# Compositions that seem way ahead of their time



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I know that there are many of these, and they aren't really that uncommon, but it seemed to make for a good discussion.

So, I'll kick it off with this: 




The way he manipulates the modes in this seems ahead of the times.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

The first composer I thought of was Liszt.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Why did I know it would be Alkan?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This is, of course, very subjective, but here's a few I can think of from the top of my head. Any number of compositions by these composers:

*Josquin des Prez *- the choral techniques he devised have made a continuous impact on composers of choral music.

*J. S. Bach* - he's made such a (continuing) impact on classical music over the past few hundred years. His ideas, even today, seem fresh and modern.

*Liszt *- I agree with Air. Liszt's invention of the Tristan chord was to have an impact on the music of Wagner, and beyond (even the music of the 2nd Viennese School, I understand)

*Janacek* - his music, based on the rhythms and patterns of the Czech language, seemed to prefigure the "conversations" found in the music of many contemporary composers, not the least Carter.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Charles Ives. Need I say more?


----------



## JSK (Dec 31, 2008)

World Violist said:


> Charles Ives. Need I say more?


Nope. He anticipated a huge number of future compositional techniques.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

And what of Scarlatti? He worked with a lot of chord progressions that hadn't quite found their way around yet. That, and his new uses of modes and texture in general. Also, for a Baroque composer, his use of dynamics seem like a precursor to the classical period.

For example (don't mind the comment on dynamics with this one):


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Why did I know it would be Alkan?


 I really thought you were expecting Scriabin. Now *HE* was ahead of the times.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Is being ahead of the times worth it if your music sounds like rubbish?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Is being ahead of the times worth it if your music sounds like rubbish?


That's a bit of a low blow, but I see your perspective. In my opinion the very idea of ear friendly is an illusion we instinctively develop (naturally, we have needed to interpret sound relatively clearly, for thousands of years).

But that is beside the point. Have you anyone in mind for this thread Tapkaraa?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I was just wondering, if one can be made, whether or not we're drawing a distinction between people who seemed ahead of the time, and people whose innovations allowed for the progression of music?

In my mind, someone who allows for the progression of music would have new and unique things in their music that push for development, whereas, someone ahead of their time would have a whole set of instantaneously fresh ideas that weren't adopted for quite some time after.

Do you see what I mean?


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

Organum music from the 13th century was extremely ahead of its time. Pérotin is possibly the earliest example of a composer whose name survives to have written polyphonic music. I think his has a wonderful, enigmatic quality which I think is helped by the fact that Pérotin lived in a time when superstition and mysticism was rife.






Bruckner's Te Deum took me aback a little bit, because of its similarities to minimalism (and from a bombastic Romantic of all people). I can't help but hear traces of Glass's Koyaanisqatsi in this, maybe it's just a hunch.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

Daphnis Et Chloe by Maurice Ravel sounds like it wasn't written by a human.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> Daphnis Et Chloe by Maurice Ravel sounds like it wasn't written by a human.


By who then? A rabbit maybe?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

The Toccata from Widor's Symphony for Organ No.5.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

Aramis said:


> By who then? A rabbit maybe?


Aliens!!!!


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

No mention of Beethoven? Or is that because we all know how great he was?

I would also like to mention Scriabin.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> Aliens!!!!


I dunno, I think the rabbit idea is pretty solid.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

the adagio of Bruckner's 9th.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Contrary to popular belief no composer is ahead of his time, everyone else is just behind


Forgot who said this


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Contrary to popular belief no composer is ahead of his time, everyone else is just behind
> 
> Forgot who said this


I read that quote a few days ago... it might have been in someone's forum signature. Hurry, I need to know or it will frustrate me all evening!


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I read that quote a few days ago... it might have been in someone's forum signature. Hurry, I need to know or it will frustrate me all evening!


Varese said that.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

mueske said:


> Varese said that.


Then I like Varese


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Polednice said:


> I read that quote a few days ago... it might have been in someone's forum signature. Hurry, I need to know or it will frustrate me all evening!


Yes, our friend _Andre_ uses that quote in his signature.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

mueske said:


> *No mention of Beethoven? Or is that because we all know how great he was?*
> 
> I would also like to mention Scriabin.


I guess so... the inclusion of Beethoven's Große Fuge and his numbered late string quartets seems pretty much a given.


----------



## handlebar (Mar 19, 2009)

Most of Mahler's output. Some of it still has a long way to go IMHO.

Jim


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

handlebar said:


> Most of Mahler's output. Some of it still has a long way to go IMHO.
> 
> Jim


Yeah, with Mahler I would like to put in a spot for the first symphony, Das Lied von der Erde, and the tenth symphony (or what we know of it). The rest of it is very much so as well, but I feel those three pieces are the most radical of Mahler's output.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> And what of Scarlatti? He worked with a lot of chord progressions that hadn't quite found their way around yet. That, and his new uses of modes and texture in general. Also, for a Baroque composer, his use of dynamics seem like a precursor to the classical period.


Yes. I have an old EMI CD of Christoff Eschenbach playing a bunch of Scarlatti sonatas, and several of them could have almost been written by Rachmaninov, so romantic and fluid do they sound.
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I was just wondering, if one can be made, whether or not we're drawing a distinction between people who seemed ahead of the time, and people whose innovations allowed for the progression of music?
> 
> In my mind, someone who allows for the progression of music would have new and unique things in their music that push for development, whereas, someone ahead of their time would have a whole set of instantaneously fresh ideas that weren't adopted for quite some time after.
> 
> Do you see what I mean?


Quite right. I meant ideas that were instantaneous and seemed to make sudden jumps in theory. Whether or not it influenced music in general, is irrelevant to me, at least.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I think that Wagner's operas were totally ahead of their times since now, almost 200 years later, we still can hardly make a decent theatrical interpretation.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Aramis said:


> I think that Wagner's operas were totally ahead of their times since now, almost 200 years later, we still can hardly make a decent theatrical interpretation.


I was just thinking about Wagner - I'm surprised his name hadn't come up sooner.


----------



## Bartók (Dec 10, 2009)

Is any composer really ahead of their time, or is it just an illusion caused by the other composers that come after them copying their ideas? When Terry Riley wrote some of the first minimalist music, i don't think he was ahead of his time because other composers wrote in a minimalistic style later.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

Aramis said:


> I think that Wagner's operas were totally ahead of their times since now, almost 200 years later, we still can hardly make a decent theatrical interpretation.


the jump is remarkable when you compare Schumann and Mendelssohn's works to him. I think Mahler said there are only two composers, Beethoven and Wagner.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> the jump is remarkable when you compare Schumann and Mendelssohn's works to him. I think Mahler said there are only two composers, Beethoven and Wagner.


Yeah, but he didn't jump from nowhere. There was another composer ahead of his time before, but he is not very popular as far as I can tell. I'm talking about Carl Maria von Weber. Compare his Freischutz with Wagner's Hollander. I can clearly see it's influence on it. Berlioz also admired him.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

_Crazy Horses_ by The Osmonds.






That song is so ahead of it's time that it's still in the future.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Argus said:


> _Crazy Horses_ by The Osmonds.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wondered why I thought it sucked. I'm obviously stuck in the past


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Polednice said:


> I wondered why I thought it sucked. I'm obviously stuck in the past


We all live in the past, because nobody really knows for certain what's in the future. Ask the Weather Channel; they're a case in point!


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)




----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Aramis said:


>


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

This subject is normally discussed under the heading "most influential composers". "Influence" is often considered to be an important ingredient determining the "greatness" of composers. The subject is as old as the hills. I have seen, and have participated in, quite a few discussions of this sort on various music forums over the past 5 years. The only vaguely relevant ones here on T-C which I can easily recall (there may be others) are:

http://www.talkclassical.com/2938-between-beethoven-20c.html?highlight=influential

http://www.talkclassical.com/7053-inventors-summarizers-music-history.html?highlight=influential

The subject matter raises two questions: "how does one measure "influence", and "does influence matter?" Without going into any detail, I would suggest that neither issue is straightforward. Any quantification of influence would have to set out assumptions including a counter-factual environment, e.g. if Wagner hadn't made the innovations he did then might any-one else might have come along and done the same or similar something pretty similar? Wagner's innovations were, in any event, worked on by later composers anyway.

Anyway, not to spoil the spirit of the thread, there are a few other composers who perhaps ought to be thrown in for consideration as having been very good composers and providing strong leads into new trends:_Léonin_ (included rhythm)

_Perotin _(expanded on former, and was much more ambitious writing in three or four parts)

_Guillaume de Machaut_ (especially important in development of the motet and the secular song)

_Monteverdi _(among the first and most influential of early baroque composers)

_J C Bach_ (he helped to create the Gallant style that influenced Haydn & Mozart)

_Satie_ (major influence on Debussy and impressionists)

_Schoenberg and Webern_ (may have been already mentioned; most of the serialists stem from here).​


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Artemis said:


> This subject is normally discussed under the heading "most influential composers". "Influence" is often considered to be an important ingredient determining the "greatness" of composers. The subject is as old as the hills. I have seen, and have participated in, quite a few discussions of this sort on various music forums over the past 5 years. The only vaguely relevant ones here on T-C which I can easily recall (there may be others) are:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/2938-between-beethoven-20c.html?highlight=influential
> 
> ...


I'll have to quote myself, then: "Quite right. I meant ideas that were instantaneous and seemed to make sudden jumps in theory. Whether or not it influenced music in general, is irrelevant to me, at least."

It was a response to this from Polednice-


Polednice said:


> I was just wondering, if one can be made, whether or not we're drawing a distinction between people who seemed ahead of the time, and people whose innovations allowed for the progression of music?
> 
> In my mind, someone who allows for the progression of music would have new and unique things in their music that push for development, whereas, someone ahead of their time would have a whole set of instantaneously fresh ideas that weren't adopted for quite some time after.
> 
> Do you see what I mean?


So my friend: this thread wasn't intended to discuss influence; Just composers who used uncommon methods out of nowhere.


----------

