# On Composing Directly in Older Styles



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

On Composing Directly in Older Styles:

I made a comment about a 'classical style' piece posted in Today's Composers, that it took less creativity to compose in an older style. That was not at all well-qualified, and another found it demeaning and took right umbrage about the statement as it was written.

*As a topic, then, I would like to 'let it run' where people are free to say what they think / feel about composing directly in an older style.*

To correct the woefully incomplete 'this takes less creativity,' which I wrote (which is merely an opinion I have of this genre of composing,) I fully acknowledge that certainly, composing such a score demands creativity from its composer.

My issues with that are what kind of creativity, and 'how creative is it, really?'

So on to the show:

What part of dropping in on and using:

_an already established period's harmonic syntax;
its harmonic usage;
its harmonic practice;
its forms;
its very melodic contours and configurations;
its instruments used, and the disposition of their registration;_

is _as creative or inventive_ as making up / finding your own individual musical style, including your own take on all those elements above listed?

Best regards to all, and...
Let the flame wars begin.

An Addendum: I think it pointless -- but it seems necessary -- to say that of course no past or present composer worked or works in a vacuum without influences. 
Beethoven's early piano sonatas have more than a touch of Haydn in them, while they are still distinctly 'by someone other than Haydn.' 
Prokofiev's _Classical Symphony is Hadyenesque,_ but could not be at all directly mistaken for Haydn.
Stravinsky's _Concerto in Eb, Dumbarton Oaks_ is clearly modeled after the Bach _Brandenburg Concerti_ without its being near to 'sounding just like Bach.'

What I wanted to address is those writing in a classical style, baroque style, etc. with it seems the intent that _it could be mistaken for music from the actual period._ I.e. works directly in the manner of Mozart, C.P.E. Bach, Brahms, or any work so directly imitative of a composer (while still technically qualifying as 'original') that it could be mistaken as being from the period -- and what people think of working in that mode and of the pieces so written.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

I think you may define 'style' more strictly than those who are interested in composing in older styles. 

It takes a lot of talent and creativity to compose something original within an existing style. The way I see it, it's historically been easier to appear creative by inventing a new style than by composing something original within an existing one - which is why it's been so often done since composers started to feel the pressure to be original: the easy way out.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Depending on what one means by an already existing style, I think the vast majority of composers (even very good ones) composed almost all their works in an already existing style. Even if a composer actually pushes the envelope and creates a somewhat new style, further works in that style are "composing in an already existing style." 

I understand that "composing in an already existing style" probably means a style that existed but the vast majority of composers no longer compose in that style. Still since so many compositions do not push the stylistic envelope, is it unreasonable to criticize someone for using an older style as long as they try to do at least something original with that style? (Yes, I know, the phrase "something original with that style" is not well defined.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A chap named Beethoven composed a piano quintet with winds that he assigned Op. 16. He rather slavishly followed the key signature, instrumentation, and general outline of Mozart's similar quintet K.452 written some years earlier. Stylistically he added nothing to Mozart's model; he was pretty obviously in learning mode, and most would say that he didn't quite equal Mozart's great example.

Nevertheless, it was good enough. It has been enduringly popular for better than two centuries. An early critic said (from memory), in a hundred years we won't see such a pair of works again.

Does it really matter that the work wasn't "original"? Nobody really cares about that sort of thing. They just listen to the music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Does it really matter that the work wasn't "original"? Nobody really cares about that sort of thing. They just listen to the music.


I doubt that. You're assuming that listeners fail to bring expectations and awareness of how things work to the table. It may not be consciously articulated, but everyone has their own way of listening to and understanding music.

The Beethoven/Mozart example is not exactly like what is under discussion here, as both composers worked within the same general stylistic syntax and both lived in the same era.

When Bach imitates old-style cantus firmus polyphony in the Credo of his B minor mass, this is a conscious allusion to a dead style, within the context of a work that is nevertheless completely Baroque. When Fritz Kreisler writes pseudo-Vivaldi, on the other hand, it is an imitation that gains mostly from being bits of other works pasted together. It is not allusion, in other words, but pastiche.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> Depending on what one means by an already existing style...


Practicing to be a Spin Doctor for some politician?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> I doubt that. You're assuming that listeners fail to bring expectations and awareness of how things work to the table. It may not be consciously articulated, but everyone has their own way of listening to and understanding music.


I believe that quality will always out and will trump preconceptions of style every time. BTW Kreisler had some good chuckles over the way his formerly praised "fake" compositions were criticized when their true authorship was discovered. They weren't "pastiches" until extra-musical considerations entered the picture. He said, "The name changes, the value remains."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I believe that quality will always out and will trump preconceptions of style every time. BTW Kreisler had some good chuckles over the way his formerly praised "fake" compositions were criticized when their true authorship was discovered. They weren't "pastiches" until extra-musical considerations entered the picture. He said, "The name changes, the value remains."


And they were not ever and are still not Vivaldi, now, are they....
I really wonder, no matter how much or how little a fine composer wrote, why anyone would think to later write in such a way as to disingenuously try to add to a completed body of works by another.

Weird psychology there... about which I'm sure Ziggy and Karl would have had an interesting say.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

I think Prokofiev said it best on the composition of his Symphony No. 1.:"I had in mind the thought of writing a symphony in the style of Hadyn... If Haydn were living today, I thought he would keep to his style of writing, while at the same time incorporating some newer ideas." Sometimes, in my uninformed opinion, it is more creative to use old musical forms in a new way than to keep within the bounds of the prevailing style. As an artist, I sometimes use "found" objects in my work, and I don't see that as "cheating" or "plagarism" but instead see it as one more tool in my creative toolkit.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> And they were not ever and are still not Vivaldi, now, are they....


I am reminded of how Michael Haydn's 25th Symphony was for many years thought to be Mozart's 37th, with nobody having any issues with that. Then, when its true authorship was discovered in 1907, all the "experts" cried out, "Well, obviously it couldn't have been by Mozart, at that point in his career!" They had, of course, been conspicuously silent before... :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Antiquarian said:


> I think *Prokofiev* said it best on the composition of his *Symphony No. 1*.:"I had in mind the thought of writing a symphony in the style of Hadyn... *If Haydn were living today, I thought he would keep to his style of writing, while at the same time incorporating some newer ideas.*" Sometimes, in my uninformed opinion, it is more creative to use old musical forms in a new way than to keep within the bounds of the prevailing style. As an artist, I sometimes use "found" objects in my work, and I don't see that as "cheating" or "plagarism" but instead see it as one more tool in my creative toolkit.


*One of the very pieces I cited in my addendum, and it is still as fresh as a daisy!*


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Antiquarian said:


> I think Prokofiev said it best on the composition of his Symphony No. 1.:"I had in mind the thought of writing a symphony in the style of Hadyn... If Haydn were living today, I thought he would keep to his style of writing, while at the same time incorporating some newer ideas." Sometimes, in my uninformed opinion, it is more creative to use old musical forms in a new way *than to keep within the bounds of the prevailing style*. As an artist, I sometimes use "found" objects in my work, and I don't see that as "cheating" or "plagarism" but instead see it as one more tool in my creative toolkit.


He is also comparing to a prevailing style, not to pushing into a new direction. The OP contrasts an already established harmonic syntax with finding your own style. Isn't prevailing style already established?

(Of course, everything plays off established styles to a large degree.)


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> He is also comparing to a prevailing style, not to pushing into a new direction. The OP contrasts an already established harmonic syntax with finding your own style. Isn't prevailing style already established?
> 
> (Of course, everything plays off established styles to a large degree.)


Absolutely. You and the OP are correct. I humbly withdraw my observation.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

In terms of how creative/not creative imitating an older style, I will put it this way. Composing music is like playing music in this regard. A long time ago, Vivaldi's violin concertos were considered to be the cutting edge virtuosity of the day, now Vivaldi is pretty standard for many talented 10 year olds around the world. Liszt used to be the only person that could play Liszt, now any pianist with a name to them at all can play a good portion of Liszt pieces. I think you guys can figure out where I'm going with this...


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Some raw material to aid discussion - many of these record efforts to compose in another style with attributions to historical or fictitious composers. Interesting reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_hoax

For the amateur, I suppose, it's nice to grab onto an existing style that inspires you. And then progress can be rapid and satisfying as replicating baroque or classical forms can be done fairly readily - to an extent you can plug material (some conventionally shaped four bar phrases say with some little figures in them) into a classical or baroque framework and generate yourself some staging posts (first subject, second, transitions, keys, proportions for the development section, recap etc) and there are a host of replicable "devices" and figures to flesh it out. I'm not saying you could do it by algorithm but you get a good head start if you choose to compose in baroque or classical models


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> ... When Bach imitates old-style cantus firmus polyphony in the Credo of his B minor mass, this is a conscious allusion to a dead style, within the context of a work that is nevertheless completely Baroque. When Fritz Kreisler writes pseudo-Vivaldi, on the other hand, it is an imitation that gains mostly from being bits of other works pasted together. It is not allusion, in other words, but pastiche.


Mahlerian cited the example of Bach's B minor Credo. Since PetrB opened with Haydn examples, let me suggest a couple of examples of Haydn's that fit the bill and are remarkable works, namely, several of his string quartets in opus 20 are fugues. They are Bach-like but at the same time very much Haydn. What would you say makes them original? Here's an example:


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

One of the interesting young composers working today is Dobrinka Tabakova (she's English, but her family is from Bulgaria). One of her composition is entitled "Suite in Old Style." It is a conscious nod to late Renaissance / early Baroque. It reminds me a bit of the music of Johann Heinrich Schmelzer (c. 1620-1680). But it's not pastiche. And she's perfectly capable of writing in a contemporary style. This work doesn't seem to be a school exercise, but a conscious attempt to incorporate older motifs in a personal and new way. You'll hear nods to later musics (e.g. Appalachian folk music -- she is on record as saying how much she enjoys American bluegrass) and various folk musics. And there are moments when the harmonies turn decidedly 20th century. I don't think it's a "great" piece, but it's enjoyable and skillfully done. Any thoughts? Here's the YouTube of it:






By the way, it's from her debut release _String Paths_ (ECM, 2013):


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I am reminded of how Michael Haydn's 25th Symphony was for many years thought to be Mozart's 37th, with nobody having any issues with that. Then, when its true authorship was discovered in 1907, all the "experts" cried out, "Well, obviously it couldn't have been by Mozart, at that point in his career!" They had, of course, been conspicuously silent before... :lol:


I am reminded of how some seem to never get around to the actual point of discussion in OPs, or will never commit themselves to an actual point of view.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I am reminded of how some seem to never get around to the actual point of discussion in OPs, or will never commit themselves to an actual point of view.


You must have missed my post then: "I believe that quality will always out and will trump preconceptions of style every time." Writing in an older style? Who cares? I don't know how to make it plainer than that.

I am reminded (again) of a former member of this forum who wrote an Amazon review of a decent recording of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony and gave it two stars. Why? Because the composer failed to take advantage of advances in music over the preceding 50 years. I admit to being irritated by this attitude.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Alypius said:


> One of the interesting young composers working today is Dobrinka Tabakova. One of her composition is entitled "Suite in Old Style." It is a conscious nod to late Renaissance / early Baroque. It reminds me a bit of the music of Heinrich Schmelzer. But it's not pastiche. And she's perfectly capable of writing in a contemporary style. This work doesn't seem to be a school exercise, but a conscious attempt to incorporate older motifs in a new way. You'll hear nods to later musics (e.g. Appalachian folk music -- she is on record as saying how much she enjoys American bluegrass) and various folk musics. And there are moments when the harmonies turn decidedly 20th century. I don't think it's a "great" piece, but it's enjoyable and skillfully done. Any thoughts? Here's the YouTube of it:


Lucas Foss, _Renaissance Concerto._ As long as you bring something to the dinner party instead of eating and regurgitating the food as prepared by others, lol. The music in your link is not my cuppa, but she did bring something of her own to that table. The Foss concerto, however, I think a truly strong and fine piece, and nowhere in the realms of pastiche.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Alypius said:


> One of the interesting young composers working today is Dobrinka Tabakova (she's English, but her family is from Bulgaria). One of her composition is entitled "Suite in Old Style." It is a conscious nod to late Renaissance / early Baroque. It reminds me a bit of the music of Johann Heinrich Schmelzer (c. 1620-1680). But it's not pastiche. And she's perfectly capable of writing in a contemporary style. This work doesn't seem to be a school exercise, but a conscious attempt to incorporate older motifs in a personal and new way. You'll hear nods to later musics (e.g. Appalachian folk music -- she is on record as saying how much she enjoys American bluegrass) and various folk musics. And there are moments when the harmonies turn decidedly 20th century. I don't think it's a "great" piece, but it's enjoyable and skillfully done. Any thoughts? Here's the YouTube of it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think what PetrB is talking about is very EXACT replications of much older styles. This piece would never actually be mistaken for Renaissance music, even though it makes plenty of nods to that style.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Y
> 
> I am reminded (again) of a former member of this forum who wrote an Amazon review of a decent recording of Shostakovich's 15th Symphony and gave it two stars. Why? Because the composer failed to take advantage of advances in music over the preceding 50 years. I admit to being irritated by this attitude.


But Shostakovich is not writing in an "older style" to the degree that the OP is talking about. Shostakovich didn't write classical or Baroque era pastiche. The 15th symphony is a tiny bit conservative for the time it was written, but Shostakovich was an old man by that time and he was writing in the style that he grew up with.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A question to noodle on: Let's say somebody today were to compose a symphony kind of like Beethoven's 7th. A totally different and original symphony, of course, but not departing from Beethoven's harmonic language, his techniques circa 1812, his instrumentation, and so forth. Further, this symphony is equal to Beethoven's in intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit.

Unlikely for obvious reasons, but still: How would this symphony be received? By audiences? By experts?


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Ken cited Shostakovich's 15th Symphony, and I agree that it's probably not the best example. But Shostakovich did write what I believe was an immensely creative work in a decidedly old style, namely, his _24 Preludes and Fugues_, op. 87. Alexander Melnikov did a wonderful version a few years ago. Here's a YouTube of a few excerpts together with some comments on it:






PetrB, I guess you're getting the sense that I probably disagree with your opening claim. I think that there is that crucial moment when an artist finds his or her own voice, when the person takes the inheritances of the past and somehow transmutes them by some miraculous alchemy. I think the Haydn example I cited does that; I think Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues do that.

In a much more complicated and subtle fashion, Shostakovich took an old and venerable genre of the symphony and consistently rebuilt it to make it his own -- and did so under the most terrible artistic circumstances (of political oppression).

I guess what I'm asking from you is to express the issue positively: namely, what do you mean by creativity? When does the inherited become the stuff of the new?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> A question to noodle on: Let's say somebody today were to compose a symphony kind of like Beethoven's 7th. A totally different and original symphony, of course, but not departing from Beethoven's harmonic language, his techniques circa 1812, his instrumentation, and so forth. Further, this symphony is equal to Beethoven's in intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit.
> 
> Unlikely for obvious reasons, but still: How would this symphony be received? By audiences? By experts?


My reaction is, we HAVE Beethoven's seventh, which _was an innovative work at the time it was written._

Being Beethoven and pulling 'A Seventh Symphony' out of thin air, the dark, and your head is utterly different than writing, now, a 'seventh symphony' as good, having all the libraries and recordings of the Beethoven in your cultural history and knowledge -- the latter is merely 'clever,' the former, genius. (This is so not rocket science I get freaked at how many people seem to not get it!)

So.. who could possibly care about a piece written now -- if realized -- and as you describe? -- other than 'very clever,' for which I don't think there is much audience or many prestigious awards.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> My reaction is, we HAVE Beethoven's seventh, which _was an innovative work at the time it was written._
> 
> Who could possibly care about a piece written now -- if realized -- and as you describe?


My view is quite different. People don't, for the most part, enjoy Beethoven's 7th because it's "innovative". That's a property of music that has no value at all to most people. They like Beethoven's 7th because it's absolutely smashing music.

I suspect that if things were as I describe, the new symphony would rival the existing Beethoven canon in popularity and would have similar staying power.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> My view is quite different. People don't, for the most part, enjoy Beethoven's 7th because it's "innovative". That's a property of music that has no value at all to most people. They like Beethoven's 7th because it's absolutely smashing music.
> 
> I suspect that if things were as I describe, the new symphony would rival the existing Beethoven canon in popularity and would have similar staying power.


Here's another question, since we're jumping to hypotheticals here:
Why do you think this has never happened, _even a single time_?

People may not explicitly value innovation as such, but the list of the most popular composers and the list of the composers who broke new and fertile ground seem to overlap significantly.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Here's another question, since we're jumping to hypotheticals here:
> Why do you think this has never happened, _even a single time_?


As I said, it's unlikely for obvious reasons -- probably the same reasons that nobody's written a play that could be taken for first-drawer Shakespeare. I think it will never happen. But the hypothetical stands...


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

dgee said:


> For the amateur, I suppose, it's nice to grab onto an existing style that inspires you. And then progress can be rapid and satisfying as replicating baroque or classical forms can be done fairly readily - to an extent you can plug material (some conventionally shaped four bar phrases say with some little figures in them) into a classical or baroque framework and generate yourself some staging posts (first subject, second, transitions, keys, proportions for the development section, recap etc) and there are a host of replicable "devices" and figures to flesh it out. I'm not saying you could do it by algorithm but you get a good head start if you choose to compose in baroque or classical models


As a matter of fact, it _can_ be done by algorithm: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/11/science/undiscovered-bach-no-a-computer-wrote-it.html

On the topic of the OP, I'm slightly conflicted. On the one hand, I still dream of writing a big Romantic-style symphony (and started a social group here, the "First-and-a-half Viennese School" to bring back the style). On the other hand, if you can't add something with your compositions, what's the point of composing? Replicating older styles is a great way to study how the masters dealt with various problems in music--it's a great learning tool. I have no qualm with people writing pieces with an older style for a purpose to which they're suited: hoax, pastiche, or technical exercise. If you try to pass off a work as fulfilling a purpose to which it's not suited, though, you'll be ignored. "I like composing in the style of Mozart, here's some of my work, tell me what you think!" Well, that's all fine and dandy, it's a lovely piece, and I'm glad you enjoyed writing it, but it doesn't bring us anything new and it's not art.

I do, however, believe there may still be room within the vague styles called "Classical" and "Romantic" for new individual styles and harmonic syntaxes (more likely the latter than the former--I'm tempted to classify much film music as "Romantic" in style, though Zimmer is clearly different from Williams, and both are unique from Tchaikovsky, Strauss, or Rimsky-Korsakov).


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> A question to noodle on: Let's say somebody today were to compose a symphony kind of like Beethoven's 7th. A totally different and original symphony, of course, but not departing from Beethoven's harmonic language, his techniques circa 1812, his instrumentation, and so forth. Further, this symphony is equal to Beethoven's in intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit.
> 
> Unlikely for obvious reasons, but still: How would this symphony be received? By audiences? By experts?


Glenn Gould writes amusingly on such questions in "Forgery and Imitation in the Creative Process," by the way.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Here's another question, since we're jumping to hypotheticals here:
> Why do you think this has never happened, _even a single time_?


Marketing. The same reason why Green Giant frozen vegetables cost more at the supermarket than Great Value frozen vegetables. The brand adds value to the product in a way. If a composer could bear for his hoax to remain undiscovered indefinitely, a fake tenth Beethoven symphony may be just as popular as a real one, simply because it bears Beethoven's brand name.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Unrelated to all these hypotheticals, what do we make of Robert Levin here? He could easily substitute his own material and spent some time writing it out. In fact I believe he has done so in the past






It's a marvelous skill, especially inserting the dissonance quartet opening, and the result is pleasant. I'm really not sure what to make of it in many ways, interested in thoughts


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Here's another question, since we're jumping to hypotheticals here:
> Why do you think this has never happened, _even a single time_?


--------------------------------:lol: :lol: :tiphat:


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

Me, and two of my friends regulary meets and improvise some barock music in style of Telemann/Corelli etc. We consists of cembalo (me) flute and cello. Its more simple than one can imagine. How its sounds? -Like Telemann. After 30 minutes we cant stand it and continue whith some original, sheet music (J.S Bach)
-Ok, improvisation is not "Composing"


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dgee said:


> Unrelated to all these hypotheticals, what do we make of Robert Levin here? He could easily substitute his own material and spent some time writing it out. In fact I believe he has done so in the past
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe you missed this: "Composing Mozart."




I think you might enjoy it, all of it. In the lecture, Levin says enough to make it patently clear what his intentions are, and those are to 'write in the gaps,' i.e. make more than credible and appropriate cadenzas to those concerti where we have none from Mozart, and he has also done a completion of the Requiem. His research -- and knowledge, both are profound, and profoundly _thorough._ His aim: anything but composing an independent piece ala maniere de 'just to make another classical piece.' He is a brilliant performing musicologist, the whole of his energies to that goal.

Seriously intelligent musician, he, and the knowledge, and regard on the entire ethos of the era, are astounding, and highly informative and a pleasure to listen to.


----------



## Jaks (Jul 31, 2014)

The main difference is: when you compose in your own period style is that you look upwards, while composing "in the style of" you look downwards.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Jaks said:


> The main difference is: when you compose in your own period style is that you look upwards, while composing "in the style of" you look downwards.


Was that how Bach saw it when he composed the Art of the Fugue?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Alypius said:


> Mahlerian cited the example of Bach's B minor Credo. Since PetrB opened with Haydn examples, let me suggest a couple of examples of Haydn's that fit the bill and are remarkable works, namely, several of his string quartets in opus 20 are fugues. They are Bach-like but at the same time very much Haydn. What would you say makes them original? Here's an example:


I'll take a wild stab at it and say Haydn _was interested in writing a fugue, in his own manner,_ and was not at all interested in imitating Bach, ergo, it is Fresh Haydn and not A Stale Bach Pastiche


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> I'll take a wild stab at it and say Haydn _was interested in writing a fugue, in his own manner,_ and was not at all interested in imitating Bach, ergo, it is Fresh Haydn and not A Stale Bach Pastiche


But, I think it sounds very close to Bach. Far more than I expected


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

By the way doesnt this sounds very very similar:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

stevens said:


> But, I think it sounds very close to Bach. Far more than I expected


Why should it not, it is not as if the two composers lived hundreds of years apart....

Two (three actually) fugues from hundreds of years later which sound nothing like Bach or Handel:
Stravinsky, Concerto for two pianos solo, IV; prelude and fugue





Thomas Ades:
In Seven Days;V. Fugue: Creatures of the Sea and Sky / and right thereafter, VI. Fugue: Creatures of the Land
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2B4KOGyTTk#t=21m48s


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I think a composer should be able to compose a fugue, classical symphony, romantic sonata etc because it teaches them the skill to conform to stick to a form but still be creative, but only as an exercise.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> On Composing Directly in Older Styles:
> 
> I made a comment about a 'classical style' piece posted in Today's Composers, that it took less creativity to compose in an older style. That was not at all well-qualified, and another found it demeaning and took right umbrage about the statement as it was written.
> 
> ...


How old is old? I don't think it really matters. If the music is great and it connects to people, then it is a successful piece. Prokofiev's Classical Symphony is such an example. Nothing wrong with it. Conversely, composing in the most modern style doesn't necessarily mean it is successful either just because it is new. I do not believe in writing new music for the sake of "newness" nor writing music in an older style for the sake of it (whether Brahms or Prokofiev). The end product will be what is judged.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> How old is old? I don't think it really matters. If the music is great and it connects to people, then it is a successful piece. Prokofiev's Classical Symphony is such an example. Nothing wrong with it. Conversely, composing in the most modern style doesn't necessarily mean it is successful either just because it is new. I do not believe in writing new music for the sake of "newness" nor writing music in an older style for the sake of it (whether Brahms or Prokofiev). The end product will be what is judged.


I quite agree but you need to keep in mind that writing in an older style is quite easy, simply because you have the old "masters" as an example.


----------



## Jaks (Jul 31, 2014)

Andreas said:


> Was that how Bach saw it when he composed the Art of the Fugue?


The baroque era finished about 1750. What is your point here?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Been catching up on CMIB tonight. Maybe somewhat related to the topic at hand: http://www.classicalmusicisboring.com/archive/2013/03/cmib00609.html


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kopachris said:


> Been catching up on CMIB tonight. Maybe somewhat related to the topic at hand: http://www.classicalmusicisboring.com/archive/2013/03/cmib00609.html


LOL. Right on the money, literally!

I have it on very reliable authority that a well-respected European composer of contemporary classical, with string quartets, chamber music and works for larger ensembles to his credit -- those works commissioned and performed often enough -- supplements his income by composing film scores under a pseudonym I will not disclose... and effective, well-written and orchestrated film scores they are, at that. His film score forays do not seem to impinge upon or influence his other writing style.

Williams, on the other hand, after a lifetime of film scoring to order, when he does write a classical piece, that piece sounds as if it were written by a film score composer for an extraordinarily long film segment where a contemporary classical piece is part of the scene... i.e. too many years of writing 'like any and everybody' to make a dent in the listener as anyone with a unique voice -- or much to say!


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2014)

This had already gotten to page four before I saw it.

But I'll jump in anyway with the observation that the kind of music PetrB posits in the OP would most likely be music written by a fan. A fan admires something. And if a fan has any technical training, then that admiration can easily turn into imitation.

Other fans, who may or may not have any technical training themselves, will applaud this effort, claiming that the end result is all that matters, forgetting, of course, that a symphony written in 2014 that uses only the vocabulary of Beethoven's 7th will not ever be anywhere near as valuable as the Beethoven. How could it? It lacks one crucial element of Beethoven's 7th, namely that that piece was written by Beethoven, and it was written in a time when the things Beethoven did in it were innovative. That they're not innovative any more has nothing to do with anything. What's important about Beethoven's 7th, and what keeps it fresh even in 2014, is that it was written in a way that is quite different from Ken's hypothetical. That is, the "end result" very much depends on what has gone into the product. In a sense, the "vocabulary" of Beethoven's seventh is something that Beethoven created not something he inherited and certainly not something he was imitating.

Here's another hypothetical to set along side Ken's: suppose for his 7th that Beethoven had decided to do a piece using only the means and vocabulary of Monteverdi's _Rape of Proserpina?_ How memorable or enduring do you think that would have been or would still be?

The hard and immovable fact of the matter is that "[Suppose] somebody today were to compose a symphony kind of like Beethoven's 7th. A totally different and original symphony, of course, but not departing from Beethoven's harmonic language, his techniques circa 1812, his instrumentation, and so forth. Further, this symphony is equal to Beethoven's in intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit" is a flat impossibility. It's a fan's pipedream. One loves Beethoven, so anything done outside Beethoven's time that "sounds like" Beethoven is going to pass muster with a fan. Naturally. No one else is likely to give it a moment's notice.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I guess I would say that composing a "good" piece in an historical style is at least exactly as hard as composing it would have been in the period imitated. Maybe harder.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I'll take a wild stab at it and say Haydn _was interested in writing a fugue, in his own manner,_ and was not at all interested in imitating Bach, ergo, it is Fresh Haydn and not A Stale Bach Pastiche


PetrB, Thanks for venturing a response. I agree with you in most respects. No creative composer worth his or her salt wants to be a Bach-wannabe or a Mozart-wannabe or a Beethoven-wannabe. No one wants to be a Bach- or Beethoven- forger / cover band. They want to be themselves, to write the music that is in them and is for their own era. But in the examples I cited I do find it interesting when genuinely creative composers take upon themselves the task of writing _for their era_ music in an older style -- that is why I cited Haydn and Shostakovich and, as perhaps a competent contemporary example, Tabakova.

To switch fields to poetry: teachers of creative writing make their students write all sorts of old-fashioned forms: sonnets, blank verse, or intricate archaic ones like Middle English alliterative verse or Italian sestinas. On occasion, highly accomplished poets will turn such exercises into genuine art. I wish I could dig out some examples of my memory, but I've seen contemporary poets who write these creative (and quirky) contemporary sestinas. One modern example that people might be familiar with is Ranier Marie Rilke's _Sonnets to Orpheus_. If you look at the original German, they are true sonnets -- yet deeply original and deeply modern.

As I've mentioned before, one of my interests is charting that subtle frontier between tradition and the individual talent. Every artist has a tradition he or she is working from -- even if it happens to be a little-known one or a quirky idiosyncratic one. No artist invents his or her own language, at least early on. What interests me is that creative frontier where the artist takes what he or she has heard / studied and makes it new, makes it his or her own. Do that make some sense? Where, for you, is that edge? Where does an inheritance (whether it be a genre, a "style", etc.) become both original and worth listening to? (One can, of course, be original and write worthless stuff -- thus my addition "worth listening to").


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Here's one more example of a contemporary composer composing in an old style: Charles Wuorinen (b. 1938). Wuorinen is often a cutting-edge composer, writing all manner of compositions (most are now available in Naxos' "American Classics" series). But he has an unusual interest in Renaissance music. He takes Renaissance works and rescores them for modern instruments. Renaissance composers rarely specified instruments or dynamics or tempi. Those things were simply understood as part of the oral tradition. Well, Wuorinen takes advantage of that, and modernizes these Renaissance dance works, adding unusual pluckings in the strings, flutter-tonguings in the wind instruments, all sorts of dynamics and tempo specifications. This YouTube is Wuorinen's recasting of dances from the _Glogauer Liederbuch_, a big anonymous collection of Renaissance dances. Be prepared to be thoroughly entertained -- and listen to a creative composers doing his thing with Renaissance melodies. Wuorinen has another similar piece called Josquiana (in honor of Josquin Desprez).






Any thoughts on this?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

KenOC said:


> A question to noodle on: Let's say somebody today were to compose a symphony kind of like Beethoven's 7th. A totally different and original symphony, of course, but not departing from Beethoven's harmonic language, his techniques circa 1812, his instrumentation, and so forth. Further, this symphony is equal to Beethoven's in intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit.
> 
> Unlikely for obvious reasons, but still: How would this symphony be received? By audiences? By experts?


I actually think this question is quite interesting, not for composition or musicology, but for understanding how humans perceive music. I posed a very similar question awhile ago in a thread, but almost everyone seemed to not understand truly what I was asking or why I was asking it. What's interesting is that one response comparing Beethoven's Seventh to a work very similar to Beethoven's seventh is that the latter:



PetrB said:


> ...is merely 'clever,' the former, genius. (This is so not rocket science I get freaked at how many people seem to not get it!)


Another response to someone writing a work similar to Beethoven's Seventh is that it:



some guy said:


> ...is a flat impossibility.


There's a huge gap between clever and impossible. Clever would mean that many hundreds of good composers today could write a work comparable to one of Beethoven's greatest symphonies (in the music but not the innovation). Impossible means that even if the greatest composers of today and the next 1000 years tried for most of their lives, no one could accomplish that feat. I assume they were responding to somewhat different ideas of what Ken suggested (although I'm not sure what the difference would be).

I personally think creating a "new" Beethoven's Seventh as Ken suggests would be rather difficult in that a hugely talented composer would be required, but it would truly shock me to find out that it was impossible. I'd be interested to see how difficult those with a better sense of composition thought that writing a "new" Seventh would be. Maybe it's not as hard as I imagine.

As to how it would be received, I suspect that musicologists and many others with years of training would not find it interesting even if they thought it were truly beautiful. I imagine many others would find the work marvelous. In particular, if people found out that Beethoven's Seventh had actually been written in 1949 (for example), I think most would find it hard not to continue liking it, but some would manage.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Well Stravinsky tried that in writing Pulcinella...but somehow it came out sounding like Stravinsky.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Andreas said:


> Was that how Bach saw it when he composed the Art of the Fugue?


Well, since in his last few years J.S. was purblind with cataracts, and the patient of a doctor who bungled the operation Bach underwent to remove the cataracts, he could barely see anything at all -- any which way.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I personally think creating a "new" Beethoven's Seventh as Ken suggests would be rather difficult in that a hugely talented composer would be required, but it would truly shock me to find out that it was impossible. I'd be interested to see how difficult those with a better sense of composition thought that writing a "new" Seventh would be. Maybe it's not as hard as I imagine.


Thanks for understanding my question! It's a nice change. 

As you say, "difficult" and maybe more than that. You don't write a symphony like that by sitting down and being "clever." It really comes from deeper sources.

It's arguable whether a composer as talented as Beethoven will arise, or perhaps has arisen already. But Beethoven is not just the man but his times and circumstances as well. In our very different age, an "as-good-as Beethoven" surely would be writing far different music. So I tend to think of the hypothetical new symphony as closer to impossible than to merely unlikely!

But as you point out, the hypothetical was really aimed at how people perceive music, nothing more.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> OP: Well Stravinsky tried that in writing Pulcinella...but somehow it came out sounding like Stravinsky.


When Stravinsky played what he had of Pulcinella for Diaghilev, he said Diaghilev was more than a little surprised and upset. Stravinsky was also surprised at Diaghilev's reaction and said he thought Diaghilev had expected from him nothing more than "stylish orchestrations," of the materials he had been given.

When he sat down to compose the work, he said about it that he immediately fell in love with this music he had not known of before, and that he proceeded by writing directly upon the copies he had been given _as if he were correcting an older work of his own._

Interestingly, too, is that in 1920, neither Stravinsky or anyone else thought the old materials he was working with were anything but music of Pergolesi. ["Although the music was then attributed to Pergolesi, much of that attribution has since proved to be spurious; some of the music may have been written by Domenico Gallo, Unico Wilhelm van Wassenaer, Carlo Ignazio Monza and possibly Alessandro Parisotti." -- Wikipedia) I hasten to add, though, that those works which had been _attributed_ to Pergolesi had been published as such by unscrupulous publishers _not long after this very popular composer's untimely death at the age of 26. Whatever could be passed off by Pergolesi was to take advantage of a strong reputation and sales power in the marketplace..._ making the music mistaken as Pergolesi at the least by his very near or exact contemporaries 

The Pulcinella / Pergolesi history episode has a bit of relevance to KenOCs advocacy re: 'good fakes' ala the ones perpetrated by Fritz Kreisler, et alia --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_hoax -- i.e. _most_ of the fakes listed here were passed off in a world where musicology as we know it had not even yet been born. (Musicology as we know of it now was but nascent and then in its infancy in the 1960's!)

Sure, there are later pieces which have successfully passed off hoaxes, but with what is now a world-wide community of musicologists with the background and expert practice to somewhat rival forensic scientist / detectives, I wonder, in a current climate crawling with musicologists just how long those Kreisler dupes or the piano concerti supposedly by earlier composers of Robert and Gaby Casadesus, etc. would have lasted in the open air without their authorship soon being 'brought in for questioning and held under suspicion.'


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Here's a very nice cello concerto by J.C. Bach. Except that it's not really by J.C. Bach of course... :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Alypius said:


> Here's one more example of a contemporary composer composing in an old style: Charles Wuorinen (b. 1938). Wuorinen is often a cutting-edge composer, writing all manner of compositions (most are now available in Naxos' "American Classics" series). But he has an unusual interest in Renaissance music. He takes Renaissance works and rescores them for modern instruments. Renaissance composers rarely specified instruments or dynamics or tempi. Those things were simply understood as part of the oral tradition. Well, Wuorinen takes advantage of that, and modernizes these Renaissance dance works, adding unusual pluckings in the strings, flutter-tonguings in the wind instruments, all sorts of dynamics and tempo specifications. This YouTube is Wuorinen's recasting of dances from the _Glogauer Liederbuch_, a big anonymous collection of Renaissance dances. Be prepared to be thoroughly entertained -- and listen to a creative composers doing his thing with Renaissance melodies. Wuorinen has another similar piece called Josquiana (in honor of Josquin Desprez).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These are more in the mode of straight-ahead but creative orchestrations, sensitive to the music and timbre. I think they're very well done.

I've mentioned Lukas Foss' _Renaissance Concerto_ for flute and orchestra, in which you can readily hear just how conversant Foss was with this earlier repertoire, while there is nothing about the piece which is not fresh. 




Foss' _Measure for Measure,_ is a treatment of the music of renaissance composer Solomon Rossi, as the base vehicle for a tenor, and it uses for texts the Shakespeare from which the title is taken. While this is a more directly orchestrated / arranged piece based on the old materials, those are used in making a piece the form and content of which sounds fresh and non-derivative, despite the older music used as its basis.

But here is Wuorinen's _A Reliquary for Igor Stravinsky_, using the last sketches by Stravinsky as given to Wuorinen by Stravinsky's widow, a very different kind of essay than the straighter 'just orchestrating' of the link you provided.





Whether it is a fresh-take orchestration, or a more extensive re-working of old materials or putting a new spin on older musical procedures, none of these are flat out 'meant to pass' as the music of someone else, from another era... and therein lies all the difference between something most would consider 'of value' and a brilliant piece which is nonetheless a mere pastiche.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

PetrB said:


> 'as arranged by Gaby Casadesus,' LOL. Another Casadesus pastiche?


The more I listened to this, I would think that a lot of the keener listening audience -- without being told anything further -- would be thinking, _"This ain't by J.C. Bach, unless J.C. Bach was a late 19th century composer."_

It is just amazing what people believe of labels rather than trusting their own eyes, ears, nose and taste buds... and yeah, that 'people' would and does include the cognoscenti and other 'experts.' :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> 'as arranged by Gaby Casadesus,' LOL. Another Casadesus pastiche?


Believe it was Henri Casadesus, Robert's uncle. It has turned out to be enduringly popular and is still widely known as a J.C. Bach composition. Of course if we use a word like "pastiche" I guess we can curl our lip and dismiss it out of hand!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

PetrB said:


> 'as arranged by Gaby Casadesus,' LOL. Another Casadesus pastiche?


The more I listened to this, I would think that a lot of the keener listening audience -- without being told anything further -- would be thinking, _"This ain't by J.C. Bach, unless J.C. Bach was a late 19th century composer."_

It is just amazing what people believe of labels rather than trusting their own eyes, ears, nose and taste buds -- and yeah, that includes often enough academics and 'experts.' :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Believe it was Henri Casadesus, Robert's uncle. It has turned out to be enduringly popular and is still widely known as a J.C. Bach composition. Of course if we use a word like "pastiche" I guess we can curl our lip and dismiss it out of hand!


I added to that post, pastiche it is, but more to the point, it is impossibly not early 18th century music  This is not evaluating the piece as much as simply commenting upon what it is, and what it is not.

But you seem so fascinated with 'pieces which pass as,' that I wonder a bit 'what you hear' in general!

As to your Beethoven 7th parallel hypothetical, _if you include being of and having the ethos of the time,_ it all falls apart into the realms of between 'clever' and 'impossible.'


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> The more I listened to this, I would think that a lot of the keener listening audience -- without being told anything further -- would be thinking, _"This ain't by J.C. Bach, unless J.C. Bach was a late 19th century composer."_


Well, some people are certainly "keener" than others! But that's hardly the point. The point is, this work remains popular even after its unmasking not because of who people think wrote it, or when, but because they like the music. Should they dislike it?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I don't think anyone has ever been completely original. It's virtually impossible, actually. As for modern day compositions, I'd much rather hear something progressive than a mere replica of what's already been done. But, of course I love performances/interpretations of old master works.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Well, some people are certainly "keener" than others! But that's hardly the point. The point is, this work remains popular even after its unmasking not because of who people think wrote it, or when, but because they like the music. Should they dislike it?


I found it literally funny, i.e musically not at all cogent as a piece, and stylistically "all over the map." But if people find it pleasant, why dislike a pleasant work?


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

5 minutes of that "J C Bach" cello concerto and it gets really late classical, early romantic in places. I'd be interested to hear in a less thick perfromance with continuo - that would probably be even more odd


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I think that copying someone else is of course plagiarism, but composing intentionally in a past _idiom_ (e.g in a late-18th-century style) is perfectly acceptable. 
IMHO, whatever best suits the music is the correct style.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dgee said:


> 5 minutes of that "J C Bach" cello concerto and it gets really late classical, early romantic in places. I'd be interested to hear in a less thick perfromance with continuo - that would probably be even more odd


The costume, and affected accent, _do not at all persuade or convince_.

It certainly is a very odd duck!

It is "funny," both funny = ha ha ha! and funny = peculiar


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

dgee said:


> 5 minutes of that "J C Bach" cello concerto and it gets really late classical, early romantic in places. I'd be interested to hear in a less thick perfromance with continuo - that would probably be even more odd


There are quite a few performances on YouTube, maybe you can find what you want.  It's also available as a viola concerto.

Search under J.C. Bach's name as well, since many clips don't acknowledge Casadesus.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> There are quite a few performances on YouTube, maybe you can find what you want.  It's also available as a viola concerto.
> 
> Search under J.C. Bach's name as well, since many clips don't acknowledge Casadesus.


No reducing of the instrumental forces down to a more appropriate number of players as per period practice and no registration or HIPP instruments or inflections will hide the "all over the time period map" of the stylistic glitches in Casadesus' choice of intervals and shape of gestures, though.

Maybe it will 'look' better cosmetically dressed, but that's all.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

I don't see any problem with composing in an older style. If the majority of music that one likes comes from a previous century, why should they be forced to try to compose in a "modern" style that they don't enjoy quite as much? It's not like all good baroque/classical/romantic/etc.-style music has already been written. In my opinion, it seems very likely that there are many masterpieces at the level of a Beethoven symphony and in the style that haven't been written yet and we're all missing out on, although it's unlikely that they will ever be written. If a modern composer is able to achieve that, it would be a major contribution to classical music, even if it's not in the contemporary style.

All (not directly copied) pieces of music have their own meanings, and should not be penalized for being in a certain style if they are still unique and creative.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

As Schoenberg himself said, "There is still plenty of good music to be written in C major."


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

MoonlightSonata said:


> As Schoenberg himself said, "There is still plenty of good music to be written in C major."


And then he proceeded to develop his groundbreaking 12-method... lol.*

Jokes aside, to compose tonal music today (even if it is in C major) is a very different thing than composing a piece in classical style and sell it to the public as "your artistic creation"... 

*Yeah, I know Arnie never stopped composing tonal music...


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

But surely one could say that composing in _any_ style is an artistic creation. Why is classical style any less creative than, say, twelve-tone music?
Look at Mozart, for example. He wasn't much of an innovator, yet surely his works can be considered "his artistic creations".


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

^^^^Maybe some quick googling would change your mind about Mozart and innovation - think operas, piano concertos, counterpoint, chromaticism +++


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

MoonlightSonata said:


> I think that copying someone else is of course plagiarism, but composing intentionally in a past _idiom_ (e.g in a late-18th-century style) is perfectly acceptable.
> IMHO, whatever best suits the music is the correct style.


I'd agree--though it's not always easy to tell when a copy is _just_ a copy. I'm glad that Liszt never worried about plagiarism!


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

I dont understand why new, "groundbreaking" music (and art) is so extremely appreciated in our culture. Could it have to do whith the modern society, industrialism, and modern peoples hunt for shallow sensations and fashion or what? -Yes I know its an old argument! (dont mention Plato please) 
On the contrary, i love, for example Rachmaninoffs pianomusic despite the fact that he wrote quite unfashionable. -Here we can talk about composing in an old style (but I would absolute not call it pastisch!)


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

stevens said:


> I dont understand why new, "groundbreaking" music (and art) is so extremely appreciated in our culture. Could it have to do whith the modern society, industrialism, and modern peoples hunt for shallow sensations and fashion or what? -Yes I know its an old argument! (dont mention Plato please)
> On the contrary, i love, for example Rachmaninoffs pianomusic despite the fact that he wrote quite unfashionable. -Here we can talk about composing in an old style (but I would absolute not call it pastisch!)


"shallow sensations and fashion"?, really? I would have said it's precisely the opposite...: a search for more profundity in certain directions not explored by previous styles. I really couldn't disagree more with your view.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

aleazk said:


> "shallow sensations and fashion"?, really? I would have said it's precisely the opposite...: a search for more profundity in certain directions not explored by previous styles. I really couldn't disagree more with your view.


-Do you have a television?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

stevens said:


> -Do you have a television?


Er... we are talking about innovation in classical music here... it has nothing to do with the things you mention.

Schoenberg was shallow? Stravinsky was shallow? Webern was shallow? Ligeti was shallow? etc.

Your comparison is ridiculous.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

My contribution to this is that if you have to think consciously about the style of your work, you probably aren't doing it right.

For further information c.f. 'New Music, Outmoded Music, Style and Idea' by Schoenberg.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dgee said:


> ^^^^Maybe some quick googling would change your mind about Mozart and innovation - think operas, piano concertos, counterpoint, chromaticism +++


Poor old Wolferl is misunderstood because of his incredible deftness and sense of 'good taste,' that the radical things he did (noted in his lifetime, acknowledged by others, and having him say in a letter that he was certain many people found his music 'difficult') are usually not at all heard, seen or appreciated by many of the more usual classical music listener.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Yardrax said:


> My contribution to this is that if you have to think consciously about the style of your work, you probably aren't doing it right.
> 
> For further information c.f. 'New Music, Outmoded Music, Style and Idea' by Schoenberg.


_Nice one!_ ----------------


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Poor old Wolferl is misunderstood because of his incredible deftness and sense of 'good taste,' that the radical things he did (noted in his lifetime, acknowledged by others, and having him say in a letter that he was certain many people found his music 'difficult') are usually not at all heard, seen or appreciated by many of the more usual classical music listener.







Like Debussy, Mozart's music has become so thoroughly assimilated by our culture that it's difficult to recover the sense of what ever seemed bizarre or difficult about it to his contemporaries. Thus we have those who cannot hear dissonance in the "Dissonance" quartet and to whom the pained chromaticism of the G minor symphony becomes only so much elegant posturing.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

stevens said:


> I dont understand why new, "groundbreaking" music (and art) is so extremely appreciated in our culture. Could it have to do whith the modern society, industrialism, and modern peoples hunt for shallow sensations and fashion or what?





aleazk said:


> "shallow sensations and fashion"?, really? I would have said it's precisely the opposite...: a search for more profundity in certain directions not explored by previous styles. I really couldn't disagree more with your view.





stevens said:


> -Do you have a television?


I have not lived with a television in domicile or workplace, anywhere, since the age of 18, that's 48 years now. It is really really bad for you, you know. _*(Read "Within the Context of No Context" by George W. S. Trow.)*_

But talk about shallow to the point of really skimming a surface... the very Viennese public whom Mozart and Beethoven were writing 'for' were one of the shallowest lots of people on Earth at that time. They consumed the new readily, greedily, and, after one or a mere handful of performances, spit it out, forgot about it and then craved only what was new that came next. Talk about fickle, flaky and shallow. This is pretty much, if somewhat relatively, the same sort of consumption and 'use' of classical music that went on until the early 1900's. Much of the music survived. Most of the people who comprised that fickle public, long forgotten.

That was then. This is now.

Now, these same works are given multiple performances in venues throughout the world, people own copies they listen to repeatedly, etc. This means as far as classical music today, both composers and audience, there is a far deeper involvement, and a deeper expectation from both parties, but especially from audiences, than there was in 'the golden age' of Classical music. This same treatment, in-depth composing and listening, is very similar when it comes to the modern repertoire and the more currently written contemporary classical repertoire.

There will always be those who, like the 18th and 19th century Viennese, treat the fine arts like television, i.e. some sort of superficial entertainment which, if the consumer of same were asked the following day they would be unable to recall exactly what it was that had their attention the night before.

Beethoven was the prototype poster boy of that shallow experimental composer you so readily disparage. The whole step modulation after a silence in his Fourth piano concerto "sounding as strange to audiences of the day as Schoenberg did to audiences in the early 1900's" as conductor / musicologist Charles Hazelwood put it.

There will always be a certain crowd of any generation who are more interested in the sensationalism of being radically different and new, and as usual, very little of what comes from there ends up being of enough musical strength to sustain any prolonged interest in it... but that is not all of it. Personally, I doubt if many people have any idea of what truly experimental music is, i.e. in the classical arena, very little of it makes it to the concert halls or gets on to recordings... it is most often generally heard used as the tag conservative arts consumers paste on just about anything modern or contemporary which they don't like or understand.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Mozart - Gigue in G major, K. 574
> 
> 
> 
> ...


After hearing the premiere of the K.466 D-minor piano concerto, the cognoscenti thought, "After this, music can never be as it was before." Now, it is just another great Mozart Concerto, where at the time, it was a radical piece and turn of events!


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Like Debussy, Mozart's music has become so thoroughly assimilated by our culture that it's difficult to recover the sense of what ever seemed bizarre or difficult about it to his contemporaries. Thus we have those who cannot hear dissonance in the "Dissonance" quartet and to whom the pained chromaticism of the G minor symphony becomes only so much elegant posturing.





PetrB said:


> ... But talk about shallow to the point of really skimming a surface... the very Viennese public whom Mozart and Beethoven were writing 'for' were one of the shallowest lots of people on Earth at that time. They consumed the new readily, greedily, and, after one or a mere handful of performances, spit it out, forgot about it and then craved only what was new that came next. Talk about fickle, flaky and shallow. This is pretty much, if somewhat relatively, the same sort of consumption and 'use' of classical music that went on until the early 1900's. Much of the music survived. Most of the people who comprised that fickle public, long forgotten ....
> 
> Beethoven was the prototype poster boy of that shallow experimental composer you so readily disparage. The whole step modulation after a silence in his Fourth piano concerto "sounding as strange to audiences of the day as Schoenberg did to audiences in the early 1900's" as conductor / musicologist Charles Hazelwood put it....


Mahlerian and Petr, Thanks for these. They are cogent reminders for those who romanticize the past -- especially those who forget how the past actually sounded in the past.

Here's an anonymous account from 1788 about Mozart's Piano Quartet in G minor, K.478 -- an example of what Petr was talking about in the Viennese public:



> Now this is what happened innumerable times last winter: at nearly every place to which my travels led me and where I was taken to a concert, some young lady or pretentious middle-class demoiselle, or some other pert dillettante in a noisy gathering, came up with this engraved quartet [by Mozart] and fancied that it would be enjoyed. But it _could_ not please: everybody yawned with boredom over the incomprehensible _tintamerre_ of four instruments which did not keep together for four bars on end, and whose senseless _concertus_ never allowed any unity of feeling; but it had to please, it had to be praised...
> 
> quoted in James Keller, _Chamber Music: A Listener's Guide_ (Oxford U. Press, 2011), p. 334


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Alypius said:


> Mahlerian and Petr, Thanks for these. They are cogent reminders for those who romanticize the past -- especially those who forget how the past actually sounded in the past.
> 
> Here's an anonymous account from 1788 about Mozart's Piano Quartet in G minor, K.478 -- an example of what Petr was talking about in the Viennese public:


Thank you!

And here is that confoundingly modern, dissonant and clumsily uncoordinated piece, on period instruments.... Hey! It must be "_experimental._"

Mozart ~ Piano Quartet No. 1 in G minor, K. 478 





(To the point of my OP, how could anyone, regardless of their craft, replicate anything near, including 'its modernity.' The odds against have it nigh unto impossible.)
_plus ça change..._


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2014)

Marshall, you misquoted me. I did not claim that writing a symphony like Beethoven's 7th would be impossible. It would be quite possible. And the result would be merely clever. I'm with PetrB on that.

Please reread my post to see what I really said was impossible.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Marshall, you misquoted me. I did claim that writing a symphony like Beethoven's 7th would be impossible. It would be quite possible. And the result would be merely clever. I'm with PetrB on that.
> 
> Please reread my post to see what I really said was impossible.


To genuinely get these hypothetical pieces "like and as good as" those of yore, Time Travel would necessarily be involved, and that traveler would also have to have their memory wiped of anything from their own time. Of course, then those hypotheticals would be actual 'pieces from yore,' making the whole postulation moot 

That is why it is pretty much impossible, and any later or current attempt is going to be only 'clever.'


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> Marshall, you misquoted me. I did claim that writing a symphony like Beethoven's 7th would be impossible. It would be quite possible. And the result would be merely clever. I'm with PetrB on that.
> 
> Please reread my post to see what I really said was impossible.


Did you mean to say "I did _not_ claim that..."?

I'm assuming you mean that the first part of his statement would be possible, but the added:



> Further, this symphony is equal to Beethoven's in intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit.


would make it impossible? If so, you're probably correct. The interest and force would not be the same. Sorry for (not misquoting but) quoting out of context. 

I still would like to know if composers feel a "new" Beethoven's Seventh would merely be clever. It seems harder to me, but I don't really have a good basis for that view.


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2014)

musicrom said:


> If the majority of music that one likes comes from a previous century, why should they be forced to try to compose in a "modern" style that they don't enjoy quite as much?


Like I said. It's a fan thing. Creators want to create. Fan want to duplicate what they already like.



musicrom said:


> It's not like all good baroque/classical/romantic/etc.-style music has already been written.


Not only all the good but all the bad, too. It has already been written because these eras are over. I think the problem here can be understood by looking at one word: style. It's only -style music now. It wasn't when it was being written. It was music then. Later the labels were added. And even in the Romantic era, when composers called their music Romantic, it wasn't a style. It was more like a philosophy. And that philosophy drove many different "styles."



musicrom said:


> In my opinion, it seems very likely that there are many masterpieces at the level of a Beethoven symphony and in the style that haven't been written yet and we're all missing out on, although it's unlikely that they will ever be written. If a modern composer is able to achieve that, it would be a major contribution to classical music, even if it's not in the contemporary style.


Same here. There is no such thing as "the contemporary style." There are many "styles." Almost as many as there are composers. But to the point. There are exactly no masterpieces at the level of a Beethoven symphony and in the style. It's simple. We are no longer in 1814. We are in 2014. Two hundred years of all sorts of things have happened since 1814. It would be impossible to duplicate the spirit of that time, to exclude all knowledge and all instincts that have been produced since then, so as to be able to write a genuinely 19th century work.

Of course, one could write a pastiche. One could mimick stylistic mannerisms. But that is not how those original works were created. They were not made by mimicking stylistic mannerisms. Or, I should say, none of the ones that have survived, that are still performed, were made that way. They were made by writing music.



musicrom said:


> All (not directly copied) pieces of music have their own meanings, and should not be penalized for being in a certain style if they are still unique and creative.


Not sure what you mean by "penalized," but unique is still different from derivative.



MoonlightSonata said:


> As Schoenberg himself said, "There is still plenty of good music to be written in C major."


Well, this quote has also been attributed to Stravinsky and to Prokofiev. My guess is that none of them said this. As far as I know, this does not appear in any of these composers' writings. And even if anyone of them had said this, what's the latest it could have been said? Right. At the very least, over forty years ago. And probably sixty years ago or more. Is this supposed to be one of those things that's permanently true because someone famous is supposed to have said it? Even if it were true in 1940 or 50, how likely is it that it is still true in 2014? (Or is it going to end up being attributed to Wuorinen as well?)


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

PetrB said:


> To genuinely get these hypothetical pieces "like and as good as" those of yore, Time Travel would necessarily be involved, and that traveler would also have to have their memory wiped of anything from their own time. Of course, then those hypotheticals would be actual 'pieces from yore,' making the whole postulation moot
> 
> That is why it is pretty much impossible, and any later or current attempt is going to be only 'clever.'


Bingo. They cannot write 100% successfully in an old style when they cannot help but have been exposed to so many things the original composers were not exposed to. No matter how hard they try. Historically, stylistically, and socially. Mozart was not exposed to jazz, rock, rap, ragtime, romanticism, expressionism, impressionism, two world wars, 9/11, Vietnam, the industrial revolution, the information age, and on and on and on. We all have and that plays a role, even when it comes to trying to recreate art from centuries ago. You can't expect to express what an artist did so long ago without being there yourself and having no knowledge of what came after.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> Did you mean to say "I did _not_ claim that..."?
> 
> I'm assuming you mean that the first part of his statement would be possible, but the added:
> "Further, this symphony is equal to Beethoven's in intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit."
> ...


No. It would be real work, and maybe even hard work (any symphony is) but after all that, it would be no more than clever.

I write, I have numbers of past teachers who compose(d), are published and performed (one of them won the Pulitzer prize, even) and several other composer colleagues whose music is performed, and all of them think:

.....1.) A "New Beethoven 7th" will never be possible... this is nowhere near those arguments that it could not be "because no later or living composer is near as good as Beethoven." (All should put that exaggerated notion to its permanent grave.)
.....2.) _If_ a composer had the chops (and many do) that the work would be of little or no interest other than as a very slight and dry academic footnote.
.....3.) summing that up, the "Why bother." retort is the most often heard.

I repeat here (paraphrased) Mahlerian's earlier asked question. _If this were interesting or feasible,_ why has it never happened?

It is for two reasons: 
.....A.) Almost every composer, once a composer, innately knows it is not truly possible. 
.....B.) that to them as composers, as a question or as an actual undertaking, it is innately uninteresting.

Beethoven was obsessed, literally, with Mozart, and Mozart's K.466 piano concerto. He studied it, he performed it, _and he composed cadenzas for it._ Those cadenzas are not a 'musicological accuracy' -- i.e. he made no attempt to write cadenzas as if they were composed or might have been improvised by Mozart. He did write 'very Beethovian' cadenzas, which are a blast, and are at the same time deemed 'inappropriate' to the piece as far as being musically and stylistically correct for Mozart.

If Beethoven did not care to 'write like Mozart,' even for a brief bit in the cadenzas of a Mozart piano concerto, nor write anything else 'to be like Mozart's 43rd symphony, or 'another K. 466 D-minor piano concerto -- knowing that Beethoven admired Mozart as much as many today admire Beethoven -- why would anyone think any other composer would want to 'write like Beethoven?'

Still not convinced? Read my recent post #90.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Still not convinced? Read my recent post #90.


I've never thought a seriously good composer would want to write in an older style with no modern components. I was simply curious how hard it would be to compose something like that.

My only interest in anything along these lines is as a thought experiment to better understand listeners' attitudes toward music in general. Certainly not anything related to composers.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Functional harmony isn't a style. Writing within the framework of functional harmony shouldn't be seen as anachronistic - it's a universe and today still largely unexplored.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> Functional harmony isn't a style. Writing within the framework of functional harmony shouldn't be seen as anachronistic - it's a universe and today still largely unexplored.


You're arguing a strawman. No one said, or even implied, that functional harmony was a style, or that the problem was writing within the framework of functional harmony. That's like saying we said writing in 4/4 time was a style, or writing within the framework of duple time was the problem.

Michael Torke uses functional harmony in certain pieces, but they are modern and original to the core, because a piece's style and originality is not solely reduced to its harmony.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> Functional harmony isn't a style. Writing within the framework of functional harmony shouldn't be seen as anachronistic - it's a universe and today still largely unexplored.


Functional harmony forms a very, very small subset of the possibilities available to music. It was a powerful tool for the 300 years or so it lasted, but there are so many more possibilities that for a composer _today_ to completely limit him/herself to functional major/minor harmony is a stylistic affectation, not an aesthetic choice born out of the will to create.

Since Debussy, Stravinsky, Scriabin, Schoenberg, Bartok, Messiaen, Boulez, Webern, and others have done so much apart from functional harmony, why close oneself off completely to those possibilities? Why not embrace the entire tradition, instead of a short subset of it lasting less than a third of the tradition's lifespan?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I've never thought a seriously good composer would want to write in an older style with no modern components. I was simply curious how hard it would be to compose something like that.
> 
> My only interest in anything along these lines is as a thought experiment to better understand listeners' attitudes toward music in general. Certainly not anything related to composers.


Indeed. The original question (at least my question about the 7th) had nothing to do with whether a current composer could or would (or for that matter ought to) write something like that, only what audience reactions would be.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Indeed. The original question (at least my question about the 7th) had nothing to do with whether a current composer could or would (or for that matter ought to) write something like that, only what audience reactions would be. The question is being ignored for the most part.


There's a lot of painters who choose to paint EXACTLY like the masters' style of the past. What reaction do they get?


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Functional harmony forms a very, very small subset of the possibilities available to music. It was a powerful tool for the 300 years or so it lasted, but there are so many more possibilities that for a composer _today_ to completely limit him/herself to functional major/minor harmony is a stylistic affectation, not an aesthetic choice born out of the will to create.
> 
> Since Debussy, Stravinsky, Scriabin, Schoenberg, Bartok, Messiaen, Boulez, Webern, and others have done so much apart from functional harmony, why close oneself off completely to those possibilities? Why not embrace the entire tradition, instead of a short subset of it lasting less than a third of the tradition's lifespan?


You can do X within functional harmony. You can do Y, Z and W but not X outside functional harmony. The reason to limit a composition to functional harmony is to do X.

I don't think it's necessarily affectation to write within functional harmony. It depends on your musical background and personal preferences.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Torkelburger said:


> There's a lot of painters who choose to paint EXACTLY like the masters' style of the past. What reaction do they get?


Possibly not the same thing. The original question was specific: "Further, this symphony is equal to Beethoven's in intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit."

Music is a lot different from painting. I once had a friend who could never understand why people didn't simply forge new works of the great masters, since this seemed common in painting. As PetrB and others have pointed out, it's not that easy in music. Even the famous forgers of a century ago stayed safely in the Baroque, where they at least had a chance of success. Even so, the attempts were not totally successful.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> There's a lot of painters who choose to paint EXACTLY like the masters' style of the past. What reaction do they get?


You can do a lot in painting if you copy an old style but provide interesting content. It can be modern and still be painted with an old style.

What reaction such painters get - they get the same reaction as 99.999% of artists and composers in our time: admired by a few, unknown to the many.

Wide recognition today is rarely about quality as such. It's about influential people promoting your work, often for political or social networking reasons or because of personal bias. There was a recent article about Kafka that argued cogently that Kafka became popular only because Freud was popular and Kafka channeled Freud. Is Kafka really worthy of classic status now that Freud is no longer taken seriously? This is a question the article asks, and it highlights the often arbitrary nature of what becomes and doesn't become a widely admired classic.

You could be the greatest artist or writer since Dostoevsky but if your politics in your work are off, you won't even be published. Etc etc.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Possibly not the same thing. The original question was specific: "Further, this symphony is equal to Beethoven's in intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit."
> 
> Music is a lot different from painting. I once had a friend who could never understand why people didn't simply forge new works of the great masters, since this seemed common in painting. As PetrB and others have pointed out, it's not that easy in music. Even the famous forgers of a century ago stayed safely in the Baroque, where they at least had a chance of success. Even so, the attempts were not totally successful.


It's because music is much less about style and much more about content, at least within the framework of functional harmony. Beethoven didn't just have some style that, if you copied it, you were as good as him in effect. He actually had tons of interesting content that mere mortals usually are unable to come up with. Even Brahms - who wanted to be the second Beethoven - had trouble. Brahms is clearly technically super brilliant but his music lacks (with some exceptions) the kind of striking content that Beethoven had in a lot of his works.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> You can do X within functional harmony. You can do Y, Z and W but not X outside functional harmony. The reason to limit a composition to functional harmony is to do X.


Why shouldn't that composer make use of Y, Z, and W as well as X?



Chordalrock said:


> I don't think it's necessarily affectation to write within functional harmony. It depends on your musical background and personal preferences.


There's no one living today who has not heard at least some music that doesn't fit into the mold of functional harmony...unless they grew up in an insulated environment where the only music available was hymnbooks or some other absurdly contrived situation like that.

Pop/rock, movie scores, new age music, much of the concert music of the last hundred and more years, and so forth all have elements that defy common practice.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> There's no one living today who has not heard at least some music that doesn't fit into the mold of functional harmony... Pop/rock, movie scores, new age music, much of the concert music of the last hundred and more years, and so forth all have elements that defy common practice.


It is unavoidable, it is everywhere... Oh, no! _is it a conspiracy?_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Pop/rock, movie scores, new age music, much of the concert music of the last hundred and more years, and so forth all have elements that defy common practice.


Even Beethoven, the opening of the finale of his 9th Symphony (and repeated further on, even more so). Worked for him 190 years ago.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Why shouldn't that composer make use of Y, Z, and W as well as X?


Within one single composition? Because it's impossible, was my point. You can do things with a composition that is fully within the framework of functional harmony that you can't do with a composition that is only partly so, because the latter assumes a different set of expectations.

It's like doing a black and white movie. You can't expect it to have the same effect if it's only partially black and white and has scenes in full color. Sure, that could be done too, may be effective, and I have nothing against it, but it's no longer X, it would be Z or something.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> Possibly not the same thing. The original question was specific: "Further, this symphony is equal to Beethoven's in intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit."


And there is your problem. That list of adjectives is wrought with 19th century ideals. A twentieth and twenty-first century audience would care very little about someone who wrote a symphony described like that. Not only because the style is antiquated, but because intelligence, wit(!!!), force, and cogency (!!!!) are classical, 18th and 19th century ideals/descriptions.

The 20th century turned away from all of that. We all know what happened in world history and how it affected art. Introspection and the subconscious became extremely prominent as compared to intelligence in the arts and the OPPOSITE OF EVERYTHING ELSE YOU LISTED became important *due to what happened in history of society*. Thankfully, instead of our composers writing about old ideals you want to keep reliving, they expressed what need to be expressed in symphonies such as:

Bernstein's The Age of Anxiety
Hindemith's The Harmony of the World
Honneger's 2nd, 3rd, and 5th
Messiaen's Turangalila
Riegger's 3rd
Schoenberg's second chamber
Shosty's 1, *5*, 6, *7*, 9
Vaughn-Williams 5th
Webern's

and a whole lot more


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> You can do a lot in painting if you copy an old style but provide interesting content. It can be modern and still be painted with an old style.
> 
> What reaction such painters get - they get the same reaction as 99.999% of artists and composers in our time: admired by a few, unknown to the many.
> 
> ...


Now tell that to Ken.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

PetrB said:


> It is unavoidable, it is everywhere... Oh, no! _is it a conspiracy?_


Painting, composing music, writing fiction, has always been fundamentally about shutting out certain ideas and influences, and letting through others. The modern world only requires more discipline than before if you want to produce something of wide appeal as well as deep artistry.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> Now tell that to Ken.


I believe this is a public forum that anyone interested can read.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> And there is your problem. That list of adjectives is wrought with 19th century ideals. A twentieth and twenty-first century audience would care very little about someone who wrote a symphony described like that. Not only because the style is antiquated, but because intelligence, wit(!!!), force, and cogency (!!!!) are classical, 18th and 19th century ideals/descriptions.
> 
> The 20th century turned away from all of that. We all know what happened in world history and how it affected art. Introspection and the subconscious became extremely prominent as compared to intelligence in the arts and the OPPOSITE OF EVERYTHING ELSE YOU LISTED became important *due to what happened in history of society*. Thankfully, instead of our composers writing about old ideals you want to keep reliving, they expressed what need to be expressed in symphonies such as:
> 
> ...


I think the problem with this sort of postmodern rhetoric which your message exemplifies is that it concerns itself with vague, grand abstractions like "20th century audience" and "history and society" instead of the individual.

It takes away all personality from people and substitutes social forces or some other such nonsense. Who would want to support such inhuman ideological garbage?


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> I believe this is a public forum that anyone interested can read.


hy·per·bo·le
/hīˈpərbəlē/
noun
noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> Painting, composing music, writing fiction, has always been fundamentally about shutting out certain ideas and influences, and letting through others. The modern world only requires more discipline than before if you want to produce something of wide appeal as well as deep artistry.


Whatever your aesthetic, which from my point of view I take as a bit retro-conservative (it is a stance, not to be critiqued as such) I quite agree with that any work of art needs to be pretty cogent, and that it should have a clear point of view, even in works which are meant to be deliberately ambiguous (Debussy comes to mind) -- and all that requires a round up of 'what should be in the work, what should not,' and a rigorous discipline to adhere to that.

Whether it is liked or not, or difficult to recognize or appreciate, all those rigors are present in the better modern and contemporary works (of which there are many), while those same aspects usually the first to be glibly (and wrongfully) cited as being absent by those who do not care for the modern and contemporary. That is not only a cheap shot, but reveals in those critics the most basic lack of understanding of the modern and contemporary.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> I think the problem with this sort of postmodern rhetoric which your message exemplifies is that it concerns itself with vague, grand abstractions like "20th century audience" and "history and society" instead of the individual.
> 
> It takes away all personality from people and substitutes social forces or some other such nonsense. Who would want to support such inhuman ideological garbage?


No, Ken's question was about a 20th century audience so naturally my reply would address it. The rest of your comment is you just sticking your fingers in your ears. I can do that too. I just have to call your post nonsense and idealogical garbage too. Simple.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Torkelburger said:


> And there is your problem. That list of adjectives is wrought with 19th century ideals. A twentieth and twenty-first century audience would care very little about someone who wrote a symphony described like that. Not only because the style is antiquated, but because intelligence, wit(!!!), force, and cogency (!!!!) are classical, 18th and 19th century ideals/descriptions.
> 
> The 20th century turned away from all of that.


The 20th century turned away from intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit? That would indeed be a sad thing if true! But I suspect a great number of 20th century composers, maybe all, would disagree with you.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> No, Ken's question was about a 20th century audience so naturally my reply would address it. The rest of your comment is you just sticking your fingers in your ears. I can do that too. I just have to call your post nonsense and idealogical garbage too. Simple.


Except there's no such thing as "20th century audience", there's only you, me, Bob and a number of other people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I can't offer any opinions on the musical side of this argument, I'm out of my league here. I'm a layman who just loves classical 'cause my ears seem to like it.

I would like, however, to offer my opinion on the Art (painting) topic that has been brought up. My father is an art professor and artist who specializes in large scale murals and mosaic, ceramics, and sculpture. I remember when I was younger, he would take me to the Museum of Fine Arts, I would see the Renaissance paintings and was dumbfounded by how real they looked! I asked my dad why don't today's artists paint like that anymore. I didn't get why Picasso had to paint these pictures that looked like anybody could do it (my thoughts then, not now). He told me that if Picasso wanted to, he could paint the exact same way as the Renaissance masters and make it look every bit as realistic as they did. Picasso absolutely could, but didn't. 

Take that for what you will.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> The 20th century turned away from intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit? That would indeed be a sad thing if true! But I suspect a great number of 20th century composers, maybe all, would disagree with you.


Charles Ives wouldn't only disagree with him, he would also sell him a whole life insurance policy.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> Except there's no such thing as "20th century audience", there's only you, me, Bob and a number of other people.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism


Erm, once again, tell that to Ken. Its his scenario, not mine. He asked what the audience reaction would be, not what yours, mine, or Bob's would be.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

KenOC said:


> The 20th century turned away from intelligence, interest, cogency, force, and wit? That would indeed be a sad thing if true! But I suspect a great number of 20th century composers, maybe all, would disagree with you.


I'm afraid I still disagree.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Charles Ives wouldn't only disagree with him, he would also sell him a whole life insurance policy.


So then did Charles satisfy that criteria? What was the audience reaction?


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

aleazk said:


> Er... we are talking about innovation in classical music here... it has nothing to do with the things you mention.
> 
> Schoenberg was shallow? Stravinsky was shallow? Webern was shallow? Ligeti was shallow? etc.
> 
> Your comparison is ridiculous.


-Well I never said that modern composers are shallow. Did I? -Cant see that. -What I said is that modern people seems to hunt for shallow sensations and fashion.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

stevens said:


> -I said is that modern people seems to hunt for shallow sensations and fashion.


... and _that makes them unique from all societies from previous eras?_ You have some major catching up to do in the way of reading history, and perhaps need to sign up for a workshop or twelve-step group to help you get over romanticizing the past!


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Torkelburger said:


> I'm afraid I still disagree.


Ever heard Poulenc, doesn't get much wittier than that.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Oh yes, of course. Historians, 200 years from will look back on the 20th century and ponder at what a witty time it was. It's just been such a barrel of laughs.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Torkelburger said:


> Oh yes, of course. Historians, 200 years from will look back on the 20th century and ponder at what a witty time it was. It's just been such a barrel of laughs.


Well at least you are trying your best to change that in the 21st now aren't you?:tiphat:


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Piwikiwi said:


> Well at least you are trying your best to change that in the 21st now aren't you?:tiphat:


Yes, but don't count on the audience fawning over me so much that I will need to quit my day job.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Torkelburger said:


> Yes, but don't count on the audience fawning over me so much that I will need to quit my day job.


I think you misunderstood me, I was talking about your cheerful attitude, not your music.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Piwikiwi said:


> I think you misunderstood me, I was talking about your cheerful attitude, not your music.


I'm a composer. So it would follow that....


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I can't offer any opinions on the musical side of this argument, I'm out of my league here. I'm a layman who just loves classical 'cause my ears seem to like it.
> 
> I would like, however, to offer my opinion on the Art (painting) topic that has been brought up. My father is an art professor and artist who specializes in large scale murals and mosaic, ceramics, and sculpture. I remember when I was younger, he would take me to the Museum of Fine Arts, I would see the Renaissance paintings and was dumbfounded by how real they looked! I asked my dad why don't today's artists paint like that anymore. I didn't get why Picasso had to paint these pictures that looked like anybody could do it (my thoughts then, not now). He told me that if Picasso wanted to, he could paint the exact same way as the Renaissance masters and make it look every bit as realistic as they did. Picasso absolutely could, but didn't.
> 
> Take that for what you will.


I'm glad you mentioned this. There seems to be a confusion with many people in that modern/abstract styles are because of a certain lack of technique or skill... but, in fact, what actually makes them so wonderful is that these artist have all the technique of the past. And the kicker... they *choose* to restrain these life-like interpretations for a deeper voyage into the psyche. The deeper you go, the more the forms of the outside world start to break down and coalesce, and that there are artist who can represent these dimensions of the mind is quite impressive.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I don't see the joy I writing in an older style, it is impossible to compete with guys like mahler, mozart, beethoven or stravinsky. 

But at the same time I got the impression that some mordern composer( some students I heard) got stuck in the 60's, I mean trying to discover what music is all seems fine and dandy but it has been done to death and it is just not very interesting anymore imho.

I have no doubt that there are more than enough composers out there who are original and fresh and who will continue to write fresh music.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> I'm glad you mentioned this. There seems to be a confusion with many people in that modern/abstract styles are because of a certain lack of technique or skill... but, in fact, what actually makes them so wonderful is that these artist have all the technique of the past. And the kicker... they *choose* to restrain these life-like interpretations for a deeper voyage into the psyche. The deeper you go, the more the forms of the outside world start to break down and coalesce, and that there are artist who can represent these dimensions of the mind is quite impressive.


Very well said, I wholeheartedly agree. I especially enjoyed your last sentence, very interesting way of looking at it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> I don't see the joy I writing in an older style, it is impossible to compete with guys like mahler, mozart, beethoven or stravinsky.
> 
> But at the same time I got the impression that some mordern composer( some students I heard) got stuck in the 60's, I mean trying to discover what music is all seems fine and dandy but it has been done to death and it is just not very interesting anymore imho.
> 
> I have no doubt that there are more than enough composers out there who are original and fresh and who will continue to write fresh music.


I would be more worried when each generation of music students no longer decides to experiment and go through that '60's thing' of exploring 'what music is.' I mean, they certainly spend a lot of time exploring 'what music was' up through the 1960's, and there is more than good enough reason to not stop there.

To get stuck, anywhere along the time-line other that in one way or another arriving at their personal 'now,' ... well, that is something else.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I would be more worried when each generation of music students no longer decides to experiment and go through that '60's thing' of exploring 'what music is.' I mean, they certainly spend a lot of time exploring 'what music was' up through the 1960's, and there is more than good enough reason to not stop there.
> 
> To get stuck, anywhere along the time-line other that in one way or another arriving at their personal 'now,' ... well, that is something else.


The reason I brought this up is that I heard some student composers who wrote really minimalistic weird stuff and claim it was inspired by John Cage. Now I'm fine with Johm Cage his music but it still feels like they were composing in an older style. 
Nobody would take a young painter seriously who is imitating Pollock for example.

Another parallel I can draw is the "death" of free jazz. Most new and interesting jazz musicians use elements from free jazz but the style itself is considered to be a creative dead end.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Why would any modern composer write in an older style. I don't get it. It would be like me posting here in Shakespearian English. I simply would pursueith it not.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Why would any modern composer write in an older style. I don't get it. It would be like me posting here in Shakespearian English. I simply would pursueith it not.


Perhaps their mothers cried sore long anon
As birth and child were naught but toil and pain
The muse that taught them fled long from the new.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Perhaps their mothers cried sore long anon
> As birth and child were naught but toil and pain
> The muse that taught them fled long from the new.


If this be English, write on, give me excess of it.


----------

