# How would you describe neoclassical music?



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

How would you describe neoclassical music? Many musicians don´t term themselves neoclassical for example Max Richter. There are many general terms for it (not including subgenres, just the main genre) some call it minimal classical music, contemporary classical music others call it neoclassical music which is more an marketing term. From my personal point of view of view it is music with classical pattern but made with pop methods and therefore minimalistic in comparison with classical music. It´s much more emotional than classical music and has the capacity to awaken in emotions in its listeners much more than classical music which is more kind of schizoid. 

Feel free to share your perspectives with me.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Neo-classical music is classical music and was a reaction to the highly emotional music of late-romanticism. I don't know why you consider it to employ "pop" methods.


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

Thank you for your answer. You understood it wrong. I don´t mean NEO-CLASSICAL music. I mean NEOCLASSICAL music. NEO-CLASSICAL music is from the 20th century, NEOCLASSICAL form the 21th century.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Don't forget to edit the Wikipedia entry (here). They got it wrong as well, must be Bulldog who wrote it.


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

I wasn't aware that there was music today that is being called "neoclassical". I associate the term with a composer like Igor Stravinsky. Nor am I all that familiar with classical music that is adopting "pop methods", though I think I've encountered a bit of that. But I do know the music of "minimalist" composers, so do you mean to say that they're adopting pop methods?

What I have noticed is that contemporary composers are increasingly returning to older forms, such as the music of the Middle Ages & Renaissance, with some remarkable results. Among these composers, I'd count Arvo Pärt, the late John Tavener, Ivan Moody, and Gavin Bryars. 

In addition, other composers have--to some degree--been returning to the language of romanticism, or at least more so than they did in the more experimental 1960s & 70s. For example, I can hear such a shift in composer Magnus Lindberg's music from the 2000s, in relation to his compositions from the 1980s.

So that in a sense is the "new classical", to my way of thinking.

Maybe if you could give more examples of what you're talking about, via You Tube clips? as I don't know the music of Max Richter.

Of equal interest, there has also been a turning back to older forms in painting in recent decades, with scores of artists returning to the traditional representational painting methods of the past. This movement must be considered the "avant garde" today, since there has been a major shift in the art world--although it's too early in its transition to see clearly where it's all headed.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

I personally have never heard the term "neoclassical" used to describe any music being written today. But I would say that anyone who is equating "contemporary music" with "neoclassical" and "minimalist music" is being a little disingenuous. For that person is essentially saying, "The only form of classical music being written today is minimalism", a statement which is patently false. Besides minimalism, the main styles today are probably spectral music, musique concrète instrumentale, polystylism, a sort of music theater aesthetic (don't know the proper term), multimedia music (music that successfully integrates visual content), and electronic music. In fact, I'd say that the minimalism à la Reich, Glass, John Luther Adams, early John Coolidge Adams, etc. is less frequently composed today than, say, 10 years ago. The type of minimalism you're describing (which deploys "pop methods") is still going strong, but I've seen it called "post-minimalism" than minimalism proper.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

supersonic68 said:


> How would you describe neoclassical music? Many musicians don´t term themselves neoclassical for example Max Richter. There are many general terms for it (not including subgenres, just the main genre) some call it minimal classical music, contemporary classical music others call it neoclassical music which is more an marketing term*. From my personal point of view of view it is music with classical pattern but made with pop methods and therefore minimalistic in comparison with classical music. It´s much more emotional than classical music and has the capacity to awaken in emotions in its listeners much more than classical music which is more kind of schizoid. *




Neoclassical music is a term used for composers like Stravinskly and Hindemith (and many others) who are classical composers without a doubt, who didn't use any "pop methods" and who weren't minimalistic at all. 
And I don't know what it means that "classical music is more kind of schizoid.

Neoclassical is also a label used also (in a totally, completely wrong way) to describe the so called "neoclassical metal" and in that case there's a pop component but it's not minimalistic at all. And as I've said even if someone called it neoclassical it does not have anything to do not just with neoclassical music, but with neoclassical art in general.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Neoclassicism doesn't need to be a whole movement. Prokofiev's Classical symphony is neoclassical, but entirely in its own. It is very different than Respighi's Airs. I think even Brahms was a neoclassicist in his time.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Music is music, all these sub categories will likely become redundant or forgotten years from now.
When we look back over such a long period to Bach, Mozart etc we must remember we are considering music that has stood the test of time and will continue to do so. Much of the music written since the time of Bach etc has long been lost, and it will be so for the majority of music from today. The Beetles are more likely to have a lasting place in musical history than any ‘Classical’ music written on the last 50 years.
This is a bit off topic but I do think we get lost trying to decide what style music is, when history may well decide it isn’t worth remembering anyway


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I think what the OP is describing falls more under what I would call minimalism or post-minimalism, especially with the example of Max Richter. I've never heard of this kind of music being called "neoclassical" before. Neoclassical music was a 20th century movement, the likes of Stravinsky, Martinu, Hindemith, some Prokofiev, etc., characterized by a return to the classical forms and ideas of the 18th century, including sonata forms and in some cases Baroque forms (or instruments; some of the Neoclassical composers wrote for the harpsichord, etc).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The power of the internet in linking large numbers of people allows and may even encourage the hijacking of terms that have a definition and redefining them. This may become one. I hope not.


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

Thank you for your answer. No my friend. You got it wrong. Neoclassical music is from the 20th century. As you may know we have the 21st century know. The term neoclassical is a link of neo (new) and classical so neoclassical music is new classical music. And the official terms for most classical music in the 20th century is neoclassical but classical music in the 21st century is also neoclassical (new classical). I hope you can follow me. Next time i recommend you to read the thread and not only the title before replying because I also mentioned that the term neoclassical music for contemporary music is more a marketing term because its not a knew term but implies that it is by having the word new in it. So I would define it rather as contemporary or post-minimalistic. It depends on the music. And therefore I am asking for opinions here. But its astonishing that many people here don´t know Max Richter and co. Since they are great musicians with high level of knowledge.



> Don't forget to edit the Wikipedia entry (here). They got it wrong as well, must be Bulldog who wrote it.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

ROFL. Do let us know what other established terms you would like to re-define, so we know how we can engage in discussions with you. And I'm not your friend, buddy.


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

Sry, I don´t want to explain it to you any further because you are very bad in logical thinking. I did explain it and many other but you don´t getting it whats behind the temporary term neoclassical. Maybe you are easy to deceive. Of course you are not my friend I just wanted to be nice since I noticed that you are not.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Can't wait for the 1st edition of the supersonic68 musical dictionary to be published. :lol:


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

supersonic68 said:


> Sry, I don´t want to explain it to you any further because you are very bad in logical thinking. I did explain it and many other but you don´t getting it whats behind the temporary term neoclassical. Maybe you are easy to deceive. Of course you are not my friend I just wanted to be nice since I noticed that you are not.


Shall we look at your logical thinking? This is what you wrote in post #13:



> I also mentioned that the term neoclassical music for contemporary music is more a marketing term because its not a knew term but implies that it is by having the word new in it. So I would define it rather as contemporary or post-minimalistic.


You're being very slick with your definitions. First, you equate "neoclassical", or "new classical", with "contemporary music". Now, "contemporary music" more or less means "music that is being written today or in the recent past". I know you accept this definition because you never explicitly challenge it in any of your posts. And here's a noteworthy feature of this definition: it makes no reference to any particular musical style. That is, classical music of any style being written today or in the recent past is considered "contemporary music".

But all of a sudden, you equate "neoclassical", or "new classical", with "post-minimalism", contradicting your first definition. So now you ARE equating new music with a particular style (specifically post-minimalism).

So which position are you really putting forth?

By the way, every single person here has "read the thread and not only the title before replying" -- that should be self-evident by the fact that nearly all of us here had the same reaction (i.e. "I've never heard of 'neoclassical' to describe any music today?"). And I doubt everyone here had a collective brain fart and misread your original post in the exact same manner. In the future, please don't assume such things.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

supersonic68 said:


> Thank you for your answer. No my friend. You got it wrong. Neoclassical music is from the 20th century. As you may know we have the 21st century know. The term neoclassical is a link of neo (new) and classical so neoclassical music is new classical music. And the official terms for most classical music in the 20th century is neoclassical but classical music in the 21st century is also neoclassical (new classical). I hope you can follow me. Next time i recommend you to read the thread and not only the title before replying because I also mentioned that the term neoclassical music for contemporary music is more a marketing term because its not a knew term but implies that it is by having the word new in it. So I would define it rather as contemporary or post-minimalistic. It depends on the music. And therefore I am asking for opinions here.


neoclassical is a term with a specific meaning and it's not what you're saying. Even if some uninformed persons on internet are using it without knowing a bit of history of art.

The definition "Neoclassical" it's been used for centuries, way before the 20th century and also in other arts, and always with the same meaning: a recovery of the (perceived) values of classicism, that means form, elegance, balance, serenity and beauty. In architecture for instance in the eighteen century there were architects like Etienne Louis Boullée and others who were considered neoclassical (altough Boullée's architecture had already traits of romanticism, but that's another story), and that was the time of the so called classical music with composers like Haydn and Mozart.

So neoclassical doesn't mean "new classical music" but "new music with a classical spirit".


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

edit: Didn't see a post


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

> First, you equate "neoclassical", or "new classical", with "contemporary music". Now, "contemporary music" more or less means "music that is being written today or in the recent past".


 Yes I did equate neoclassical music with contemporary music and I explained several times why but nevertheless you did not get it. Please quote me where I said the second sentence.


> I know you accept this definition because you never explicitly challenge it in any of your posts.


 No I explicitly challenged it just in my last post. Before that I thought that it was obvious that neoclassical music in contemporary time cant be the neoclassical music of past time.


> But all of a sudden, you equate "neoclassical", or "new classical", with "post-minimalism", contradicting your first definition.


 This is not contradicting my first definition at all!!! The reason of my post is the music from Ludovico Einaudi, Max Richter and so forth. But they don´t know how to call their genre. They are being called neoclassical (yes neoclassical in contemporary time [now-time] So the question is what genre it is on the opinion of the forum members. Analytic its classical pattern with pop methods as I said.


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

It should also be mentioned that composers as recent as Vagn Holmboe, Joonas Kokkonen, and Einojuhani Rautavaara have all composed music that has been described as being in a "neo-classical" idiom. And given that all three composers in addition were highly influential teachers of many notable composers today, I think the term or idiom may still be with us, or at least partly relevant today, just as "romanticism" still is, to varying degrees, depending on the composer.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

supersonic68 said:


> Yes I did equate neoclassical music with contemporary music and I explained several times why but nevertheless you did not get it. Please quote me where I said the second sentence. No I explicitly challenged it just in my last post. Before that I thought that it was obvious that neoclassical music in contemporary time cant be the neoclassical music of past time. This is not contradicting my first definition at all!!! The reason of my post is the music from Ludovico Einaudi, Max Richter and so forth.


That's your problem - listening too much to Einaudi and Richter; it would be a stretch to call their music semi-classical.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I agree with that assessment of Richter and others that the OP wants to dignify as new classical music - something it is clearly not IMO. Neoclassical music is not so called because it is (or was in 1920) classical music that was new but (as has been explained above) because it represented as reaction against the excesses of Romantic music (Schumann, Wagner, Mahler etc) and a return to the discipline of the Classical era (Mozart, Haydn etc). The main neoclassicist was probably Stravinsky but his ideas influenced many composers in the first half of the 20th century.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

"Neoclassical" seems to have been coined by people on the popular-music side to describe the likes of Max Richter, Nils Frahm etc. It's unfortunate that none of them seems to have been aware it's an established term that refers to something else.

If you were to force me to label it, I'd be inclined to call it "quasi-classical". To my ears a lot of it just sounds like a prettified dilution of what Philip Glass was doing in the early 80s, but I often enjoy Richter at least. His "recomposition" of Vivaldi's Four Seasons is fascinating (YMMV).


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

Your problem is that you tell people what music to listen to but that is not the way it works. You have to understand that other people have a different personality and therefore a different taste than you. Classical music is to schizoid for my taste. I need more emotions in music and that is what this experimental, minimalistic classical music with pop methods and techno influence from Max Richter etc. can do.


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

> That's your problem - listening too much to Einaudi and Richter; it would be a stretch to call their music semi-classical.


Your problem is that you tell people what music to listen to but that is not the way it works. You have to understand that other people have a different personality and therefore a different taste than you. Classical music is to schizoid for my taste. I need more emotions in music and that is what this experimental, minimalistic classical music with pop methods and techno influence from Max Richter etc. can do.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

If classical music is "to [sic] schizoid" for your taste then why did you put this thread in the classical music section rather than the more appropriate non-classical section? As to the need for more emotion, if you haven't found it in classical, then you haven't been looking very far. I suspect that based on your description, hypnotic would be a better term than emotion.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

supersonic68 said:


> Classical music is to schizoid for my taste.


Then what are you doing on Talk Classical?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

supersonic68 said:


> Your problem is that you tell people what music to listen to but that is not the way it works. You have to understand that other people have a different personality and therefore a different taste than you. Classical music is to schizoid for my taste. I need more emotions in music and that is what this experimental, minimalistic classical music with pop methods and techno influence from Max Richter etc. can do.


what does it mean "classical music is too schizoid for my taste"? You're talking about a tradition that existed for like one thousand years, with thousand of composers making extremely different things and you would label all of that with just a simple adjective "schizoid"? And what do you mean with schizoid in the first place?
What's "schizoid" about this?






By the way, the term I would never, ever use for Einaudi is experimental.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

supersonic68 said:


> Your problem is that you tell people what music to listen to but that is not the way it works. You have to understand that other people have a different personality and therefore a different taste than you. Classical music is to schizoid for my taste. I need more emotions in music and that is what this experimental, minimalistic classical music with pop methods and techno influence from Max Richter etc. can do.


Bulldog did NOT tell you what your musical tastes should be, please read his response again. He only stated a fact: that Max Richter's music is NOT quite classical music. And I agree: it's more of a hybrid between the minimalist style in classical music and non-classical ambient music. And I think pretty much every person on this music forum would agree with Bulldog and me.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. If Max Richter's music is the type of music you like, then go for it. But please stop going around and telling people who have been listening to classical music for a long time that they don't know what they're talking about.

Also, considering minimalism as a style has been around for 50 years now, I'm not sure I'd call Richter's music "experimental". In fact, Richter's music is quite tame. Here are three pieces of contemporary classical music that I'd call truly experimental. All three are string quartets, all three are highly intense and emotional; yet, all three are very different from one another and employ wildly different techniques. If you really want emotion, these should be up your alley.


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> Then what are you doing on Talk Classical?


This is a very basic definition misunderstanding Bulldog. Classical music refers to western art music from 500 AD to present or to a period from 1750 to 1820.


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

> what does it mean "classical music is too schizoid for my taste"? You're talking about a tradition that existed for like one thousand years, with thousand of composers making extremely different things and you would label all of that with just a simple adjective "schizoid"? And what do you mean with schizoid in the first place?
> What's "schizoid" about this?


Thank you for your sample. This is a heuristic misunderstanding. When I say that classical music is to schizoid for my taste I don´t mean all the classical music in the world. A basic example is when I say Hip Hop is to bragging for my taste I don´t mean every single interpret and every single track that was ever released because of course there are many tracks in Hip Hop that are not bragging but the majority is.


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2019)

Josquin13 said:


> Maybe if you could give more examples of what you're talking about, via You Tube clips? as I don't know the music of Max Richter.


It is of couse just as easy for us to look up our own YTB clips.

One of his best known pieces is this:






It was used in the movie _Arrival_. His most recent film score was for _Ad Astra_, and he also does TV work, but _The Blue Notebooks_, _Memoryhouse _and _Recomposed by Max Richter _were all stand alone albums.



calvinpv said:


> Bulldog did NOT tell you what your musical tastes should be, please read his response again. He only stated a fact: that Max Richter's music is NOT quite classical music. And I agree: it's more of a hybrid between the minimalist style in classical music and non-classical ambient music. And I think pretty much every person on this music forum would agree with Bulldog and me.


I wouldn't go so far as to state that as fact. The oft-argued problem is that we've long since moved away from a narrow definition of classical music as exemplified by the symphonic music of Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Schostakovich and towards many different hybrids with many different labels. To say that what Max Richter composes is 'not quite classical' doesn't really tell us what it is - but then, it doesn't matter what it is, it only matters that you listen to it if you enjoy it.

I do.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

supersonic68 said:


> Thank you for your sample. This is a heuristic misunderstanding. When I say that classical music is to schizoid for my taste I don´t mean all the classical music in the world. A basic example is when I say Hip Hop is to bragging for my taste I don´t mean every single interpret and every single track that was ever released because of course there are many tracks in Hip Hop that are not bragging but the majority is.


it's still a completely meaningless generalization, especially considering that you said " It´s much more emotional than classical music and has the capacity to awaken in emotions in its listeners much more than classical music".
I think considering what I've heard of Einaudi (like Le onde or Stanze) that's not particularly emotional music. I would say it's safe, simple, kind of pleasant, new agey minimalism (which is not a new style at all, actually the first minimalists were looking back at medieval classical music) background stuff good for drinking a tea while watching the rain out of the window, which is not a bad thing (I like that mood too actually, even if I'd choose other things to listen for that) but not exactly a tornado of emotions and definitely not experimental at all, very conservative music actually. Again, not a necessarily bad thing in any case (the piece of Finzi I've posted is very conservative too and I think it's beautiful). 
But I'd say that the vast majority of classical music can do much more than that, in terms of emotion.

The funny thing is that the neoclassical movement (even if ok, you didn't mean it that way) in music was a reaction against romanticism for putting too much importance on emotion instead of form, grace, balance etc.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Supersonic68
You asked in your opening post on this thread for peoples perspectives on what you termed neoclassical music.
People have replied stating their perspectives and opinions on what is neoclassical music, to which you have appeared largely to take exception and to state that their opinions are wrong.
There are many posters on here who will be happy to guide you with advice about contemporary classical music, if that is what you want.
If however all you want is to throw rocks in the pond and start circular arguments about your personal definitions of what is neoclassical then maybe folks won’t be so helpful
Your choice I think


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

Haydn man said:


> Supersonic68
> You asked in your opening post on this thread for peoples perspectives on what you termed neoclassical music.
> People have replied stating their perspectives and opinions on what is neoclassical music, to which you have appeared largely to take exception and to state that their opinions are wrong.
> There are many posters on here who will be happy to guide you with advice about contemporary classical music, if that is what you want.
> ...


Not thats wrong. I heard all the time neoclassic isn´t from 21st cent. That was obvious from beginning as I said in my first post when I opened the thread that it´s a marketing term. Same is with classical music there is one term for the whole time of western art music from 500 AD to now. One for the classical period in 18th and 19th cent. And the music before and after is also called classical when talked about. I am not pleasant with the results cause the most people here just argumented against me by saying neoclassical is from 20th century. I explained a few times that I know this well and why the term is used in 21st century. Nearly nobody answered the original question what they think is a better term for neoclassical or new classical music in 21st century, but the ones that did have my thank. Maybe it´s hard to put this new classical music in a genre but I think this is a very interesting phenomenon that classical music is played with mixed with ambient and techno. I wonder why this is and whats the socialdynamic background behind it. These topics are why I opened the thread but I have the feeling that everyone is very focused on arguing and teaching etc. It´s sad.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

supersonic68 said:


> These topics are why I opened the thread but I have the feeling that everyone is very focused on arguing and teaching etc. It´s sad.


Maybe that's because you arrived on a classical music forum saying to everyone that the vast majority of classical music is not an emotional music and it's schizoid, and that neoclassical means "new classical music".
I suspect that if you had just asked "how would you call the music of these composers" you would have had just the answers that you've had in any case (new age, ambient, minimalism).


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The most apparent difference to me between Classical and Romantic is the former flows at a constant pace and harmonic progression, forming an ongoing pattern, while the latter by motive of telling a story, frequently goes from one pacing/dynamic extreme to the next, wandering, quiet stops and reflection, build-ups, bombast, more halted continuation, much less structure. So Neo-classical is the music which most continues the classical tradition of constant steady progression, a focus on just the music and harmonies, while Romantic takes a story-telling journey with many more rests, effects, drama and reflections. I'd say Mahler is prime Romantic, while Dvorak's 9th is Neo-classical as it has a very tied-together structure.

The focus of Classical has usually been on _theme_-establishing and not yet 'story,' so you can expect a Classical piece to define one or two major themes. As far as if Mendelssohn or Schubert symphonies are Romantic, they're not fully Romantic. Wagner was the Romantic, the story-teller. Mendelssohn and Schubert were more the new era of Individualistic classical, and it's why they're commonly bunched with Mozart and Beethoven listening. But Neo-classical is that which moved on from then, keeping the purist attitude towards music, more of a focus on simple note writing and structure.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to state that as fact. The oft-argued problem is that we've long since moved away from a narrow definition of classical music as exemplified by the symphonic music of Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Schostakovich and towards many different hybrids with many different labels. To say that what Max Richter composes is 'not quite classical' doesn't really tell us what it is - but then, it doesn't matter what it is, it only matters that you listen to it if you enjoy it.
> 
> I do.


Personally, I agree that "classical music" has become a problematic term to define nowadays for the reason you describe: that the strict definition of times past is unsuitable for today's landscape with its wide variety of styles. However, I also think your response is missing the forest for the trees. This is a problem plaguing _every_ style, not just classical. What do we mean by "ambient music"? Or "country music"? Or "rap music"? The best solution is probably dropping these terms altogether and focusing on individual artists and their works rather than trying to box in an artist's music into a style.

But for the time being these terms exist, and every time I log in to TC, I'm signing on to a tacit agreement: that I can only talk (more or less) about composers that have been agreed upon by the community as "classical composers", this community being not just the actual members of TC, but some nebulous community made up of idealized classical music listeners. A similar phenomenon would exist if I were signing on to an ambient music forum or country music forum, etc.

So that's what I'm getting at by "fact". If we were talking about my statement about Richter within the context of the entire world of music lovers (and the term "music" itself is kinda hazy; some people think, for example, that Stockhausen's music is "noise" in contrast to "music"), then, yes, you're right. But within the context of TC, though I admit that I was too strong in saying "every person", my statement about Richter is more fact-ish: I see a few responses on this very thread that corroborate what I said.

That was probably an unsatisfying answer I just gave you, but I think this is what's driving the entire argument and invectives on this thread. Supersonic68 and the other TC members who responded (me included) are talking past one another because they're coming to the table with different definitions.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

calvinpv said:


> That was probably an unsatisfying answer I just gave you, but I think this is what's driving the entire argument and invectives on this thread. Supersonic68 and the other TC members who responded (me included) are talking past one another because they're coming to the table with different definitions.


The thread did get off to a rather bumpy start, and I agree that Supersonic68 and the other TC members are talking past one another. Perhaps the thread could be reset with Supersonic68 following Josquin13's suggestion of posting examples from different composers..



Josquin13 said:


> Maybe if you could give more examples of what you're talking about, via You Tube clips? as I don't know the music of Max Richter.


Maybe then, members could discuss how they would describe that music or even suggest terms/names for the music.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

supersonic68 said:


> Not thats wrong. I heard all the time neoclassic isn´t from 21st cent. That was obvious from beginning as I said in my first post when I opened the thread that it´s a marketing term. Same is with classical music there is one term for the whole time of western art music from 500 AD to now. One for the classical period in 18th and 19th cent. And the music before and after is also called classical when talked about. I am not pleasant with the results cause the most people here just argumented against me by saying neoclassical is from 20th century. I explained a few times that I know this well and why the term is used in 21st century. Nearly nobody answered the original question what they think is a better term for neoclassical or new classical music in 21st century, but the ones that did have my thank. Maybe it´s hard to put this new classical music in a genre but I think this is a very interesting phenomenon that classical music is played with mixed with ambient and techno. I wonder why this is and whats the socialdynamic background behind it. These topics are why I opened the thread but I have the feeling that everyone is very focused on arguing and teaching etc. It´s sad.


I apologize if this thread has become too tense and argumentative. One of my posts earlier was a little over the top and petty. But the rest of us here are just a little confused by your use of the word "neoclassical". Let me try to explain clearly what our confusions are.

Everyone who has responded is aware of the distinction between 20th century and 21st century classical. We are also aware that you understand this distinction as well. But we still have a couple of issues:

1. No one here, with the exception of Nereffid, has heard the word "neoclassical" being used for _any_ music being written today in the 21st century. Not just the composers you have mentioned, such as Richter or Einaudi, but _any_. We're not necessarily saying you're wrong to use that term (though I'll be more specific about that in the next point below); we're just saying that we haven't heard it. Maybe it shows how insular we classical music listeners can sometimes be. I don't know.

2. A lot of us here recognize that you mean "neoclassical" to mean "new classical" and that you don't mean "neoclassical" as "20th century neoclassicism". But a lot of us here think it's a little unsatisfying to try to use a term in more than one sense (that is, "unsatisfying" for the purpose of trying to explain things). And that we should have two different terms for these two different periods of music instead of one term being used for two different periods. We don't really care what the term should be for the music of Richter or Einaudi -- it can be "ambient", "minimalist", "post-minimalist", or some other term that I'm not thinking of -- but at the very least, we shouldn't just hijack an established term and give it a new definition. It should be a new term that either doesn't have a lot of history behind it, so to speak, or if it does have a lot of history behind it, it should be a history that matches our perceptions of what Richter and Einaudi's music really is. I think the terms "ambient" or "minimalist" fit this second option.

3. For me personally, I don't have a huge problem with the point discussed above, with words acquiring and losing meanings. After all, this is how natural language evolves. But I do have an issue with the specific term "new classical". For me, any composer that calls his or her own music as "new classical" is unfairly privileging their own music as the one true classical music being written today and neglecting all the other styles being written today as not being real classical. Frankly, any composer that does this is full of themselves. I know you said earlier that Richter doesn't call his own music "new classical", but it does seem like some people (not necessarily you, I'm just saying "some people" more generally) are calling him "new classical". And I think this is being a little unfair to all other classical composers writing today who have a different style than Richter or Einaudi but who can equally be called "new classical". You might think I'm overanalyzing here, but think about it for a moment: there does seem to be an implicit bias in the term "new classical" towards the recipient of that term. Here are three classical pieces that are wildly different from Richter, but are just as deserving of the term "new classical":
















Hope this clears things up.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

When I think of neo classicism I think of works like Ravel's _Le Tombeau de Couperin_, _Sonatine_, Stravinsky's _Dumbarton Oaks_, some of Prokofiev's early piano sonatas, or even Rodrigo's _Concerto Aranjuez_.

Prokofiev's 'classical' symphony is not 'neo' classical in my view, because its harmonic language is not updated enough. It is simply classical or pastiche. Einaudi is classically influenced instrumental music, not really proper classical. Maybe 'classical-lite', or fusion pop music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

norman bates said:


> neoclassical is a term with a specific meaning and it's not what you're saying. Even if some uninformed persons on internet are using it without knowing a bit of history of art.
> 
> The definition "Neoclassical" it's been used for centuries, way before the 20th century and also in other arts, and always with the same meaning: a recovery of the (perceived) values of classicism, that means form, elegance, balance, serenity and beauty. In architecture for instance in the eighteen century there were architects like Etienne Louis Boullée and others who were considered neoclassical (altough Boullée's architecture had already traits of romanticism, but that's another story), and that was the time of the so called classical music with composers like Haydn and Mozart.
> 
> So neoclassical doesn't mean "new classical music" but "new music with a classical spirit".


I've just dropped in here, and of the thoughts I see being offered I like particularly this post of Norman Bates. The idea of "classicism" originated in a retrospective view of ancient Greece and Rome - an idea of certain values those cultures were thought (not entirely accurately, but that's beside the point) to embody in their art. Those were admiringly called the "classical" civilizations, and attempts to embody or evoke their artistic values were, from the Renaissance foward, called "neoclassical." Not all neoclassical movements have referred directly back to the ancient world; in fact, they've tended to refer, successively, to each other. Renaissance neoclassical architecture was considered to refer to Greece and Rome, as were popular adaptations of ancient styles during the 18th century, the era we call the Classical era in music. We don't generally call the music of Haydn and Mozart "neoclassical," and what's interesting about that time is that it also marked the appearance of Romanticism, the new, subjective sensibility first identified in literature and actually attributed to Haydn's and Mozart's music by "avant-garde" thinkers of the day. In this light we can see neoclassicism as a set of aesthetic ideals which can coexist with other, contrary ideals. This is superbly illustrated by the music of Brahms, the "Classical Romantic," in which the neoclassical impulse coexists with a Romantic vocabulary in a powerful synthesis.

The music to which the term Neoclassicism (with a capital "N") is most firmly attached is, as has been explained here, that of certain composers of the 20th century who reacted against the subjectivity of Romanticism and focused on formal qualities they felt had been subjugated or neglected in pursuit of ever more intense emotional expression. Ancient Greece was no longer a reference point, but earlier styles of music identified as "classical" were, most especially music of the Baroque and Classical eras. And 20th-century Neoclassicism, like the neoclassicisms of earlier periods, coexisted with other artistic ideals and movements.

For the purposes of this discussion, the major point about neoclassicism, in any art and period, is that it's an aesthetic point of view which places a strong emphasis on the refinement of form as a primary value and a source of aesthetic pleasure. As Norman Bates says, it may seek to achieve, to varying degrees, elegance, balance, serenity and beauty; the appeal to perception takes precedence, in general, over sensory and emotional excitation. I can see no justification for using the term "neoclassical" to refer to music which doesn't seek the above qualities. Whether it should apply to any given piece of music can certainly be debated. It may still be possible to compose neoclassical music, but as time goes by and musical styles continue to merge and lose touch with any central line of development, terms such as "neoclassical," and "classical" itself, may become no more than artifacts with no meaningful application to the present.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2019)

calvinpv said:


> Personally, I agree that "classical music" has become a problematic term to define nowadays for the reason you describe: that the strict definition of times past is unsuitable for today's landscape with its wide variety of styles. However, I also think your response is missing the forest for the trees. This is a problem plaguing _every_ style, not just classical.


Forest for the trees? Well, you prompted me to look up the expression, as it's different here in the UK, though with the same meaning (I think).

According to Lexico: _"Fail to grasp the main issue because of excessive attention to details"._

I think I grasp the main issue quite well enough for this purpose: we were talking about CM, so it's hardly surprising that I didn't embark on a more generalised thesis about all musical genres which, I agree, enjoy the same challenges of definition.



calvinpv said:


> The best solution is probably dropping these terms altogether and focusing on individual artists and their works rather than trying to box in an artist's music into a style.


We agree then, that labelling is much less important than listening.



calvinpv said:


> But for the time being these terms exist, and every time I log in to TC, I'm signing on to a tacit agreement: that I can only talk (more or less) about composers that have been agreed upon by the community as "classical composers", this community being not just the actual members of TC, but some nebulous community made up of idealized classical music listeners. A similar phenomenon would exist if I were signing on to an ambient music forum or country music forum, etc.


You sign such a tacit agreement if you want to. I'll just 'sign' the Ts and Cs which, so far as I am aware, don't prohibit me from talking about any composers I wish to, and don't require me to accept any particular definition of music, never mind CM. There's many a thread that would have bitten the dust after the OP was posted if it were the case. (There's many a thread that _should _have bitten the dust at the birth of the OP, but that's another matter.)

Let's be clear. I am not advancing Richter as a composer of CM - I don't care one way or the other. Nor does it matter whether he is or he isn't. It should still be noted that some purveyors of music categorise him as CM.

https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8437481--richter-max-the-blue-notebooks


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

calvinpv said:


> 3. For me personally, I don't have a huge problem with the point discussed above, with words acquiring and losing meanings. After all, this is how natural language evolves. But I do have an issue with the specific term "new classical". For me, any composer that calls his or her own music as "new classical" is unfairly privileging their own music as the one true classical music being written today and neglecting all the other styles being written today as not being real classical. Frankly, any composer that does this is full of themselves. I know you said earlier that Richter doesn't call his own music "new classical", but it does seem like some people (not necessarily you, I'm just saying "some people" more generally) are calling him "new classical". And I think this is being a little unfair to all other classical composers writing today who have a different style than Richter or Einaudi but who can equally be called "new classical". You might think I'm overanalyzing here, but think about it for a moment: there does seem to be an implicit bias in the term "new classical" towards the recipient of that term.


I absolutely agree with this. There's a lot of new classical music, and to call "neoclassical" (with the meaning of "new classical) a specific kind of music (even if it's still something that could be considered part of the classical music world) is like saying that the other classical composers are not making true new classical music.
It does not have any sense.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

supersonic68 said:


> .... I have the feeling that everyone is very focused on arguing and teaching etc. It´s sad.


I've got it. Your ending gives you away. You are Donald Trump.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

tdc said:


> When I think of neo classicism I think of works like Ravel's _Le Tombeau de Couperin_, _Sonatine_, Stravinsky's _Dumbarton Oaks_, some of Prokofiev's early piano sonatas, or even Rodrigo's _Concerto Aranjuez_.
> 
> Prokofiev's 'classical' symphony is not 'neo' classical in my view, because its harmonic language is not updated enough. It is simply classical or pastiche. Einaudi is classically influenced instrumental music, not really proper classical. Maybe 'classical-lite', or fusion pop music.


Prokofiev's Classical Symphony a classical pastiche? No way. It's like saying Sibelius' symphony 3 is a classical pastiche.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I thought that a good example of "pastiche in a good way". I don't get the relationship between Prokofiev's delightful confection and one of Sibelius's seven great symphonies.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I'm saying it's not a pastiche at all. It is clearly more adventurous than what Classical sensibilities would allow, Prokofiev avoided implying the cadential resolution which is ever-present of Mozart and Haydn until one final run before the last 2 chords, with a lot of false cadences right before, and comes more as a formality and doesn't sound as final since it was not anticipated throughout, basically making fun of the sonata form. The harmony is not typical of a Classical symphony at all.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm saying it's not a pastiche at all. It is clearly more adventurous than what Classical sensibilities would allow, Prokofiev avoided implying the cadential resolution which is ever-present of Mozart and Haydn until the last 2 chords, which came just as a formality and doesn't sound as final since it was not anticipated throughout, basically making fun of the sonata form. The harmony is not typical of a Classical symphony at all.


I agree. Neoclassical with tongue in cheek is still neoclassical. "Pseudoclassical" is a possibility, but that hair is too fine to split.


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

norman bates said:


> Maybe that's because you arrived on a classical music forum saying to everyone that the vast majority of classical music is not an emotional music and it's schizoid, and that neoclassical means "new classical music".
> I suspect that if you had just asked "how would you call the music of these composers" you would have had just the answers that you've had in any case (new age, ambient, minimalism).


Neoclassical is new classical music! The word neo means new in Latin so neoclassial music means new classical music. The word neoclassical is not a word that is only reserved for the neoclassical period in 20th century! No, it´s used in all arts it´s used in economics, architecture, school, transport, linguistics, art, philosophy, theatre. And it just means that the thing (music, art, architecture) is inspired by the classics.

And the word classical is not only reserved for the classical period in 18th and 19th century. It is an adjective. There is classical physics, classical science, classical literature, classical civilizations usw.

The music I am looking for is called neoclassical by directors of music schools (https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heut...harakter-interview-mit-thomas-grosse-100.html) and by big media (https://www.zeit.de/kultur/musik/2017-10/neoklassik-piano-francesco-tristano-grandbrothers).

And also here you can find a link from Wikipedia in which it is called neoclassical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_new-age_music)

I did not want to discuss the term neoclassical but sry you are wrong by saying it does not mean new classical music.

Nevertheless I thank you for your comments. Some of them were helpful.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm saying it's not a pastiche at all. It is clearly more adventurous than what Classical sensibilities would allow, Prokofiev avoided implying the cadential resolution which is ever-present of Mozart and Haydn until one final run before the last 2 chords, with a lot of false cadences right before, and comes more as a formality and doesn't sound as final since it was not anticipated throughout, basically making fun of the sonata form. The harmony is not typical of a Classical symphony at all.


I see it as a cross between conventional classical style and 20th century film music style (I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing here). Recently I often see a lot of mild 'bashing' on 'Classical sensibilities' on the forum, (as if it's all about being 'not adventurous'. I mean we never ever see anyone talking about how Schoenberg's _Valse De Chopin_ challenged 'Romantic sensibilities', on the other hand for example.) but the composers themselves had their own ideas of being 'adventurous' in a different way from the previous eras. One of the reasons why I can't enjoy certain movements of baroque cantatas (for example) as much as I want to is what I perceive as a 'lack of contrast'. And I believe practitioners of the 'Empfindsamer Stil' like Carl Phillipp Emmanuel Bach (whom you once praised at the expense of Haydn, even though CPE Bach is also full of classical proportions and cadences) were rebelling against that kind of aesthetics. I perceive Mozart Fantasie K608 and the way it ends as an example of a 'good pastiche' (the term as used by Enthusiast) from the previous eras as well.






_"Variety and contrast within a piece became more pronounced than before. Variety of keys, melodies, rhythms and dynamics (using crescendo,diminuendo and sforzando), along with frequent changes of mood and timbre were more commonplace in the classical period than they had been in the baroque. Melodies tended to be shorter than those of baroque music, with clear-cut phrases and clearly marked cadences."_

_"The sensitive style (German: empfindsamer Stil), empfindsam style, or tender style is a style of musical composition and poetry developed in 18th-century Germany, intended to express "true and natural" feelings, and featuring sudden contrasts of mood. It was developed as a contrast to the Baroque Affektenlehre (lit. "The Doctrine of Affections"), in which a composition (or movement) would have the same affect (e.g., emotion or musical mood) throughout."_

The classical era composers themselves also made fun of their own traditions, twisted and varied a lot of things within them as well:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm saying it's not a pastiche at all. It is clearly more adventurous than what Classical sensibilities would allow, Prokofiev *avoided implying the cadential resolution which is ever-present of Mozart and Haydn* until one final run before the last 2 chords, with a lot of false cadences right before, and comes more as a formality and doesn't sound as final since it was not anticipated throughout, basically making fun of the sonata form. The harmony is not typical of a Classical symphony at all.


Isn't avoidance of cadential resolution a key feature in the music of Beethoven? That in itself is not enough to raise this work beyond pastiche in my view. It is a cute work but the harmonic language sounds closer to 18th century harmony than it does to 20th century. All other works from the 20th century that I've come across that are termed neoclassical use a harmonic language that sounds post-Debussy except this work. No one in the classical era had a harmonic language that sounds like Sibelius so I don't agree his 3rd is comparably pastiche. The Prokofiev is so obviously and unapologetically pastiche I don't know why anyone would debate this.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

supersonic68 said:


> Neoclassical is new classical music! The word neo means new in Latin so neoclassial music means new classical music. The word neoclassical is not a word that is only reserved for the neoclassical period in 20th century! No, it´s used in all arts it´s used in economics, architecture, school, transport, linguistics, art, philosophy, theatre. And it just means that the thing (music, art, architecture) is inspired by the classics.


it seems that you haven't read my previous comment (or the comment of Woodduck).
No, neoclassical doesn't mean "new classical music" or music inspired to the classics (Wagner is a classic, but his music is not classical in style (classical meaning the kind of music of the 18th century) because it's romantic. It means "new music with made with the ideal of classicism", that in sculpture or architecture is represented by the Greek models, and in classical music by the style of the 18th century.
Or the music of contemporary composers like Kaija Saariaho would be called neoclassical, but even being new, it can't be called neoclassical. 
The confusion is probably due to the fact that classical music as a whole (at least considering the part that goes from the 17th century to the present) is divided like this

17th century (and first part of the 17th century) - baroque: Bach, Rameau, Scarlatti, Vivaldi
18th century - classical: Haydn, Mozart, some would say Beethoven too
19th century - romantic: Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner, Schumann, Lizst
20th century - a lot of different things (impressionism, atonal music, serialism, neoclassicism, concrete music, minimalism, post minimalism, certain electronic music etc)

all of that is "classical music", but neoclassical is again, the music looking mainly at the classical period (that means again the style of the 18th century, Haydn and Mozart) or better at the kind of ideal represented by that particular style of music.



supersonic68 said:


> And the word classical is not only reserved for the classical period in 18th and 19th century. It is an adjective. There is classical physics, classical science, classical literature, classical civilizations usw.
> 
> The music I am looking for is called neoclassical by directors of music schools (https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heut...harakter-interview-mit-thomas-grosse-100.html) and by big media (https://www.zeit.de/kultur/musik/2017-10/neoklassik-piano-francesco-tristano-grandbrothers).
> 
> ...


well, just look at your wikipedia link: 
"*Within the broad movement of new-age music*, neoclassical new-age music, or instrumental pop, is influenced by and sometimes also based upon early, baroque[clarification needed] or classical music, especially in terms of melody and composition".
That means that we are talking about a subgenre of new age music inspired by classical music, more than "new classical music".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

supersonic68 said:


> Neoclassical is new classical music! The word neo means new in Latin so neoclassial music means new classical music. The word neoclassical is not a word that is only reserved for the neoclassical period in 20th century! No, it´s used in all arts it´s used in economics, architecture, school, transport, linguistics, art, philosophy, theatre. And it just means that the thing (music, art, architecture) is inspired by the classics.
> 
> And the word classical is not only reserved for the classical period in 18th and 19th century. It is an adjective. There is classical physics, classical science, classical literature, classical civilizations usw.
> 
> ...


Neoclassical music DOES NOT mean "new classical music." Consider:

1. The term "neoclassical" has a historical meaning going back centuries, which has been adequately explained in this thread. IT HAS NEVER MEANT "NEW CLASSICAL MUSIC."

2. Etymology doesn't determine usage, but even so your etymology is incorrect. In "neoclassical," "neo" doesn't mean "new in time," but rather "new in style, but with reference to an earlier style(s)." The terms "neobaroque" or "neoromantic" would have the same application, regardless of how recently the music is composed. In the case of "neoclassicism," the reference is to specific aesthetic traits known as "classical," as embodied in specific past styles, not to the whole broad, loosely defined field of classical music embracing a dozen centuries and innumerable styles.

3. Individuals don't decide how words are used. You may use a word any way you wish for your own purposes, but you have no standing to argue that your usage is "correct" and should be accepted by others. Words are correctly used when their uses are sanctioned by some combination of tradition, prevalence, consistency and usefulness. Calling any new piece of music "neoclassical" because it's new and reminds you of something you think of as classical music - or, even worse, because it's classical and was just composed (see #4) - does not fulfill those criteria.

4. The implication of your position that "neoclassical is new classical music" is that every piece of classical music is neoclassical when it's newly composed. Logically, _Der Ring des Nibelungen_ was a neoclassical operatic tetralogy in 1876. Do we have to explain what's wrong with that?

It's possible that some music written today will ultimately be seen as a manifestation of neoclassicism, or that the connotations of "neoclassical" will enlarge. As yet I'm unaware of that happening.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> 3. Individuals don't decide how words are used. You may use a word any way you wish for your own purposes, but you have no standing to argue that your usage is "correct" and should be accepted by others. Words are correctly used when their uses are sanctioned by some combination of tradition, prevalence, consistency and usefulness. Calling any new piece of music "neoclassical" because it's new and reminds you of something you think of as classical music - or, even worse, because it's classical and was just composed (see #4) - does not fulfill those criteria.


I have to agree with this. I once argued a similar concept regarding the topic of 'Sturm und Drang' and 'Bel Canto'. Sturm und Drang
I argued that I don't think any music that has 'stormy and dramatic' qualities in it should be labeled 'Sturm und Drang' and any music that has 'beautiful singing' in it should be labelled 'Bel Canto". 
We must respect 'scholarly-accepted definitions'.


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Neoclassical music DOES NOT mean "new classical music." Consider:
> 
> 1. The term "neoclassical" has a historical meaning going back centuries, which has been adequately explained in this thread. IT HAS NEVER MEANT "NEW CLASSICAL MUSIC."
> 
> ...


If all of your posts are as long as they´re meaningless you could be an author. You ask me why they are meaningless. I give you a short answer.

1. Neoclassical is a return to aesthetic precepts associated with the broadly defined concept of "classicism", namely order, balance, clarity, economy, and emotional restraint. So it is new classical music. Music that is not classical music but inspired by classical music. 
2. Etymology determines usage as it is the history of words and looks at how words were used during earlier periods, how they developed in meaning and form, or when and how they entered the language. It´s not good to say something about a subject you obviously know nothing about. Thats just a little help. 
3. You did not read my post. It´s not what I say it´s what big media and music school directors say (cited in post). In case I want to find another name for thats the whole meaning of this thread as I said often yet!!!
4. Your implication here is false neoclassical is the name given to Western movements in the literature, theatre, music, and architecture that draw inspiration from the "classical" art and culture of classical antiquity. As I already said in my last post.

So please tell me what to learn from your post that I did not already know?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

supersonic68 said:


> If all of your posts are as long as they´re meaningless you could be an author.


Author as a term of abuse?! Why read? _Why write?_


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm saying it's not a pastiche at all. It is clearly more adventurous than what Classical sensibilities would allow, Prokofiev avoided implying the cadential resolution which is ever-present of Mozart and Haydn until one final run before the last 2 chords, with a lot of false cadences right before, and comes more as a formality and doesn't sound as final since it was not anticipated throughout, basically making fun of the sonata form. The harmony is not typical of a Classical symphony at all.


Good reply. I still think of it as a knowing and sparkling pastiche rather than as a work of neoclassicism but musically I am probably wrong!


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> Author as a term of abuse?! Why read? _Why write?_


Author because he writes abundant novels not technical comments.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

supersonic68 said:


> Neoclassical is new classical music! The word neo means new in Latin so neoclassial music means new classical music. The word neoclassical is not a word that is only reserved for the neoclassical period in 20th century! No, it´s used in all arts it´s used in economics, architecture, school, transport, linguistics, art, philosophy, theatre. And it just means that the thing (music, art, architecture) is inspired by the classics.
> 
> And the word classical is not only reserved for the classical period in 18th and 19th century. It is an adjective. There is classical physics, classical science, classical literature, classical civilizations usw.
> 
> ...


Hmm - I won't say you are 100% wrong, but I do think you have the less convincing argument.

Your Wikipedia link leads us to a topic called "Neoclassical new-age music." Perhaps if you had used that term at the outset,the thread would have evolved differently. More useful is a link to Wikipedia's page identifying the many meanings of neoclassicism.

Admittedly some people seemed to have shortened the term to "neoclassical music." First and foremost that does not negate the many other uses of the term. Moreover Rector Grosse in the article you linked to describes it as follows (using Google translate):

"Neoclassic is clearly a PR term. It is a marketing topic, not primarily an artistic development to be accompanied by musicology. I can understand the sympathy for this kind of music, but I also share the criticism."

The second article (again translated by Google) is focused on several of its practitioners. It claims links between neoclassical new-age, punk and techno; less between neoclassical and classical music (in the broader sense of the term). Here's what one of the practitioners has to say.

"It is about rediscovering the grand piano as a protofuturistic instrument," says Francesco Tristano, describing what the Grandbrothers, he and all the neo-classics related to it are currently doing. "You can actually reinvent the piano," he believes. He does not really care whether the classical music scene is interested or rejects such practices. "I don't make classical music." He certainly would not convert ravers to Bach or be declared a cross-border commuter. "What limits?" Asks Tristano. "For me there is no difference between classic and techno."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

supersonic68 said:


> So it is new classical music. Music that is not classical music but inspired by classical music.


Let us understand each other. As other people have pointed out, you seem to confuse the term "classical" (as in the broad definition of "classical music": just about 'anything' ranging from Hildegard of Bingen to Stockhausen, spanning over a millennium) with "*C*lassical" (as in 'Classical period/era') Are you aware of the reasons why 19th century stuff like Liszt Années de pèlerinage is NOT considered "*C*lassical"?










Whereas 18th century stuff like Mozart String Quartet in G major is considered "*C*lassical"?






http://www.lcsproductions.net/MusicHistory/MusHistRev/Articles/Neoclassicism.html
_'Neoclassicism had its most articulate spokesman in Igor Stravinsky. He moved from the Post-Impressionism of "The Firebird" through the Primitivism of "The Rite of Spring" to a more controlled classicism of his maturity. He consistently preached the formal above the emotional elements in art. "I can not compose until I have decided what problem I must solve." The problem was always aesthetic, not personal. He wrote, "I evoke neither human joy nor human sadness."
Stravinsky's doctrine represented an effort on a grand scale to purge music of pictorial, literary, and ethical meanings. His aim was to draw the listener's attention away from his own emotions and to concentrate it on the tones instead, although in the later phase of his career he departed from this doctrine to a philosophy which no longer separated life from art.
One of the main achievements of Neoclassicism was the revival of the absolute forms -- symphony, concerto, sonata, and various types of chamber music. Equally significant was the return to the forms of the pre-romantic eras such as suite, divertimento, toccata, concerto grosso, fugue, passacaglia, and chaconne.
The music of the romantics had adhered to a melodic style based on the voice, but the neoclassicists favored an instrumental melody that made use of wider intervals and a more extended range. Harmonically, they moved away from the chromaticism of the post-Wagnerian style to pandiatonicism, based on the seven tones of the diatonic scale. In contrast to the multitude of sharps and flats in the early 20th century, it favored a sparing use of accidentals and showed an affinity for the key of C major. Many pages of neoclassic music were prime examples of the term "white music" coined during this period.'
The composers of the Neoclassic period focused their attention on elegance of style and purity of taste. In exalting the how over the what, they were led to the classical virtues of order, discipline, balance, and proportion._


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Or if you want a simpler explanation, I don't think any music that gets described as "new age music" can be correctly described as classical music and adding neo as a prefix doesn't help (indeed, it confuses).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

supersonic68 said:


> If all of your posts are as long as they´re meaningless you could be an author. You ask me why they are meaningless. I give you a short answer.


I would first ask that you learn how to talk to people you disagree with without throwing insults at them. Doing that is a fairly reliable indication that you have a poor argument. It's also frowned on in civilized company and against the rules of this forum. I recognize that you're new here, but it's never too soon to get in practice.

Now let's see:



> 1. Neoclassical is a return to aesthetic precepts associated with the broadly defined concept of "classicism", namely order, balance, clarity, economy, and emotional restraint.


That's a fair definition, but be careful of "broadly defined." The concept of "classicism" relevant to this discussion is not broad enough to include all of what we call "classical music."



> So it is new classical music. Music that is not classical music but inspired by classical music.


That's too general. Neoclassical music is not just any new classical music. Neither is it just any non-classical music that seems to be inspired by classical music. In order to be considered neoclassical, music must be in a style that represents, in your words, a "return to aesthetic precepts associated with the broadly defined concept of 'classicism', namely order, balance, clarity, economy, and emotional restraint." That "broadly defined" concept is in fact narrower than the concept of "classical music," which is why we capitalize "Classical" when we want to talk about the period of music most relevant to neoclassicism.



> 2. Etymology determines usage as it is the history of words and looks at how words were used during earlier periods, how they developed in meaning and form, or when and how they entered the language. It´s not good to say something about a subject you obviously know nothing about. Thats just a little help.


Etymology does not DETERMINE usage. It merely REPORTS on it. It's the study of how words originated and of the history of their use. It has nothing to say about how they OUGHT to be used, which is the subject of this conversation.



> 3. You did not read my post.


Yes I did.



> It´s not what I say it´s what big media and music school directors say (cited in post).


I've addressed what YOU have said, namely that "neoclassical music" means "new classical music." It doesn't.



> In case I want to find another name for thats the whole meaning of this thread as I said often yet!!!


That is not a sentence.



> 4. Your implication here is false neoclassical is the name given to Western movements in the literature, theatre, music, and architecture that draw inspiration from the "classical" art and culture of classical antiquity. As I already said in my last post.


That is a repetition of your point #1 above.



> So please tell me what to learn from your post that I did not already know?


What you seem not to know, or to want to ignore, is the difference between "new classical music" - a general category embracing an infinity of styles - and music that specifically shows "a return to aesthetic precepts associated with the broadly defined concept of 'classicism', namely order, balance, clarity, economy, and emotional restraint."

Let's return to your original post:



> How would you describe neoclassical music? Many musicians don´t term themselves neoclassical for example Max Richter. There are many general terms for it (not including subgenres, just the main genre) some call it minimal classical music, contemporary classical music others call it neoclassical music which is more an marketing term. *From my personal point of view of view it is music with classical pattern but made with pop methods and therefore minimalistic in comparison with classical music.*


To answer your initial question, that is NOT how anyone wanting to think clearly about musical style would use the term "neoclassical." As I said, you're entitled to use any word any way you want, but responsible thinkers who want to maintain clarity of understanding and discourse don't needlessly loosen, extend, or obscure the meanings of established terms and insist that their own personal definitions are to be preferred.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> Good reply. I still think of it as a knowing and sparkling pastiche rather than as a work of neoclassicism but musically I am probably wrong!


I don't think you are wrong. A 'knowing and sparkling pastiche' is an excellent description. Notice how Phil has not provided an example of any other work called 'neo-classical' that remotely resembles the Prokofiev work, because there aren't any. Though I do understand why people don't want the word 'pastiche' applied to a work they enjoy by a loved composer like Prokofiev (a composer I also consider among my favorites). I agree it is a fine work for what it is, a one-off, fun and not so serious work. In this sense I see it similar to Ravel's _Bolero_, a fun musical experiment the composer never repeated that annoyingly has become more well known than some of the composer's other (even better) works.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Etymology does not DETERMINE usage. It merely REPORTS on it. It's the study of how words originated and of the history of their use. It has nothing to say about how they OUGHT to be used, which is the subject of this conversation.


Without wishing to distract too much from your excellent post, I'd just register a counter point that some (including me) regard etymology as often suggesting how words _ought _to be used, if not going so far as to finally determine how they _must _be used.

In this particular case, as you have explained, etymology is unhelpful, but in all cases, it is the _application _of a definition that must be examined to determine the appropriateness of its use.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Without wishing to distract too much from your excellent post, I'd just register a counter point that some (including me) regard etymology as often suggesting how words _ought _to be used, if not going so far as to finally determine how they _must _be used.
> 
> In this particular case, as you have explained, etymology is unhelpful, but in all cases, it is the _application _of a definition that must be examined to determine the appropriateness of its use.


Etymology may indeed offer helpful guidance in questions of current usage where other criteria don't settle the matter. I've enumerated these criteria as tradition, prevalence, consistency and usefulness, without intending to be exhaustive. Whether useful or not, etymology is at least fascinating and seductive, and knowing where a word comes from and what elements constitute it allows us to play the game of "Well, the Oxford Unabridged says it originally meant such and such!" and thus to bore people who don't give a fig.

I do hope all this has not left the originator of this thread lying somewhere in foetal position, shaking and muttering in neoclassical glossolalia.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> I don't think you are wrong. A 'knowing and sparkling pastiche' is an excellent description. Notice how Phil has not provided an example of any other work called 'neo-classical' that remotely resembles the Prokofiev work, because there aren't any. Though I do understand why people don't want the word 'pastiche' applied to a work they enjoy by a loved composer like Prokofiev (a composer I also consider among my favorites). I agree it is a fine work for what it is, a one-off, fun and not so serious work. In this sense I see it similar to Ravel's _Bolero_, a fun musical experiment the composer never repeated that annoyingly has become more well known than some of the composer's other (even better) works.


I'm usually careful in using terms like 'pastiche' because the history of western classical music is full of 'pastiche' and whether or not something is 'pastiche' depends on how you look at it and there's a load of criteria for determining if it is. And most works we consider great are to certain extent 'pastiche' of earlier works.

Here I'm talking about Chopin again, because he's one of few composers in history generally considered truly "original" by many. (I do acknowledge him as a great composer. It's just the way people attempt to put him above the others (in terms of 'originality' and stuff) extremely cringey. )
But look at these:

Ignaz Moscheles Etude Op.70 No.3 in G Major (1826)
Chopin Etude Op.10 No.2 in A minor (1832)
Ignaz Moscheles Etude Op.70 No.2 in E minor (1826)
Chopin Etude Op.10 No.11 in E flat major (1832)
Joseph Christoph Kessler Etude No.20 No.9 in A flat major (1825):
{note that Chopin dedicated his 24 Preludes Op.28 to Kessler}
Chopin Etude Op.25 No.1 in A flat major (1835)

While Prokofiev follows the Classical virtues, his first symphony still sounds distinctively '20th century' to me, and doesn't sound like something Haydn or Mozart would have written. I think calling it merely pastiche is like calling Beethoven's first symphony merely pastiche. 
And conversely, the Classicists' way to create "art" through use of tonic and dominant, (which Phillovesclassical and janxharris seem to hate so much)




is something not even the Neoclassicists like Prokofiev could 'replicate'.


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> While Prokofiev follows the Classical virtues, his first symphony still sounds distinctively '20th century' to me, and doesn't sound like something Haydn or Mozart would have written. I think calling it merely pastiche is like calling Beethoven's first symphony merely pastiche.
> And conversely, the Classicists' way to create "art" through use of tonic and dominant, (which Phillovesclassical and janxharris seem to hate so much)
> 
> 
> ...


As Michael Steinberg writes in his program notes for Prokofiev's 'Classical' Symphony, "If the radio announcer told you he was going to play something by Haydn and then started a recording of _Classical_ Symphony, it would take you only a few seconds to figure out that you were being put on. But then Prokofiev was not trying to produce a forgery that would conceivably pass as a newly discovered Haydn symphony. Nor did he intend a parody. As the American musicologist Laurel Fay has written, this is a 'high-spirited and sparkling salute.'"

And he points out that "The D-Major skyrocket sets in motion a continuous purling of rapid notes...Not even Haydn with all his harmonic daring would have repeated the theme in distant C major within ten seconds; in fact, one of the charms of the _Classical_ Symphony lies Prokofiev's skill at conveying something of the essence of Haydn while not writing a single measure that could possibly occur in a Haydn symphony."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm usually careful in using terms like 'pastiche' because the history of western classical music is full of 'pastiche' and whether or not something is 'pastiche' depends on how you look at them and there's a load of criteria for determining them. And most works we consider great are to certain extent 'pastiche' of earlier works.


You say you're being careful in applying the term "pastiche," but then you apply it inaccurately.

A pastiche is a work which is essentially an imitation of some earlier style. A work that merely shows the influence of another artist's style is not a pastiche, and to say that most works we consider great are "to a certain extent pastiche" is to misuse the word. A work is either a pastiche or it isn't, and in most cases it's perfectly obvious when it is.

As for influence, one of the qualities that distinguishes a great work from a merely skillful one is originality, and artists generally reach their greatest heights when they are most themselves, not when they're wearing costumes created by and for others. Even intentional archaism, such as Brahms' use of the passacaglia form or Puccini's use of Chinese melodies, is not necessarily pastiche, since these composers have used their material in a characteristic, original way and created something that inhabits a very different stylistic and expressive world from that of its sources.

Composers do sometimes engage successfully in outright imitation. Mozart's organ fantasia in f-minor is certainly a pleasant pastiche, though it's far from being one of his greatest works. Its mixture of Baroque and Classical styles doesn't quite convince me, but others may feel differently.

As for Prokofiev's "Classical Symphony," it's an unusual case and I don't think I'd call it pastiche, mainly because it doesn't at any point try to sound like music of the Classical period. It's no more authentically Classical than Grieg's "Holberg Suite" is authentically Baroque. Maybe the Prokofiev is really not pastiche but parody - or maybe it's just a delightful tribute. But we really needn't label everything, need we?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Composers do sometimes engage successfully in outright imitation. Mozart's organ fantasia in f-minor is certainly a pleasant pastiche, though it's far from being one of his greatest works. Its mixture of Baroque and Classical styles doesn't quite convince me, but others may feel differently.


Which exact work is Mozart K608 'pastiche' of? It sounds like none of Bach's organ works. (Can you give me an example in Bach that sounds like it. BWV542? BWV582?) I would say, the way K608 builds 'operatic' drama and finishes reminds me more of Mozart's own Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen, albeit with counterpoint. Let's not forget Mozart has his roots in a 18th century tradition of fugues, canons, counterpoint separate from Bach. (That is, the Salzburg tradition: Johann Ernst Eberlin, Anton Cajetan Adlgasser, Leopold Mozart, Michael Haydn etc.) 
The sole reason why it sounds like 'pastiche' to some people is because it's played on organ and it contains counterpoint. Even after the Classical era, composers (Mendelssohn, Brahms, Max Reger etc) continued to expand on this area of music. I would say the way K608 is structured, ( [overture]' - [fugue] - [overture]'' - [andante] - [overture]''' - [double fugue] - [overture]'''' ), it resembles Liszt Transcendental Etude No.4 in D minor than anything by Bach. 
It's not more 'pastiche' than the first movement of Beethoven's Op.111 is to Mozart's K475 and K546 (the subject and the use of three-note fragment in Op.111 is an obvious allusion to the Mozart. Beethoven even jotted down the two-piano version, K426 for study (Hess 37) ), or the final movement of Beethoven's third piano concerto Op.37 is to that of Mozart's Serenade for winds K388, or the Chopin etudes are to the Moscheles and Kessler etudes (as I described above), or Chopin Ballade No.4 is to Hummel Fantasie Op.18, or his waltzes are to Johann Strauss I and Joseph Lanner's, or many of his nocturnes are to John Field's.

http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics3/chopinwaltzes.html
_"Chopin wrote home from Vienna, marveling at the "terrific applause" garnered by the Strauss and Lanner waltzes, yet citing them as evidence of the public's "corrupt taste," and claiming that he was unable to play them. Yet, the structure of his own first published waltz, entitled "Grand Valse brilliante," closely adhered to the style he claimed to deplore. Following an opening fanfare (a standard functional device of the time to draw dancers' attention) that coalesces into ¾ time, a schematic outline, assigning a letter to each distinct 16-bar melody, would read: A, A, B, A, B, C, C, D, E, F, F, G, F, G, F, H, a bridge to reassert the rhythm, A, B, A (interrupted by two pauses), four bars of bass rhythm, and then a coda combining fragments of B, G and A, followed by A that dissolves into scalar elaborations that lead to cadential chords. A typical performance packs this profusion of music, arguably danceable, into five minutes."_


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

As 'pastiche' means essentially 'imitation' it is a fairly vague term. No, I've not suggested Prokofiev's symphony no. 1 is _exactly_ the same as a Haydn symphony, I don't think anyone would make that claim. That said I don't think the Prokofiev work would be anymore shocking to audiences in the classical era as many works by Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert routinely were. I don't think it would sound too out of place as a work that was performed somewhere in the transitional period between the classical and romantic eras.

The same cannot be said for Ravel's _Le Tombeau de Couperin_ or Bartok's _Divertimento for String Orchestra_.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

What makes a work 'neoclassical' is a modernist or impressionist harmonic language mixed with classical formal principles. Therefore Prokofiev's Symphony No. 2 does qualify as neoclassical, his first symphony does not.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Which exact work is Mozart K608 'pastiche' of?


No exact work. You still don't understand what pastiche is. A pastiche is not a parody of an "exact work."



> It sounds like none of Bach's organ works.


It doesn't have to.



> I would say, the way K608 builds 'operatic' drama and finishes reminds me more of Mozart's own Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen, albeit with counterpoint.


That's just ludicrous.



> Let's not forget Mozart has his roots in a 18th century tradition of fugues, canons, counterpoint separate from Bach. (That is, the Salzburg tradition: Johann Ernst Eberlin, Anton Cajetan Adlgasser, Leopold Mozart, Michael Haydn etc.)


Straw men everywhere. Bach, once again, is irrelevant.



> The sole reason why it sounds like 'pastiche' to some people is because it's played on organ and it contains counterpoint.


It begins with a French overture, for God's sake (or at least for Pete's sake). Majestic chords in dotted rhythms bookending a very academic fugue. French overtures are not Classical; anybody writing one in 1790 is writing Baroque pastiche. The piece shifts to Classical period homophony - old style and contemporary style in juxtaposition. The French overture returns to finish the piece off. It's a conscious playing with styles, and an obvious tribute to the Baroque. PASTICHE! PASTICHE! PASTICHE!



> it resembles Liszt Transcendental Etude No.4 in D minor than anything by Bach.


My foot it does.



> It's not more 'pastiche' than the first movement of Beethoven's Op.111 is to Mozart's K475 and K546 (the subject and the use of three-note fragment in Op.111 is an obvious allusion to the Mozart. Beethoven even jotted down the two-piano version, K426 for study (Hess 37) ), or the final movement of Beethoven's third piano concerto Op.37 is to that of Mozart's Serenade for winds K388, or the Chopin etudes are to the Moscheles and Kessler etudes (as I described above), or Chopin Ballade No.4 is to Hummel Fantasie Op.18, or his waltzes are to Johann Strauss I and Joseph Lanner's, or many of his nocturnes are to John Field's.
> 
> http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics3/chopinwaltzes.html
> _"Chopin wrote home from Vienna, marveling at the "terrific applause" garnered by the Strauss and Lanner waltzes, yet citing them as evidence of the public's "corrupt taste," and claiming that he was unable to play them. Yet, the structure of his own first published waltz, entitled "Grand Valse brilliante," closely adhered to the style he claimed to deplore. Following an opening fanfare (a standard functional device of the time to draw dancers' attention) that coalesces into ¾ time, a schematic outline, assigning a letter to each distinct 16-bar melody, would read: A, A, B, A, B, C, C, D, E, F, F, G, F, G, F, H, a bridge to reassert the rhythm, A, B, A (interrupted by two pauses), four bars of bass rhythm, and then a coda combining fragments of B, G and A, followed by A that dissolves into scalar elaborations that lead to cadential chords. A typical performance packs this profusion of music, arguably danceable, into five minutes."_


Man, are you defensive about Mozart, and of course offensive about Schubert and Chopin. Why compare Chopin's waltzes to Strauss's? They aren't even dance music. The French salon and the Viennese ballroom are musically far apart.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

For me the neoclassical music comes AFTER the modern music. This is something is coming from my experience and I didn't read it somewhere. It is the effort to resurrect the well known classical music forms in one more contemporary style. So, in neoclassical music are involved the rules of the classical harmony, we have clear theme, development etc. and a melody to be remembered. All these with MODERN instruments, vocals etc. like the songs we are hearing every day on the radio. Here is an example of what I see as neoclassical music.






You see that we have a complete A/Z work with many traditional musical elements. *Kauan (Anton Belov)* is the ONLY group I can remember this moment which is making neoclassical (or modern) classical music. Of course (I'm aware about this) you can say that this is ethnic music, post rock or many other things (and you are correct) But for ME, this is what I understand as neoclassical music. I any case try this Russian - Ukrainian group. They are doing unforgettable music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> What makes a work 'neoclassical' is a modernist or impressionist harmonic language mixed with classical formal principles. Therefore Prokofiev's Symphony No. 2 does qualify as neoclassical, his first symphony does not.


I can't hear Prokofiev's wild and enigmatic #2 as Neoclassical. Why do you think it is?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dimace said:


> For me the neoclassical music comes AFTER the modern music. This is something is coming from my experience and I didn't read it somewhere. It is the effort to *resurrect the well known classical music forms* in one more contemporary style. So, in neoclassical music are involved *the rules of the classical harmony*, we have *clear theme, development etc. and a melody to be remembered.* All these with MODERN instruments, vocals etc. like the songs we are hearing every day on the radio. Here is an example of what I see as neoclassical music.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sampling this, I hear an eclectic mix of rock, folk, new age...Anything but classical, and in no way NEOclassical. I don't see how your description fits it: there are no "well-known classical forms" (what forms are you thinking of?), the harmony doesn't conform to classical rules (except by default, in that most of it is extremely simple diatonicism), and what melody there is is not subjected to developmental procedures.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I can't hear Prokofiev's wild and enigmatic #2 as Neoclassical. Why do you think it is?


It uses a modern harmonic language and in terms of form is modelled after Beethoven's Op. 111. Beethoven probably often sounded 'wild and enigmatic' to listeners in his age too, yet as Rosen has shown his late music is firmly grounded in classical forms.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> No exact work. You still don't understand what pastiche is. A pastiche is not a parody of an "exact work."


So what's your definition of 'pastiche'? Merely being "old-fashioned" for the time? That would make much of Bach's and Brahms's own output 'pastiche'. Of course, we know that it's not.



Woodduck said:


> It begins with a French overture, for God's sake (or at least for Pete's sake). Majestic chords in dotted rhythms bookending a very academic fugue. French overtures are not Classical; anybody writing one in 1790 is writing Baroque pastiche. The piece shifts to Classical period homophony - old style and contemporary style in juxtaposition. The French overture returns to finish the piece off. It's a conscious playing with styles, and an obvious tribute to the Baroque. PASTICHE! PASTICHE! PASTICHE!


What's an example of an un-academic fugue then? With the kind of mindset like yours, doesn't every fugue just seem "academic"? Homophony/polyphony is not necessarily what divides Classical/Baroque. The andante of K608 starts off with a 'humble beginning' (because it's structured in 'variations'), but it is also polyphonic in its development. If it's really a troll/parody work as you make it out to be, why did Beethoven personally own a copy of the work? Why did Clementi transcribe it for solo piano? Why did Schubert seek inspiration from it to write his own Fantasie D940? Why was Franz Lachner inspired by the Andante of K608 to write his Octet for winds in B flat (1859)?
Yes, in writing much of his works, Mozart drew inspiration from pre-Classical sources, as well as works of his direct Classical predecessors. Does that make his works more 'pastiche' than Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert's? And we all know K608 is not the only work he uses counterpoint.



Woodduck said:


> Man, are you defensive about Mozart, and of course offensive about Schubert and Chopin.


No, I'm not. I'm trying to apply the same, fair criteria all these 'great composers'. I think you're the one being biased toward Chopin, Mr. Woodduck.  Chopin's piano concertos sound more similar to Hummel's to me than Mozart's K608 does to Bach's BWV542. But I wouldn't consider the Chopin 'merely pastiche'.
I'm curious what you think of the use of 'symmetrical phrasing' (which is supposed to be a Classical thing) in the late 1830s.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> So what's your definition of 'pastiche'? Merely being "old-fashioned" for the time? That would make much of Bach's and Brahms's own output 'pastiche'. Of course, we know that it's not.


Oh come now. Do you really think I'm clueless enough to define pastiche as being "merely old-fashioned"? A pastiche is a work distinctly utlizing a style no longer current, or even a current style uncharacteristic of the composer (unless he's a composition student or a professional forger, in which case pastiche is his daily gruel). A young composer in 1790 choosing to write a formal French overture complete with fugue, resembling the beginning of an oratorio or a partita from 1730, is writing a pastiche. I would bet you anything that most listeners hearing the opening section of the fantasia "blind" would think it was composed around the latter date.



> What's an example of an un-academic fugue then? With the kind of mindset like yours, doesn't every fugue just seem "academic"?


What kind of "mindset" do I have? No, I don't think every fugue sounds "academic." i use the word as a description of the feel of this particular fugue - that square, grindingly repetitive subject, like something a counterpoint student would be proud of, the four voices all neatly laid out - tonic, dominant, tonic, dominant - soprano, alto, tenor, bass... Fugal expositions don't get more formal and formulaic than that, do they?



> Homophony/polyphony is not necessarily what divides Classical/Baroque.


No, but it tends to, and it certainly does in this work, in which the second section is in typically Classical homophonic style, not the least bit Baroque. Were discussing this particular work, not what "necessarily divides." In this piece, the stylistic division - I would say incongruity - between the French overture and the theme and variations is clear.



> The andante of K608 starts off with a 'humble beginning' (because it's structured in 'variations'), but it is also polyphonic in its development.


Big deal. The section is still Classical in style.



> If it's really a troll/parody work as you make it out to be,


I didn't use the word "troll" or the word "parody." Don't misrepresent me.



> why did Beethoven personally own a copy of the work?


Because he liked it? Because he got it for Christmas?



> Why did Clementi transcribe it for solo piano? Why did Schubert seek inspiration from it to write his own Fantasie D940? Why was Franz Lachner inspired by the Andante of K608 to write his Octet for winds in B flat (1859)?


These are all pointless questions. I guess they all liked it. Lots of people like it. It's unusual, it's interesting, whatever.



> Yes, in writing much of his works, Mozart drew inspiration from pre-Classical sources, as well as works of his direct Classical predecessors. Does that make his works more 'pastiche' than Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert's?


I didn't say that Mozart's "works" were pastiche. I said that the fantasia in f-minor was.



> And we all know K608 is not the only work he uses counterpoint.


Counterpoint is not the point. Anyone in any century can write counterpoint without writing pastiche.



> I think you're the one being biased toward Chopin, Mr. Woodduck.


I've said very little about Chopin. You've said plenty, in threads having nothing to do with him, and most of it disparaging.



> Chopin's piano concertos sound more similar to Hummel's to me than Mozart's K608 does to Bach's BWV542. But I wouldn't consider the Chopin 'merely pastiche'.


No one would consider Chopin's concertos pastiche. As I've said, simple influence doesn't constitute pastiche. Pastiche involves imitation of styles no longer current or not typical of the composer. It's impossible to imagine Chopin not being influenced by Hummel, but he certainly doesn't imitate him and he sounds very different.



> I'm curious what you think of the use of 'symmetrical phrasing' (which is supposed to be a Classical thing) in the late 1830s.


It's only a "classical thing" when it's in Classical style. Like counterpoint, symmetry isn't enough to define a style. If you're going to quibble about the (technical) trees and miss the (stylistic) forest, I see no point in debating this with you.

I came upon the Mozart fantasia ususpecting, in the course of a lengthy traversal of many of his works. Having heard some of his church sonatas, I rather expected some nice, polite, slightly sentimental Classical thing, and I was gobsmacked by the craggy, Baroque-style French overture. I was then surprised again by the reversion to a purely Classical style. My immediate thought was that Mozart had been studying Bach and Handel and wanted to see what fun he could have writing for organ in a Baroque manner. I can't think of another work of his that's so obvious in this respect; there may be something among his choral works, not all of which I'm familiar with, but the Baroque influence in the Great C-minor Mass and the Requiem is more integrated into an original style and doesn't strike me as pastiche, or not to the same extent.

"Pastiche" isn't a dirty word, by the way. There's good pastiche and bad pastiche. Mozart's Baroque pastiche is good.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> It uses a modern harmonic language and in terms of form is modelled after Beethoven's Op. 111. Beethoven probably often sounded 'wild and enigmatic' to listeners in his age too, yet as Rosen has shown his late music is firmly grounded in classical forms.


I have to say that any suggestion that Prokofiev's 2nd Symphony is built on Classical forms is completely undetectable to me as I listen. And regarding Beethoven's late works being "firmly grounded in Classical models," those models are in many cases so transformed as to become something quite new. A lot of Romantic symphonies and sonatas are much more obviously built on Classical lines than are Beethoven's late works. Choosing him as a formal inspiration isn't a very good strategy for composing "neoclassical" music. Stravinsky, for one, looked to older models.

I think 20th-century Neoclassicism isn't just a question of form but of spirit. The underlying, abstract formal templates music is built on don't necessarily dictate the way it actually sounds; the second act of Wagner's Die Meistersinger ends with a tremendous, wild and crazy double (or triple - I forget) fugue, but I sure wouldn't call it "neobaroque"! Whatever Prokofiev modelled his 2nd symphony on, I'd be hesitant to pin a stylisyic label on it, just as I'd hesitate to call his first a "pastiche." Young Sergei was quite the musical upstart, and even he, hearing the premiere of the 2nd, said that neither he nor the audience knew what to make of it. It is certainly a blast of Modernism, and it's too new and challenging, i think, to represent "neo" anything.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Oh come now. Do you really think I'm stupid enough to define pastiche as "being old-fashioned"? A pastiche is a work distinctly utlizing a style no longer current and generally uncharacteristic of the composer's personal manner. A Classical composer in 1790 choosing to write a formal French overture complete with fugue, resembling the beginning of an oratorio or a partita from 1730, is writing a pastiche. I would bet you anything that most listeners hearing the opening section of the fantasia "blind" would think it was composed around the latter date.


1730 was a time 'Classical' symphonies and concertos were also being composed. Handel wrote Messiah in 1742. By the same logic you use for Mozart K608, I clearly see Baroque/Classical/early Romantic elements in Beethoven Op.111. (I don't think it's a "different style from Classical and Romantic" as some people on this forum make it out to be) Long trills like the ones in Op.109 are also present in Chopin's Fugue in A minor and Nocturne in Op.62 No.1 in B major. I also discussed similarities in late Hummel and late Beethoven in another thread. (their works are almost contemporary)
And as I said, the references to Mozart are unmistakable. 
Furthermore, the ascending four-note passages in the ending of Piu Allegro, the G-Ab-F-G-C passage in the bass of recap of Fantasie K475, -- remind me of Appassionata.
But I know you'll say, "but, look how Beethoven develops them! He sets them in a different context!"



Woodduck said:


> What kind of "mindset" do I have? No, I don't think every fugue sounds "academic." i use the word as a description of the feel of this particular fugue - that square, grindingly repetitive subject, like something a counterpoint student would be proud of, the four voices all neatly laid out - tonic, dominant, tonic, dominant - soprano, alto, tenor, bass... Fugal expositions don't get more formal and formulaic than that, do they?


Still better than some other later composers' attempts at the genre. Isn't the Kyrie double fugue in the Requiem (for example) something a counterpoint student would be proud of as well?



Woodduck said:


> No, but it tends to, and it certainly does in this work, in which the second section is in typically Classical homophonic style, not the least bit Baroque. Were discussing this particular work, not what "necessarily divides." In this piece, the stylistic division - I would say incongruity - between the French overture and the theme and variations is clear.


So show me a baroque/classical piece that's structured the same way.



Woodduck said:


> Big deal. The section is still Classical in style.


Like how the second movement of Beethoven's Op.111 is early Romantic in style.



Woodduck said:


> I didn't use the word "troll" or the word "parody." Don't misrepresent me.


But you sound as if it's something worse than pastiche. Why would you call it "pleasant"? Have you listened to the ending at all? You obviously wouldn't call Beethoven's 1st symphony "pleasant" would you? Yelling PASTICHE! in capital letters three times.. You're obviously getting emotional, Mr. Woodduck. 



Woodduck said:


> Because he liked it? Because he got it for Christmas?


He took the trouble of obtaining a copy himself and even wrote it in his notebook. Why didn't he just pick a random fugue by a random baroque composer to study?



Woodduck said:


> These are all pointless questions. I guess they all liked it. Lots of people like it. It's unusual, it's interesting, whatever.


I'm guessing they liked it because of the drama it creates through ingenious use of counterpoint and structure. The same reason people like Beethoven, not caring how much Haydnesque/Mozartian references there are in his music.



Woodduck said:


> Counterpoint is not the point. Anyone in any century can write counterpoint without writing pastiche.


Say that to Beethoven Op.111.








But again, I know you'll say "look how Beethoven develops them!"



Woodduck said:


> No one would consider Chopin's concertos pastiche. As I've said, simple influence doesn't constitute pastiche. Pastiche involves imitation of styles no longer current. It's impossible to imagine Chopin not being influenced by Hummel, but he sounds very different.


Wouldn't 'Et incarnatus est' from Beethoven's Missa solemnis be pastiche of Palestrina then? Besides, Beethoven wasn't really that great an expert in vocal writing. Too bad he became deaf before he could do more practice.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> 1730 was a time classical symphonies and concertos were also being composed. By the same logic you use for Mozart K608 , I clearly see Baroque/Classical/early Romantic elements in Beethoven Op.111. Long trills like the ones in them are also present in Chopin's Fugue in A minor. I also discussed similarities in late Hummel and late Beethoven in another thread. Their works are almost contemporary. And as I said, the references to Mozart are unmistakable.


"Long trills," my eye! You keep pointing to "elements" and "references" and "resemblances." OF COURSE there are "elements" and "references" and "resemblances" of all sorts across centuries of music. That doesn't make for pastiche. Mozart wrote a whole damned French overture for organ, for heaven's sake, Baroque in form and style. Most people wouldn't have a clue that it was written by Mozart or any post-Baroque composer. Why the hell can't you just admit this? Can you not hear it?



> Isn't the Kyrie double fugue in the Requiem (for example) something a counterpoint student would be proud of as well?


Yeah, so what?



> So show me a baroque/classical piece that's structured the same way.


What for?



> Like how the second movement of Beethoven's Op.111 is early Romantic in style.


Well, that's the period when Beethoven was writing the piece, right?



> But you sound as if it's something worse than pastiche. Why would you call it "pleasant"? Have you listened to the ending at all? You obviously wouldn't call Beethoven's 1st symphony "pleasant" would you? Yelling PASTICHE! in capital letters three times.. You're obviously getting emotional, Mr. Woodduck.


Huh?



> He took the trouble himself of obtaining a copy himself and even wrote it in his notebook. Why didn't he just pick a random fugue by a random baroque composer to study?


Because he wasn't a random composer.



> I'm guessing they liked it because of the drama it creates through ingenious use of counterpoint and structure.


No need to guess. That's the obvious reason. Nobody said the piece isn't ingenious.



> The same reason people like Beethoven, not caring how much Haydnesque/Mozartian references there are in his music.


Haydn and Mozart were older contemporaries of Beethoven. Resemblances between the music of contemporaries are normal. This has NOTHING to do with the matter at hand. French overture style had its heyday generations before Mozart decided to play with it.



> Wouldn't 'Et incarnatus est' from Beethoven's Missa solemnis be pastiche of Palestrina then?


No. He integrates bits of quasi-Renaissance polyphony into an original style and a much larger vision. It's like a dream of ancient times, an intimation of eternity. Listen to the flute, hovering like the celestial dove, over Palestrina's ghost! NOT pastiche, not by any stretch. Another concept pertains: "archaism " - like Brahms or Britten writing passacaglias (but like none ever heard before), or Wagner evoking plainchant and chorales and using canon in inversion and the "Dresden Amen" in _Parsifal._ Mozart's fantasia goes beyond references: it actually contains a whole French overture, and you know what? It actually contains a whole French overture. And did I mention a whole French overture? A whole ****ing French...



> Besides, Beethoven wasn't really that great an expert in vocal writing. Too bad he became deaf before he could do more practice.


Cheap shot. Beethoven wrote the music he needed to write. Actually there's gorgeous vocal writing in the _Missa,_ as well as some that's quite difficult. I know. I've sung it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mr. Woodduck, the same way you feel about Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, there's something special about Mozart K608 that makes me feel it's more than just pastiche.
It's not just a simple "French overture". Mozart develops into a Fantasie piece based on the material, the work contains a kind of fire that looks forward into stuff like Liszt's Mazeppa etude. (Note that Liszt also has his middle section as "a flower between two chasms".) 
Mozart K608 has a kind of relentless logic that leads into the eventual, frenzy double fugue, to a dramatic ending, like one of dramatic moments in his operas. Overall, it doesn't sound like a 'typical piece' from the baroque era. Sure, Mozart derives from Bach and Handel, but he also has a unique sense to combine counterpoint with operatic drama. - Only Mozart could have written it.
I also don't agree with your point that "as long as a style is in vogue, a composer can 'copy' others in that style all he wants and not be blamed for writing pastiche." And as I said, I don't find Mozart K608 any more 'pastiche' than the Chopin etudes I posted earlier (as examples to make my point).



hammeredklavier said:


> Ignaz Moscheles Etude Op.70 No.3 in G Major (1826)
> Chopin Etude Op.10 No.2 in A minor (1832)
> Ignaz Moscheles Etude Op.70 No.2 in E minor (1826)
> Chopin Etude Op.10 No.11 in E flat major (1832)
> ...


_pas·tiche
/paˈstēSH,päˈstēSH/
noun
an artistic work in a style that imitates that of another work, artist, or period._

The Chopin etudes are artistic works that imitate other artists, Hummel, Moscheles, Kessler. 
What's the basis for saying Mozart K608 is pastiche and the Chopin etudes are not?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Mr. Woodduck, the same way you feel about Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, I feel something special about Mozart K608 that makes me think it's more than just pastiche.
> It's not just a simple "French overture". Mozart develops into a Fantasie piece based on the material, the work contains a kind of fire that looks forward into stuff like Liszt's Mazeppa etude. (Note that Liszt also has his middle section as "a flower between two chasms".)
> Mozart K608 has a kind of relentless logic that leads into the eventual, frenzy double fugue, to a dramatic ending, like one of the dramatic moments of his operas. Overall, it doesn't sound like a 'typical piece' from the baroque era. Sure, Mozart derives from Bach and Handel, but he also has a unique sense to combine counterpoint with operatic drama. - Only Mozart could have written it.
> I also don't agree with your point that "as long as a style is in vogue, a composer can 'copy' others in that style all he wants and not be blamed for writing pastiche." And as I said, I don't find Mozart K608 any more 'pastiche' than the Chopin etudes I posted earlier (as examples to make my point).
> ...


Every period of music is filled with composers whose works bear resemblances to other music of the time. To describe this as "pastiche" is to make the term useless. By the poor definition you've posted (my definition is better) a prolific composer like Haydn or Mazart would be composing pastiches of his own work!

This is especially silly with respect to etudes, which are glorified exercises intended to train the pianist in certain standard figurations. Note also that in the pairs you post, Chopin's are superior musically.

I wouldn't say that Mozart's fantasia is entirely pastiche. But its opening section easily meets any definition of the term, and this is reinforced by the abrupt shift from Baroque to Classical style.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I wouldn't say that Mozart's fantasia is entirely pastiche. But its opening section easily meets any definition of the term, and this is reinforced by the abrupt shift from Baroque to Classical style.


Johann Adolph Hasse Mass in G minor (1783):






Fugal procedures never really 'disappeared' throughout the 18th century. They continued to be relevant in church, organ music. Mozart was familiar with them since age 10. - It was a part of his 'home territory'.

So your biggest complaint about Mozart K608 is that the first 2 minutes is too 'French overture-like', but as I said, the first 2 minutes of Beethoven Op.111 (1823) doesn't feel like something *totally new* to me either.














The beginning of Mozart K608 sounds different from the overture of Handel's Messiah as much as the beginning of Beethoven Op.111 sounds different from the Mozart works.

And the Andante of K608 doesn't sound like Mozart's own Church Sonatas, his early works. (It strikes me as being more like one of his arias in the mature operas or the Kyrie of Mass K427 and Introitus of the Requiem.)
To me, this is like criticizing the Eroica symphony by talking about Creatures of Prometheus, and Beethoven's weird obsession with the Eroica theme (which I personally find unappealing), even though they're different works.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Johann Adolph Hasse Mass in G minor (1783):


Why are you throwing an hour-long mass at me? Do you expect me to listen to all of it? Listen for what, specifically?



> Fugal procedures never really 'disappeared' throughout the 18th century. They continued to be relevant in church, organ music. Mozart was familiar with them since age 10. - It was a part of his 'home territory'.


Fugal procedures never disappeared AT ALL (though I don't think you'll find many fugues in Stockhausen ). So what? Are you trying to use that to prove that the French overture wasn't essentially an extinct form in 1790? Renaissance and Baroque music has been preserved by the church throughout the centuries down to our own time. That doesn't mean that Renaissance and Baroque styles are not archaic, and that a composer writing a piece in those styles isn't writing pastiche. That's the very definition of pastiche. The French overture - Section A: slow, stately dotted rhythm; Section B: fast fugue, sometimes ending with a recollection of Section A - appeared in the mid-1600s and was absolutely characteristic of Baroque opening numbers until it went out of fashion before Mozart was born.



> So your biggest complaint about Mozart K608 is that the first 2 minutes is too 'French overture-like',


Hey, I'm not complaining about it. It's a nice bit of Baroquey pomp.



> but as I said, the first 2 minutes of Beethoven Op.111 (1823) doesn't feel like something *totally new* to me either.


Who's talking "totally new"? It sounds totally like Beethoven, doesn't it? A bit like the opening of his "Pathetique."



> The beginning of Mozart K608 sounds different from the overture of Handel's Messiah as much as the beginning of Beethoven Op.111 sounds different from the Mozart works.


How can you draw such a comparison? What's your unit of measurement? A single work (Messiah) isn't parallel to a category (Mozart's works). You're just fishing, saying nothing meaningful.



> And the Andante of K608 doesn't sound like Mozart's own Church Sonatas, his early works. (It strikes me as being more like one of his arias in the mature operas or the Kyrie of Mass K427 and Introitus of the Requiem.)


Who said it sounded like a church sonata? Nobody.



> To me, this is like criticizing the Eroica symphony by talking about Creatures of Prometheus, and Beethoven's weird obsession with the Eroica theme (which I personally find unappealing), even though they're different works.


Nobody has criticized anything! Nobody but you, that is.

You're always getting hung up on details, drawing strange, illogical parallels between unlike things, and missing the forest for the trees. It leads you to say many odd things that don't even constitute arguments.

What if Mozart had called his piece "Fantasia with French Overture"? Would you then consider it pastiche? But - hey! If you don't think Mozart's French overture sounds like Baroque pastiche, fine. I do. Let's drop it.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

I'm not sure why 'pastiche' is considered such a dirty word. If Bach's great g minor fugue had never been written and I composed it tomorrow it would certainly be pastiche but it would also certainly still be a masterpiece. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that in the arts nowadays it seems many artists appear to be more concerned with producing something original than something good and if originality is your standard of excellence then pastiche is certainly an insult.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> Neo-classical music is classical music and was a reaction to the highly emotional music of late-romanticism. I don't know why you consider it to employ "pop" methods.


I can see why. Neoclassical music sounds like the music from newsreal from the same time. Neoclassical composers said their ambition was to please and entertain.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Besides, Beethoven wasn't really that great an expert in vocal writing. Too bad he became deaf before he could do more practice.


Stop repeating this all the time. Some of the major vocal works of Beethoven such as the _Ninth_, _Fidelio_ and the _Missa Solemnis_ have high prestige with audiences and connoisseurs alike, and famous conductors such as Toscanini, Furtwangler, Karajan, Bernstein, Klemperer etc. have performed them in the peak of their careers. Pieces such as _An die Ferne Geliebte_ and the _Choral Fantasy_ were immensely innovative and influential to subsequent great composers such as Berlioz, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Mahler etc. Beethoven makes high demands in some of his vocal writing, but this does not imply that he couldn't make great music for voices.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> What if Mozart had called his piece "Fantasia with French Overture"? Would you then consider it pastiche? But - hey! If you don't think Mozart's French overture sounds like Baroque pastiche, fine. I do. Let's drop it.


Well, Count Joseph von Deym commissioned it. He knew what he requested from Mozart. I don't know about "styles not in vogue at the time." It was always the rich guys who decided these things. (Like how the Requiem was also commissioned by another rich guy and is also full of archaism) And the Mozart work is still better than "some later composers'" attempts at the genre.  The fact that French overtures originate from the 1600s does not make the overture from Handel's Messiah (1742) 'pastiche' either.
If Hummel had called his Fantasie Op.18 (1805) 'Ballade', I still wouldn't call Chopin's Ballade Op.52 (1842) 'pastiche'.

[4:00]










Ok, let's drop it. But at times, you seem to make such a huge deal out of something that's not even that important. I still remember you doing it with Haydn/Mozart's sacred choral music once. 
Sometimes when you do, you don't seem to be just doing "expression of a personal opinion", but having some "malicious intent for propaganda" to unfairly put Haydn/Mozart down to make them look worse than they actually are in the eyes of other forum members. Certainly I could sense that urge inside of you when you yelled 'PASTICHE!' 3 times in a row with capital letters. 
I respect your opinion, and you're free to say whatever you want, but please do realize you're no different from David C F Wright (whom you once criticized for being a cold critic or something to the effect) when you do this kind of things. 

It's often interesting to me how big of a deal _some people_ make about how Beethoven is "individual" from his predecessors, contemporaries, successors, and the rest of classical music. Well *at least* Mozart generally isn't really 'overhyped' in this way. Rather, I think it's about time people should be giving more attention to how Mozart's late works, particularly Rondo in A minor K511 (1787) does not at all sound the same with Carl Phillipp Emmanuel Bach's Fantasie in F sharp minor WQ67 (1787).


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

In Germany we are using also (in our old language) the word pastiche, but, as far as I know, in the literature. To make pastiche to an authors work isn't very good thing… Pastiche = pasticcio = παστίτσιο is a famous Greek food based on pasta and means mixture of various ingredients in a vertical / towered form like you are building and pressing something. Also don't forget the old / cult Italian movie FRANCO FRANCHI E CICCIO PASTICCIO! :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

tdc said:


> Isn't avoidance of cadential resolution a key feature in the music of Beethoven? That in itself is not enough to raise this work beyond pastiche in my view. It is a cute work but the harmonic language sounds closer to 18th century harmony than it does to 20th century. All other works from the 20th century that I've come across that are termed neoclassical use a harmonic language that sounds post-Debussy except this work. No one in the classical era had a harmonic language that sounds like Sibelius so I don't agree his 3rd is comparably pastiche. *The Prokofiev is so obviously and unapologetically pastiche* I don't know why anyone would debate this.


The harmony and rhythms are modern, he only dresses it up with more formal features that he takes from Classical, not much different than Schoenberg or Stravinsky (although not quite as extreme, but still much closer than being a pastiche). Beethoven took it a bit further than Mozart/Haydn in that the music took a few more turns with less obvious chord changes (but still closely related) before hitting the runway, but the harmonic language is way more conservative than Prokofiev's. Just found this, which has a few of Prokofiev's own thoughts supposedly.

I still say that Sibelius' 3rd is comparable or more conservative in harmony than Prokofiev's Classical Symphony.

https://houstonsymphony.org/prokofiev-classical-symphony/

Personally, when I first heard the work I wondered how it was called Classical, since there was so much that sounded modern to me. It was later that I recognized the similarity formally, and not without a lot of sardonic humour. For me, taking it as a pastiche would be missing the point of the whole affair.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Prokofiev's "Classical" Symphony is pure 20th century to me. It is a pastiche of earlier century styles and techniques, sure, but no more so than Stravinsky's Pulcinella, Baiser de la fée etc. It is one of the quintessential neoclassical works in my eyes.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> The harmony and rhythms are modern, he only dresses it up with more formal features that he takes from Classical, not much different than Schoenberg or Stravinsky (although not quite as extreme, but still much closer than being a pastiche). Beethoven took it a bit further than Mozart/Haydn in that the music took a few more turns with less obvious chord changes (but still closely related) before hitting the runway, but the harmonic language is way more conservative than Prokofiev's. Just found this, which has a few of Prokofiev's own thoughts supposedly.
> 
> I still say that Sibelius' 3rd is comparable or more conservative in harmony than Prokofiev's Classical Symphony.
> 
> ...


Strange how people can hear works so differently. I just don't hear the work as modern in terms of harmony, perhaps because it is dressed up with the formal features you've mentioned, but I hear chromaticism in much of Bach and Mozart as more dissonant and modern sounding than this work, which as others in this thread have seemed to suggest sounds a little more like Haydn than Mozart. Frankly I don't care much for this particular work, don't listen to it often so for that reason maybe there is more to it than I realize, but I just listened to it again now and I still don't like it, I find it downright annoying. I don't think it sounds like any other work by Prokofiev, or like any other neoclassical work I know of, but I will refrain from calling it pastiche.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2020)

Did I miss where it was argued that 'pastiche' does not usually mean 'parody', where the former celebrates and the latter mocks? Nor does it mean 'exact copy'.

Some time back, I posted a question about Prokofiev's Symphony No 1, asking for some illustration of the ways in which it paid homage to Haydn, as is regularly claimed. I can't find the thread, but I don't recall much of a response, and other questions I've asked in similar vein have not resulted in a flood of helpful posts. For example

Could Haydn (for example) have written Beethoven's 1st symphony?

I'm inclined to think that while it's easy to throw around these terms ('pastiche'), it's less easy to explain in detail how the later work 'pastiches' the earlier. I must say that as a relative ignoramus, I've never listened to Prokofiev's Classical and thought it could have been written by anyone else...but since the first time I heard it was in a TV production of Peter and the Wolf, it would be difficult to think otherwise!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> Some time back, I posted a question about Prokofiev's Symphony No 1, asking for some illustration of the ways in which it paid homage to Haydn, as is regularly claimed. I can't find the thread, but I don't recall much of a response, and other questions I've asked in similar vein have not resulted in a flood of helpful posts. For example
> Could Haydn (for example) have written Beethoven's 1st symphony?


These analysts agree that the fourth movement with its phrase in the beginning 'gradually increasing in number of notes' (for example) is Beethoven's homage to Haydn.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> These analysts agree that the fourth movement with its phrase in the beginning 'gradually increasing in number of notes' (for example) is Beethoven's homage to Haydn.


Was going to make a comment redundant with something already mentioned in the video.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

flamencosketches said:


> Prokofiev's "Classical" Symphony is pure 20th century to me. It is a pastiche of earlier century styles and techniques, sure, but no more so than Stravinsky's Pulcinella, Baiser de la fée etc. It is one of the quintessential neoclassical works in my eyes.


I agree with you up to the point you call those works neoclassical. I don't think of them that way and for me the "quintessential neoclassical works" of Stravinsky (and, indeed, the 20th century) are works like his violin concerto, ballets like Apollo and the symphonies. I don't think of what he was doing with Pulcinella (and what Prokofiev was doing with the Classical Symphony) as neoclassicism even though the works clearly showed their composers having fun with Classical and Baroque models. I'm not sure what word or category should be used, though. "Pastiche, but in a good way" (knowing, sparkling ...) was my earlier attempt and it went some way towards opening a hornets nest!


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I agree with you up to the point you call those works neoclassical. I don't think of them that way and for me the "quintessential neoclassical works" of Stravinsky (and, indeed, the 20th century) are works like his violin concerto, ballets like Apollo and the symphonies. I don't think of what he was doing with Pulcinella (and what Prokofiev was doing with the Classical Symphony) as neoclassicism even though the works clearly showed their composers having fun with Classical and Baroque models. I'm not sure what word or category should be used, though. "Pastiche, but in a good way" (knowing, sparkling ...) was my earlier attempt and it went some way towards opening a hornets nest!


What would you call them, then? I don't think their being pastiche disqualifies them as neoclassical. It doesn't mean all neoclassical music is going to be like that. Otherwise, yes, I would agree with your inclusion of those other Stravinsky works in the quintessentials. I only meant to extend the "quintessential" comment to the Prokofiev, by the way. The lesser Stravinsky ballets I mentioned are still definitely neoclassical in my eyes (if only by default, or otherwise), but less essential.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I did say that I don't know what they _should _be called. Perhaps there are so few works of that type (Respighi's "Ancient Airs and Dances" seems like another?) that they don't need a category or name. But, anyway, I'm happy enough for them to be called neoclassical just so long as it doesn't confuse people about Stravinsky's work from his true neoclassical period.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2020)

Isn't there a difference between works that are classical pastiche - deliberately composed to resemble the works of the Classical period - and neoclassical - composed according to some of the 'principles' of Classical but to create a modern piece?


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> Isn't there a difference between works that are classical pastiche - deliberately composed to resemble the works of the Classical period - and neoclassical - composed according to some of the 'principles' of Classical but to create a modern piece?


Yes, I would say so. But what I am arguing is that the works I mentioned in my post are both. Prokofiev's Classical symphony is not the same thing as a work being produced by a no-name composer today in attempt to imitate the style of Haydn.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Did I read on the first page of this thread that 'neoclassical' (not to be confused with 'Neo-classical', the hyphen is highly important so do not be deceived!) is from the 12th century? So this is not a 'new' version of music from the well-known classical period, itself a re-imagining of classical culture of antiquity, but ... a...er...a re-imagining of something else classical, like e.g. the culture of antiquity? About whose music we know virtually nothing. And that it is like pop.

What is this thread about actually?


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2020)

samm said:


> *Did I read *on the first page of this thread that 'neoclassical' (not to be confused with 'Neo-classical', the hyphen is highly important so do not be deceived!) is *from the 12th century*?


It said 'form the 21th century.'


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I think we would have been more respectful if it had been applied to music from the 12th century!


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

supersonic68 said:


> It´s much more emotional than classical music and has the capacity to awaken in emotions in its listeners much more than classical music which is more kind of schizoid.


I think he makes a valid point, what 'Neoclassical' music has in common with pop is that it's extremely accessible and simply constructed. He views complexity as schizoid because most people can't understand it.

As far as it awakening emotions, the songs are very short and to the point, so in people with short attention spans it would indeed more easily awaken their emotions.

It's then clear that it's not art but something to make money with, similar to a Hollywood movie, or pop music.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> It said 'form the 21th century.'


The 21th? Ah, that is were my error began. If it had spoken about the 12st I would have had an argument. Damn.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

To me, neoclassical takes music from a different period and uses it as a springboard to create something genuinely new, i.e sth of its own time. Pastiche music essentially just piggybacks on a style, never really breaking away from it, with any changes made being predominantly cosmetic. 
That's just a personal and hardly rigorous definition, but within it I'd certainly not call Prok's Classical Symphony or Strav's Pulcinella neoclassical, though many of latter's subsequent works I certainly would.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Interesting discussion over the past 100+ posts about what amounts to neoclassical music and what works may be described as pastiches. 
I note the OP seems to have disappeared from the thread, perhaps frightened away


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

I fall asleep at some point because you apparently have no sense for contemporary classical music even though this is a forum for classical music. It reminds me of the topic with old people and smartphones. So I decided to open a new thread...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

supersonic68 said:


> I fall asleep at some point because you apparently have no sense for contemporary classical music even though this is a forum for classical music. It reminds me of the topic with old people and smartphones. So I decided to open a new thread...


I'm still in my 20s, I'm already wise enough to respect established conventions and also listen to what old people have to say. I'm also well aware that (in communities of this sort) there are people like you trying to **** up scholarly definitions just to suit and make themselves feel better. But I know that's not the way to go about doing things. It just won't get you anywhere in serious arguments. Perhaps I should stop "feeding the troll". But looking at your post history, if your sole reason for coming here is to discuss random genres that have not much to do with classical music, how they're not just "classical", but also "Neoclassical", I don't think you belong in this place.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

They say that listeners who talk about music are mere neophytes. They'll need decades of exposure to develop an appropriate instinct, as in any other art.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm still in my 20s, I'm already wise enough to respect established conventions and also listen to what old people have to say. I'm also well aware that (in communities of this sort) there are people like you trying to **** up scholarly definitions just to suit and make themselves feel better. But I know that's not the way to go about doing things. It just won't get you anywhere in serious arguments. Perhaps I should stop "feeding the troll". But looking at your post history, if your sole reason for coming here is to discuss random genres that have not much to do with classical music, how they're not just "classical", but also "Neoclassical", I don't think you belong in this place.


If you're still in your 20s I can understand your posts with more savvy. You're much sharper than I was in my 20s.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> They say that listeners who talk about music are mere neophytes. They'll need decades of exposure to develop an appropriate instinct, as in any other art.


If that were true, wouldn't Chopin, Schubert who died in his 30s be more of 'neophytes' in art than Liszt, Wagner who lived twice as long? A person can also lose stuff like memory or logical coherence in thinking ability with age.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> If that were true, wouldn't Chopin, Schubert who died in his 30s be more of 'neophytes' in art than Liszt, Wagner who lived twice as long? A person can also lose stuff like memory or logical coherence in thinking ability with age.


Composers get the instinct very quickly. They have to.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

supersonic68 said:


> I fall asleep at some point because you apparently have no sense for contemporary classical music even though this is a forum for classical music. It reminds me of the topic with old people and smartphones. So I decided to open a new thread...


If you want to talk about contemporary _classical _music then go for it - there is some interest here even if many are not interested in even Boulez and Carter.


----------



## supersonic68 (Dec 25, 2019)

Please do what you want. For further reference read my latest posts and the ones before you will find that I am not trying to alter definitions but to explain them thats only what you misunderstand. If you are respectful even against established conventions (which is not always good because your closing yourself to new innovations and not judge about conventions that may not be contemporary and harming) please don´t say thinks like **** no body here in this forum from many many hundred posts I´ve read did come down to this niveau maybe first try to begin with being respectful against other people. It is not necessary to say thinks like **** about other people and it makes you very unpopular because other people fear then that you talk to them in the same low primitive niveau. The genres I am talking about are 20th century classical music in specific contemporary classical music and the minimalist movement. So they have EVERYTHING to do with classical music because it is per defintionem classical music. All in all you make a weak kind of a hack person to me who is not well calibrated in social interactions. Sry to say so.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

supersonic68 said:


> Please do what you want. For further reference read my latest posts and the ones before you will find that I am not trying to alter definitions but to explain them thats only what you misunderstand. If you are respectful even against established conventions (which is not always good because your closing yourself to new innovations and not judge about conventions that may not be contemporary and harming) please don´t say thinks like **** no body here in this forum from many many hundred posts I´ve read did come down to this niveau maybe first try to begin with being respectful against other people. It is not necessary to say thinks like **** about other people and it makes you very unpopular because other people fear then that you talk to them in the same low primitive niveau. The genres I am talking about are 20th century classical music in specific contemporary classical music and the minimalist movement. So they have EVERYTHING to do with classical music because it is per defintionem classical music. All in all you make a weak kind of a hack person to me who is not well calibrated in social interactions. Sry to say so.


You're obviously very young and very early in your musical journey. When you start out it's normal to enjoy the music that you do but you will see that with time--faster for some slower for others--you will come to like more complex music.

If you truly love music then you will listen to it a lot, and this will cause you to get bored, and so gradually you will seek out and enjoy deeper music.

In this forum there are experienced music listeners, some very quirky some not at all, but to both of them the music you suggest will sound too simple to be interesting. It's quite natural for experienced people to demean such inexperience, it's nothing against you personally.


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2020)

1996D said:


> [...] to both of them the music you suggest will sound too simple to be interesting. It's quite natural for experienced people to demean such inexperience, it's nothing against you personally.


Speak for yourself. It's _not_ natural to demean inexperience, or to speak in such a patronising manner.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> Speak for yourself. It's _not_ natural to demean inexperience, or to speak in such a patronising manner.


He wasn't talking talking about me, he was arguing with another member.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> Composers get the instinct very quickly. They have to.


Mr. Luchesi, you're obviously salty over something I have said in the past. If you have something substantial to say to refute what I say, feel free to do it every time. But you can't convince anyone with a snobbish "I'm-right-and-you're-wrong-because-I-have-more-experience-than-you" kind of attitude. I thought you knew this already, with your age, sir.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Mr. Luchesi, you're obviously salty over something I have said in the past. If you have something substantial to say to refute what I say, feel free to do it every time. But you can't convince anyone with a snobbish "I'm-right-and-you're-wrong-because-I-have-more-experience-than-you" kind of attitude. I thought you knew this already, with your age, sir.


It's enlivening that we come from two different worlds and our opinions of Chopin come from two different worlds.


----------



## Forsooth (Apr 17, 2018)

Dimace said:


> For me the neoclassical music comes AFTER the modern music. This is something is coming from my experience and I didn't read it somewhere. It is the effort to resurrect the well known classical music forms in one more contemporary style. So, in neoclassical music are involved the rules of the classical harmony, we have clear theme, development etc. and a melody to be remembered. All these with MODERN instruments, vocals etc. like the songs we are hearing every day on the radio. Here is an example of what I see as neoclassical music.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Kauan's 8th album - "Sorni Nai." The 52-minute single-song opus from the Russian/Ukrainian post rock/doom metal band. The album is a dedication to the infamous Djatlov Pass [i.e., Devil's Pass] Incident.


Dimace, you like this music? What would your Master say?


----------

