# Musical fingerprints



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Have you ever been listening to a piece and thought "I don't know this work but I am quite sure that I know who wrote it"? I know that it has happened to me and it is interesting to contemplate the whys, wherefores and possibilities of this.

Although I like Douglas Lilburn's music and must have heard his first symphony in the past, it is probably 4 or 5 years since I listened to it so last night I decided to play it. I had not gotten more than a few minutes into the first movement when I found myself thinking "yes, this is definitely Lilburn", i.e. I was noticing what I call, for want of a better term, the musical fingerprints. I won't pretend to be able to define them particularly well but the pattern matching algorithm in my brain detected them. Typically it would be particular uses of instrumental groupings, types of melodies & phrases, etc. I know that I have felt that a number of times recently such as listening to Strauss' Alpine Symphony for the first time in decades, also hearing Janacek's Ballad of Blanik for the first time. In the case of the Strauss, it reminded me of so many other Strauss works. With Janacek it was "ah ha, sounds a lot like the Cunning Little Vixen."

It would seem reasonable to me that most composers have some of these calling cards even if their works evolve. Mahler's 1st and 2nd show quite a few of them in common. the 1st and 9th not as many but still enough to know that they both come from the same composer. In some cases those fingerprints aren't quite as thoroughly developed in earlier works (e.g. Sibelius' 1st) but listen and you will hear them.

So where am I going with this? Later last evening I decided to sample Marcel Tyberg's 3rd Symphony which had been mentioned in the Current Listening thread. Tyberg was born in Vienna in 1893 and, in his mid 30s, moved to a part of Italy that is now in Croatia. He wrote 3 symphonies, some chamber works and lieder that we know about, but like many others he disappeared into oblivion during WW2 - in his case to Auschwitz where he died in late 1944. Not long before he was deported, he gave some of his scores to a friend fore safe-keeping who passed them on to family members and they ended up in the US. On listening to the symphony, my immediate reaction was "Brucknerian!", many of Bruckner's stylistic methods are there albeit clearly not by Bruckner. As I listened closely I kept getting a very generalized sense of other composers although I couldn't specifically identify them other than to think that Schubert was probably one. What I couldn't readily detect was anything particularly unique in the work, something that said "Tyberg". Perhaps if I got to know more of his works, I might see them, but in combination with my reaction earlier in the evening, it started a thought train and made me think of some other composers whose works I have heard but that left no lasting impression on me.

Let me then toss out this thought .. is one of the factors that we use in determining the value of a composer (I hate value but have no better word) the recognizable individuality that we hear in their compositions, the audible fingerprints that we use to say that "This is by X"?

Comments? Other examples? Counter-examples? ...


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

I dunno about determining the composer's value, but there are a number of composers who seem to have an instantly recognizable sound. Berlioz is one for me; I've heard something on the radio and thought 'this sounds like Berlioz', and then the announcer confirms it by naming some overture of his I've never heard before, to my knowledge.
GG


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> Let me then toss out this thought .. is one of the factors that we use in determining the value of a composer (I hate value but have no better word) the recognizable individuality that we hear in their compositions, the audible fingerprints that we use to say that "This is by X"?


It definitely is. The composers most of us regard most highly have quite recognizable, distinctive sounds. That's not to say that we won't need some experience in listening to different composers before we'll be confident identifying them. When I was new to music I really didn't hear much difference between Haydn and Mozart; they were both "that Classical stuff." 19th and 20th century composers were easier to recognize, but even so some composers changed their styles considerably over the course of their lives - Beethoven is a prime example - and others, like Stravinsky, liked to experiment with different styles. With enough experience we learn to hear what even dissimilar works of a composer have in common. I think it was Bernstein who remarked that when Copland wrote twelve-tone music he still sounded like Aaron.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

There are a few (a few dozen?) composers that I can sort of recognize by their styles. I think I'm not too bad at it, but my ear still needs a lot of work. This is something that has interested me for a while and I have been making it a pet project—to be able to recognize that something that identifies the composer to me.

Individuality is pretty important to me, too. When I encounter a new composer that reminds me too much of one I already love, I tend to be less impressed by the new one. It's a fine line. If the new composer is so different that his music is outside of the range of what I prefer in music, then it's no good either. There's no rule to this. I just decide on the spot


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

My wife, who was introduced to Western classical music very late in life, has gotten quite good at recognizing composers. When she hears something that sounds near-classical and she can't identify the composer, she guesses Mendelssohn. She's usually right.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Richard Strauss has always to me been instantly recognizable. This was confirmed to me when I was playing some of Ariadne auf Naxos, when my son, a theatrical set designer whose only exposure to Strauss was designing a set for "Salome," said me: "I know this is Richard Strauss, but what is it?" Good ear!


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

There are some composers who's style I can recognize immediately - Copland and Prokofiev for example. I don't think it's because their styles are any more distinctive than other composers, it's more that their styles immediately speak to me in a very positive way. (I'm a big fan of both). A composer's style that I feel indifferent to doesn't make that same sort of connection, so there's not that immediate recognition after just a few bars.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

KenOC said:


> My wife, who was introduced to Western classical music very late in life, has gotten quite good at recognizing composers. When she hears something that sounds near-classical and she can't identify the composer, she guesses Mendelssohn. She's usually right.


No matter how you look at it, in the end he does have a very signature sound 

Schumann has a very unique style to me.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Becca said:


> Let me then toss out this thought .. is one of the factors that we use in determining the value of a composer (I hate value but have no better word) the recognizable individuality that we hear in their compositions, the audible fingerprints that we use to say that "This is by X"?


Yes. A recognizable character or essence is the most fundamental quality I require in the work of any composer I am likely to care about.

The ability to identify composers, styles and works in the manner you describe is a pretty standard part of exams for advanced degrees in music theory and musicology. In such exams, intelligent misses can count nearly as favorably as correct guesses.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> No matter how you look at it, in the end he does have a very signature sound
> 
> Schumann has a very unique style to me.


I've had these experiences hearing Schumann on the radio as well.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I don't know Schumann well enough to be able to say that I recognize his style 

Since I have a 5CD carousel player, it regularly happens that my mind goes blank about which discs are in the player when the disc is swapped, so I make a game of letting the answer me to me. Of course, sometimes I just remember which disc it is, rather than divine it by the style.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2015)

I can't off the top of my head think of any composer whose style is not instantly recognizable. But then, I can tell every single one of my friends apart, too. They are each of them individual and distinct.

When they call, for instance, I say "Hi [your name here]" before they identify themselves. Some just go with it; some are incredulous that I knew who they were. But it's really no thing. Each person's voice is quite distinctive. But I know lots of people who cannot tell who's talking to them over the phone.

Anyway, for me it's not "who is that?" so much as "oh, that's a piece by X that I haven't heard before."

And when it IS "who is that?" it makes me soooooooooooo angry. How dare there be something about music that puzzles me!!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The great composers are easily recognizable. The national styles are nearly as easy to recognize especially early music. I have no trouble with that at all.

What I do have trouble with are the extreme avant-garde types, which I frankly find it impossible to discern. I read even John cage himself did not recognize some of his own works at times, as an example of my point.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> It definitely is. The composers most of us regard most highly have quite recognizable, distinctive sounds. ........ With enough experience we learn to hear what even dissimilar works of a composer have in common. I think it was Bernstein who remarked that when Copland wrote twelve-tone music he still sounded like Aaron.


Might that explain why some people generalise and can avow that they don't care much for the music of 'x'?

and yet we need to be careful because



Woodduck said:


> .... even so some composers changed their styles considerably over the course of their lives - Beethoven is a prime example - and others, like Stravinsky, liked to experiment with different styles.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> I read even John cage himself did not recognize some of his own works at times, as an example of my point.


Um, no. That Cage did not recognize some of his own works is an example of his success at producing experimental music, i.e., music for which the outcome is unknown.

Since "extreme avant-garde types" is not terribly descriptive, we none of us can be certain sure who you're referring to aside from Cage, who was purposely writing music for which stylistic recognition is not a consideration.*

If it's Xenakis, I would say that his music is quite easily recognizable as being by him. Which brings up another question. Who's doing the listening. I don't find it impossible to distinguish between Ferryra and Ferrari or between Dhomont and Dockstader.

Lachenmann sounds nothing like Ferneyhough. Groult sounds nothing like eRikm. And so forth.

But someone not as familiar with that music or not as comfortable with it, might find it extremely difficult to tell any of those people apart. And the "great composers" who are so easily recognizable? Not to someone who doesn't listen to classical music. It all sounds the same to them. Kind of like with you and the "extreme avant-garde," you see.

*Though, oddly enough, as it turns out, Cage is pretty easy to spot. He doesn't sound like Childs ever or like Wolff or Tudor. He identified this himself as evidence that the experimentalists had not succeeded entirely but were just moving along in the general direction.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Might that explain why some people generalise and can avow that they don't care much for the music of 'x'?


I'm sure that generalization is often made prematurely, based on having heard only a few pieces by "x."


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

without wishing to generalise, I think your generalisation is generally correct


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Headphone Hermit said:


> without wishing to generalise, I think your generalisation is generally correct


And, of course, remembering that all generalizations are false ... including this one.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Martinu with all those church cadences is a strong contender.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I'm dead-on correct about recognizing anonymous pieces on the radio when they are _Russian_. I mean, over half the time I already know the piece, but otherwise, I know the style like the back of my hand. The Russians had SO many "isms" that I couldn't possibly name them all here. But it's just so RUSSIAN.

Some funny "isms" I like to point out a lot is the CONSTANT use of a big fortissimo brass unison at the end of orchestral works, tympani roll into it, or continuing through the long note. No triadic chords for Russians! The other option is the add the 5th degree to make open 5ths. Another thing they do a LOT is do imitation, as in, they take a theme, and then repeat it in another voice in canon or just on an off beat so the dialogue can be heard. Pedals in the bass that last a long time, also putting the minor 7th degree strong in the bass voices in an otherwise triadic chord. Last big thing would be voice crossing, particularly for harmonic vacillation effect, and the use of that to cause tension in an otherwise dominant chord (V4/2 - iii - V4/3 - iii - V4/2 etc etc).


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I'm dead-on correct about recognizing anonymous pieces on the radio when they are _Russian_. I mean, over half the time I already know the piece, but otherwise, I know the style like the back of my hand. The Russians had SO many "isms" that I couldn't possibly name them all here. But it's just so RUSSIAN.
> 
> Some funny "isms" I like to point out a lot is the CONSTANT use of a big fortissimo brass unison at the end of orchestral works, tympani roll into it, or continuing through the long note. No triadic chords for Russians! The other option is the add the 5th degree to make open 5ths. Another thing they do a LOT is do imitation, as in, they take a theme, and then repeat it in another voice in canon or just on an off beat so the dialogue can be heard. Pedals in the bass that last a long time, also putting the minor 7th degree strong in the bass voices in an otherwise triadic chord. Last big thing would be voice crossing, particularly for harmonic vacillation effect, and the use of that to cause tension in an otherwise dominant chord (V4/2 - iii - V4/3 - iii - V4/2 etc etc).


Russophile to the core. My gift to you...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

It depends on how soused I am. When I am really stoned everything sounds like Carter.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Morimur said:


> Russophile to the core. My gift to you...


My gift to YOU, kudos of Glazunov (who indeed was a Nazi and the first Propagandist of USSR simultaneously):






:tiphat:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> It depends on how soused I am. When I am really stoned everything sounds like Carter.


I'm the opposite. Carter will sound like everything.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

manyene said:


> Martinu with all those church cadences is a strong contender.


And the syncopated rhythm he does!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> The great composers are easily recognizable. The national styles are nearly as easy to recognize especially early music. I have no trouble with that at all.
> 
> What I do have trouble with are the extreme avant-garde types, which I frankly find it impossible to discern. I read even John cage himself did not recognize some of his own works at times, as an example of my point.


The famous Les Paul once said, "If your mother hears you on the radio and knows it's you, then you have developed your own sound."

My wife can hear anything I play by John Cage and immediately know it's him. Although he said he tried to "remove all the personality" from his music, it still seems to shine through, especially the works in which he had hands-on input: Fontana Mix (the original tape-edit), Variations IV, the prepared piano music, almost all of it.

That's true of 4'33" as well; his silence has a distinct style to it. It's hard to describe.:lol:

It's definitely true when you compare him to serial music. Cage's music has a much emptier, 'less happening' sound. Less filling, tastes great.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I was just doing some housekeeping while Youtube randomly picked an orchestral piece that I had never heard. I wondered who the composer was but after a while I was pretty sure it was Sibelius. Turns it out was Sibelius 3rd symphony. All I had heard from Sibelius before are symphonies no. 2 and 7, a few times each. His sound appears to be rather similar and recognizable throughout the symphonies.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> My gift to YOU, kudos of Glazunov (who indeed was a Nazi and the first Propagandist of USSR simultaneously):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Glazunov was a Nazi?


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2015)

DeepR said:


> His sound appears to be rather similar and recognizable throughout the symphonies.


OK. Now try number 4. And after that, _Kullervo._ And then come back and edit out "rather similar" without altering "recognizable."


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

I think it's more a matter of your own familiarity. Once upon a time, both Mahler and Shostakovitch - two of my favorite composers now - sounded kitschy, overblown and chaotically endless to me. No more.

Currently, due no doubt to my lack of familiarity, I'm having to fight my way through Bruckner. He sounds repetitious, like he's just plagiarizing Wagner and Mahler both, and going into random orgasms of horns blat blat blat blat with harmonic progressions that seem banal and obvious to me. Alternating with long, endless slow passages, repeated too much, that seem to go nowhere and signify nothing.

I'm sure with time and familiarity this will all change, though. Glenn Gould, Daniel Barenboim and Herbert Von Karajan can't all be wrong. . For the nonce I'm just trying to enjoy the Barenboim/Chicago Symphony collection, as if you're going to have lots of blatting horns from Mr. Trumpet, there's no orchestra out there with such great blatting horns as the Chicago Symphony!


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

There are signature phrases and patterns one learns to recognize, is what it boils down to.

The moment woodwinds start piping up in Stravinsky, I can tell it's Stravinsky, even Rake's Progress.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

Triplets said:


> Glazunov was a Nazi?


I've found if you start worrying about who was a Nazi or not, officially or unofficially, pretty soon you end up angry and unhappy and can only listen to Scarlatti.

As my mother used to like to say, as a child Mozart liked to tear the wings off flies for sport (true? Not? Good thing? Bad thing? Who knows! It's mysteries like these that have made me what I am!).

So, oh well. At least we've learned Hitler and his armies were all crazed meth addicts (seriously).....


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Copperears said:


> I've found if you start worrying about who was a Nazi or not, officially or unofficially, pretty soon you end up angry and unhappy and can only listen to Scarlatti.
> 
> As my mother used to like to say, as a child Mozart liked to tear the wings off flies for sport (true? Not? Good thing? Bad thing? Who knows! It's mysteries like these that have made me what I am!).
> 
> So, oh well. At least we've learned Hitler and his armies were all crazed meth addicts (seriously).....


 I don't think there is any place for blithely throwing that label around unless there is some foundation for it. I don't care for him as a Composer, but from my reading his lived most his life in Tsarist and then Soviet Russia, dying in exile in Paris in 1934. He would have really had to go a considerable distance out of his way to become a Party Member


----------



## MrTortoise (Dec 25, 2008)

I can usually tell it's Phil Glass in one bar. We need to bring back the show 'Name that Tune' but alter it to 'Name that Composer'. "Wink, I can name that composer in 3 bars!"


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2015)

Wow. By the time I've been to three bars, I can't even name my own mother.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Triplets said:


> I don't think there is any place for blithely throwing that label around unless there is some foundation for it. I don't care for him as a Composer, but from my reading his lived most his life in Tsarist and then Soviet Russia, dying in exile in Paris in 1934. He would have really had to go a considerable distance out of his way to become a Party Member


I left this unanswered for too long, my apologies. The answer is a resounding NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

there was a scandal in Russia some years ago that people thought the anthem for the Russian Duma was taken from the Nazis, but that is literally impossible. It was written in 1905 for a new semi-democratic parliament! And unfortunately has gained bad associations, especially since it's still used. Glazunov was anything BUT an anti-semite, just read up on what he did for Jews in Russia.

It was a joke. How could someone be Nazi AND Soviet at the same time? Lol. Sorry for confusion. I guess I'm not yet allowed to make jokes about him like that yet because he's not yet well known enough. Not YET...

Oh, and correction. He died in 1936. He happened to see Hitler come to power, and was extremely disturbed by it. I'm making fun of the conspiracy people who think otherwise.


----------

