# Composer trademarks



## Rob (Apr 20, 2010)

Another newbie thread! :lol: Here goes...

I would like to know what to listen for while getting to know certain pieces. The different composer's trademarks and unique qualities, sort of. Could be anything ranging from orchestration to melodic phrasing (actually I'm very interested in getting to know each composers orchestration technique). I think it would improve my listening experience at this early stage, knowing _what_ to listen for. Like I've said before, there's an incredible amount of music to digest. A few pointers would do wonders for me.


----------



## Rob (Apr 20, 2010)

My current listening includes Bruckner, Tchaikovsky and Myaskovsky. Let's start with this trio, shall we?


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

I think EVERY composer has trademarks with the experienced listener can pick-up. Some composers are instantly recognisable after only a few seconds (composers like Prokofiev, Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich). One can't put ANY of this into words, however - it's something one can only hear (and perhaps see on in the score).


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Delicious Manager said:


> I think EVERY composer has trademarks with the experienced listener can pick-up. Some composers are instantly recognisable after only a few seconds (composers like Prokofiev, Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich). One can't put ANY of this into words, however - it's something one can only hear (and perhaps see on in the score).


I think it's subjective which composers one can recognize. I would never say that I can spot Shostakovich or Brukner immediately, But I can recognize Brahms, Handel, Vivaldi, Mozart, and Haydn and Beethoven most of the time.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Pieck said:


> I think it's subjective which composers one can recognize. I would never say that I can spot Shostakovich or Brukner immediately, But I can recognize Brahms, Handel, Vivaldi, Mozart, and Haydn and Beethoven most of the time.


It also has to do with familiarity, of course (which is why I used the word 'exierence' in my original post). Handel can be confused with Telemann at times. Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven are not always instantly recognisable as to which is which (I'm talking about pieces never heard before). I bet you listen to more Brahms, Handel, Vivaldi, Mozart, and Haydn and Beethoven than you do (say) Prokofiev or Shostakovich (whose styles are VERY individual - not subjective, just musical fact).


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Shostakovich has a VERY individual style, I could recognise it pretty easily I think.

Vivaldi I would definitely have trouble with.

I think as history has progressed composers have had more room to individualise - especially in the last century there is next to nothing similar between some composers.

To answer the OPs question: Myaskovsky is very introverted, there are no outbursts of colour or joy or despair, the emotion is usually subdued.


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

Rimsky-Korsakov had a very distinct orchestrational style. I've noticed that he liked to feature individual instruments within the orchestra in solo passages, usually over a static accompaniment from the rest of the orchestra.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

This is one of the characteristics common to all great composers: their work is instantly recognisable.

Although I don't rate Bruckner as highly as other composers, it's his treatment of the melodic line that is of most interest. The way he uses orchestration to maintain a theme is interesting although nothing special in my eyes (or ears).

Tchaikovsky, well if you hear a melody filled with utmost sorrow or utmost joy, you have Tchaikovsky. Although this is a vauge trademark, I think Tchaikovsky is one of the more recognisable composers and therefore one of the greats in my opinion.

You have to study classical music to differentiate Mozart and Haydn, but when you learn their unique trademarks you realise they are not the same composer as many would have you think.

One of the threads throughout music history, it could be argued, is the greater diversity of musical styles compared to those of the past. Think about the current situation: composers either explore extreme complexity or extreme simplicity, stopping off at every point inbetween. Interesting.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Delicious Manager said:


> It also has to do with familiarity, of course (which is why I used the word 'expierence' in my original post). Handel can be confused with Telemann at times. Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven are not always instantly recognisable as to which is which (I'm talking about pieces never heard before). I bet you listen to more Brahms, Handel, Vivaldi, Mozart, and Haydn and Beethoven than you do (say) Prokofiev or Shostakovich (whose styles are VERY individual - not subjective, just musical fact).


I do listen to Brahms Haydn Beethoven more than Shosta, Prokofiev, but no to so sure if I listen more often to Handel, Vivaldi although I like them both.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

I would say Beethoven is one of the most easily recognizable composers. Lots for sudden fortes and overall dynamic contrast, loves to have solo woodwind lines echoing each other, constant rhythm pervading throughout the piece, also likes to have everyone play forte and then suddenly drop out except the oboe. Great timpani lines to.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

To the list of Beethoven attributes I would add his habit of tricking you with voice leading, for lack of a better term. When you think a phrase is going to resolve back to the root, it will as often as not suddenly be in some completely unrelated key, usually with a large dynamic change as Nix mentions above and often after a dramatic pause. 

There may be a musicological word for this technique, but I don't know it.

I believe Brahms is recognizable by his use of polyrhythms, 3 beats against 2 or some such. 

Even after decades of listening I have those moments of confusion. Yesterday at work where I listen to music on my iPod at random shuffle, I heard a movement from Holsts the Planets. I found myself wondering which planet it was and tested my memory. Was it Mercury? No, not fast enough. I know Mars, Venus and Jupiter well enough to hum them in the shower and it wasn't one of them. Maybe it was one of the outer planets. It wasn't mystic enough for Neptune or ominous enough for Saturn. And Uranus sounds a little like The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Dang! It must be Pluto! Finally I looked at the display screen. It was one of Debussy's Three Nocturnes. I'm very familiar with all of these works, you just start having senior moments after a while. That was the first time I realized how much the Three Nocturnes sounds like they would fit in The Planets. Yet Debussy and Holst are totally different genre's or styles.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

As far as trademarks of Bruckner, this falls probably under the category of too much information, but it's a synopsis of The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner:

His music features monumentality, quasi-sacred polyphony, organ-like instrumentation, and unison passages. He combines the archaic in Palestrina and Gabrielli with the modern in Schubert, Wagner, Berlioz, and Lizst. There are pauses and block contrasts of instrumental groups. 

Stylistically, his symphonies go from unconsciousness and darkness to light and clarity but not through struggle and reconciliation (as with Beethoven); rather, it is slow discovery and resolution. It is music of plateaus and peaks; the plateaus communicate with each other. 

His orchestration features group/solo mixtures. Rhythm is stratified; i.e., he will have two to up to six rhythms sounding over each other in different voices. The rhythms are linear, not vertical. 
Form: The overall architecture is supported by the careful construction of key schemes and the strategic deployment of cadential progressions. In other words, he lays out his key schemes before composing. 

His sonata forms feature three themes: the first group, which is dramatic; the song group, which is lyric and Schubertian; and the third group, which gathers energy, then frees itself to basic triads and steps. The theme groups use sequence, roving harmony, and motivic evolution, which composers reserve for development sections. 

His adagios feature spiritual development toward an ultimate state of acceptance or transfiguration. 

He likes to use the Bruckner rhythm: Da Da dum-dum-dum. 

There's Bruckner in a nutshell. Or maybe something larger than a nutshell.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> Rhythm is stratified; i.e., he will have two to up to six rhythms sounding over each other in different voices. *The rhythms are linear, not vertical. *


Interesting post Manxfeeder, but here is a point I don't quite get...I would've assumed the rhythm aspect of music is always linear/horizontal. Can you give me an example of 'vertical rhythm'?

On another note - one trademark aspect of Mahler's music are 'great melodic arcs of the outer movements', this apparently was something that influenced Benjamin Britten.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

tdc said:


> Interesting post Manxfeeder, but here is a point I don't quite get...I would've assumed the rhythm aspect of music is always linear/horizontal. Can you give me an example of 'vertical rhythm'?


The Cambridge Companion can give you specific examples. Two I can think of happen in the first movement of the 7th symphony. at 4:00 there is a nice triple counterpoint. At 5:07, if you look at the score, there are 6 layers of rhythm going at the same time, if you count the whole note pedal tone as a static layer of rhythm.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> The Cambridge Companion can give you specific examples. Two I can think of happen in the first movement of the 7th symphony. at 4:00 there is a nice triple counterpoint. At 5:07, if you look at the score, there are 6 layers of rhythm going at the same time, if you count the whole note pedal tone as a static layer of rhythm.


Wait, didn't you say Bruckner's rhythm's were linear and _not_ vertical?

So, before I listen are you giving me this example as linear Bruckner rhythm, or vertical?

Because reading over your original point Im thinking you meant that it _was_ vertical rhythm, as opposed to linear, if that was the case I am beginning to see what you mean.

edit: my definition of vertical would imply different rhythms stacked on top of each other, as opposed to one rhythm in a straight line.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2011)

Rob said:


> I think it would improve my listening experience at this early stage, knowing _what_ to listen for.


I would disagree. Not that I know you and what you need! But I don't think that "knowing what to listen for" is necessarily a good idea. Better to deal with whatever you're listening to at the time. Let it speak. If you listen to a lot of any one composer, you'll get a fair idea of what to expect of that composer, and get a pleasant surprise every time he or she does something unexpected. But you get that from listening, from your own listening, not from other people's experiences. Better, I think, to be more experienced yourself before you deal with anyone else's experiences.



Rob said:


> Like I've said before, there's an incredible amount of music to digest. A few pointers would do wonders for me.


Pretty sure this is an illusion. Sure, there's an incredible amount of music to digest, but there's no geas on you to digest it all, is there? Surely not. In any event, I started listening to "classical music" around 1961. By 1972, I was comfortable with all the pre-twentieth century musics, and just starting on the twentieth century stuff. By 1982, I was pretty well caught up. I certainly hadn't digested everything by any means. But I was comfortable with what was going on in my own time as well as what had gone on in previous times. So just barely over 20 years to become familiar with the musics of several hundreds of years.

And without very many "pointers," too. (I learned very quickly to ignore the pointers supplied on the backs of LP albums and in books. They seemed so seldom to square with what I was actually experiencing.) And that's because I never thought of how much music there was. I just thought about how enjoyable each piece I listened to was (or, of course, how unenjoyable--there's that kind, too).

Plus, I hope you're getting the idea that words aren't all that reliable for describing music. I know all the composers mentioned in the previous posts very well, and the descriptions don't seem to match any of the music very well at all! (If they could, why, there would be no need to write any music, eh? Just toss a few words down, and you have all you need.)

Listen and have fun would be my advice.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Weston said:


> I believe Brahms is recognizable by his use of polyrhythms, 3 beats against 2 or some such. .


For example, 2nd SQ 4th movement, genius piece.


Weston said:


> Even after decades of listening I have those moments of confusion. Yesterday at work where I listen to music on my iPod at random shuffle, I heard a movement from Holsts the Planets. I found myself wondering which planet it was and tested my memory. Was it Mercury? No, not fast enough. I know Mars, Venus and Jupiter well enough to hum them in the shower and it wasn't one of them. Maybe it was one of the outer planets. It wasn't mystic enough for Neptune or ominous enough for Saturn. And Uranus sounds a little like The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Dang! It must be Pluto! Finally I looked at the display screen. It was one of Debussy's Three Nocturnes. I'm very familiar with all of these works, you just start having senior moments after a while. That was the first time I realized how much the Three Nocturnes sounds like they would fit in The Planets. Yet Debussy and Holst are totally different genre's or styles.


That's hilarious:lol:


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

With Debussy but more so in Ravel, there always seems to be a falling and then rising major second going on somewhere.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Weston said:


> I believe Brahms is recognizable by his use of polyrhythms, 3 beats against 2 or some such.


I think you mean the juxtaposition of a triplet rhythm against a straight two beats?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

emiellucifuge said:


> I think you mean the juxtaposition of a triplet rhythm against a straight two beats?


That's what I meant. That's not quite the same as polyrhythms is it? There is a word for it though. Hemiola? I don't remember.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Weston said:


> That's what I meant. That's not quite the same as polyrhythms is it? There is a word for it though. *Hemiola?* I don't remember.


That's the one, didnt know it's an international word


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

Most of composer in romantic era developed their individual trademark style. I can recognize them with most composer I familiar with. But how about composer from Baroque, can you recognize between Telemann and Corelli or Bach to Handel? I found it is harder due to Baroque's universal style. Vivaldi is somehow has his Vivaldi-style trademark though.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Bach is somehow less baroque style than the others.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

When listening Prokofiev, pay special attention to the diminished 5ths found in every measure.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

tdc said:


> Wait, didn't you say Bruckner's rhythm's were linear and _not_ vertical?
> 
> So, before I listen are you giving me this example as linear Bruckner rhythm, or vertical?


Linear was the term used in the Cambridge Companion. I haven't read it in a while, but they refer to it as an accumulation of strata. I take it to mean each line has its own rhythm which doesn't necessarily relate to the other lines in the sense of interaction [or their vertical characteristics] so much as overall accumulation.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

Can anyone explain what makes the characteristic Delius sound?

Example:


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Chris said:


> Can anyone explain what makes the characteristic Delius sound?


Chromatic whispy sounds that don't add up to much.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Edward Elgar said:


> Chromatic whispy sounds that don't add up to much.


Ha! I didn't see that one coming.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

I like chromatic whispy sounds


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> Linear was the term used in the Cambridge Companion. I haven't read it in a while, but they refer to it as an accumulation of strata. I take it to mean each line has its own rhythm which doesn't necessarily relate to the other lines in the sense of interaction [or their vertical characteristics] so much as overall accumulation.


I think I see what you mean. That is an interesting aspect of Bruckner works I wasn't aware of before though, very cool thanks.


----------



## Rob (Apr 20, 2010)

some guy said:


> I would disagree. Not that I know you and what you need! But I don't think that "knowing what to listen for" is necessarily a good idea. Better to deal with whatever you're listening to at the time. Let it speak. If you listen to a lot of any one composer, you'll get a fair idea of what to expect of that composer, and get a pleasant surprise every time he or she does something unexpected. But you get that from listening, from your own listening, not from other people's experiences. Better, I think, to be more experienced yourself before you deal with anyone else's experiences.
> 
> Pretty sure this is an illusion. Sure, there's an incredible amount of music to digest, but there's no geas on you to digest it all, is there? Surely not. In any event, I started listening to "classical music" around 1961. By 1972, I was comfortable with all the pre-twentieth century musics, and just starting on the twentieth century stuff. By 1982, I was pretty well caught up. I certainly hadn't digested everything by any means. But I was comfortable with what was going on in my own time as well as what had gone on in previous times. So just barely over 20 years to become familiar with the musics of several hundreds of years.
> 
> ...


Appreciate your answer! Yesterday, I actually thought about the exact things you're saying here. Because I've experienced that a lot of times, i.e. when you come across a "description" of a piece before hearing it and you're under the impression it will sound _exactly_ as described. That will always get your hopes up. Of course, ninetynine times out of a hundred I've been disappointed, sometimes more, sometimes less. So, I too believe, like you said, that words aren't always _reliable_. But another persons view of "what to listen for" is always interesting, no matter how unreliable that view may be.

With "an incredible amount of music to digest" I only meant that I have a lot of work to do before I'll be able to just overlook the whole thing. I'm not even dreaming of having "digested" it all one day, because there will never be enough time anyway, right? And with "pointers", what I _really_ only wanted to know was a few examples from fellow listeners describing what _they_ themselves usually "notice" or pay attention to (orchestration, voice-leading, etc). Then again, the questions in my original post was phrased rather dumb--I see that now.  

Anyway, like I said, I appreciate your answer, and I am really looking forward to this journey. Now I'm just gonna _listen and have fun_.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2011)

E n j o y !


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

jurianbai said:


> Most of composer in romantic era developed their individual trademark style. I can recognize them with most composer I familiar with. But how about composer from Baroque, can you recognize between Telemann and Corelli or Bach to Handel? I found it is harder due to Baroque's universal style. Vivaldi is somehow has his Vivaldi-style trademark though.


Vivaldi has a tendency to compose for strings in an unusually high register. That's normally how I recognise him anyway. Bach is unmistakeable I find. Maybe because he was impossible to imitate. Telemann is often thought of sounding similar, but I disagree. Handel is instantly recognisable if you hear his English oratorios.

French baroque has a lot of stylistic idiosyncracies, but Charpentier and Lully can sometimes be difficult to tell apart. Rameau on the other hand is pretty unique.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

i find beethoven the easiest to pick out, his fifth symphony opening motive is reused and modified alot later on. And it feels like its only Beethoven that likes to over use the use of octaves in motifs or themes.

also Vivaldi is also extremely obvious - theres the descending chord progression he likes to use alot, lead violin usually has a lot of arpeggios rather than a melody - his over use of half cadences and perfect cadences (these are really obvious) i think its his use of cadences that immediately makes he realize its him - but apart from his concertos his other works are more difficult to distinguish


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

jurianbai said:


> Most of composer in romantic era developed their individual trademark style. I can recognize them with most composer I familiar with. But how about composer from Baroque, can you recognize between Telemann and Corelli or Bach to Handel? I found it is harder due to Baroque's universal style. Vivaldi is somehow has his Vivaldi-style trademark though.


I usually can. Probably because when I first got into classical, I listened to a LOT of Baroque music. I just found it totally fascinating. Vivaldi I can usually pick it out because for whatever reason, I just don't like him as much so if the piece doesn't move me, it's Vivaldi 

I used to spend 8 hours a day driving all over the state. Most of that time, I was in range of a very good classical station. I loved to play a little game to alleviate the boredom. I would change channels while they were talking so I would not hear what the next piece would be, then change back and try to figure it out before it ended. I got pretty darn good at narrowing it down and surprised myself at how often I got it right.

One that threw me. I listen to the beginning and it's Bach. Quintessential, unmistakable Bach except it sounds like a more modern Symphony Orchestra playing it in a more Romantic style. So I figured it was just some modern orchestration of a Bach piece but then it changed. Now it still had a little bit of a Bach sound but seemed very classical to me. C.P.E. Bach maybe? I keep listening and it keeps changing. Parts of it sound very romantic, parts classical, parts baroque, what the hell is going on? I guess that should have tipped me off but I was dumbfounded by the end of it.

Well, it turned out to be a Brahms variation on a theme of Bach. Man it had me stumped.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

wingracer said:


> Well, it turned out to be a Brahms variation on a theme of Bach. Man it had me stumped.


What now?! How come nobody told me that he wrote variations on a theme by Bach??!?
Maybe Handel? Haydn? Paganini?!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Pieck said:


> What now?! How come nobody told me that he wrote variations on a theme by Bach??!?
> Maybe Handel? Haydn?


That's what I thought! :O

Probably Haydn if it was orchestral.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Grieg often used the instantly recognizable interval of a downwards minor second followed by a major third. It's an interval that is used a lot in Norwegian folk music. One example is the opening of the a minor concerto.


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

Sorry, it was years ago. It was Handel.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Pieck said:


> What now?! How come nobody told me that he wrote variations on a theme by Bach??!?
> Maybe Handel? Haydn? Paganini?!


I believe he's referring to the final movement of the 4th symphony, which has a chaconne on Bach's BWV150.

A trademark of Schubert is his tendency to swap between major & minor at will. It always has a striking, surprising effect.


----------

