# Stylistic clichés of each era.



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Those ubiquitous musical resources that you always hear when listening music of a particular era.

A classic example are the traditional 'end chords' in romantic piano music:

(at 6:35; generally is the same chord played once and then a second time in a lower register)


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

In the Classical era at least, you always know when the cadenza in a concerto is going to come in with that tutti open cadence, and you know when it's going to end when the piano solo starts to trill. Sometimes could get annoying.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

The Classical era cliche that bugs the crap out of me is when at the end of a phrase, there's a trill into the cadence. Mozart does it in probably the majority of his pieces, and Salieri and Haydn are guilty of this too (though Haydn often would do it different ways, and make it much less annoying). Its not that I outright hate that little flourish, but its so annoying when you hear it in SO many pieces from that period. That coupled with repeating entire sections with little to absolutely no change in the material.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Another one: 'atonalism' and modern music.
Another one: pompous and bombastic 'emotionality' of late romantic music.
(an example of this, for me, are the beginning bars of Tchaikovsky's first piano concerto)


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Another one: 'atonalism' and modern music.
> Another one: pompous and bombastic 'emotionality' of late romantic music.
> (an example of this, for me, are the beginning bars of Tchaikovsky's first piano concerto)


Atonalism? And I love that in Romantic music X3 I wouldn't call it pompous. Its just so passionate, so full of character, of personality. You get this explosion of colors!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Atonalism? And I love that in Romantic music X3 I wouldn't call it pompous. Its just so passionate, so full of character, of personality. You get this explosion of colors!


c'mon, you know what I mean.*
_I wouldn't call it pompous._ we don't agree. 

(when I said 'clichés' I meant _ubiquitous musical resources that you always hear when listening music of a particular era_; it does not have a pejorative charge)

*tendency to avoid traditional tonalism, if you want


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> The Classical era cliche that bugs the crap out of me is when at the end of a phrase, there's a trill into the cadence. Mozart does it in probably the majority of his pieces, and Salieri and Haydn are guilty of this too (though Haydn often would do it different ways, and make it much less annoying). Its not that I outright hate that little flourish, but its so annoying when you hear it in SO many pieces from that period. That coupled with repeating entire sections with little to absolutely no change in the material.


I love CPE Bach's first Hamburg symphony because (except for a repeat in the last movement) doesn't have any of this.

Wagner: diminished chords and half diminished chords used for dramatic effect, especially if they aren't properly resolved.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I love CPE Bach's first Hamburg symphony because (except for a repeat in the last movement) doesn't have any of this.
> 
> Wagner: diminished chords and half diminished chords used for dramatic effect, especially if they aren't properly resolved.


But I love unresolved tensioned chords!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

aleazk said:


> But I love unresolved tensioned chords!


I do too, but Wagner's use of them gets predictable.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

Pretty much constant vibrato in the performance of Romantic music.

The very codified form of tonality used in Classical and Romantic musics makes them sound very 'narrow' to my ears.

The dependence on imitation in medieval and renaissance music.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Chord Progressions in the Baroque Era. Very predictable at times. I still love the era though.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

aleazk said:


> Those ubiquitous musical resources that you always hear when listening music of a particular era.
> 
> A classic example are the traditional 'end chords' in romantic piano music:
> 
> (at 6:35; generally is the same chord played once and then a second time in a lower register)


Reminds me of those majestic, bombastic symphonies that cannot just end with one end chord. You think "this was the last chord" and "okay, well, this is the last chord" and "no? but this just has to be the last chord" and "really?"... 

Like the final movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony, where he just stacks end chords upon each other for half a minute! I love it, though.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

aleazk said:


> Those ubiquitous musical resources that you always hear when listening music of a particular era.
> 
> ...


Oh man there are heaps.

In opera especially, even just in terms of the ridiculous plots. My punching bag now is wig opera (not Wagner).

Anyway, a good parody of this is Victor Borge's 'A Mozart Opera by Borge.' He did it right through his long career (became a cliche of a cliche). He sends up the music as well as the plots. Nothing is sacred.






"This was the first part of the overture. Now the second part and that is exactly the same." :lol: But its in good humour and almost a homage to Wolfie.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

aleazk said:


> c'mon, you know what I mean.*
> _I wouldn't call it pompous._ we don't agree.
> 
> (when I said 'clichés' I meant _ubiquitous musical resources that you always hear when listening music of a particular era_; it does not have a pejorative charge)
> ...


What if you're a composer that does both tonal and atonal things, even in a single work? :O I think we're Omnitonalists!  or we can resurrect Schoenberg's term Pantonalists :3 or perhaps we can be Badasstonalists ;o what do you think?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Oh man there are heaps.
> 
> In opera especially, even just in terms of the ridiculous plots. My punching bag now is wig opera (not Wagner).
> 
> ...


I want to see an opera with an opening overture or prelude which is just a piano and a guy singing "Boopa boopa boopa boop!"


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> That coupled with repeating entire sections with little to absolutely no change in the material.


It's strange. I find it annoying when conductors/performers don't repeat expositions, but I find it extremely annoying when they repeat development/recapitulations.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Arpeggios. Arpeggios everywhere. I can't get rid of 'em.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

^Philip Glass isn't an era.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> It's strange. I find it annoying when conductors/performers don't repeat expositions, but I find it extremely annoying when they repeat development/recapitulations.


I am fine with them doing repeats that are written there, or were meant to be there. I actually find it unacceptable when performers don't take the repeats on the score. Did the composer ever say that was optional?


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I am fine with them doing repeats that are written there, or were meant to be there. I actually find it unacceptable when performers don't take the repeats on the score. Did the composer ever say that was optional?


5,000 agrees. There are some works (including one of my very favourites, Haydn's symphony 43) where I cannot even find recordings where the repeats are done properly


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I have noticed that Bach uses the following harmonic progression quite often:






(from 0:18 to 0:24, for example)


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I actually like cliches normally. Particularly some sequences (i-iv-VII-III-VI..., or I-V-vi-iii... et al.). Every time I hear it come it makes me pay more attention to the music, and smile; it's how they are used, but I can understand people who find cliches tiresome. I sympathize with them.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

That Bach bit was just the circle of 5ths and can be found in music from his era up to pop songs of today. Em-Am-D-G-Csharp half diminished-Fsharp minor-B back to E.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> That Bach bit was just the circle of 5ths and can be found in music from his era up to pop songs of today. Em-Am-D-G-Csharp half diminished-Fsharp minor-B back to E.


Yes, you are right, I suppose that is not a cliche of Bach then.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Yes, you are right, I suppose that is not a cliche of Bach then.


Oh I wouldn't say its not  He does like to do stuff like that quite alot. The main one I notice in alot of his work is at the end of a section or a piece, he does this sort of suspension thing like.... say its in C Major, he holds out the perfect 5th of C and G, and he plays F, D, and then ends on E. He does that sort of resolution all the time, or similar sorts of things. Nothing against it X3 I love that sound, and clearly Bach did too


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Oh I wouldn't say its not  He does like to do stuff like that quite alot. The main one I notice in alot of his work is at the end of a section or a piece, he does this sort of suspension thing like.... say its in C Major, he holds out the perfect 5th of C and G, and he plays F, D, and then ends on E. He does that sort of resolution all the time, or similar sorts of things. Nothing against it X3 I love that sound, and clearly Bach did too


Sounds like you're describing a cadence in which case I don't think it would be fair to call it a cliché but more a common device. 
We wouldn't call stretto in a fugue a cliché even though it is a common thing to do.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Sounds like you're describing a cadence in which case I don't think it would be fair to call it a cliché but more a common device.
> We wouldn't call stretto in a fugue a cliché even though it is a common thing to do.


its not _just_ a cadence. Its something that Bach does with alot of his cadences, like how alot of classical composers trill into the cadence.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Re the debate above. Its above my head in terms of the music theory. But of course Bach can never be cliche cos he's God. That's it that settles every debate about his music, it silences every single criticism EVER.

End of story. That's what a forum is for. Not discussion but the 'trounce' factor.

Well done let's carry on...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Re the debate above. Its above my head in terms of the music theory. But of course Bach can never be cliche cos he's God. That's it that settles every debate about his music, it silences every single criticism EVER.
> 
> End of story. That's what a forum is for. Not discussion but the 'trounce' factor.
> 
> Well done let's carry on...


Bach isn't God. He just wrote good music and did lots of things.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Bach isn't God. He just wrote good music and did lots of things.


Well I was in semi rant mode but I think its okay to say even Bach did cliched things. I was listening to an interview with Glenn Gould (included as a bonus track on a reissue of his 'Goldberg Variations' early 1980's account) and he said that one of the variations in that was a kind of "neo-Scarlattian collection of arpeggios that Bach indulged in when he was not writing proper things like fugues and canons." So the interviewer then asked Gould "In other words, you don't like it?" and to that Gould replied in the affirmative.

So what I'm saying that its not a problem to see the cliches of anything, that kind of happens when you know a composer in more depth, as Gould did Bach of course. That's why I tend not to overdo things, eg. I would not listen to all Beethoven symphonies in a week, for example. I would get tired of his cliches, I need variety, even though he's one of my favourite composers. But he's not beyond sending up a bit, I quite revel in the absurd things in life, those sorts of wierd and kind of quirky things one notices in almost anything (if you read into it enough?)...


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Bach isn't God. He just wrote good music and did lots of things.


Doing lots of things is an essential trait of a god.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*Re those endless and formulaic arpeggios,* and since I made that thread on Debussy & have been listening to his stuff, another parody of his is 'Doctor Gradus ad Parnassum' from his 'Children's Corner' suite. A send up of those piano exercises piano students play, I think written by Clementi. Debussy as a child absolutely hated piano lessons and 'homework,' no surprises there. Like many things by Debussy, this is a symbolic piece, with meanings that are below the surface.

Here's the great Michelangeli playing it -






I think people should realise that composers themselves had critical views of other composers works. It does not necessarily speak to ignorance or prejudice but just their artistic judgement or musical taste, etc. Its the same with us listeners, incl. us on this forum, I think. Nothing is sacred, nothing!


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Nothing is sacred, nothing!


I haven't come across many members who declared composer X was/is a god.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> *Re those endless and formulaic arpeggios,* and since I made that thread on Debussy & have been listening to his stuff, another parody of his is 'Doctor Gradus ad Parnassum' from his 'Children's Corner' suite. A send up of those piano exercises piano students play, I think written by Clementi. Debussy as a child absolutely hated piano lessons and 'homework,' no surprises there. Like many things by Debussy, this is a symbolic piece, with meanings that are below the surface.
> 
> Here's the great Michelangeli playing it -
> 
> ...


You may have a different meaning for the word cliché than I.
Bach's first prelude from the '48' is just a bunch of arpeggios, so what?

Is it a cliché to ask to have the exposition repeated in a first movement of a symphony?
Is it a cliché to rhyme the last two lines of a sonnet?

Yes indeed, composers are probably more opinionated and biased regarding music than anyone so we should take all comments with a pinch of salt and make up our own minds.

Tchaikovsky about Brahms- "a giftless *******" (I disagree)
Stravinsky on Ives's 'Unanswered Question' - "it should be unplayed" ( I agree)
Debussy, who made fun of 'Tristan' in 'Children's Corner' said of 'Parsifal' "one of the loveliest monuments of sound ever raised to the serene glory of music" (I agree)
Beecham on Bach "to much counterpoint and worse, protestant counterpoint". ( I disagree, but it's very funny).

I don't care what Glenn Gould has to say on Bach either. He (Gould) _certainly_ isn't God.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> You may have a different meaning for the word cliché than I...


Yeah, maybe, what's wrong with that? So?



> ...
> Bach's first prelude from the '48' is just a bunch of arpeggios, so what?
> 
> ...


Well so what? I mean gimme a break. I was answering the thread.

The list you gave of composers criticisms of eachother's music, that's what I'm saying, if they have a right to an opinion so does anyone else. We can take it or leave it. Or just think about it. That's what opinions are about, I think.

If Bach and not Gould is your god, well that's fine. I have no gods, well not musical ones, but if people want to have them, great. Its just that I don't like it when they force others who don't think like that to have gods.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Yeah, maybe, what's wrong with that? So?
> 
> Well so what? I mean gimme a break. I was answering the thread.
> 
> ...


I have never said or even implied that Bach is my god. 
I have merely pointed out that I don't consider that certain cadential formulae common to a style or arpeggiation of chords to be justifiably viewed as cliché. That is my opinion and you are certainly welcome to discuss it rationally and persuade me I'm wrong. Instead you preferred to enter the discussion thus:
Re the debate above. Its above my head in terms of the music theory. But of course Bach can never be cliche cos he's God. That's it that settles every debate about his music, it silences every single criticism EVER.

End of story. That's what a forum is for. Not discussion but the 'trounce' factor.

Well done let's carry on...


The discussion was not the least bit confrontational up to that point. I'm not sure what provoked you and your later comments mellowed the tone somewhat but you must allow people to express their opinion.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> ... I have no gods, well not musical ones, but if people want to have them, great. Its just that I don't like it when they force others who don't think like that to have gods.


I don't think anybody has suggested you, member Sid James, as having musical gods. Rather, it is you; yourself, who has constantly pointed out to suggest many members here have musical gods. That is what I find puzzling.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I don't have a musical god.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't have a musical god.


Nope, neither do I. We just have favourites whose photos and portraits we often use as membership TC Avatars!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Nope, neither do I. We just have favourites whose photos and portraits we often use as membership TC Avatars!


Actually the person who comes closest to a god for me would be Richard Gill.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Actually the person who comes closest to a god for me would be Richard Gill.


Richard Gill is quite active as a conductor of opera in this country, including several premieres.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Richard Gill is quite active as a conductor of opera in this country, including several premieres.


http://www.talkclassical.com/20732-opera-audiences-notoriously-conservative-new-post.html


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Its not really a musical cliche, more of a critical one. Many critics describe the harmonies of Ravel and Debussy (and sometimes many of the Romantics) and others like them as "lush". I hate that word so much XD it sounds so disgusting, I feel nauseous just imagining it.


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Its not really a musical cliche, more of a critical one. Many critics describe the harmonies of Ravel and Debussy (and sometimes many of the Romantics) and others like them as "lush". I hate that word so much XD it sounds so disgusting, I feel nauseous just imagining it.


Is "rich" a better word? I guess most of the late-Romantic would have "lush" and "rich" harmonies (e.g. Verklarte Nacht)


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Toddlertoddy said:


> Is "rich" a better word? I guess most of the late-Romantic would have "lush" and "rich" harmonies (e.g. Verklarte Nacht)


I suppose, but not by much XD


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't have a musical god.


You have to believe in the musical god, or else you'll go to musical hell where you'll be tortured with vapid American pop music for the rest of eternity.

Oh ya, and you also have to accept the musical god's son, Treble Clef of Nazernote, into your heart because without his sacrifice on the holy crotchet listening to good music would not be possible.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I like baroque music but have never been keen on the trill, especially when played by woodwinds - it sounds overly twee to my ears. One (possible) cliche I do like is the DSCH motif - Shostakovich used it quite often but had the good sense to subvert/rearrange it on numerous occasions it so it didn't get too predictable or singular in meaning.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

violadude said:


> You have to believe in the musical god, or else you'll go to musical hell where you'll be tortured with vapid American pop music for the rest of eternity.
> 
> Oh ya, and you also have to accept the musical god's son, Treble Clef of Nazernote, into your heart because without his sacrifice on the holy crotchet listening to good music would not be possible.


I'm an atonalist.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I don't think anybody has suggested you, member Sid James, as having musical gods. Rather, it is you; yourself, who has constantly pointed out to suggest many members here have musical gods. That is what I find puzzling.


Well the recent 'debates' on various threads here about controversial topics suggest to me that people might not say they have gods per se, but they are mighty precious about anything they see as felling their sacred cows.

This is, that guy above who responded to my quote of Glenn Gould saying he didn't like that single one variation of the 30 Goldberg Variations by Bach (Gould said it was basically superficial). Well, c'mon, are we that precious? Is it a problem if a guy devotes his whole life to a composes as Gould basically did to BAch, and say he doesn't like 1 out 30 (thats like 3 per cent) of these variations. Its just getting to the stage where people don't think critically re these 'gods' or 'monuments' or 'fetishes' or 'museum pieces.' I got more where that came from but forget it. I even read a quote by one of J.S.Bach's sons who called him 'that old wig.' So if they said it, why can't I, and I'm just joking, I like Bach's music (why the hell would I buy that Gould recording).

So yeah people don't have gods but they do get sensitive...then potentially nasty. Not saying you specifically, just saying generally. Its a general observation of what's gone on here recently.



BurningDesire said:


> Its not really a musical cliche, more of a critical one. Many critics describe the harmonies of Ravel and Debussy (and sometimes many of the Romantics) and others like them as "lush". I hate that word so much XD it sounds so disgusting, I feel nauseous just imagining it.


Well ages ago I went to a recital-talk by Roy Howat, one of our specialists on Debussy, Ravel, Faure, etc. Anyway, Howat said Debussy had this ability to kind of 'blur notes.' He explained the technical aspects but I forgot the specifics. I suppose its the unique blending he does, incoporating things that the academics of his time said where 'wrong.' Liszt did a similar thing but to that Debussy added other things, eg. pentatonic scale. & gamelan has that blurred effect too, a bit like a cloud, it all blends together, its different from say European counterpoint.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Some more cliches or maybe just formulas/formats composers liked & repeated. Note that I like these works - except maybe Grofe - so what I'm saying is if you get to know more works by a composer, you tend to notice a pattern. So it speaks to more in-depth familiarity, I think.

- All of *Brahms' *concertos have a fairly long introduction and end with his trademark 'Hungarianisms'

- All *Haydn's* 12 London symphonies have a slow/quiet intro

- Most of *Bruckner's *symphonies begin with tremolo on the strings (that hazy string sound)

- The finales of *Saint-Saens' *piano concertos always have some 'low brow' tune - eg. Neopolitan song, or song reminiscent of Offenbach's operettas, or ballet, or popular French song, or French folk tune, etc.

- All *Bartok's *works, except a few (eg. String Quartet #6), have a dancy finale, giving at least some sense of optimism

- *Ferde Grofe* did suite after suite, so did *Milhaud *- and the former definitely became a 'one trick pony' type composer.

But to be fair to *Boccherini, *his string quintets are in a number of formats - eg. can have 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 movements in total - so he was not entirely predictable. I also like his more song like, fluid thematic development in those (not much to do with Haynd or Mozart). But he did rehash some quintets, eg. combine two quintets into one and call it a new quintet. Well you're going to do that if you compose over 120 quintets, aren't you?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Well the recent 'debates' on various threads here about controversial topics suggest to me that people might not say they have gods per se, but they are mighty precious about anything they see as felling their sacred cows.
> 
> This is, *that guy above* who responded to my quote of Glenn Gould saying he didn't like that single one variation of the 30 Goldberg Variations by Bach (Gould said it was basically superficial). Well, c'mon, are we that precious? Is it a problem if a guy devotes his whole life to a composes as Gould basically did to BAch, and say he doesn't like 1 out 30 (thats like 3 per cent) of these variations. Its just getting to the stage where people don't think critically re these 'gods' or 'monuments' or 'fetishes' or 'museum pieces.' I got more where that came from but forget it. I even read a quote by one of J.S.Bach's sons who called him 'that old wig.' So if they said it, why can't I, and I'm just joking, I like Bach's music (why the hell would I buy that Gould recording).


If by "that guy above" you mean me then please have the courtesy to address me directly. If you are not talking about me I apologise in advance, but I rather suspect you are.
For your information, I couldn't care less whether a famous pianist likes or dislikes a work or any part of a work. I make up my own mind based on my own ears as I would hope you do. I am not even particularly well acquainted with the Goldberg Variations and though I do consider Bach to be a very great composer indeed, I have a great admiration for many composers but it is you, not I who is precious. It is you who appears to not 'think critically' but lets someone else, Gould for example, do your thinking for you. When I said Gould is not god I was using your own logic. He thinks a specific variation to be superficial, maybe he's right, maybe he's not. If I was acquainted with the work in enough detail I might agree or disagree but I didn't express an opinion on it. 
Just because someone defends Bach against one particular criticism, suddenly that person is a worshiper! 



Sid James said:


> Well ages ago I went to a recital-talk by Roy Howat, one of our specialists on Debussy, Ravel, Faure,


I don't know of Roy Howat but I'm sure he's a very clever and knowledgable person and may have great insight. However like Bach maybe he too is fallible and not everything he says should be quoted as being true. Just as Glen Gould _may_ be talking rot. Have you ever considered that or do you bow down to the greater wisdom of your own gods, the _experts_?


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

Just gonna leave this here...

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Dmitri_Shostakovich


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

Toddlertoddy said:


> Just gonna leave this here...
> 
> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Dmitri_Shostakovich


The rest of Uncyclopedia has great stuff on classical composers, especially Stravinsky (imo).


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Those ubiquitous musical resources that you always hear when listening music of a particular era.
> 
> A classic example are the traditional 'end chords' in romantic piano music:
> 
> (at 6:35; generally is the same chord played once and then a second time in a lower register)


The musical "sew and tuck" that comes at the end of sung phrases in Baroque. E.g. Bach's Coffee Cantata.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

The post Bartokian string _glissandi_ that are part of the stock in trade of many modernists. And if we're thinking of whole eras then the post war era is absolutely awash with _clusters_ of held notes in tightly bunched harmony.

For Baroque and Classical although this might be more of a convention than a cliché - the recitative section of an opera or oratorio, where the harmonic progressions are usually quite fluid and dramatic, always comes down to earth with a big Dum-Dum cadence before the aria starts. I guess they were just letting the audience know when to stop chatting and listen to the star singer or something.


----------

