Why is Baroque so distinct?

[navneeth]

Is it because that I have heard very little of other types or is something inherent in this type of classical music? Also, many of them sound very similar. I don't think it was just Vivaldi who wrote the same piece a hundred times! I can easily guess whether a piece is from the Baroque period without taking a look at the 'Now Playing' window, but it's not the same case with others.In all honesty, I like this style very much. Of course, it doesn't mean that I don't like others. Of late I've started enjoying Haydn's music, which sounds a bit like Mozart's to my ears.

[shostakovich]

Hi Navneeth. The Baroque period, approximately 1600-1750, was a time of mostly chamber orchestras, so limited tone color is one attribute. The use of percussion instruments was rare. Rhythm was very steady. Rubato and syncopation came later. Instead of crescendo and diminuendo, they had what is called "terraced dynamics". That was produced by raising and lowering volume by using more or fewer instruments, rather than playing louder and softer. I have a hunch that it was inspired by "harpsichord thinking". A harpsichord had very little dynamic range. Later, when the piano came onto the scene, with the ability to play notes loudly or softly (hence the name pianoforte), other instruments' dynamic ranges were exploited. Baroque music had more counterpoint than later music. The fugue was a major form that lost its pre-eminence in later periods. The symphony, tone poem, concert overture, program music (that tells a story) in general came later. The concerto, however, was prevalent in the Baroque. And the music was international. The distinctions between Dutch, Spanish, German, French, etc, were small compared to later times.

This is a mix of opinion and music history. I hope it helps.
Shos

[OperaTenor]

To add to what Shos said, Baroque was confined by rigid, narrow rules of composition by today's standards. Certain voicings and prgressions were even considered Satanic, and could not therefore be used.

[navneeth]

Thanks, Shos & OT. It makes some sense now, but I still have to get my head around some of those technical words. ).

[Andy Warton]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
To add to what Shos said, Baroque was confined by rigid, narrow rules of composition by today's standards. Certain voicings and prgressions were even considered Satanic, and could not therefore be used.

Tell me about it! For our music course we had to learn the "rules" of harmony: never have consecutive fifths, never have consecutive octaves, never have overlapping parts, never have augmented intervals, etc... Basically, how Bach would have harmonised things.I have to say, initially, I was reluctant to take on lots of "rules" ; but now I'm really pleased with what I've learnt. Having enjoyed so much musical freedom before, it was actually rather nice to learn some boundaries, because the rules are actually based on what does and doesn't sound good or tasteful. It's actually quite reassuring, in a way.

It's true that certain chords were considered "evil" - I believe that the interval of an augmented 4th (eg G, and C#) was considered Satanic by the Catholic church. I think one Pope actually outlawed it or something. Hence, whenever someone in our class accidentally broke a harmonic rule, we'd all gasp and start talking about Cardinal sins. :p