# Dialectical progression of music over time



## Schoenberg (Oct 15, 2018)

I have been thinking over the last few months over how the progression of music over the last few centuries, generally since the beginning of the classical period and perhaps even before from the beginning of the inception of music itself has largely followed dialectical progression.

Standard classical music has largely been getting more grand, compressing more information, and has over time becoming less constrained, As an example, harmonic tonality which was once extremely important, has over time become less relevant, and by the 20th century and dodecaphony is no longer an aspect of music. As well, the symphonies of Hadyn and Mozart, over time evolved into the symphonies of Beethoven and the Romantics, who made much more grand music, eventually getting to the point of Mahler and Wagner who created great music that is very grand, very long.

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

You are talking about how music has evolved over time, but haven't clearly defined what you mean by the phrase 'dialectical progression'. Are you saying you perceive music evolution as a synthesis of opposing forces?


----------



## Schoenberg (Oct 15, 2018)

tdc said:


> You are talking about how music has evolved over time, but haven't clearly defined what you mean by the phrase 'dialectical progression'. Are you saying you perceive music evolution as a synthesis of opposing forces?


Essentially what I consider to be the dialectical progression is as follows:
The thesis to be music that exists at the time.
The antithesis to be driving forces of existing composers and conditions at the time, which lead to composers wishing for more grand and freer music.
The synthesis being the result of music evolving to become this new form.

Perhaps thinking of this as dialectical evolution is not the best method, however this is what came to my mind first.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

What do you mean by 'grand'? It is a very ill-defined word. Length, size of orchestra, orchestration, something else? How about freer? That is even less defined in this context.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

You lost me at "dialectical"...


----------



## Schoenberg (Oct 15, 2018)

Becca said:


> What do you mean by 'grand'? It is a very ill-defined word. Length, size of orchestra, orchestration, something else? How about freer? That is even less defined in this context.


By grand I mean all of those things, something that is longer, has larger size of the orchestra or alternatively for solo music requires the soloist to play with greater strength, and is also generally heavier.
By freer I mean less constrained by systems, such as the system of tonality.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

So are you saying that (e.g.) Schoenberg's later music, Berg, Webern, Boulez etc. are 'grander' than what came before? I think that you would have a hard time rationalizing that.



mbhaub said:


> You lost me at "dialectical"...


...and me with 'strength'!


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Schoenberg said:


> I have been thinking over the last few months over how the progression of music over the last few centuries, generally since the beginning of the classical period and perhaps even before from the beginning of the inception of music itself has largely followed dialectical progression.
> 
> Standard classical music has largely been getting more grand, compressing more information, and has over time becoming less constrained, As an example, harmonic tonality which was once extremely important, has over time become less relevant, and by the 20th century and dodecaphony is no longer an aspect of music. As well, the symphonies of Hadyn and Mozart, over time evolved into the symphonies of Beethoven and the Romantics, who made much more grand music, eventually getting to the point of Mahler and Wagner who created great music that is very grand, very long.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?


This is some of the ideas I wanted to get across in my topic, Bach and Henze, the similarities , yet the differences,,and the developments from Bach to Henze...Yet a few had mis-read, some of my ideas, and felt I was *bashing*, or perhaps a bit unfair,,,or even the very idea of Bach and Henze in one sentence was ~~preposterous silliness ~~~.
Yet you are expressing what I wanted say in so many words.

But I can 't say anymore on that subject,,,,,for fear of disturbing the hornets nest.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

wow am I the only one who can figure out what Schoenberg is getting at here. 
And to think I ain't got a lick of musical EDU. amazing, Just amazing.
Everyone is asking Q's.
The OP is straightforward.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Reading Hegel and Marx, eh?

The goal is to arrive at the "truth" by stating an initial thesis and pairing it with a contradictory antithesis which is then combined so as to resolve them into a coherent synthesis.

It's essentially a method of argument which systematically weighs contradictory facts or ideas with the view of resolving both their real contradictions and those which are only apparent.

The Marxian process of change as a result of conflicting forces in which a given contradiction has both a primary and a secondary aspect with the secondary being subsumed by the primary which is then transformed into an aspect representing a new contradiction.

Here's an example of "dialectical progression" being used in its proper context taken from "Amelioration and Pejoration: A Linguistic Dialectic Between Hegel and Saussure" by Joseph Turkot -

"In the movement of Hegelian dialectics, the mind starts with an understanding of a particular. This particular is then recognized to be an incomplete aspect of the whole, and is negated. From this negation proceeds a sublation, creating a new ground where a truth is reached that is closer to totality. Pieces of the initial particular, and its dispersion through negation, are incorporated in the sublation. This new ground of truth is not the entirety of truth, however, and is therefore, again, only a partial truth-another particular. Again, this particular must be seen for its discreteness and negated as such. If one were to follow this logic indefinitely, it follows that through a long string of grounds, negations and sublations, one would eventually arrive at a totality-something like pure truth. Hegel would call this the Absolute Spirit, or thought thinking itself. Another important aspect of this Hegelian process is the condition that any true *dialectical progression *must be positive."


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

paulbest said:


> wow am I the only one who can figure out what Schoenberg is getting at here.


Yep...



paulbest said:


> And to think I ain't got a lick of musical EDU. amazing, Just amazing.


I'll second that motion...



paulbest said:


> Everyone is asking Q's.


Don't pay any attention to anyone who asks questions as all they're looking for is answers...



paulbest said:


> The OP is straightforward.


Yep...


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Schoenberg said:


> Essentially what I consider to be the dialectical progression is as follows:
> The thesis to be music that exists at the time.
> The antithesis to be driving forces of existing composers and conditions at the time, which lead to composers wishing for more grand and freer music.
> The synthesis being the result of music evolving to become this new form.
> ...


Well the root idea of your thesis, is how composers become enchanted and charmed by previous or near contemporary masters. Take Bach.I am not sure who more influenced who, Vivaldi to Bach or otherwise, as both were exact contemporaries. This was the 1st instance of 2 masters living as contemporaries. Yet we have to bring in a composer just slightly before their day, Corelli. Now here might be the source of some of the influences inspiring both composers (Inspire = To breath life, In-spirit-ation, = Instill new forms).,.

Beethoven had *Sons*, many great *Sons*.

The 3 great 2nd Viennese composers, Along with Varese. Perhaps we should include Stravinsky here as he is quite often mentioned as a great innovator , new ideas. 
Wagner, masterful orchestrations. Left the young Debussy and Ravel's senses swirling after encountering Parsifal, and a few other sections from his more chromatic spell binding operas.

All this seems like seeds being planet, but only taking root on fertile soil, and given the right conditions, nurturing, dedications,,,we have new forms, new master composers.

Strauss also was a seed bearer...
Not sure from which composers had the most influences on the great Szymanowski.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I'm glad I was scribbling post #12, while you were busying giving us your thick , synopsis of a Hegel, Marx standpoint on this idea of conflict/resolution/progression. 

I' will have to ponder your notes,,,but i'm afraid I only know specks of Plato and Carl Jung. ,,a tiny speck of Nietzsche.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Which is why I was propositioning , pushing the~~~ Zeitgeist Agenda~~~ yet no one care to follow or even give a hoot what it all might mean…~~~Its music,,,what does this have to do with YOUR Zeitgeist thingy~~~ so I gave up.
Zeitgeist now comes back to surface like a great whale from the deep, here in Schoenberg;'s OP Q;s
Bach's world and Henze's world, make it a near impossibility to draw a strict comparison, yet some generalities between the 2 great german composers can be seen through the midst of time


I do think there was a hum of a hornet's wings near by,,,scrammmmm


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Schoenberg said:


> I have been thinking over the last few months over how the progression of music over the last few centuries, generally since the beginning of the classical period and perhaps even before from the beginning of the inception of music itself has largely followed dialectical progression.
> 
> Standard classical music has largely been getting more grand, compressing more information, and has over time becoming less constrained, As an example, harmonic tonality which was once extremely important, has over time become less relevant, and by the 20th century and dodecaphony is no longer an aspect of music. As well, the symphonies of Hadyn and Mozart, over time evolved into the symphonies of Beethoven and the Romantics, who made much more grand music, eventually getting to the point of Mahler and Wagner who created great music that is very grand, very long.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?


This is very general and somewhat vague, but I like those kinds of statements. Harmonically, I have to disagree with this statement: _Harmonic tonality which was once extremely important, has over time become less relevant, and by the 20th century (and dodecaphony) is no longer an aspect of music.
_
Harmonic music is still alive and well, it's just not your grandfather's tonality. Modern musical thought has been creeping in gradually, even as far back as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, in the form of more chromaticism and more modulation. In this sense, music has expanded its possibilities and has gone outside the box of CP tonality.

The Romantics, as you mention, were interested in expression of the human soul or spirit, and so in this sense as well, music has "progressed" as an expressive form.

Our sense of time, and the experience of being-ness, has also changed, as I elucidate in my blog "New Conceptions of Musical Time." People have let go of dogma and are seeking the truth in other ways.

In short, the progression of music seems to parallel the progression of Man's perspective. Some may disagree, and say it's gone the opposite direction.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Perhaps in Los Angeles there may be some progessives/pro modernists,,,but here on TC, the majority are conservatives, and strongly committed to tradition/the foundation, and working for preservation of that structure in place.....

People seeking truth/new ideas/new musical forms...maybe 20% of the entire classical community in the world are The Progressives,,,not enough to make any significant changes. 
Things will continue on, snail pace onwards. 
The wake up call is still decades away,,,if ever.....~~~ and man sleeps~~~~


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

what is truly amazing, is how did Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, get their music accepted into any niche, nook, corner of any musical establishment past this 85 years? 
yet when something as new, as creative, as explosive in terms of solid musical content,,,its skipped over,,,ahhh now I know. Modern,,no wait,,,post modern man as prophesied by carl Jung in his last essay, Modern man in Search of a Soul...
Got it,,,it all makes sense now,,,silly me these past few months here posting muddled , fickle ideas which no one even considers taking serious.


----------

