# Can it be true?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert -- just over a century of music. All earlier composers spent their lives preparing the way for them, all later composers trying to live up to them. Can this be true?


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

One part, yeah. The other part, no. I think that the earlier composers paved the way, *but not knowingly*, that's key. Bach/Handel/Mozart weren't aware they would influence Beethoven/Schubert/etc. I don't think Schoenberg/Stravinsky/Boulez/etc. have/had any idea how the composers of the next century would sound like or what aspect/s of their music would be carried on in the next generation of composers.

I don't believe that the later composers are consciously "trying to live up to them". Not at all. Rather, they are continuing to keep "tradition" alive (by building upon said tradition as much as they can, and creating new languages of classical music)


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

That's what the German/Austrian empires wanted you to think. :tiphat:


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I doubt if the earlier period could have consciously paved the way for them, but later composers certainly lived in their shadows. I think it would be accurate to say that for the majority of 'classical' music fans, few, if any, later composers have lived up to them. I think that contemporary composers have probably moved so far along on their own trajectories, that the great ones are no longer the models to aspire to that they once were, but this should not diminish the value of their immense contributions to music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert -- just over a century of music. All earlier composers spent their lives preparing the way for them, all later composers trying to live up to them. Can this be true?


Nope. The earlier composers had no clue that they were coming (so they just wrote music), and the later composers have mostly done their own thing, in styles that are quite different from Classical and Baroque.

Why ignore so many of the composers that have come since, whether popular, loved by musicians and fellow composers, or both? What point could you conceivably be making?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Not true, Mahlerian already gave the answer.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Why ignore so many of the composers that have come since, whether popular, loved by musicians and fellow composers, or both? What point could you conceivably be making?


Merely asking a question, my good man! Such an animadversion is hardly required.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> I think that contemporary composers have probably moved so far along on their own trajectories, that the great ones are no longer the models to aspire to that they once were, but this should not diminish the value of their immense contributions to music.


I would even go further than that: contemporary composers can express things that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven could never have dreamed of! Too often we bemoan the fact that contemporary composers couldn't have done what the old greats did, but then we also have to realize that the old greats could never do the awesomeness that contemporary composers can do either.

And so to the OP, the old greats definitely have an influence on composers today, but the composers today are doing their own thing, and they are doing a very good job with it!


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert -- just over a century of music. All earlier composers spent their lives preparing the way for them, all later composers trying to live up to them. Can this be true?


Sounds like you're scratching out a musical equivalent of heilgeschichte. Ken, sounds like you've gotten into theology. When's the eschaton?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Alypius said:


> Sounds like you're scratching out a musical equivalent of heilgeschichte. Ken, sounds like you've gotten into theology. When's the eschaton?


Had to look that up -- two words! However, I didn't make a statement but posed a hypothetical and asked a question. I am puzzled by the reaction of some.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I think the second part is true.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Had to look that up -- two words! However, I didn't make a statement but posed a hypothetical and asked a question. I am puzzled by the reaction of some.


I'm curious KenOC, what do you think of the man in your avatar? Do you really think classics like The Dharma at Big Sur are him just trying to live up to Mozart but failing?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Had to look that up -- two words! However, I didn't make a statement but posed a hypothetical and asked a question. I am puzzled by the reaction of some.


I'm just wondering what the point of the question was in the first place.

If you don't want to get into that, then do you simply compulsively create topics without any interest in the discussion that might follow, or do you ask questions on topics that you care about?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> ...then do you simply compulsively create topics without any interest in the discussion that might follow, or do you ask questions on topics that you care about?


I am very interested in the discussion. I'd be even more interested if it addressed the question rather than attacking the OP.

The "point of the question," of course, was to solicit answers.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I am very interested in the discussion. I'd be even more interested if it addressed the question rather than attacking the OP.
> 
> The "point of the question," of course, was to solicit answers.


I did address the question. I answered negatively.

I also addressed the question in attempting to get behind what you were asking to the reasons why you are asking it, which of course opens the door to a discussion far richer and more interesting than a yes/no binary.

But if you do not have an interest in getting into what your question means, I really do wonder why you asked it in the first place. It is not a personal attack; I am merely saying that you do not seem interested in something if you do not discuss it and avoid chances to discuss it.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I think there is something to it, at least as far as musics self-referentiality is concerned. Of the six you named, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven have attained a stature similar to that of Homer and Shakespeare in literature, I suppose. Which is, of course, unfair to all the others, before and after them. But that's life.

Maybe it helps that the lives of these composers, roughly speaking, covered the transitional period in occidental history from the absolutist era to essentially our modern society.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> ...I am merely saying that you do not seem interested in something if you do not discuss it and avoid chances to discuss it.


My own views are well-known (to me) and of little interest. In fact, I am far more interested in the views of others, which is why I asked. I don't see these threads as needing to be dedicated to an exposition of the OP's views. Should they be?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Andreas said:


> Maybe it helps that the lives of these composers, roughly speaking, covered the transitional period in occidental history from the absolutist era to essentially our modern society.


"First God failed us, then man failed us. What is left?"


----------



## Nick Mourer (Aug 11, 2014)

The problem with any art, truly, is that greatness is not always obtained by a musician or artist in their lifetimes. Now there are exceptions. In reality, modern music is not an artform someone just one day thought to do or go to, and back then, it was the same case. What we term classical music was as somepoint modern and it was ever-progressive as it is nowadays. The great composers are the ones we remember for their invaluable contribution to either progressing the era into an absolute form and mastering the elements we know nowadays (i.e. Haydn, Mozart) or simply innovating the way music was composed (Beethoven). I can't say that Bach and Handel innovated the way music was composed directly into the classical period however because their styles didn't change all too much from the time they actively started composing to the day they died. It changed respectfully within their given eras, but ultimately, it was their offspring and the children of that era that brought about true classicism (C.P.E Bach, J.C. Bach, etc). I'd say that Haydn and Mozart were more influenced by those composers than Handel or Bach, in truth. Don't believe me? Put a symphony by JC Bach next to an earlier symphony of Mozart (1 - 24), you'll hear the similarities. Beethoven's style literally changed into the darkness of romanticism, thus is why I said what I said earlier. 

And to be fair, music has just been taking the same pattern since the Renaissance, especially since Opera came about, because once that happened, music wasn't just a tool of religious ceremony or nobility trying to be entertained, it became an industry for everybody. This is just the part of the evolutionary process we're stuck in. I read somewhere (I think it was Fux's Gradus Ad Parnassum) that back in the Baroque Era, music was subtley changing every ten years, if not, changing a lot. Sound familiar? Well, in the 1900's we had ragtime and primitive jazz. 1910's, little jazz ensembles, 1920's, big bands. 1930's: Dance music. Not to even go into what was happening with contempory concert music at the time (Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Rachmaninoff, Debussy) etc. Eventually, music got less strict and composers thought of any possible thing that hadn't been done yet until today we have a countless number of different musics in our culture...and it's growing. So many differing genres! Mozart would go nuts! 

To say that all contempory composers try to live up to them is not an accurate statement whatsoever. Mozart was a child prodigy of the keyboard and composition, but there have been better and worse since. Go look at Mozart's first Violin Sonata, K. 6. *shivers* It's not about that, though. Composers just simply use their music as a reference point to learn proper methods for playing and composition, and to learn what to try next. And it's always been that way. And it was said previously that they couldn't do what contemporary composers could do. True. It just comes with the times. 

Last thing, I promise (and sorry for the long post because I thought this was interesting), I believe that the main reason why those specific composers' music is so beloved to us is because it's been part of our culture for over two hundred years. Western civilization has come to put their artwork above all else because it's the best we've got, and it's what we've come to know best. Human tendency is to stick with what we know.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I'm curious KenOC, what do you think of the man in your avatar? Do you really think classics like The Dharma at Big Sur are him just trying to live up to Mozart but failing?


I very much enjoy Dharma and several others of Adams's works. I don't know if he was "trying to live up to Mozart,' but it's clear that he didn't. And I suspect he would agree quickly.

That said, I probably listen to Adams more than Mozart. Hmmm...


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I am far more interested in the views of others, which is why I asked.


But Ken, why, if you are interested in the views of others, do you whinge so when you get their views? There's a real puzzle right there.

When I opened this thread, my first thought was "Hey! An example of homophones (recently in the news, you'll recall): 'You already know that the answer is no." That is, there can be no other answer to this question besides "No."

Of course, there is a perception that everything led up to and then fell away from the era you mention. That perception is false.

Now, admit it. That was interesting to you what I just said, wasn't it.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert -- just over a century of music. All earlier composers spent their lives preparing the way for them, all later composers trying to live up to them. Can this be true?


That's a good question, in my opinion it's only fair to ask this. But I also think that it's not really true - it's just that other composers are perhaps not as popular as these - doesn't mean they are trying to live up to them. The "trying to living up to" can only be considered in terms of popularity - which composer wouldn't like to be as popular as Mozart?

Personally, I like the Baroque and Classical eras best, so I'd like to believe there was something magical in the air during that one century, but who knows.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The problem with the hypothetical is the use of the word "all".
The first part of the premise is absurd since nobody can predict the future. It was not written or prophesied by anyone that 5 or 6 composing giants would emerge at the time they did.

The second part is true for some composers. There is no doubt that Brahms, Bruckner and Mahler felt the weight of Beethoven's shadow. It's been said that each Bruckner symphony was a rewrite of Beethoven's Ninth. Nine of Persichetti's brilliantly witty neo-classical piano sonatas seem to be modeled after Haydn's keyboard sonatas.
Seppo Pohjola, the contemporary Finn seems to be obsessed, quoting Beethoven in one of his symphonies. But he also quotes Bach and Tchaikovsky too.
Shostakovich would have none of it, preferring to quote Rossini (William Tell Overture) and Wagner (fate motif from the Ring) in his 15th symphony.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

hpowders said:


> Shostakovich would have none of it, preferring to quote Rossini (William Tell Overture) and Wagner (fate motif from the Ring) in his 15th symphony.


Shostakovich's life-long Siegfried Complex: The Conspiracy theory 101:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rOQebtTwriM#t=268 4:28





 28:34

 :tiphat:


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I very much enjoy Dharma and several others of Adams's works. I don't know if he was "trying to live up to Mozart,' but it's clear that he didn't. And I suspect he would agree quickly.
> 
> That said, I probably listen to Adams more than Mozart. Hmmm...


Apples and oranges dude. You can't rate Adams with the set of standards you would rate Mozart. I mean, okay you could but then Adams would fall short of living up to Mozart every time, just like you said. On the other hand, if you realize that Adams and all the other modernists are doing different things, then you have to evaluate them by different standards.

Adams, indeed, has no "sonata form with melody and themes and motivic development and modulation to the dominant and linear narrative", but that's because he aspires to be the best orange possible, not the best apple possible!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Apples and oranges dude. You can't rate Adams with the set of standards you would rate Mozart. I mean, okay you could but then Adams would fall short of living up to Mozart every time, just like you said.


The catch is that you have no idea of the standards I use to judge Mozart, Adams, or both. If the same set of standards is used for both, why couldn't Adams rise above Mozart? You seem to be assuming that I use Mozart's standards to judge Adams.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

KenOC said:


> The catch is that you have no idea of the standards I use to judge Mozart, Adams, or both. If the same set of standards are used for both, why couldn't Adams rise above Mozart? You seem to be assuming that I use Mozart's standards to judge Adams.


Well, it's good that you use different standards.

However, in my opinion, the statement "X falls short of Y" implies that one rates X and Y on some kind of similar scale. If two composers are operating in a similar harmonic language and style, then perhaps it's a good idea to compare them on the same scale, but sufficiently different composers should not. Indeed, who's better: Vivaldi or Webern?

Now, there is a universal scale that one could rate composers by, and that's "who is more interesting and emotional". But that is a subjective and personal scale. Having this subjective and personal scale is fine (and I have my own!), and if Adams is less interesting and emotional to you, so be it. That's fine and valid.

But: if you ask the question whether composers after the common practice greats were *trying to live up to them*, then I can only give a definite factual "no", because they were trying to be interesting and emotional in different ways. And it's not because they were mediocre, but because they were inspired!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Well, it's good that you use different standards.


Actually, I didn't say that.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Shostakovich would have none of it, preferring to quote Rossini (William Tell Overture) and Wagner (fate motif from the Ring) in his 15th symphony.


His dedication to the symphony and string quartet form reminds me of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, though. And the 24 Preludes and Fugues of course go back to Bach.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> That's what the German/Austrian empires wanted you to think. :tiphat:


Brava! The OP is that propaganda regurgitated, which is of course exactly what the propagandists want to happen... the susurration of said slogan to reverberate throughout the population until it becomes an assumed opinion close to truth.

Some people are still, sheep-like, more than ready to go there. Some 'music lovers' _live there,_ lol.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think the OP reveals limitations; limitations in conception of emotion, and in approach to art as a complex thing involving the intellect as well, and of limiting oneself to the general time-frame of the Romantic era.

Which is fine; free choice and all that, but to see Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven as the apotheosis of all music before and after, is a conservative stance which. admittedly, has much credibility, because it's almost true!

This music seems for many, if not most, to have exemplified and realized the goals of tonal music as a craft, and as a conveyor of "emotion" in the most familiar, palpable sense. This may be true objectively, as well, if we look at things in terms of sheer craft and skill.

Instruments like the piano had finally developed and were now capable of much more; history had developed, and now the art was in the hands of "artists" like LBV, who were intending to communicate soul-to-soul with us, not just for the divertissement of royals...Democracy was dawning, industrial methods and metal-making were producing Steinway pianos, tonality had fully developed into a potent, emotion-provoking language, Equal temperament was being attempted and almost fully achieved, instrument making and woodwind mechanisms were being perfected...we had finally arrived!

So, in a sense, I can't really argue with the OP's premise: all things culminated in this era. What a stupendous achievement!

As to the actual OP, there are some statements I see as distortions:



KenOC said:


> Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert -- just over a century of music. *All earlier composers spent their lives preparing the way for them, all later composers trying to live up to them.* Can this be true?


This assumes that this apex of achievement, this culmination was the result of isolated individuals, and it this attitude buys-in to the conservative notion of "sheer genius" subsuming all before it, and all after...which is an exaggeration that ignores the fact that these guys were "in the right place at the right time" and that historical conditions were favorable for their achievements.

Also, we need to realize that this 100 years was the culmination of a "single aesthetic" which tonality and Western music had been reaching to for centuries; there was no atonality, music was a well-defined activity, and no distractions had entered the picture yet. There was no need, yet, to question anything.

It's like all forms of human achievement; they all have their time and place. As in modern America, nobody will ever completely agree on "Sinatra" again; that was a special time in history and in the development of popular culture, when all people agreed, more or less. Then 
"Elvis" came along, almost as universal, but still with critics; "The Beatles" created more division; gone was the universal magic of complete agreement, of historical timing.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes. This was the musical "sweet spot". No doubt about it. Mozart and Haydn, the young Beethoven, all doing their thing in 1790. Just give me a time machine and take me there for a month!




With plenty of penicillin!


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Andreas said:


> His dedication to the symphony and string quartet form reminds me of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, though. And the 24 Preludes and Fugues of course go back to Bach.


Would Shostakovich have had such dedication without the constraints of Soviet authorities? I think not. I love Shostakovich's music, many of the symphonies, most of the quartets, as well as the Prelude and Fugues, the Violin Concertos, and other works. I believe given where Shostakovich seemed to be going with Symphony #4 and with Lady Macbeth and given the edginess of his string quartets, especially after Stalin's death, I would interpret Shostakovich as at best a traditionalist only in sheep's clothing. He had a strong modernist streak and, left to his own devices, could well have gone in far more experimentalist directions. Speculation, I grant. If he looked backwards, it was more toward Mahler. But he also kept a close eye on his older more adventurous contemporaries such as Schoenberg and Stravinsky and learned from them.

My problem, as I noted earlier, is the religious aura in which the opening post is phrased. It's why I called it a musical equivalent of _heilgeschichte_ ("salvation history"). It presumes that history has a singular direction, a single evolutionary thrust. Old medieval Christians read world history that way. For that matter, early 20th century Marxists read it that way. Someone earlier in the thread spoke of it as Austro-German propaganda -- which unmasks its biases. The idea of a uni-directional history inspires all sorts of enthusiasms. It has considerable mythological appeal -- because it allows us to set aside and ignore the fact of diversity; it allows us to ignore musics that don't fit the paradigm and create a self-fulfilling musical Mt. Rushmore. We want a historical narrative with a certain inevitability. The opening post couples its _heilgeschichte_ with another historical myth: that of a golden age and then the long slow decline from greatness and the constant yearning to restore the golden age. I prefer real history in all its messiness and multiplicity. I prefer to leave heilgeschichte to the theological realm.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I love this board because people think so much.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Sometimes I wish I had a constructive thought on a subject to offer. But I'm so hung up on the great constructive thinkers of the past and so anxious about how I might properly pave the way for great constructive thinkers of the future, that often my mind fails me completely.

So I've nothing to say about this thread's question.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> Sometimes I wish I had a constructive thought on a subject to offer. But I'm so hung up on the great constructive thinkers of the past and so anxious about how I might properly pave the way for great constructive thinkers of the future, that often my mind fails me completely.
> 
> So I've nothing to say about this thread's question.


You unthought your own potential thoughts.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> You unthought your own potential thoughts.


I did? Hmmm ... and the whole while I would have sworn I _thought _my potential _unthoughts_. Just goes to show ....


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2014)

Music has many sweet spots. So many, that it's practically just one, big sweet spot.

But sure, some bits of the one sweet spot seem sweeter to me than others. The sixties, for instance. Cage, Fluxus, Sonic Arts Union.

Sometimes I feel I live too much in the past.

But I think 2014 is pretty sweet, too. Emmanuelle Gibello, turntablism, eai.

Yeah, this music thing is just sweet.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Alypius said:


> Would Shostakovich have had such dedication without the constraints of Soviet authorities? I think not. I love Shostakovich's music, many of the symphonies, most of the quartets, as well as the Prelude and Fugues, the Violin Concertos, and other works. I believe given where Shostakovich seemed to be going with Symphony #4 and with Lady Macbeth and given the edginess of his string quartets, especially after Stalin's death, I would interpret Shostakovich as at best a traditionalist only in sheep's clothing. He had a strong modernist streak and, left to his own devices, could well have gone in far more experimentalist directions. Speculation, I grant. If he looked backwards, it was more toward Mahler.


If you look at the tailend of a snake, you're still looking at a snake. And looking back doesn't mean that one is going back.

But I agree, it's impossible to tell if Shostakovich had ventured into a different direction if he hadn't lived under fear of "correction" from above.

Having said that, though, to me - and this is obviously very subjective - the way Shostakovich handled the classical forms and managed to merge them with his own unique style and sensibility suggests that he had an interest in them that went beyond playing it safe, if you like. But that's just my take.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> That's what the German/Austrian empires wanted you to think. :tiphat:





PetrB said:


> Brava! The OP is that propaganda regurgitated, which is of course exactly what the propagandists want to happen... the susurration of said slogan to reverberate throughout the population until it becomes an assumed opinion close to truth.
> 
> Some people are still, sheep-like, more than ready to go there. Some 'music lovers' _live there,_ lol.


O yes, those evil Germans want to brainwash you into listening to Bach and Beethoven. This ridiculousness would have been funny, were it not so sad because some people actually seem to believe it! 

As for the OP's question, the second part is surely true. Even a proud man like Wagner worshiped Mozart and Beethoven. What I do not agree with, is that as it seems from your post the golden age of classical music ended with those men. But it did not end, the tradition was not broken yet. There were yet Wagner, and Bruckner, and Mahler, and others who looked up to one another and yet each had his own unmistakable voice. I think if the history in the 20th century had not gone the way it did, that tradition would have continued in an unbroken chain until now.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

...will...listen...to...Beethoven...will...listen...to...Mozart...

Funny that this goes away when I put my tinfoil hat on!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I've been listening to Bach's organ music all weekend and doing it again now. No need to brainwash me into it whatsoever. I am more than happy to "live there" as one poster put it.


----------

