# Distinctions between Modern and Postmodern classical music



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

Ok, this has bugging me. I've been trying to wrap my head around where the line is drawn between Modern and Postmodern classical music. Most of my search online has lead to distinctions between ideologies, which isn't quite what I'm looking for. I'm more interested in the musical styles associated with both of them. From From my personal listening experience I've generally found these to be characteristics of the two styles:

*Modern classical music*
- Generally consists of impressionism, expressionism/serialism and neoclassicism. 
- Unusual styles of harmony and rhythm.
- More of a "tightness" in structure in comparison to Romantic and Postmodern music. Less "over-elaborated" and more "to the point". Generally more brevity.
- Orchestration is generally more stripped down in order to bring out orchestral color and/or structural details.

*Postmodern classical music*
- Generally consists of minimalism, polystylism, neoromanticism, deconstructionism, chance music and possibly spectralism electronic music.
- Experimentation in atmosphere and texture, and/or the use of Pastiche
- More of a "loose" or "free" structure. Large expansive atmospheres.

There have been some composer which I am not sure which category they would fall in:

Gyorgy Ligeti: While he generally has most of the postmodern characteristics. His music seems very tightly structured and many of his pieces aren't very large or expansive. He sounds very "Modern" to me

Pierre Boulez: I'm not to sure about post war serialism, but I would say his music sounds very "Modern" to me, but I could be wrong.

Luciano Berio: His use of deconstructionism in music would set him as "Postmodern", but his other pieces have a very "loose" structure that fits the postmodern aesthetic. But I could also see him as being "Modern".

Karlheinz Stockhausen: Pieces like Gruppen seem very modern to me, but I think his large electronic and vocal works can be considered "Postmodern".

John Cage: I believe he is considered both modern and postmodern. But I'm not to sure about this.

I could be wrong about all of this, so I would like to hear some input on the distinctions between the two styles.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2015)

TradeMark said:


> Ok, this has bugging me. I've been trying to wrap my head around where the line is drawn between Modern and Postmodern classical music.


My advice would be to stop doing this. It won't change anything about how any individual piece sounds.



TradeMark said:


> From From my personal listening experience I've generally found these to be characteristics of the two styles


Neither "modern" nor "postmodern" identify a style. And your lists of characteristics leave out quite a lot. My advice here would be to listen to more music. And listen _to_ how each piece sounds rather than listening _for_ which category a piece falls into, if any.



TradeMark said:


> I would like to hear some input on the distinctions between the two styles.


Well, my input is that there are not two styles. But I'm pretty sure my one single voice will soon be drowned out by a flood of voices who want to make distinctions and make sure you make the same ones in the same way. Good luck with _that!_


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

some guy said:


> My advice would be to stop doing this. It won't change anything about how any individual piece sounds.
> 
> Neither "modern" nor "postmodern" identify a style. And your lists of characteristics leave out quite a lot. My advice here would be to listen to more music. And listen _to_ how each piece sounds rather than listening _for_ which category a piece falls into, if any.
> 
> Well, my input is that there are not two styles. But I'm pretty sure my one single voice will soon be drowned out by a flood of voices who want to make distinctions and make sure you make the same ones in the same way. Good luck with _that!_


I understand. I guess I was just a bit curious. Maybe I should stop thinking so hard about this.

Anyways, I'm still interested in what others have to say.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I am with some guy. If you like music does it matter what it is called?

I was recently at a lecture where the lecturer stated that baroque was not known as baroque music until the 20th century.

If you really want to pursue this check out the following thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/37629-what-makes-classical-piece.html


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I have always loathed the (to me) meaningless term "postmodern." Or post-anything for that matter. It just implies something may have changed but we don't know what yet. What has changed is usually nothing. Or rather there is a slow evolution, or parallel evolution with no clearly defined border. Granted I'm no academic, and I do like the terms for genres and time periods (baroque, romantic, chamber, symphonic, spectralism - whatever) as a matter of convenience, but I'm afraid postmodern isn't among them. I prefer the temporary term "new music" until we are far enough away from this time to call it whatever we're going to call it. The Eclectic Era maybe?

Now having ranted, I do think you're on to something with the early moderns being very much a product of romanticism while more contemporary composers are more cerebral, formal and structural. It's kind of like the difference between "progressive" rock and "math" rock. It's a subtle difference. This pendulum swing between the heart and the mind seems to go in ever quickening cycles.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Agreed... modernism and postmodernism are catch-all terms for those types of music.

Appreciate the music on its own terms.


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

Maybe I'm taking the term "Postmodern" a bit to seriously. I thought it was a legitimate term but I guess I was wrong.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2015)

With my superior powers of reasoning, I know the difference between Mark Andre and Claude Debussy when I hear it! Dunno about describing the damn thing though


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

^ For those who don't know, Mark Andre is an exceptional worker in musique concrete instrumentale. He has a soundcloud with a lot of great stuff:


__
https://soundcloud.com/


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

TradeMark said:


> Maybe I'm taking the term "Postmodern" a bit to seriously. I thought it was a legitimate term but I guess I was wrong.


It is a real term. It seems to me that out of our 100 active members we would probably get 1,000 conflicting answers.

I could give a definition and at least twenty members would disagree with it.

We can not agree on what exactly is atonal music.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2015)

SeptimalTritone said:


> ^ For those who don't know, Mark Andre is an exceptional worker in musique concrete instrumentale. He has a soundcloud with a lot of great stuff:
> 
> 
> __
> https://soundcloud.com/


Also for those who don't know, I didn't actually know that Mark Andre was considered a composer of musique concrete instrumentale! Of course, I probably should've made the connection, but I was quite simply too focused on the awesome sounds!

Thanks AsianFetishTritone


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> I am with some guy. If you like music does it matter what it is called?


It matters because poor ol' TradeMark will be innocently contributing to a discussion about music and will use the word "modern" or "postmodern" and then people who for unknown personal reasons have decided to take against whatever point TradeMark was making will pounce, demanding an explanation of TradeMark for an incorrect use of this term and/or denouncing TradeMark as someone who has no idea what they're talking about.
The fact that nobody else knows or cares what the words are supposed to mean is irrelevant.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2015)

some guy said:


> My advice would be to stop doing this. It won't change anything about how any individual piece sounds.
> 
> Neither "modern" nor "postmodern" identify a style. And your lists of characteristics leave out quite a lot. My advice here would be to listen to more music. And listen _to_ how each piece sounds rather than listening _for_ which category a piece falls into, if any.
> 
> Well, my input is that there are not two styles. But I'm pretty sure my one single voice will soon be drowned out by a flood of voices who want to make distinctions and make sure you make the same ones in the same way. Good luck with _that!_


Sorry to disappoint, but I agree with you.

I can see how the OP can get bugged. An interested person is bound to want to investigate the meanings of two words that crop up quite regularly and similarly a music "fan" likes to think in terms of "styles": it helps our thinking to put things into handy boxes.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2015)

Weston said:


> I have always loathed the (to me) meaningless term "postmodern." Or post-anything for that matter.


I don't usually agree with Weston, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis.*



Weston said:


> I do think you're on to something with the early moderns being very much a product of romanticism while more contemporary composers are more cerebral, formal and structural.


A statement that is only possible if you only take into account some early moderns, and only if you ignore vast swaths of more contemporary composers.

And also, only if you fail to take into account what happens as time passes. The cerebral, formal music of Maurice Ravel transforms magically into heart-on-the-sleeve romanticism. (Which is only one aspect of Romanticism. Just by the way.)

Reality is always so much messier, more complex, more chaotic, more contradictory, and more interesting than any categories we come up with to try to tame it and make it comprehensible.



Nereffid said:


> It matters because poor ol' TradeMark will be innocently contributing to a discussion about music and will use the word "modern" or "postmodern" and then people who for unknown personal reasons have decided to take against whatever point TradeMark was making will pounce, demanding an explanation of TradeMark for an incorrect use of this term and/or denouncing TradeMark as someone who has no idea what they're talking about.
> The fact that nobody else knows or cares what the words are supposed to mean is irrelevant.


Along the preceding lines, there's a really easy solution to this, contribute to discussions with specifics. Name names.

So if, for instance, instead of saying something about the romanticism of early moderns, one says Varèse _Octandre,_ then there will be no question what one is referring to. There's only one Varèse _Octandre._ What's more, given the rather non-romantic nature of this early twentieth century piece, one will have neatly side-stepped the generalization trap mentioned earlier as well. Even better, if one wants to argue that _Octandre_ has this or that quality of nineteenth century Romanticism in spite of its cerebral and formal qualities, one has at least an actual piece to be making one's points with.

Win/win/win.

*Joke. I would never drink Dos Equis. I'm more an Almogàver kinda guy.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm not an "anti-classificationist", categorization can be useful to a degree, but I agree with some guy that post-modern and modern are not really styles to begin with... The distinction between these two arbitrary _lumps_ of styles is not very important.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> It is a real term. It seems to me that out of our 100 active members we would probably get 1,000 conflicting answers.
> 
> I could give a definition and at least twenty members would disagree with it.
> 
> We can not agree on what exactly is atonal music.


Agreed... for me atonal music is any piece without any tonal center whatsoever. e.g. Stockhausen in general.

For others, atonal music is anything composed after Mahler's death.

Postmodern is such as broad term... we can get Glass or Nyman or Nono... very different approaches.

Then again, when it comes to restaurants, no one can agree what is Asian cuisine either.


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

When I find a new style of music, I like to look up where it originated, who started it, who influenced it, and how important it is. I do these things not because I want to categorize this style of music, but rather because it helps me understand the style of music.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

To me, "modern" means music broadly in the tradition of Schoenberg, Debussy and/or Stravinsky, mostly written from the 1910s through 1970s.

"Postmodern" suggests some kind of self-conscious subversion or pastiche, often blending avant-garde elements with older forms, pop music, etc. Sometimes, there is some kind of cultural or political critique implied (but never stated directly).


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

While I'm by no means an expert on 20th century music, as a student of philosophy, the terms 'modernism' and 'postmodernism' do hold water. When others are saying that these terms are vacuous, I think they're partially correct, but for different reasons. For example, in art, philosophy, or politics, I think we can reasonably determine when the modernist and postmodernist eras begin and end, who or what belongs to which era, what were the conditions for the eclipse of modernism and the rise of postmodernism, etc. But just from my observations, classical music seems to be different, but again, not for the reasons others suggest. It's not so much that each individual composer can evade categorization, but rather that modernism never really ended -- even though postmodernism did begin in the 70's and 80's like in other fields, modernist music was so successfully institutionalized that it couldn't be superseded. So whereas the polystylism of, say, postmodern art seems to prohibit the use of modernist elements (because that's what postmodernism was reacting to), postmodern polystylistic music will occasionally incorporate serialist techniques. 

As for your list of modern/postmodern characteristics, TradeMark, I think you're quite accurate. I would also add for 'postmodernism' the increasing use of religious music. Part of the appeal for postmodernism is the idea that modernism went so far in one direction that it erased the intrinsic meaning music is supposed to provide. So religious music in a neo-romantic or even a neo-medieval idiom (like Pärt or Tavener) is seen as a "return to basics" to reclaim a form of spirituality. Put more generally, to reconcile the postmodern use of polystylism and sacred music, they're two sides of the same coin: both react to the structuralism of modernism but react differently, the former disavowing structure altogether, the latter seeking out an original, authentic structure. I apologize if this isn't specific to music, but I hope this provides a schema to work with.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think 'postmodernism' is a term which denotes an overview of history, which encompasses history, because history as a linear narrative time line has 'disappeared' and the postmodern age is an age 'after the explosion' in which all we are left with is fragments. History's time line has shattered, and the 'narrative' of historical development has ended. Now, we are lifted up into the air, and we see the landscape in its entirety. All that is left is for us to stake our claim in a certain territory, or combination of territories, and choose the fragments we wish to work with. We can create collages, construct little shacks out of flat-fragments, or throw them like frisbees, and see how far they fly.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I always associate "postmodern" with that which is "meta". If you have classical music that is a commentary on classical music itself, then you have postmodern classical music


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Tristan said:


> I always associate "postmodern" with that which is "meta". If you have classical music that is a commentary on classical music itself, then you have postmodern classical music


But if one wants to be extraordinarily hip, then one could be a "'post'-post-modernist"- and comment on comments about classical music.

You know, to 'deconstruct the deconstructors,' as it were.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Tristan said:


> I always associate "postmodern" with that which is "meta". If you have classical music that is a commentary on classical music itself, then you have postmodern classical music


You could also argue that most of Mozart's religious music (and maybe Haydn's as well) were "comments" on Handel, or that Beethoven's Diabellis and late fugues were "comments" on Bach, and so forth through Brahms and beyond. Music has "commented" on prior music for a very long time. Suddenly calling this a named style and applying it to a specific time period seems...well...silly.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

Millionrainbows makes a good point that I forgot to mention. The 20th century (that is, both modernism and postmodernism) was the first epoch that had a sense of self-reflexivity: it was able to understand itself as an historical epoch. A couple of posts in the thread see 'modernism' and 'postmodernism' as inappropriate because the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras didn't self- identify as an era; thus we should wait until the Modernist and Postmodernist end before giving a more appropriate title. While I agree that musical eras prior to the 20th century did not crown themselves a certain designation, we should instead understand the ostensibly pretentious self-reflexivity of modernists and postmodernists as a _necessary condition_ of modernism and postmodernism themselves.

The difference, then, between modernism and postmodernism is that modernism saw itself as the culmination of centuries worth of (musical, artistic, philosophical, political) development while postmodernism sees itself as after the end of history, which ended with modernism (hence the post- in postmodernism). Polystylism is a great example of this, as millionrainbows pointed out. This stylistic technique is not meant to contribute to the advancement of music but rather to provide a commentary, so to speak, on historical development itself. This is why, when you look up the term 'postmodernism' in dictionaries, you will notice the words 'irony' and 'playfulness' as descriptors -- postmodernists don't identify with any style; they give exegeses, interpretations on those styles 'from a distance.'


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

calvinpv said:


> Millionrainbows makes a good point that I forgot to mention. The 20th century (that is, both modernism and postmodernism) was the first epoch that had a sense of self-reflexivity: it was able to understand itself as an historical epoch. A couple of posts in the thread see 'modernism' and 'postmodernism' as inappropriate because the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras didn't self- identify as an era; thus we should wait until the Modernist and Postmodernist end before giving a more appropriate title. While I agree that musical eras prior to the 20th century did not crown themselves a certain designation, we should instead understand the ostensibly pretentious self-reflexivity of modernists and postmodernists as a _necessary condition_ of modernism and postmodernism themselves.
> 
> The difference, then, between modernism and postmodernism is that *modernism saw itself as the culmination of centuries worth of (musical, artistic, philosophical, political) development while postmodernism sees itself as after the end of history, which ended with modernism *(hence the post- in postmodernism). Polystylism is a great example of this, as millionrainbows pointed out. This stylistic technique is not meant to contribute to the advancement of music but rather to provide a commentary, so to speak, on historical development itself. This is why, when you look up the term 'postmodernism' in dictionaries, you will notice the words 'irony' and 'playfulness' as descriptors -- postmodernists don't identify with any style; they give exegeses, interpretations on those styles 'from a distance.'


I disagree with your characterization of Modernism. Whether "it" saw itself as a culmination or a revolution depends on which Modernists you're talking to or about. How do you see dada, conceptual art, musique concrete, and indeterminacy (just for starters) as _culminating_ an artistic heritage? in retrospect they may have marked an end of something, but that was not necessarily the view or intent of their practitioners.

I also wonder whether that sense of "self-identification" wasn't stronger among the Romantics than you think. It could be argued that Modernism really began during that era.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2015)

Indeed.

Romantics very definitely identified as Romantics. (And also referred to themselves as modern.)

And the Romantic era was widely seen at the time as having ended in mid-century, too. In France, with characteristic precision, it was seen as having ended in 1848.

So what came after? Well, in literature, it's easy. Realism, Naturalism, Symbolism, even the U.S. gets to play--Transcendentalism and, in an eery harbinger of some twentieth century neologisms, Dark Romanticism. But it's not so easy applying those terms to music, even though at the time they were. Not so easy for us, that is. Not so easy to see how "realist" could apply to, say, Wagner. Or maybe it was "naturalist." See? So we ended up just calling all of that post(!) romantic stuff Romantic until we just simply couldn't anymore, at which point we started using the other term romantics had used of themselves, Modern.

No, I think you'll find that the nineteenth century was plenty self-conscious. In fact, I think you'll find that almost all of the patterns and preoccupations of the twentieth century very definitely had their origins in the nineteenth.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> You could also argue that most of Mozart's religious music (and maybe Haydn's as well) were "comments" on Handel, or that Beethoven's Diabellis and late fugues were "comments" on Bach, and so forth through Brahms and beyond. Music has "commented" on prior music for a very long time. Suddenly calling this a named style and applying it to a specific time period seems...well...silly.


Yeah, but there has to be a basic paradigm change, like a new era or new age of technology. Then the commentary can truly encompass what it is commenting on. Otherwise, it's like you said, just a comment.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Romantics very definitely identified as Romantics. (And also referred to themselves as modern.)
> 
> ...


You're still thinking of history as a linear, uniform, connected continuum. Modernism is a summation, and post modernism is a goldfish jumping up out of the water, and realizing that it's in a bowl of water.

calvinpv is the only one here who understands it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Applied to music? I listened to Wolfgang Rihm. It wouldn't have made much sense unless I was aware of what had already been done in string quartet writing. So Rihm has 'subsumed' modernism into his style, as a 'given.' That's why some novice, approaching it cold, might not get it. They might like it anyway, but they wouldn't be able to see the full validity of it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> You're still thinking of history as a linear, uniform, connected continuum. Modernism is a summation, and post modernism is a goldfish jumping up out of the water, and realizing that it's in a bowl of water.
> 
> calvinpv is the only one here who understands it.


Yeah: "All viewpoints are 'perspectival'- except for the post-modernist's _own_", which somehow gets to the Kantian _Ding an sich_.

If one can't take _any_ claims to knowledge seriously, then the post-modernist's claim to knowledge can't be taken seriously as well.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Yeah: "All viewpoints are 'perspectival'- except for the post-modernist's _own_", which somehow gets to the Kantian _Ding an sich_.
> 
> If one can't take _any_ claims to knowledge seriously, then the post-modernist's claim to knowledge can't be taken seriously as well.


Jacques Derrida admitted as much, actually. It's probably why he makes so many jokes in his writing.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> Jacques Derrida admitted as much, actually. It's probably why he makes so many jokes in his writing.


He can joke about it- I know that I do _;D_ ; the difference is that I don't take his_ oeuvre_ seriously.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Yeah: "All viewpoints are 'perspectival'- except for the post-modernist's _own_", which somehow gets to the Kantian _Ding an sich_.
> 
> If one can't take _any_ claims to knowledge seriously, then the post-modernist's claim to knowledge can't be taken seriously as well.


I don't see why you think Millions is arguing that post-modernists are non-perspectival. Sounds like he proposed a particular perspective (from outside the bowl), which is primarily defined by its proponents not seeing their art as an organic outgrowth of a unidirectional evolution. This seems like a perfectly valid perspective. I don't see a substantive objection in your response.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> I don't see why you think Millions is arguing that post-modernists are non-perspectival. Sounds like he proposed a particular perspective (from outside the bowl), which is primarily defined by its proponents not seeing their art as an organic outgrowth of a unidirectional evolution. This seems like a perfectly valid perspective. I don't see a substantive objection in your response.


'Outside the bowl' as in "I see things clearly as they are_ in and of themselves_, without the distortions of the fish tank glass"- is about as non-perspectival as one can metaphorically get.

What makes the post-modernist think that he is outside of the fishbowl to begin with?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> 'Outside the bowl' as in "I see things clearly as they are_ in and of themselves_, without the distortions of the fish tank glass"- is about as non-perspectival as one can metaphorically get.


I don't think you're sympathizing enough with the goldfish's perspective, Bair. Have you never seen a fish out of water?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> I don't think you're sympathizing enough with the goldfish's perspective, Blair. Have you never seen a fish out of water?


Yes: they get shy, obviously_ 'koi.'_


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> 'Outside the bowl' as in "I see things clearly as they are_ in and of themselves_, without the distortions of the fish tank glass"- is about as non-perspectival as one can metaphorically get.
> 
> What makes the post-modernist think that he is outside of the fishbowl to begin with?


I think you have substituted one of your own hobby horses for what millions was saying. I read "being in the fish bowl" to mean seeing oneself in relation to an evolutionary view of history. The modernists were in the bowl because they saw their art as the culmination or summation of such an evolution. The post-modernists were out because they rejected the evolutionary view and saw themselves free to use materials and techniques from all eras of music history without having to fulfill some sort of manifest historical destiny. If I have read millions incorrectly I hope he will correct me.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> I think you have substituted one of your own hobby horses for what millions was saying. I read "being in the fish bowl" to mean seeing oneself in relation to an evolutionary view of history. The modernists were in the bowl because they saw their art as the culmination or summation of such an evolution. The post-modernists were out because they rejected the evolutionary view and saw themselves free to use materials and techniques from all eras of music history without having to fulfill some sort of manifest historical destiny. If I have read millions incorrectly I hope he will correct me.


Well you're probably right. I haven't been following the thread in its full context. I merely replied to one post of his that I saw in the Activity Stream.

If what you're saying about what he posted earlier is in fact the case, then I accordingly retract and rescind my statement.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm still questioning to what degree Modernism defined itself as a culmination. I brought up a few modernist developments in art and music (dada, conceptual art, musique concrete, indeterminacy) which neither appear to be that nor, to my knowledge, were so regarded. Why were so many avant-garde musicians - of whom Boulez was a famous/infamous and highly verbal guru - so concerned to renounce/denounce traditional styles and cultural institutions? What happened to _epatez le bourgeoisie?_ Aren't we overgeneralizing here? And, for that matter, isn't it perfectly reasonable to regard Postmodernism as a logical next step, once artists have gone as far as silent music and empty canvases? What's logical after that? Perhaps the true "culmination" of the evolution of our culture is - nothing! Nothing is, after all, the practical equivalent of "anything you please, so long as you're not too sincere about it." _Voila!_ Postmodernism.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

The major defining traits of postmodernism in the arts are the lack of distinction between so called high and low cultures, the blurring of genre distinctions to the point of non-distinction, the range of subjects and their free interrelation within the context of the work. In literature this tends to express itself encyclopaedically, as in _Gravity's Rainbow_, where Pavlov's dog, sadomasochism, the death of Webern, and people flushing themselves down toilets are just some of hundreds of topics covered; or in cinema as mish mash, such as _Pulp Fiction_, in which Bible quotes, foot massage, war stories, and cheeseburger terminology sit alongside each other in dialogue scenes. In both cases so much ground is covered and by so many different means, whether "profoundly" or (arguably in the case of the latter) "superficially", that genre becomes indeterminable for the work as a whole. Both works also play with the audience's perception of time and perspective, switching between multiple major plots freely and without necessarily following the chronological order of events.

In music we can see comparable examples in Schnittke's _Symphony No. 1_ (1974) and Zimmermann's _Requiem für einen jungen Dichter_ (1969)*. In both pieces the concept of genre is played with to the effect of becoming indeterminable, and the materials of the so called high and low cultures are blended to the point of being indistinguishable_._ An even better example might be John Cage's _Imaginary Landscape No. 4_, which is quintessentially postmodern because it can potentially consist of popular music, classical music, "world music", talk radio, sports coverage, news bulletins, radio drama etc. simultaneously. Because occurrences of these things are only potential events, the actual content from one presentation to the next is itself indeterminable, meaning that the work removes prejudice for and against both "high" and "low" culture from the equation absolutely. Although some performers apparently take the work so seriously that they could not bear the idea of Miley Cyrus and Beethoven potentially appearing on the same "programme," and may engineer the presentation to some extent to avoid this situation. Some of us contemporary music people are real dweebs, y'know?

Postmodern music could therefore be seen as maximalist, an extreme take on Mahler's idea of the symphony containing the world. Mahler is interesting in that, like Cervantes and Sterne in literature, he can be viewed to some extent as precursor to postmodernism. His extensive use of quotes from not only other composers but folk melodies, as well as his sourcing texts for songs from not just western literature but also Chinese poetry, to embody a kind of perspective that grew into post modernism. And, from the _Adagio_ of the unfinished _Symphony No. 10_ (1910), it is possible to observe his growing penchant for apparent and glaring abstractions, such as the eleven note clusters in the second half of the piece, which follow a seemingly frivolous figure of pizzicato strings and breezy woodwinds. Not that this practice was not in evidence in many of his earlier works, but in the _Adagio_, it comes across to me more as a definitive statement about the nature of his musical ideas.

*In the case of Schnittke, this is often referred to as "polystylism", which seems to me an unnecessary complication. As for Zimmermann, I could have picked almost any of his works. Consider his opera _Die Soldaten_ (1965), in which multiple scenes occur on different parts of the stage simultaneously; or _Nobody knows the trouble I see_ (1954), which effectively deconstructs traditional jazz and bebop tropes and presents them via the timbral constraints of a western orchestra and solo trumpet. There are many examples which could be taken from other composers such as Stockhausen (_Der Jahreslauf_ (1977), which is especially amusing given his professed disdain for postmodern music), Berio (_Sinfonia_ (1969), most notably, and many others besides), and of course Charles Ives, whose _Symphony No. 4_ (1924) might be the first incontrovertible statement of postmodern musical thinking, though it was not performed properly until 1965.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Crudblud said:


> The major defining traits of postmodernism in the arts are *the lack of distinction between so called high and low cultures, the blurring of genre distinctions to the point of non-distinction, the range of subjects and their free interrelation within the context of the work.* In literature this tends to express itself encyclopaedically, *as in Gravity's Rainbow, where Pavlov's dog, sadomasochism, the death of Webern, and people flushing themselves down toilets are just some of hundreds of topics covered;* or in cinema as mish mash, such as _Pulp Fiction_, in which Bible quotes, foot massage, war stories, and cheeseburger terminology sit alongside each other in dialogue scenes. In both cases so much ground is covered and by so many different means, whether "profoundly" or (arguably in the case of the latter) "superficially", that genre becomes indeterminable for the work as a whole. Both works also play with the audience's perception of time and perspective, switching between multiple major plots freely and without necessarily following the chronological order of events.
> 
> In music we can see comparable examples in Schnittke's _Symphony No. 1_ (1974) and Zimmermann's _Requiem für einen jungen Dichter_ (1969)*. In both pieces *the concept of genre is played with to the effect of becoming indeterminable, and the materials of the so called high and low cultures are blended to the point of being indistinguishable*_._ An even better example might be John Cage's _Imaginary Landscape No. 4_, which is quintessentially postmodern because* it can potentially consist of popular music, classical music, "world music", talk radio, sports coverage, news bulletins, radio drama etc. simultaneously. Because occurrences of these things are only potential events, the actual content from one presentation to the next is itself indeterminable, meaning that the work removes prejudice for and against both "high" and "low" culture from the equation absolutely. *Although some performers apparently take the work so seriously that they could not bear the idea of Miley Cyrus and Beethoven potentially appearing on the same "programme," and may engineer the presentation to some extent to avoid this situation. Some of us contemporary music people are real dweebs, y'know?


Thanks for fleshing out so delightfully what I half-facetiously (but only half) meant when I said "isn't it perfectly reasonable to regard Postmodernism as a logical next step, once artists have gone as far as silent music and empty canvases? What's logical after that? Perhaps the true 'culmination' of the evolution of our culture is - nothing! _Nothing is, after all, the practical equivalent of 'anything you please, so long as you're not too sincere about it.'_ Voila! Postmodernism."

This is the state of cultural exhaustion that has allowed regietheater to take over the opera houses of Europe, and director Hans Neuenfels to populate the stage of the Bayreuth Festival with people in rat costumes and advertise it as Wagner's _Lohengrin._ Modernism at least believed in its mission, whatever absurdities its philosophical presuppositions may have driven it to at last. In its wake, all belief in missions having been flushed down the toilet along with those people you mention as doing it to themselves, we throw any leftovers from the refrigerator into a half-baked casserole and call it postmodern cuisine, and if the result is unpalatable we tell each other, with knowing smiles and unsmiling eyes, that we're dining self-reflexively and narrativizing a decontextualized perspective on eating.

Thank God for working toilets.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

My simplistic observation is that attempts to draw distinctions between modernism and postmodernism seems to be an excellent way of creating a neural Gordian Knot. It also seems to be a way of creating an us and them, i.e. those who can accept the distinctions and those who don't. As I observed very early in my time on TC, reading threads like this makes me glad that I went into biochemistry rather than philosophy or quantum mechanics.



> Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
> "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

Crudblud said:


> The major defining traits of postmodernism in the arts are the lack of distinction between so called high and low cultures, the blurring of genre distinctions to the point of non-distinction, the range of subjects and their free interrelation within the context of the work. In literature this tends to express itself encyclopaedically, as in _Gravity's Rainbow_, where Pavlov's dog, sadomasochism, the death of Webern, and people flushing themselves down toilets are just some of hundreds of topics covered; or in cinema as mish mash, such as _Pulp Fiction_, in which Bible quotes, foot massage, war stories, and cheeseburger terminology sit alongside each other in dialogue scenes. In both cases so much ground is covered and by so many different means, whether "profoundly" or (arguably in the case of the latter) "superficially", that genre becomes indeterminable for the work as a whole. Both works also play with the audience's perception of time and perspective, switching between multiple major plots freely and without necessarily following the chronological order of events.
> 
> In music we can see comparable examples in Schnittke's _Symphony No. 1_ (1974) and Zimmermann's _Requiem für einen jungen Dichter_ (1969)*. In both pieces the concept of genre is played with to the effect of becoming indeterminable, and the materials of the so called high and low cultures are blended to the point of being indistinguishable_._ An even better example might be John Cage's _Imaginary Landscape No. 4_, which is quintessentially postmodern because it can potentially consist of popular music, classical music, "world music", talk radio, sports coverage, news bulletins, radio drama etc. simultaneously. Because occurrences of these things are only potential events, the actual content from one presentation to the next is itself indeterminable, meaning that the work removes prejudice for and against both "high" and "low" culture from the equation absolutely. Although some performers apparently take the work so seriously that they could not bear the idea of Miley Cyrus and Beethoven potentially appearing on the same "programme," and may engineer the presentation to some extent to avoid this situation. Some of us contemporary music people are real dweebs, y'know?
> 
> ...


Thank you, this is the best reply I have seen in this thread.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, that's what I meant. "Being outside the fish bowl" means that you are aware of the context and environment, that it's not 'invisible' to you.

Also, postmodernism can 'comment' on itself without having to totally be committed to taking itself too seriously, or too literally._ (sound of toilet flushing in the distance)_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, that's what I meant. "Being outside the fish bowl" means that you are aware of the context and environment, that it's not 'invisible' to you.


Oh, so I was right in my post-modern-averse hobby horse fixations and Edward Bast was wrong in his 'reading' me.

Super Model of the _World. _

;p

_;D_


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> I don't see why you think Millions is arguing that post-modernists are non-perspectival. Sounds like he proposed a particular perspective (from outside the bowl), which is primarily defined by its proponents not seeing their art as an organic outgrowth of a unidirectional evolution. This seems like a perfectly valid perspective. I don't see a substantive objection in your response.





Marschallin Blair said:


> 'Outside the bowl' as in "I see things clearly as they are_ in and of themselves_, without the distortions of the fish tank glass"- is about as non-perspectival as one can metaphorically get.
> 
> What makes the post-modernist think that he is outside of the fishbowl to begin with?


History, seen as a linear, connected, continuous narrative, is what the post-modernist has 'left' by jumping out of that context. By insisting that this is a 'non-perspective' assumes that the historical perspective is the _only _perspective.

What makes the post-modernist think that he is outside of the fishbowl to begin with? Technology has removed space, distance, and time to a large degree. Everything is instantaneous.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> History, seen as a linear, connected, continuous narrative, is what the post-modernist has 'left' by jumping out of that context. By insisting that this is a 'non-perspective' assumes that the historical perspective is the _only _perspective.
> 
> What makes the post-modernist think that he is outside of the fishbowl to begin with? Technology has removed space, distance, and time to a large degree. Everything is instantaneous.


That's not my understanding of post-modernists.

Post-modernists seem to believe that everything is relative, 'historicist,' and of no binding universal value whatsoever. . . except of course for_ their _theories, which always are somehow 'above' being mere historical episodes or interpretative speech communities.

One can't assume the validity of a premise for one's argument that one is simultaneously trying to disprove in another's argument.

The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> That's not my understanding of post-modernists.
> 
> Post-modernists seem to believe that everything is relative, 'historicist,' and of no binding universal value whatsoever. . . except of course for_ their _theories, which always are somehow 'above' being mere historical episodes or interpretative speech communities.
> 
> ...


So, for you there's no difference between "postmodernism" and a certain formulation of "skepticism," it seems.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> So, for you there's no difference between "postmodernism" and a certain formulation of "skepticism," it seems.


Not at all.

A mitigated skepticism exemplified by the hypothetico-deductivism of science (where one is always trying to prove one's theories wrong or 'falsify' them- in order to make the new ones even stronger) is not the same thing as post-modernism.

Post-modernism seems to assume that everything is dispensable- except of course for their sacred cows of Marxism, Keynesianism, collectivism, statism, and monetarism- which always seem to get a free ride.

Post-modernism is an ideology masquerading as an anti-ideology.

I would never call post-modernism 'skeptical' but I would call it 'doctrinaire.'


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

TradeMark said:


> Ok, this has bugging me. I've been trying to wrap my head around where the line is drawn between Modern and Postmodern classical music. Most of my search online has lead to distinctions between ideologies, which isn't quite what I'm looking for. I'm more interested in the musical styles associated with both of them. From From my personal listening experience I've generally found these to be characteristics of the two styles:
> 
> *Modern classical music*
> - Generally consists of impressionism, expressionism/serialism and neoclassicism.
> ...


There've been some good, well-informed and thoughtful answers in this discussion, but something that I'd like to add to them is that we're still working it out. The meanings of the labels remain under discussion.

I suspect that post-modernism is actually a variety of modernism, and that our culture is moving on to something else. Alan Kirkby's little note on The Death of Postmodernism and Beyond seems (to me) to have some insight about that.


----------



## Hugh (Aug 19, 2020)

I'm rather late to what seems to be a rather dormant debate, but I think your position is helpful. I don't think of modernism as a fixed period because everything is modern in its day, but the rapid technological advances of last century may mean that this becomes a useful way to describe a period, as was baroque or classical, for what I think are useful reasons. The same applies for post-modernism, except for the, some would say, extreme association in philosophy with relativism. Rather, I tend to think of these as ways to understand influences or tendencies in music. Modernism is mostly associated with efforts to break free from traditional harmony, counterpoint and form, to embrace ideas like sound textures, orchestral, colours, density, etc. and in its partial embrace of neo-classism to redefine and recast old forms. Post-modernism in music, as the names suggests, is when composers no longer feel the need to impose the discipline of modernism such as serialism or a atonality, as such it continues many of the traditions of modernism, but freely incorporates tonality and dissonance, minimalism and musical loops, but also stronger programmatic and representational elements, like much of film music, or freely borrows from non-western styles, forms and tunings. Many of these things were explored in modernism but where modernism implied a discipline or ethos, post-modernism does not. I'm interested in the way various nationalisms are explored through these lenses. This would be a discussion about how modernism reflected industrial growth, science, progress in different national context, as well as globalization and other musical styles; post-modernism builds on that to enable a broad eclecticism, but also eschews the esoteric interests of modernism for a more popular, even perhaps commercial, appeal.


----------

