[78-L] name that era

Tue Apr 29 08:49:04 PDT 2014

Simply, all I said is that 150 years is not "several centuries".  To be "several", I feel, has to be at least four centuries; one century is a century, two is a couple, three is a few and four or more is several.  Otherwise I agree with what you've said!

db 
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 1:43:51 AM, Cary Ginell <soundthink at live.com> wrote:

The term "baroque" wasn't applied to this music until the early 1900s, in essence, more than 150 years after the age ended. The term did exist during the 19th century, but only in referring to religious and public buildings. It took a while longer to be attributed to the music of Bach and Handel.
>
>Cary Ginell
>
>On Apr 28, 2014, at 10:01 PM, DAVID BURNHAM <burnhamd at rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> You're right, I did miss that point; but still I wouldn't even call 2014 "several centuries" after 1750 and I'm sure the term "baroque" was being used by the end of the 19th century.  "Roccoco", the period which followed the Baroque era, was applied to a set of variations by Tchaikovsky who, of course, did not live into the 20th century; and "classical" was, as I'm sure every classical music lover knows was applied to a Prokofiev Symphony in the early 20th century.
>> 
>> db
>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:31:31 AM, Cary Ginell <soundthink at live.com> wrote:
>> 
>> You're missing the point. The term "baroque" wasn't applied to this era until much later. 
>>> 
>>> Cary 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:29 PM, "DAVID BURNHAM" <burnhamd at rogers.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I would say that 1750 was near the end of the baroque era - the year of J. S. Bach's death and a half a dozen years before Handel's death, not several centuries.
>>>> 
>>>> db
>>>> On Monday, April 28, 2014 9:49:22 PM, Cary Ginell <soundthink at live.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Didn't the term "baroque" not come into common usage until several centuries after the period ended, c. 1750?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cary Ginell
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Mark Bardenwerper <citrogsa at charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 4/28/2014 12:15 PM, Joe Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> Most popular tunes of the year per Billboard:
>>>>>>> 1955 Perez Prado "Cherry Pink And Apple Blossom White"
>>>>>>> 1957 Elvis Presley "All Shook Up" (numbers two through four by Pat Boone, Diamonds, Tab Hunter)
>>>>>>> 1959 Johnny Horton "The Battle Of New Orleans"
>>>>>>> 1961 Bobby Lewis "Tossin' And Turnin'"
>>>>>>> 1963 Jimmy Gilmer and the Fireballs "Sugar Shack"
>>>>>>> 1965 Sam The Sham And The Pharoahs "Wooly Bully"
>>>>>>> 1967 Lulu "To Sir With Love" (numbers two through four by Box Tops, Bobby Gentry, Association; Beatles "Penny Lane" was number fifty-five)
>>>>>>> 1969 Archies "Sugar Sugar"
>>>>>>> 1971 Three Dog Night "Joy To The World"
>>>>>>> 1973 Tony Orlando and Dawn "Tie A Yellow Ribbon..."
>>>>>>> 1975 Captain and Tenille "Love Will Keep Us Together"
>>>>>>> 1977 Rod Stewart "Tonight's The Night" (numbers two through four by Andy Gibb, Emotions, Streisand)
>>>>>>> We can listen to Jerry Lee Lewis and Led Zeppelin now as much as we want if we want, but...
>>>>>>> In Billboard's four top 100 listings of 1956 through 1959, Elvis Presley had a total of 19 tunes (some of them slow ballads -- btw the formula going on with "Love Me Tender," "I Want You I Need You I Love You" and "Loving You" was no more interesting than Pat Boone, was it?), Chuck Berry had 4, Little Richard had 3, Carl Perkins had 1, Eddie Cochran had 1. They were popular, but not representative of how most music of the era sounded.
>>>>>> The danger of naming an era now is that we are listening to music with 
>>>>>> ears that have been irrevocably tainted by music gone after.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All our opinion on older music is affected by this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How does one listen to old music with a scientist's ear? Who among us 
>>>>>> has a scientist's ear?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Mark L. Bardenwerper, Sr.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Technology...thoughtfully, responsibly.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Visit me at http://citroen.cappyfabrics.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 78-L mailing list
>>>>>> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
>>>>>> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 78-L mailing list
>>>>> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
>>>>> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 78-L mailing list
>>>> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
>>>> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 78-L mailing list
>>> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
>>> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 78-L mailing list
>> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
>> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>78-L mailing list
>78-L at klickitat.78online.com
>http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>
>
>