impact is often so brutal one wonders how can people not like it – take, as an example, the Scherzo of Bruckner’s 8^th Symphony: it is just impossible not to be haunted by the main theme. Or the beginning of Strauss’ Zaratustra, the beginning of Brahms 1^st Symphony, and many others. Even a Schumann lied – of the lyrical kind – is impossible not to move you. If you grow up with romantic music (as I did) it is impossible not to like it.

But, on the other hand, romantic music tends to go on forever and to oppose very different moods. An acquaintance of mine who is hooked on Vivaldi, Corelli, and such music, once told me he didn’t like the contrast between the fiery/ heroic and the candid innocence of most romantic music. I understand what he means. Most people brought up on pop/rock sneer on candidness and asexual innocence. And all the pomp leaves them indifference as they are used just to destructive rage. So, in a way, people brought up on rock-pop simply don’t get it – romantic music just sounds corny.

There is another factor here: modulation. I don’t know much about rock, but it seems to me that it seldom modulates at all. Modulation tends to be confusing to people unused to it and complicated harmonies are simply heard as meaningless.

And, finally, there is the rhythmic factor. Rock-pop are strongly isorhythmic, with very marked strong beats. With romantic music, the phrasing is often so long that there is just breathing and very seldom is there any pounding. Therefore, rockers just loose track.

BAROQUE MUSIC. Well, it is true. A great deal of baroque music is very boring. I like some Vivaldi (the early works) but on the whole, early 18^th Century music can be unsuferable. Corelli is very nice as background music, but I wouldn’t listen intently to the concerti more than once or twice. But, as it is strongly isorhythmic, has strong beats and shorter phrasing and much less modulation, rockers find it understandable. It has swing, short tunes and simplicity on its side; the emotions are often not corny at all – sheer joy or melancholy. And Biber or Schmeltzer (17r«th century south German) can be listened to in the same mood: marvelous tunes, predictable rhythms and clear harmony.

As a matter of fact one can listen to the Brandenburgs in this way. It is only if you dig further, when counterpoint begins to be clear, that the concerti reveal their true interest. For instance, the 3^rd movement of the 4^th Concerto is a real fugue. But most people just follow the upper, soprano, line (even musicians: for instance, that is how Goebel plays it). If you do that and have a romantic background, of course it is boring. If you do that and have a pop-rock background, it will be lovely.

Of course not all baroque music is simple, isorhythmic and short phrased. The early 17^th Century is quite different: counterpoint still had prominence, harmonies were very complex (in a modal context) and unexpected rhythms were the rule – just think of Frescobaldi and Froberger; and I’ll go further – you were intended to play *ignoring* the bars: just think of the French school Préludes non Mesurés which means that only the pitches were notated and the general flow of rhythm just suggested and not actually written down. Modulations do not exist in the romantic sense of the word – the tuning of keyboards prevented it (for musicians: when you have c, c#, d, e flat but NO d flat or d sharp you cannot modulate: music will be horribly out of tune) – but there are all sorts of dissonances. This kind of music if generally not understood either by romantic grounded or pop-rock grounded listeners. The conveyed emotions seem too weird, and one must really learn a new kind of language.

And, finally, the finer points of baroque music – counterpoint – are unintelligible to most people, both romantic and pop grounded. A Bach fugue, when listened ‘from the outside’ is just a piece of music with many repetitions. But when looked at from the inside, is totally filled with emotion. Now, in a Bach fugue, emotions are just suggested – he uses a kind of minimum element of emotion that one has to learn to decode. When you actually do it, it can literally bring tears to your eyes, spine chills as powerful as the most impressive romantics. I often think Bruckner, great as he was, doesn’t say, in pieces lasting for almost two hours, more that Bach does in 6 or 7 minutes.

Bach is the most pure case of emotional abstraction I know. I often compare him to Piet Mondrian, the painter, who was forever in search of the minimum elements of emotional/esthetical meaning. His paintings are rarefied, cold, out of this world. *Not* so with Bach. Emotion *is* present (and emotional contrasts are huge), albeit in a very abstracted way. You just have to get used to the language.

Finally, as a personal note. If I grew up in a romantic setting, how did I become so attached to Bach and all the rest? At my parents home there were many records by romantic and classical masters. I loved them to passion. But I also liked the one record of Bach music in the collection: the 2^nd and 5^th Brandeburg Concerti, played by Edwin Fisher. I especially liked the 5^th. Once, my eldest brother (there is a difference of about 12 years between us) called my attention to the counterpoint: “you see, there are several melodies at once”; it was not very clear because sound was very warm (old valves, of course) and not transparent at all. But I was hooked for life.