# Classification of the 20th centuy composers



## Perotin (May 29, 2012)

How would you classify the composers of the first half of the 20th century according to their style. My textbook provides folowing division: 
Impressionism: Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin
Expresionism:Schönberg, Stravinsky, Berg
Twelve-tone technique or dodecaphony(serialism?): Schönberg, Webern, Berg 
Neoclassicism: Hindemith, Prokofiev, Shosty, Orff,
Romanticism: Rachmaninov
Folklorism: Bartok, Kodaly, Stravinsky, de Falla
Influnces of jazz and afroamerican music: Gershwin, Weill

This classification seems confusing and inconsistent to me. What classification would you propose? What criteria would you use? And what category would you place Copland and Barber in? :wave:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Shostakovich neoclassicist??


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

That aside, what does it matter? Why do we need to split it up?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> That aside, what does it matter? Why do we need to split it up?


Many people need labels for comfort. Even so, the labeler could do a far better job of it than _Perotin_'s textbook author did. Those 'isms' never work well as labels for composers. [And obscurantism he didn't even use.  ]


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Art Rock said:


> Shostakovich neoclassicist??


His style did include some elements of Stravinsky's Neoclassical music (note his transcription of the Symphony of Psalms). How would you rather he be classified?



Perotin said:


> This classification seems confusing and inconsistent to me. What classification would you propose? What criteria would you use? And what category would you place Copland and Barber in?


Well, Copland fits into the Neoclassical mode in his earlier works, while his famous Americana works may have to be in their own category. Barber is considered Neoromantic, usually, which is a different category from Rachmaninoff, as the Neoromantics used elements of the harmonies found in other 20th century music, instead of simply writing in a common practice tonal style. I also wonder why they put Stravinsky in the Expressionist category.

I think that it is much more productive to classify by the type of harmony used:

Common practice tonal: Strauss, Rachmaninoff, early Schoenberg
Diatonic nonfunctional: Copland, Stravinsky (Neoclassical works), Prokofiev, Shostakovich
Neomodal: Ravel, Debussy, Messiaen, Vaughan Williams
Chromatic nonfuctional: Schoenberg (past 1908), Berg, Webern, Bartok


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Neoclassicism as defined in Wikipedia does not fit Shostakovich' works at all, at least not in the way I hear them. It is also telling that the wikipedia entry includes dozens of composers as examples but Shostakovich is not mentioned.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Martinu is a sort of Neoclassicism.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

It just seems like a clear category error to me. Composers shouldn't be classified by art movements, only their compositions should be. This is particularly true in the 20th century and beyond as there is such a diversity of styles.

Debussy's music might embody the impressionism movement (although he hated the term) but "Debussy is an impressionist composer" is just a short hand for "Debussy is a composer of impressionistic music". Other composers like Stravinsky can't so easily be called a neo-classical composer as that was only one aspect of his career.

Also the last couple of classifications are particularly awkward. Bartok and de Falla both drew inspiration from folk traditions, but from entirely different counties, their music has little obvious connection. Neither of them wrote exclusively in a folk style, unless you believe all music is dressed up folk music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I think that it is much more productive to classify by the type of harmony used:
> 
> Common practice tonal: Strauss, Rachmaninoff, early Schoenberg
> Diatonic nonfunctional: Copland, Stravinsky (Neoclassical works), Prokofiev, Shostakovich
> ...


I agree completely, because "stylistic" observations don't tell me much crucial information.

I would like to talk about some of these terms now...

I'm questioning the separation of "modal" from "diatonic," my reason being that both derive their material from "scale/indexes" of notes that are unordered sets; plus, the church modes are part of the major scale, and the major scale is itself the Ionian mode. Also, the term "diatonic" means "using the notes of the scale," which to me would include modes. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about this.

I'm trying to raise the cash to get a book I saw about the "tonal implications" of Schoenberg's use of his 12-tone method. He "emulated" tonal functions, and used rows/hexads which functioned as tone-centers. The Suite op. 26 is mentioned, dividing into key areas of A and Eb. This being a tritone, I see this as similar (or identical) to Bartok's thinking, of dividing the chromatic scale at the tritone. Not just Bartok's or Schoenberg's idea, this is what I call "chromatic" thinking.

Which brings me to another point: In this book I referred to, I also read that Schoenberg did not want to "reveal" his 12-tone method, and did so only because he felt he had to, in response to Hauer's publication of his 12-note book and "trope" method (tropes were like scales, unordered).

Schoenberg would have rather just continued writing music without this "system" ever being mentioned. Not out of "secrecy" or fear of misunderstanding (which turned out to be a valid fear), but for "musical" reasons: he saw his music, even the 12-tone stuff, as being a continuation of chromaticism, plain and simple. This is how he thought: as a musician, not a theorist. No wonder he felt misunderstood!

Schoenberg in fact never discussed the 12-tone method with anyone other than his "special" students, Berg & Webern, maybe a few others.

The point I'm making is that Schoenberg saw his music as continuing the "chromatic" way of thinking, a late version of tonality, which he was already using before he developed the "system." Bartok, Stravinsky, and others were already thinking this way as well. So for me this reinforces the view of Schoenberg as a tonalist.

Which brings me to my penultimate point: What is really meant by the term "chromaticism"? The gradual addition of non-diatonic notes happened anyway, so we see a direct connection to tonality. In Strauss'* Metamorphosen *and Schoenberg's *Pelleas,* we see more chromaticism, but the functional meanings of the harmonies becomes more ambiguous, or having multiple functions/meanings, or no function at all in the CP tonal sense. So "chromaticism" means not simply "more notes", but also a lack of functional clarity in a CP tonal sense.

For Schoenberg, the notion of "function" never went away. His division of the row into A and Eb areas still "functioned" as areas of tone-centricity. Is it fair, or accurate, to say that a tritone relation like this is "non-functional," since Schoenberg used it in "tonal" ways?

I'm beginning to question whether the notion of "functionality" should be the exclusive domain of CP tonality. The traditional notion of function in CP tonality is an hierarchy derived from harmonic factors of dissonance, in relation to a root chord known as "I." Thus, the others follow: ii, iii, IV, V, vi, and viiº. It simply makes the harmonic factors into horizontal functions.

But since "chromatic" thinking uses "symmetry" and structural factors rather than harmonic ones, this is still "function," because it centers the ear in certain areas, and functions horizontally through time. So in this sense, "function" is only a horizontal time-based cognitive dimension, not a "harmonic" one based on the older harmonic CP tonal model.

So, perhaps the term "free-functioning chromaticism" is born, kicking and screaming. :lol:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

quack said:


> It just seems like a clear category error to me. Composers shouldn't be classified by art movements, only their compositions should be. This is particularly true in the 20th century and beyond as there is such a diversity of styles.
> 
> Debussy's music might embody the impressionism movement (although he hated the term) but "Debussy is an impressionist composer" is just a short hand for "Debussy is a composer of impressionistic music". Other composers like Stravinsky can't so easily be called a neo-classical composer as that was only one aspect of his career.
> 
> Also the last couple of classifications are particularly awkward. Bartok and de Falla both drew inspiration from folk traditions, but from entirely different counties, their music has little obvious connection. Neither of them wrote exclusively in a folk style, unless you believe all music is dressed up folk music.


This is a great post and fully applicable to my own thread. Categories, original or not, need to be recognized for the tools they are? (is that a good way to phrase my understanding of what you said? I think so...)


----------



## userfume (Nov 21, 2012)

Nice: Ravel, Debussy, Vaughan Williams
Cool: Shostakovich, Stravinsky
Not nice: Schoenberg, Webern

jks


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> This is a great post and fully applicable to my own thread. Categories, original or not, need to be recognized for the tools they are? (is that a good way to phrase my understanding of what you said? I think so...)


Yes, I think categories are there to aid understanding, they shouldn't be used to constrain. Otherwise you see the arts backwards, as movements being played out, rather than works recognised as fitting certain trends. Prokofiev wasn't born neo-classical, with works either fitting that category or being an aberration, he was just an artist who found a niche. In fact it is mainly just one of his symphonies that clearly fills that niche

Also the categories aren't even compatible, some speak of influences, others about what they are attempting to convey, and 12-tone is merely about technique. While 12-tone impressionism might be practically impossible there is no theoretical disconnect I think.

A better way to classify 20th century composers would be some kind of graph showing the connections, influences and overlaps in style. Get working on that.:tiphat:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

quack said:


> A better way to classify 20th century composers would be some kind of graph showing the connections, influences and overlaps in style. Get working on that.:tiphat:


As someone who grew up fascinated with evolution, you may have inspired me. But I am easily inspired by such things. Maybe some day.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

There are traits of expressionism in *Shostakovich* too - think of the 4th and 14th symphonies, the late quartets, the cello concerti for instance. And there are traits of a futurist/"noisy" ideology too, in the early symphonies 2+3 especially, as well as social realism and critique as a programme.


----------



## Perotin (May 29, 2012)

So, what category does Shosty fall in, then? And Bartok? It's interesting, these two composers always convey a kind of a similar feeling to me, as if they naturaly belonge together, but I have no idea, whether they also belong together in musicological terms. Maybe it's just an arbitrary, subjective association of mine.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Perotin said:


> So, what category does Shosty fall in, then? And Bartok? It's interesting, these two composers always convey a kind of a similar feeling to me, as if they naturaly belonge together, but I have no idea, whether they also belong together in musicological terms. Maybe it's just an arbitrary, subjective association of mine.


Exactly the opposite for me! Dearly love 'em both, but they seem at opposite poles in...well...sensibility is the only term I know.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Where would Alfred Schnittke belong?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The term Polystylism seems particularly appropriate for Schnittke - Baroque, Neo-Classical, Late-Romantic, Expressionist, Jazzy & Folksy traits etc. all totally mixed up.

Or at the least classical forms are challenged and eroded perpetually in his music, and to a rare degree.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> ...Polystylism..


Wouldn't that term fit almost any composer post 1900?
I can't think of any "Monostylistic" or even "Bistylistic" composers, how many styles do You gave to cover for it to be significantly "Poly"?

/ptr


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Was Berg schizophrenic?


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Many people need labels for comfort. Even so, the labeler could do a far better job of it than _Perotin_'s textbook author did. Those 'isms' never work well as labels for composers. [And obscurantism he didn't even use.  ]


Hilly, as usual you have an interesting slant on things. Obscurantism - one of my very favourite concepts. Defining things reminds me of that film, "The Collector" - the man who put butterflies under the microscope to examine them (and then he had a girl in the cellar as one of his 'specimens'). What matters is how things are revealed, not just explained or defined.

Many people need a label for comfort (like Johnny Walker or Jack Daniels, for example!!).


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

ptr said:


> Wouldn't that term fit almost any composer post 1900?
> I can't think of any "Monostylistic" or even "Bistylistic" composers, how many styles do You gave to cover for it to be significantly "Poly"?
> 
> /ptr


I tend to agree, though some composers adhered to only a few forms or styles (Robert Simpson, Pettersson, Khrennikov, Moyzes, Rachmaninov, Schmidt, Khachaturian, Rakov, to mention some).

But nobody _exceeds_ Schnittke in the employment of many styles and forms, sometimes even in the same work (1st symphony). Though Stravinsky, Berio and Nørgård probably reach about the same level as him in this respect (and Rochberg almost too).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> But none _exceeds_ Schnittke in the employment of many styles and forms, sometimes even in the same work (1st symphony). Though Stravinsky, Berio and Nørgård probably reach about the same level as him in this respect (and Rochberg almost too).


I agree with that. Nørgård especially; just in his string quartets you can see him morphing-through different ways of composing. That's probably why he & Schnittke have such wide appeal.

For that same reason, I think it's problematic to use either composer as an "example" to illustrate or defend "modernism" in those types of vague, ill-defined discussions we often see cropping-up (then discouraged or locked-down). :lol:


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> I agree with that. Nørgård especially; just in his string quartets you can see him morphing-through different ways of composing. That's probably why he & Schnittke have such wide appeal.
> 
> For that same reason, I think it's problematic to use either composer as an "example" to illustrate or defend "modernism" in those types of vague, ill-defined discussions we often see cropping-up (then discouraged or locked-down). :lol:


Well said. It is often - if not only - better to concentrate on specific works in that respect.


----------



## JCarmel (Feb 3, 2013)

I'm dying to know...joen_cph...just _what_ were you (or 'whoever') looking-at, out of that skylight??


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

JCarmel said:


> I'm dying to know...joen_cph...just _what_ were you (or 'whoever') looking-at, out of that skylight??


Movieology! That is Jaques Tati looking at the beach in "Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot"...

From behind:









I just had to spoil the fun... 

/ptr


----------



## JCarmel (Feb 3, 2013)

A great film...& a great post, ptr!


----------

