# Those lingering, harmonically conservative composers of the early 20th century



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

A thread looking at particular questions concerning composers active in the first 3rd or even half of the 20th century. I'm interested in those who managed to either cling to an idiom little removed from late romanticism(in the harmonic sense, anyway), or who found a comfortable spot just beyond that where they decided to progress at their own, somewhat slower pace. In terms of the former Rachmaninoff falls into the category rather cleanly, and I suppose Sibelius does too. Shostakovich and others like Honegger and Martinu perhaps fall into the latter. Then there are others like Strauss who took a less clearly definable path, but ultimately did wind up writing something like 4 last songs in a time where that stuff was scarcely being written.

Now, I've been reading Emerson lately and his writings have made it more plain to me why originality is so key to great art. But clearly these composers were original enough to have made substantial music without taking on a significantly more removed harmonic language from romanticism. They had voices that manifested; and their own little 'isms', their musical DNA, shines through. They seem to have found other successful ways to be original and themselves. 

I found the thread on Sibelius being a progressive composer very interesting. The thing that keeps fascinating me about him is his very organic development of themes, sometimes so slick its hard to trace. An uncritical listener might think his 7th was romantic, which is from the 1920s, and yet its formally very unlike anything. 

Rachmaninoff can be controversial. Some absolutely love his music and others find the majority of it saccharine. I personally feel him to have been an astounding architect.

Without going into everyone else, I just thought this would be an interesting topic to get started on. What is it about these composers: there must be specific and subtler things about them that are innovative and original, and I would like to understand better what they are. 

And another big thing: why are some late romantic 20th century fallouts more easily dismissed as third tier kitch, and others like Sibelius and I would argue, Rachmaninoff, first rate music?

If you can't see where I'm coming from with any of this, or rather wouldn't stoop to my level, I would ask you to be civil and not needlessly pick a fight(unless its one I can learn from). I guess things have been boring around here lately, but I'm just trying to learn.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Fauré (1845-1924), Janáček (1854-1928), Elgar (1857-1934), Mahler[?](1860-1911), Nielsen[?] (1965-1931), Sibelius (1865-1926-1957)

So far the only ones born around those years that really agitated the saucer were Debussy (1862-1918) with Pelléas et Mélisande (first performance 1902) and somewhat technically, though I'd say not aesthetically, Strauss (1864-1949) with Salome (first performance 1905). Both works indebted to Wagner yet representing opposing sides.

For some perspective: Schoenberg was born in 1874, Ravel in 1875, Bartok in 1881, Stravinsky in 1882, Varèse in 1883.

In fact before the Schoenberg-Stravinsky dualism there actually was briefly a similar Strauss-Debussy one; and before that, well of course, the one on my avatar.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2015)

clavichorder said:


> I'm interested in those who managed to either cling to an idiom little removed from late romanticism(in the harmonic sense, anyway), or who found a comfortable spot just beyond that where they decided to progress at their own, somewhat slower pace. In terms of the former Rachmaninoff falls into the category rather cleanly, and I suppose Sibelius does too. Shostakovich and others like Honegger and Martinu perhaps fall into the latter.


I would say "no" to all of these. Two "noes," actually. A general "no" for the concealed idea of how progress works and a specific "no" for these composers fitting into these categories. Rachmaninoff _sounds_ romantic, but if you've ever played any of his music, you know what a modernist he was, especially rhythmically. When I was in college, I played trumpet in the Paganini variations with a local orchestra. I had been familiar (or "familiar") with the variations since I was a little kid, and thought I knew them thoroughly. Nope. That's some seriously tricky music. Sounds all sweet and innocent. Hummable. Sing in the shower melodies. But when I looked at my part, I realized I knew nothing, really. And it was a constant struggle for me to fight past my (regularized) memories of how the tunes went to get to the reality of where, exactly, it was I was to make my entrances.

You make the case for Sibelius being "progressive" yourself, so I don't need to. I'll only say for the others that they are each of them quite distinct, with quite clearly modern elements, even if they never end up sounding quite like Webern or Varese, say.



clavichorder said:


> [C]learly these composers were original enough to have made substantial music without taking on a significantly more removed harmonic language from romanticism.


And, as harmony is only one element of music, it's easy to understand that being harmonically conservative does not in and of itself make for an overall conservative style. Plenty of other things going on in all music besides harmony, and an emphasis on that one element is inevitably going to skew your results. Why, it's monumentally skewed the whole view, inside academia as well as out, of what the twentieth century and modernism generally was all about. The harmonic view will mean that you choose something like _L'Après-midi d'un faune_ as the first "modern" piece of music, and that you get totally hung up on "dissonance" as the chief characteristic of the avant garde. Other views are possible, however. Looking at the whole century and at all the different things that happened, one would better conclude that there were several different "first" pieces. If you need that kind of thing. My own favorite for "first," which contains many elements of space and time and coherence and development that would be important for the rest of the century, is Ives' _Unanswered Question._



clavichorder said:


> And another big thing: why are some late romantic 20th century fallouts more easily dismissed as third tier kitch,[sic] and others like Sibelius and I would argue, Rachmaninoff, first rate music?


Because the earlier ones were closer in time to late romanticism. It was still part and parcel of the sound world, and you can hear it, as you should know, in all the other composers of the time, especially Schoenberg, but not even excluding Varese.

By the time the later "fallouts" came around, too many other things had happened in music. They were not continuers of a fading style; they were resurrecters of a dead style. The former were writing in a style still alive though no longer dominant; the latter are mimicking a style from the past.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The great Ralph Vaughan-Williams was definitely a more conservative composer but thoroughly modern one at the same time. He is still one of the more popular British composers of the mid-20th century.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

We should remember one composer does not necessarily mean one style. Look at Stravinsky. He's all over the map, even after succeeding at scandalous edginess. Copland is another example of deliberately writing in a more popular slightly conservative harmony at times while at other times not.

I think some contemporary composers returning to a conservative common practice harmonic style is just a generational thing -- almost a generation gap (though I'm severely dating myself there). _Whatever_ the previous generation did is no longer cool, but the one before that is okay again. It's something in human nature, though less pronounced now than when I was growing up.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Fauré (1845-1924), Janáček (1854-1928), Elgar (1857-1934), Mahler[?](1860-1911), Nielsen[?] (1965-1931), Sibelius (1865-1926-1957)


I'm not best placed to identify what is supposed to be 'harmonically conservative' - in any case, I can't see how Mahler and Nielsen can possibly be lumped together with Elgar?

As some guy points out, harmony is only one criterion to consider anyway. How about treatment of tonality? Mahler and Nielsen were writing symphonies exhibiting 'progressive tonality' nearly a decade before the 20th century had even begun.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Progressive tonality just means that the piece ends on a different tonal centre that it began. It's a fairly boring detail about the works and I suspect pretty irrelevant to the listening experience of most listeners....


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> Progressive tonality just means that the piece ends on a different tonal centre that it began. It's a fairly boring detail about the works and I suspect pretty irrelevant to the listening experience of most listeners....


Boring detail? This is about how a sense of overarching building of tension is created! This is what listeners deem to be _really good_ as far as I can tell.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Dim7 said:


> Progressive tonality just means that the piece ends on a different tonal centre that it began.


... and yet is actually a big deal. I believe Liszt's Dante utilises it (not sure if one of earliest examples), which no doubt influenced Wagner - and Wagner is considered one of the important innovators in harmonic language. Ditto Mahler's 7th, and Schoenberg.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Turns out nobody reeeally cares about modulating (or even clashing) to distant keys or even 'not returning home'. It just took a bit longer to realise the latter.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Modulation _can_ be a big deal, but certainly the way composers thought about modulations and keys in common practice era seems to me a bit "superstitious" and overintellectualized. Passages that I suspect are a way of "preparing" the modulation often make it sound all the more awkward to my ears. If you're going to modulate, might as well modulate so that it's actually audible.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Dim7 said:


> Modulation _can_ be a big deal, but certainly the way composers thought about modulations and keys in common practice era seems to me a bit "superstitious" and overintellectualized. Passages that I suspect are a way of "preparing" the modulation often make it sound all the more awkward to my ears. If you're going to modulate, might as well modulate so that it's actually audible.


You don't hear a huge difference between, say, the minor-key section in the first movement of Bruckner's Fourth being in B minor modulating to B-flat major (as in the 1874 version) and it being in E-flat minor modulating to B-flat major (as in the 1880 version)?

Tonal architecture depends on a balance of key areas and a respect for the distance and relationships between them. You can't just jump from F major to E flat minor without expecting any musical repercussions.


----------

