# the most harmonically simple composers



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Just a curiosity, usually we tend to look for the composers who did advanced things, but who do you feel are the composers who use the most simple harmony? I'm talking about the big names, not people like Allevi or Einaudi. Haydn? Vivaldi? Cage?


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Why would you class Haydn as harmonically simple? Can you provide examples?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Why would you class Haydn as harmonically simple? Can you provide examples?


Just a general impression, I don't know too well his music but usually it sounds very serene and withouth great harmonic complexity (not necessarily a bad thing), but I could be wrong. I'm just asking.


----------



## kelseythepterodactyl (Sep 5, 2013)

Bach! We all love Bach, and he really did nothing special, harmonically.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Steve Reich. Of course, the modulations are not "traditional"; but after hearing a couple of his pieces, I can predict them easily. I find his harmonic language a little bit limited, but the pieces are overall interesting despite this.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

kelseythepterodactyl said:


> Bach! We all love Bach, and he really did nothing special, harmonically.


Today, maybe. In his days was quite the thing. The chromaticism in the Art of Fugue, for example, was quite advanced.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

aleazk said:


> Today, maybe. In his days was quite the thing. The chromaticism in the Art of Fugue, for example, was quite advanced.


I suppose he wasn't exactly serious


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

kelseythepterodactyl said:


> Bach! We all love Bach, and he really did nothing special, harmonically.


??? Beethoven called Bach "the father of harmony," and he generally knew what he was talking about (musically anyway). Listen, for instance, to the E-flat major prelude from book 1 of the WTC.


----------



## kelseythepterodactyl (Sep 5, 2013)

I'm not saying that Bach didn't contribute anything to the world of harmony - he did. Simplicity. His approach to counterpoint and harmonic progression was and is very simple, which set a standard for composition to follow.


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

Vivaldi wins this contest hands down.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

aleazk said:


> Steve Reich. Of course, the modulations are not "traditional"; but after hearing a couple of his pieces, I can predict them easily. *I find his harmonic language a little bit limited*, but the pieces are overall interesting despite this.


(my bold)

That's the whole _point _of minimalism.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

kelseythepterodactyl said:


> I'm not saying that Bach didn't contribute anything to the world of harmony - he did. Simplicity. His approach to counterpoint and harmonic progression was and is very simple, which set a standard for composition to follow.


Usually he's considered the most advanced composer in terms of counterpoint and one the most advanced in terms of harmony. Gould called the 25th variation the most harmonically advanced piece of music between Gesualdo and Wagner. Or consider the art of the fugue, or the sarabande of his 5th suite for cello, and I think there are many examples.


----------



## kelseythepterodactyl (Sep 5, 2013)

norman bates said:


> Usually he's considered the most advanced composer in terms of counterpoint and one the most advanced in terms of harmony. Gould called the 25th variation the most harmonically advanced piece of music between Gesualdo and Wagner. Or consider the art of the fugue, or the sarabande of his 5th suite for cello, and I think there are many examples.


Consider all of his chorales for masses, which make up a huge chunk of his output. Have you ever sung any of these? It is the most natural thing in the world. Regardless of the fact his counterpoint was new and advanced at the time, it was intended to project an air of "simplicity" (which I believe is what this post was asking for).


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> (my bold)
> 
> That's the whole _point _of minimalism.


Nobody said the contrary. 
But, anyway, the harmony could be more interesting even within the constraints imposed. I don't think that in the principles of minimalism it is written "and always use new age modulations".


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

kelseythepterodactyl said:


> I'm not saying that Bach didn't contribute anything to the world of harmony - he did. Simplicity. His approach to counterpoint and harmonic progression was and is very simple, which set a standard for composition to follow.


If this is simplicity, give me more!
Actually, there is nothing simplistic about this despite the repeating bass line. Bach knew everything there was to know about harmony but made the mistake of being born 128 year before Wagner.:lol:


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

kelseythepterodactyl said:


> I'm not saying that Bach didn't contribute anything to the world of harmony - he did. Simplicity. His approach to counterpoint and harmonic progression was and is very simple, which set a standard for composition to follow.


You're very much mistaken.

It might appear on the surface like simple harmony and counterpoint but there is a lot of complex genius going on in his work. He would not have lasted so long if his music was 'simple.'

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but just because he wasn't throwing in really glaring dissonances every other bar doesn't mean the unusual harmony isn't there.

For harmonic simplicity i'd say Vivaldi or Handel.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

aleazk said:


> Nobody said the contrary.
> But, anyway, the harmony could be more interesting even within the constraints imposed. I don't think that in the principles of minimalism it is written "and always use new age modulations".


A lot of things about minimalism could be more interesting, but then it would no longer be minimal.:lol:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> A lot of things about minimalism could be more interesting, but then it would no longer be minimal.:lol:


Well, I find the african-inspired rhythms and multilayered texture quite interesting:


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Staying away from Gregorian chant and so forth, to my ears the early classic period composers, J.C. Bach, the Mannheim folks, Leopold Mozart etc, sound harmonically simple, even compared to the the baroque that came before. They were like a more refined onset of punk to the overproduced progressive rock of a few decades ago. As such I always resented most of the early classic period.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> A lot of things about minimalism could be more interesting, but then it would no longer be minimal.:lol:


minimalism always struck me as a total cop-out, like certain composers gave up on trying to find new ways to be harmonically innovative and so regressed to child-like simplicity.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Jobis said:


> minimalism always struck me as a total cop-out, like certain composers gave up on trying to find new ways to be harmonically innovative and so regressed to child-like simplicity.


I think there's a desire of making the music more "accessible" to the public in the case of minimalism. But that's only a personal perception.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> Just a general impression, I don't know too well his music but usually it sounds very serene and withouth great harmonic complexity (not necessarily a bad thing), but I could be wrong. I'm just asking.


I wouldn't class Haydn in there, because he used both the baroque and classical approaches to harmony (correct me if I'm wrong).


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Jobis said:


> minimalism always struck me as a total cop-out, like certain composers gave up on trying to find new ways to be harmonically innovative and so regressed to child-like simplicity.


Actually I rather think it was a way out of the harmonic dead end that was serialism. Harmony seems to be the element of composition that is seized upon as an indicator of progress so where was there left to go when all pitches were of equal importance.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

aleazk said:


> Well, I find the african-inspired rhythms and multilayered texture quite interesting:


Shifting accents within a pulse has always been the most enjoyable aspect of minimalism for me. I like a lot of minimalism and am enjoying listening to the link at this very moment.


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

GiulioCesare said:


> Vivaldi wins this contest hands down.


Et in Terra Pax movement from the Gloria included ?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Probably Johann Stamitz


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Jobis said:


> minimalism always struck me as a total cop-out, like certain composers gave up on trying to find new ways to be harmonically innovative and so regressed to child-like simplicity.


Well, harmony isn't the only aspect of music though. When one aspect of music becomes more simple, it allows other aspects of music to be more focused on.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I am not even sure what we mean by complex or simple harmony. But purely intuitively, I'd propose Carl Orff as example of simple harmony. Well, at least Carmina Burana (neither I nor anyone else knows anything else by him anyway.  )


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Actually I rather think it was a way out of the harmonic dead end that was serialism. Harmony seems to be the element of composition that is seized upon as an indicator of progress so where was there left to go when all pitches were of equal importance.


What harmony is implied by serialism? In other words, how are the harmonic languages of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen, and Babbitt so alike that they constitute a single approach?

All pitches became of equal importance as far back as the first piece written on the whole tone scale, if not earlier.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> What harmony is implied by serialism? In other words, how are the harmonic languages of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen, and Babbitt so alike that they constitute a single approach?
> 
> All pitches became of equal importance as far back as the first piece written on the whole tone scale, if not earlier.


Which was the first piece written on the whole tone scale? 
And anyway, the whole tone scale gives the five pitches of that scale preference over the other seven that are not in it.

And which piece earlier treated all pitches equally?


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Jobis said:


> minimalism always struck me as a total cop-out, like certain composers gave up on trying to find new ways to be harmonically innovative and so regressed to child-like simplicity.


With some, it might also have been a moral decision, rather than an aesthetic one, to return to simplicity.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Actually I rather think it was a way out of the harmonic dead end that was serialism. Harmony seems to be the element of composition that is seized upon as an indicator of progress so where was there left to go when all pitches were of equal importance.


I wouldn't say that serialism was a dead end, since its sound world is still influential today. For example, pieces like the Piano Études by Ligeti rely heavily in chromatic completion, i.e., all 12 notes are played sooner or later in a passage, although not in ordered rows. 
Of course, maybe _strict_ serialism was a dead end. But that can be said also of strict CPT. The fact is that the diversity always lies in the middle, and composers are pretty aware of that.
Composers may not be writing using tone rows, but certainly are influenced by the sonorities of serialism. 
I don't think Reich is innovating in harmony, he's just being populist. The composer himself has stated the influence of pop & new age music in his harmony.
I'm not going to make a moral judgement about that. All I can say is that, for me, it is uninteresting.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Which was the first piece written on the whole tone scale?
> And anyway, the whole tone scale gives the five pitches of that scale preference over the other seven that are not in it.


The whole tone scale is maximally even. It has six notes (C-D-E-F#-G#-A# or C#-D#-F-G-A-B), and no center (no leading tones, so no tonal pull). Any tonality in a piece relying primarily or entirely on the whole tone scale must be "by assertion", that is, graspable because of emphasis due to register or duration rather than functional progression.

As for which was first, I don't know specifically...


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

aleazk said:


> I wouldn't say that serialism was a dead end, since its sound world is still influential today. For example, pieces like the Piano Études by Ligeti rely heavily in chromatic completion, i.e., all 12 notes are played sooner or later in a passage, although not in ordered rows.
> Of course, maybe _strict_ serialism was a dead end. But that can be said also of strict CPT. The fact is that the diversity always lies in the middle, and composers are pretty aware of that.
> Composers may not be writing using tone rows, but certainly are influenced by the sonorities of serialism.
> I don't think Reich is innovating in harmony, he's just being populist. The composer himself has stated the influence of pop & new age music in his harmony.
> I'm not going to make a moral judgement about that. All I can say is that, for me, it is uninteresting.


You don't need serialism to create a highly chromatic sound world but I take your point.
However, I was talking about the minimalists reaction against prevailing aesthetics. Do not fall into the trap of dismissing something as populist because it is popular. What is wrong with being influenced by the popular music of your time. Which great composer of the past wasn't?

I can understand you find Reich uninteresting. That is your prerogative. I find Reich more interesting than Ferneyhough or Penderecki, that's mine.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I can understand you find Reich uninteresting. That is your prerogative. I find Reich more interesting than Ferneyhough or Penderecki, that's mine.


I find Reich more interesting than Ferneyhough or Penderecki too...but not more so than Boulez or Ligeti.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> The whole tone scale is maximally even. It has six notes (C-D-E-F#-G#-A# or C#-D#-F-G-A-B), and no center (no leading tones, so no tonal pull). Any tonality in a piece relying primarily or entirely on the whole tone scale must be "by assertion", that is, graspable because of emphasis due to register or duration rather than functional progression.
> 
> As for which was first, I don't know specifically...


Sorry, I meant six notes not five.

The whole tone scale used alone produces harmonically 'neutral' music. Even Debussy in his celebrated prelude could not sustain interest over the whole piece and had to add a contrasting section.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> The whole tone scale used alone produces harmonically 'neutral' music. Even Debussy in his celebrated prelude could not sustain interest over the whole piece and had to add a contrasting section.


Yes, but it is problematic in that it only produces a single type of triad (augmented), not because it is maximally even. The octatonic scale used extensively by Messiaen and occasionally by Stravinsky is also maximally even, and has no such problems.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but it is problematic in that it only produces a single type of triad (augmented), not because it is maximally even. The octatonic scale used extensively by Messiaen and occasionally by Stravinsky is also maximally even, and has no such problems.


I agree. The fact that it is so symmetrical means that it is impossible to create a sense of 'pull'. I wrote a piano piece at uni where I 'discovered' the octatonic scale myself by accident as a consequence of a progression of diads I was using (hadn't looked at Messiaen yet). Very disappointed to find out I wasn't unique!:lol:


----------

