In this case, the difference isn't a genre classification as much as cultural and chronological:
Medieval: < 1400
Renaissance: 1400-1600
Baroque: 1600-1760
Classical: 1760-1820
Romantic: 1820-1910
Modern: 1910-1975
Contemporary: ~1975-present
You're telling it to somebody who'se been studying music for the last twelve years, and is familiar with (and appreciative of) music from all of those eras.
I am well aware of the difference between "classical" music, and music from the "Classical" era.
on the other hand, a lot of people, when presented with any piece of music not composed or written during the 20th century will tend to assume that it's Mozart anyway.
My point, I guess, is that the people who lump it all together like that tend to know sweet fuck all about the music anyway, and the people who do actually know what they're talking about will tend to to list specific composers, and be able to talk about them as the valid and unique artists that they are.
Beethoven is Classical. He followed and developed Classical form. There really isn't any debate to be had about it. Look at the structure of his works, the use of triads and key. He also studied under Hayden (Classical composer) in Paris and died when the Romantic movement was just starting. However, he was very expressive and made unique use of dynamics for a composer in that time period. Hehe, I have a music history exam on Tuesday.
Actually, the more popular opinion is that Beethoven was a "changeover" artist - the last of one type, and the first of another. He certainly grew up with Classical music, and was trained to it, but his later music in particular is far too rich and powerful, and is really more in line with Romantic sensibilites (though I doubt he would have classified himself as a romantic composer). Classical tends to be quite genteel and polite, in my experience. Beethoven's a bit too melodramatic and raging for that.
Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack = Orgasm.
Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack = Music composed by one of Hans Zimmer's students, in a way that sounds as much like Hans Zimmer as possible.
But yeah, it's pretty good. I prefer Don Davis' "Matrix" soundtracks, though. much more interesting, I think.
I also enjoy it when people play with the concepts of music, like what's dissonant. I, however hat people that don't play with them, but just shit their music up with it.
You'd probably like Don Davis, then, and probably Howard Shore. Interesting dissonance, used properly, is great. On the other hand, I want to hit people like that Cage bloke with a stick upon which is engraved the notes of "Greensleeves".
Erm, i'm not really a fan of Mozart, his music is very trite, but he wrote mostly training pieces, so that's to be expected
to be fair, Mozart's music really isn't as technically demanding as the average training piece.
understand - I can appreciate Mozart's stuff, but he's a long way from being my favourite. he doesn't even make it into my top ten, actually. Like I said, too genteel and constrained for my tastes, and M was pretty much the wackiest character around in the 1780's. The guy was a party animal.
Still, at least he's better than bloody Bizet...
