# Is this 20th century music?



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

When was this version of Ave Maria composed?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I have to remove my ill-considered post. I had the wrong Ave Maria. Will have to do further reading. There's a great disk of nothing but different Ave Maria settings (a work dear to my heart). This one isn't among them, although it is quite beautiful.

From Wikipedia:
_Vavilov wrote this aria with the ascription "Anonymous", and it was later mis-attributed to Giulio Caccini. It is often performed, notably by Inessa Galante, Andrea Bocelli, Sumi Jo and Charlotte Church, inter alia. _

Apparently Brinums was the arranger, Vavilov the composer. So maybe I was right the first post.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> Written in 1970 that makes it 20th c. Whether or not it is anachronistic is another matter.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ave_Maria_(Vavilov)


What does it have to do with G. Cacini? He appears to be a person that lived centuries before.

We are having another Adagio in G minor issue here, huh?

Why the name of G.Cacini for this music?


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

I don't know why the name of G. Cacini is used for this music but from the style of the music, it was already impossible for music like this to be composed in 16th century. Yeah...

It could be composed in either 19th century or 20th century from the style of music. Lol.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

It is good 20th century music.



mbhaub said:


> Whether or not it is anachronistic is another matter.


Why anachronistic? Because it doesn't consist of some random atonal noises?

I think it is different to 19th century music. And I like it more than to Schuberts Ave Maria for example. I think it is more personal, approachable and intim and less contrived (but it is difficult to describe). It is something I notice a lot in newer compositions of tonal composers, especially russians.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

Aries said:


> It is good 20th century music.
> 
> Why anachronistic? Because it doesn't consist of some random atonal noises?
> 
> I think it is different to 19th century music. And I like it more than to Schuberts Ave Maria for example. I think it is more personal, approachable and intim and less contrived (but it is difficult to describe). It is something I notice a lot in newer compositions of tonal composers, especially russians.


 Why is the name of G. Cacini used in this music? A name of a composer who lived centuries before.

Is this music dedicated to him or something?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Aries said:


> Why anachronistic? Because it doesn't consist of some random atonal noises?


I feel the need to chime in to say that tonal/tonal adjacent music =/= anachronistic.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

How about my question above?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

atsizat said:


> Why is the name of G. Cacini used in this music? A name of a composer who lived centuries before.
> 
> Is this music dedicated to him or something?


No, it is a mistake. Vavilov did not use his name for the work, and later other people made a wrong ascription.



violadude said:


> I feel the need to chime in to say that tonal/tonal adjacent music =/= anachronistic.


This statement confuses me. Tonal/tonal? Adjacent? =/=?

Tonal music isn't anachronistic. Thats my opinion.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Aries said:


> This statement confuses me. Tonal/tonal? Adjacent? =/=?
> 
> Tonal music isn't anachronistic. Thats my opinion.


My point is that there exists music that is anachronistic, and then there is tonal music that does not sound anachronistic. There is not only anachronistic tonal music or atonal music.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

violadude said:


> My point is that there exists music that is anachronistic, and then there is tonal music that does not sound anachronistic. There is not only anachronistic tonal music or atonal music.


anachronistic music is postmodern, anyway


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Checking the internet, the more recent orchestral re-arranger of the piece, used in the youtube-clip above, *Georgs Brīnums* seems known for almost only this, but he also plays the viola in Latvia, where the singer is from. 
Maybe they knew each other, or got in contact due to her concerts or the recording project.

*Vladimir Vavilov* is much better documented and was the primary arranger of the piece, in 1970, as already mentioned here, cf. earlier Wiki referred to above, and 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Vavilov_(composer)

He changed his used Renaissance and Baroque sources a lot in his re-workings, as described in Wiki, but apparently it's still disputed in Wiki, whether there actually is an original *Caccini *source; probably not.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fbjim said:


> anachronistic music is postmodern, anyway


The usage of the word postmodern refutes the concept of modernism.

If there is something newer than so called "modern music" than "modern music" isn't really modern anymore. But that it is still called "modern" shows that a failed concept is behind it. The so called modern music is intended to be modern but isn't. The flow of history has another destination.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

fbjim said:


> anachronistic music is postmodern, anyway


Depends on the context.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

violadude said:


> Depends on the context.


well the context will never be the period the art is intending to evoke, but i'm halfway joking with that statement. deliberate attempts to play with context does strike me as postmodern, though.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Aries said:


> It is good 20th century music.
> 
> Why anachronistic? Because it doesn't consist of some random atonal noises?


Since when does atonal music equate to "*random* atonal *noises*"?

The vast majority of atonal classical music is very structured and non random (except aleatory music has a random element).

Music is ordered sound. This completely describes atonal music as music. Noise is disordered sound.

So, atonal classical music is neither random, nor is it noise.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> Since when does atonal music equate to "*random* atonal *noises*"?


Interesting thought, but I did not say that.



Simon Moon said:


> The vast majority of atonal classical music is very structured and none random (except aleatory music has a random element).


But total serial pieces also have a random appearance for the listener.



Simon Moon said:


> Noise is disordered sound.


Some atonal music incorporates noises.



Simon Moon said:


> So, atonal classical music is neither random, nor is it noise.


That is a too general judgment about atonal music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Anachronistic? Perhaps. But it is worse than that. Whenever it was written it is deeply revolting! The picture you see on the OP's YouTube link gives you a good idea what to expect (it also is nauseating). This is a great example of true and extreme ugliness in 20th century music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Aries said:


> It is good 20th century music.
> 
> Why anachronistic? Because it doesn't consist of some random atonal noises?


It's not good. It's cheesy dreck. It's anachronistic dreck because it was intentionally composed in a pseudo-baroque style for people who can't tell pseudo-baroque from the real thing. This sort of half-a$$ed forgery is a time-honored practice, as witness the more famous example of the Sicillienne in E-flat, once attributed to one Maria Theresia von Paradis but actually cobbled together by touring violinist Samuel Dushkin. Dushkin picked Paradis because she was a poor school teacher stricken blind in her prime, making for a nice sentimental story exploiting sympathy for the disabled in service of the almighty buck. Dushkin succeeded despite the obvious Rachmaninoff influence in a supposedly late-18thc work. The author of this Ave Maria probably saw how much Dushkin made with his forgery and figured he'd give it a go.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> It's not good. It's cheesy dreck. It's anachronistic dreck because it was intentionally composed in a pseudo-baroque style for people who can't tell pseudo-baroque from the real thing.


I don't understand the problem. It is not a bad thing to build on something of the past. It is also not a bad thing to deviate from the example. And it is also not a bad thing to write music for people without expert knowledge.

This Ave Maria was at least recorded 18 times, so a lot of people think it is worth. And I think that too.

And the method to take over elements of a past era like the Baroque but to shape it in a modern way, is actually very interessting. Maybe you can combine the best elements of multiple eras to make something even better.



EdwardBast said:


> This sort of half-a$$ed forgery is a time-honored practice, as witness the more famous example of the Sicillienne in E-flat, once attributed to one Maria Theresia von Paradis but actually cobbled together by touring violinist Samuel Dushkin. Dushkin picked Paradis because she was a poor school teacher stricken blind in her prime, making for a nice sentimental story exploiting sympathy for the disabled in service of the almighty buck. Dushkin succeeded despite the obvious Rachmaninoff influence in a supposedly late-18thc work. The author of this Ave Maria probably saw how much Dushkin made with his forgery and figured he'd give it a go.


Vavilov didn't used the name of someone else.

Bachs Toccata and Fugue in D minor was maybe not written by him. That doesn't make it worse of a work.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Aries said:


> And the method to take over elements of a past era like the Baroque but to shape it in a modern way, is actually very interessting.
> Vavilov didn't used the name of someone else.


It _can_ be interesting, as when Alfred Schnittke does it in the scherzo of his Third Symphony:






The Ave Maria is to music as Cheez-Whiz is to cheese.



Aries said:


> Bachs Toccata and Fugue in D minor was maybe not written by him. That doesn't make it worse of a work.


If it's Bach do you think it's good Bach?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> It _can_ be interesting, as when Alfred Schnittke does it in the scherzo of his Third Symphony:


Yes, interesting.

But something else is interesting about the Vavilov Ave Maria. Seems like it gets a lot of hate, but it os also recorded rather often, and it has something very attractive for some people. What is the reason? I think it as something to do with the "pseudo" in "pseudo-baroque". What is different to baroque makes it probably so attractive for some and at the same is time the reason why others hate it. But if it were just uninteresting, it would not be recorded.

It reminds me of "pseudo-renaissance" and "pseudo-medival" music. I like such instrumental pieces, but it is somewhat difficult to find non-vocal music of the actual middle age and renaissance and I have no unrestricted preference for it compared to the new pseudo-old music (here an example: 



).



EdwardBast said:


> The Ave Maria is to music as Cheez-Whiz is to cheese.


I don't know Cheez-Whiz and I'm also not the biggest fan of cheese.



EdwardBast said:


> If it's Bach do you think it's good Bach?


Yes, good Bach, but what is bad Bach? He was very consistent.

I think it is one of the best organ pieces.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

My superficial research yields the following:

Georgs Brinums' arrangement of G. Cassini's Ave Maria is likely written by Russian guitarist and composer Vladimir Vavilov in 1972 or earlier, at which point he claimed that the composer was "anonymous". It was later mistakenly attributed to the sixteenth-century composer Cassini by others.

But the piece was unknown before the 1970s, likely because this Ave Maria arguably wasn’t composed until then.


----------

