# Contemporary composers creating romantic works?



## OlivierM (Jul 31, 2014)

Hi,

I was wondering if you could name second half of the 20-21st century composers (i.e. people who actually wrote in the second part of the twentieth century, or write pieces nowadays) whose productions could be classified as romantic, in the classical definition.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

omg you're a dead man, you can't ask these things here at TC.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

No. Because I know of none that did.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

OlivierM said:


> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering if you could name second half of the 20-21st century composers (i.e. people who actually wrote in the second part of the twentieth century, or write pieces nowadays) whose productions could be classified as romantic, in the classical definition.


I often find when such requests come in that the person asking has far to go to exhaust the already existing Romantic era repertoire. Just taking into account Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, Bruckner, Mahler, and Carl Nielsen, there is not only a great deal of music but also a great variety; symphonic works, chamber music, solo piano music from some, ditto concertos, that many a listener has really barely scratched the surface.

For music written later, there is nothing 'just like' the music from those older composers: it would rarely be of interest or performed, since those other composers made the genuine articles, and did it so superbly well.

For all the buzz about more current contemporary composers, especially the East Europeans from the former Soviet Satellite countries, the Finns, the Latvians, etc. I hear their music as very much 'the old romantic ethos' simply dressed in contemporary musical jargon.

In that vein, Rautavaara is often heavily 'romantic,' and so are many of the others who are from those areas, their music embraced and played.

My personal interest in romanticism in contemporary music is so non-existent that I've not bothered to remember the names of the composers writing like that, (Rautavaara being popular and mentioned enough that I do remember his name) but if you ask others for just those composers, I am pretty certain you will find fans aplenty who will be happy to supply you with names and specific pieces.

None of them will sound anywhere near the actual mid to late 19th century romantics, or even the later romantics of the early 20th century, but a lot of the feeling, I think, of what you are looking for can be found in their music.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski. There are several Naxos releases available.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

kikko said:


> omg you're a dead man, you can't ask these things here at TC.


I think in America they call it suicide-by-cop.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Who had money on "PetrB derides composers who primarily uses older idioms?" 

To the OP, you might want to look into Richard Danielpour and other Neoromantic composers.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I won't be too strict about "neo-" whatever, but someone asking this question might be interested in: Edgar Meyer, Ned Rorem, Virgil Thomson. Jennifer Higdon, Paul Moravec, Federico Mompou, Nikolai Kapustin, Rodion Shchedrin, John Rutter, Eric Whitacre, Morten Lauridsen, Karl Jenkins, John Tavener.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

OlivierM said:


> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering if you could name second half of the 20-21st century composers (i.e. people who actually wrote in the second part of the twentieth century, or write pieces nowadays) whose productions could be classified as romantic, in the classical definition.


Let's sacrifice him to our gods!!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kopachris said:


> Who had money on "PetrB derides composers who primarily uses older idioms?"
> 
> To the OP, you might want to look into Richard Danielpour and other Neoromantic composers.


Nothing imitative about that neo-romantic group!

And then, for the freakish firestorm from all the objectors to my post, one huge and loud WELL EXCUSE ME for reading the post as the OP wrote it...

looking for romantic music *"whose productions could be classified as romantic, in the classical definition."* I have a funny feeling that Danielpour (or Rautavaara) might be just a titch too "modern" as per the OP's request, as would Samuel Barber's _Piano Concerto,_ and any number of works by Shostakovich or Prokofiev in their more late romantic vein. Happy to find that a mistaken notion, but I wouldn't take bets with the odds as I estimate them as per the OP's very specific wording.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Morimur said:


> Let's sacrifice him to our gods!!


Oooh, polytheists.... kewel


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I, perhaps like PetrB, wonder if this OP might be better explicated with an addendum that clearly sets out:

What is considered neo-romantic
What the OP thinks of as neo-romatic in the mid-late 20th century
If there is any contemporary music that the OP thinks fits the description

OlivierM - having seen you comment on contemporary music previously I think you could give us something more specific about what you're interested in. Otherwise, I think Science has been the best effort of names that might work for you


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2014)

The answer to the question is "yes."

The answer to the next question ("Who?") can be found not only here in science's post, but in the "Similar Threads" section below and in numerous similar threads in every other classical music forum there is.

And in every magazine devoted to "classical" music.

Easy.

Terra incognita would be contemporary composers who are writing as if it were 2014, not 1914, not 1814--2014. Hardly anyone knows those people. There's where the real adventures are to be found.

Well? What do you think? "Let's go to a "new" place that's very much like all the other places we've ever gone"? or "Let's go somewhere new"?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

OlivierM said:


> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering if you could name second half of the 20-21st century composers (i.e. people who actually wrote in the second part of the twentieth century, or write pieces nowadays) whose productions could be classified as romantic, in the classical definition.


What is this classical definition of romantic?

The question is really interesting precisely because it turns on what romantic is. Take a piece like Gérard Grisey's "Quatre Chants pour Franchir la Seuil", La mort de civilisation, for example. Long hummable melodies, extremely expressive at least as played by Cambreling, not very dissonant, not very complex. Is it romantic? I'm inclined to think it is.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

A lot of composers of contemporary works are described as neo-classical. I am not going to look up the formal definition, but to me it sounds sort of 'Romantic' (note the capital R). Penderecki (post-1970s) comes to mind. Wolfgang Rihm.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> A lot of composers of contemporary works are described as neo-classical. I am not going to look up the formal definition, but to me it sounds sort of 'Romantic' (note the capital R). Penderecki (post-1970s) comes to mind. Wolfgang Rihm.


 Rihm is interesting because quite a lot of his work is not romantic - there's this CD for example, which I quite like.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Rihm is interesting because quite a lot of his work is not romantic


I have recently become interested in exploring some of his music. It was Wikipedia that called him neo-romantic  Thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Well how about the Samuel Barber of the Violin Concerto or the William Schuman of the Tenth Symphony? 

Contemporary with Romantic overtones.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> I have recently become interested in exploring some of his music. It was Wikipedia that called him neo-romantic  Thanks for the recommendation.


Neoromantic music is a postmodernist movement, and it's about as closely related to 19th century Romanticism as the modernist Neoclassicism was to the Classicism of the 18th century.

As for finding people who compose in a Romantic style such that it could have been written before Schoenberg and Stravinsky...I don't think they've existed since Strauss died.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> As for finding people who compose in a Romantic style such that it could have been written before Schoenberg and Stravinsky...I don't think they've existed since Strauss died.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Andreas said:


>


Not convinced. It sounds like a sappy mashup of pop melodies with "Romantic" orchestration and linking bits cobbled together from Tchaikovsky and Bruckner. I wouldn't believe that this could actually have been written in the 19th century.

Edit: I suppose I should modify my statement to be "as if nothing had happened in music since the 19th century".


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Check out the following threads.*

Check out the following threads:

http://www.talkclassical.com/33380-tonal-music-our-days.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/33271-who-your-favorite-living.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/32482-recommend-me-some-late.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/33151-new-symphony-american-composer.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/32689-what-top-5-21st.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/31834-composers-born-1960s-1970s.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/18533-post-ww2-composers-who.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/26178-great-new-modern-operatic.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/27797-greatest-living-composer.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/32980-what-most-recent-opera.html

My wife and I will be attending the National Opera tonight. We well be seeing Daniel Catán's _Florencia in the Amazon_. This is a very tonal work that is reminiscent of Puccini. Catán passed away in 2011.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

If it is a somewhat conservative expression rather than strict formal and melodic copying of the language of past you prefer, take a look at

Sandström: Piano Concerto 



 (coupled with a good one by Matthias Hammerth)
Pärt: Tabula Rasa Concerto 



Allan Pettersson: Symphony 8 



Holmboe: Symphonies (no.11) & Viola Concerto 



Crumb: Cello Solo Sonata 



Gorecki: Szeroka Woda for Choir 



, Misere for Choir op.44 



Corigliano: Piano Concerto 



Saariaho: Flute Concerto, L´Aile du Songe http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=saariaho+songe+flute, Cendres 



Joonas Kokkonen: Durch ein Spiegel, for harpsichord & strings
George Rochberg: Piano Quintet, String Quartets etc.

+ works by Kjell Flem (Piano Concerto, Ultima Thule, Solar Wind), Valentin Silvestrov(Metamusik, Postludium for Piano & Orchestra)


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I don't think there's a single composer I can think of writing today that wouldn't make a Romantic Era composer feel a little out of their element, so to speak. So I would have to say none.

And I think composers like Karl Jenkins would just make guys like Brahms and Wagner laugh out loud. Maybe that could have been just the thing to bring their arch-rivalry to an end


----------



## OlivierM (Jul 31, 2014)

Thanks for all the recommendations so far, I'll look into those I don't know yet.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

OlivierM said:


> Thanks for all the recommendations so far, I'll look into those I don't know yet.


Try Brian Ferneyhough. He's one hell of a romantic.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Morimur said:


> Let's sacrifice him to our gods!!


TalkClassical Mode: [ON] OFF


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2014)

One thing is for sure, no Romantic composer ever wrote music that looked backward to an earlier era like a neo-Romantic does.

And that is true even though one plank in the Romantic platform is Medievalism.

No Romantic composer, not even Mendelssohn, tried to mimic the style of an earlier period like a neo-Romantic does. Romantics were reactionaries, breaking away from the formalism of the past.

The only thing even remotely "Romantic" about neo-Romanticism is the sounds. Neo-Romanticism, in short, mimics the sounds of the Romantic era without being even remotely interested in any of the philosophical or even music preoccupations of that era. And, of course, it's not even the sounds being imitated, but _those sounds as they are now perceived,_ from the vantage point of decades of familiarity with them. These are sounds, remember, that at the time could and were perceived as crude and illogical and ugly and non-musical and willfully eccentric.

If the Romantics, as a group, had written "neo-" music like their neo-Romantic colleagues in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, we would never have had Romantic music. We would have had a nineteenth century take on early Baroque music. We would have had the sounds (kind of (and none of the spirit)) of Monteverdi or Schütz or Lully.

I don't know of anyone who wants Berlioz or Mendelssohn or Schumann or Smetana to have written like Monteverdi. I know of dozens of people (and I know that there are hundreds more) who wish that composers living in 2014 would write like Dvorak and Brahms and Tchaikovsky. Or even, truth be told, like Monteverdi.

Daft I call it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I find Ives' Third Symphony full of romantic utterances within a contemporary framework.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Neo-Romantics have the sound without the "break-away" ideology, as someguy has put it. What makes the actual Romantics so compelling is the sudden burst of a unique expression that wasn't happening at that time. It was a sort of freedom from the old binding structures of previous eras. So to just copy the formulas, one is missing the whole point.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Neo-Romantics have the sound without the "break-away" ideology, as someguy has put it. What makes the actual Romantics so compelling is the sudden burst of a unique expression that wasn't happening at that time. It was a sort of freedom from the old binding structures of previous eras. So to just copy the formulas, one is missing the whole point.


What say ye of neoclassicism?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> What say ye of neoclassicism?


I enjoy it, but my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Although, I really don't think Classicism was nearly the burst of freedom that Romanticism was. Maybe that alludes a bit to why I can still enjoy a form of modern classicism. It's still primarily an institutional form, rather the immense freedom of expression that Romanticism was.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I would say that the Classical period (including the preceding Galante period) represented a much more significant "breaking free" than the Romantic movement. Composers, and art in general, were casting off the cold, dead, churchly, and overly dry and complex art of the baroque. This went hand-in-hand with the change from the age of faith to the age of reason (the "enlightenment").

The reaction was so extreme that music of the previous period was forgotten by audiences and remembered only by specialists for many years. Despite some revivals, it never got back into general circulation until well into the 20th century.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I would say that the Classical period (including the preceding Galante period) represented a much more significant "breaking free" than the Romantic movement. Composers, and art in general, were casting off the cold, dead, churchly, and overly dry and complex art of the baroque. This went hand-in-hand with the change from the age of faith to the age of reason (the "enlightenment").
> 
> The reaction was so extreme that music of the previous period was forgotten by audiences and remembered only by specialists for many years. Despite some revivals, it never got back into general circulation until well into the 20th century.


Yes, those are good points as well. In actuality, no "copy" of any movement will do it like the real stuff. And even then, what we have now are just interpretations of it, but that's all we've got. I think trying to copy any form is even more of a ~stepping away~ than we already are. Let's do all of these movements a great honor and do something fresh, now.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Neo-Romantics have the sound without the "break-away" ideology, as someguy has put it. What makes the actual Romantics so compelling is the sudden burst of a unique expression that wasn't happening at that time. It was a sort of freedom from the old binding structures of previous eras. So to just copy the formulas, one is missing the whole point.


An odd point, when so much of the most beloved romantic music is *late* romantic music that came long after the "sudden burst" of Weber and kin. But hey, kudos to you for coming up with another reason for hating neo-romantic music than the standard "avant-garde or die" fare.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

arcaneholocaust said:


> An odd point, when so much of the most beloved romantic music is *late* romantic music that came long after the "sudden burst" of Weber and kin. But hey, kudos to you for coming up with another reason for hating neo-romantic music than the standard "avant-garde or die" fare.


I didn't see the earlier reasons for hating neo-romantic music, and I don't see the one in Vesuvius' post. Can you fill me in on that?

Also, I think that throughout "romantic" music there continued to be innovation, not only in harmony but in structure and instrumentation.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2014)

science said:


> I didn't see the earlier reasons for hating neo-romantic music, and I don't see the one in Vesuvius' post. Can you fill me in on that?
> 
> Also, I think that throughout "romantic" music there continued to be innovation, not only in harmony but in structure and instrumentation.


Yes, there continued to be innovation, but a continual "sudden burst"? Nah.

As for neo-romantic haters, I think there are the good arguments, and then the people that are hostile towards any contemporary composer that strayed from the avant-garde (oh hi, Penderecki, Rautavaara, etc).


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Yes, there continued to be innovation, but a continual "sudden burst"? Nah.
> 
> As for neo-romantic haters, I think there are the good arguments, and then the people that are hostile towards any contemporary composer that strayed from the avant-garde (oh hi, Penderecki, Rautavaara, etc).


The hate you see may be in yourself, as I certainly don't feel it. I'm simply saying that replicating an era's structure is only a small facade of what actually made those composers so special.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2014)

Of course. But as you know, neo-classicism is not a replica of classicism, nor is neo-romanticism a replica of romanticism.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Of course. But as you know, neo-classicism is not a replica of classicism, nor is neo-romanticism a replica of romanticism.


They are modern caricatures of the respective era. Hey... I enjoy them (preferably neo-classicism), but I'm not so tied up that I can't look at it with discerning eyes.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> A lot of composers of contemporary works are described as neo-classical. I am not going to look up the formal definition, but to me it sounds sort of 'Romantic' (note the capital R). Penderecki (post-1970s) comes to mind. Wolfgang Rihm.


All the 'to me, neoclassical / romantic / neoromantic "means"...' in the world do not clarify that which is already clearly enough defined and generally agreed upon. *Fact is, the more people rely on their 'to me's' instead of just looking these things up, the more discussion around any of those topics is, in a flash, reduced to a first-testament Babel-like state of 'language confounded."*

I don't know where the pain is in looking up the specifics of, say "Romantic," "Neoclassical" or "NeoRomantic" as per their contexts within the time-line of classical music (fear of losing one's "individualty?" -- lol.)

Both the classical music terms Neoclassical and Neoromantic have been appropriated -- "wrongly," if you will, _and with wildly different connotations_ -- by pop music genres. All the better reason to set ones self straight as to their actual meaning as per classical music.

Anyone who really cares to know, cares about classical music, past to present, might just want to look those terms up.

Here is one of the most outstanding online musical dictionaries for classical music terminology.
http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheorydefs.htm

And by the way, the above 'guess' as to what 'neoclassical' means -- or sounds like, is, with all due respect -- gasp --- flat out mistaken


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Yes, there continued to be innovation, but a continual "sudden burst"? Nah.
> 
> As for neo-romantic haters, I think there are the good arguments, and then the people that are hostile towards any contemporary composer that strayed from the avant-garde (oh hi, Penderecki, Rautavaara, etc).


I guess I just don't understand using the word "hate" in this kind of situation. To hate some kind of music is inevitably and precisely to hate the people who make it and enjoy it. I can't see a reason to do that. What's at stake that would require us to have such strong feelings about it? Surely they're no threat to us! I'd rather just settle for saying that I don't enjoy it, or perhaps that I don't understand the appeal of it, or that it doesn't do what I want music to do... something like that, so that I'm not attacking the people who do like it.

Using the word "hate" is just another volley in the eternal and unproductive war between the anti- and the pro-. The primary effect of that whole thing at this point in time is to shoo many people away from either sort of music, and that is the opposite of what I want us to do. I'd like people to be able to enjoy any kind of classical music without feeling that doing so requires them to engage in a culture war.

Edit: What I wanted that last sentence to mean is: I'd like people who don't want to engage in any kind of culture war to feel welcome to enjoy any kind of classical music. To enjoy the music for the music's sake, as it were, and allow them space to avoid the ideological battles. Saying "hate" forces, or attempts to force, them either to take up the fight or to give up the music. So, I really wish we could tone down the rhetoric in discussions like this. It's the classic thing, tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance. I think we can even look down on them within the privacy of our own minds without expressing it _at all_, for music's sake! Maybe it's a case of hoping to catch more flies with honey. But no matter what, the ideological warfare sometimes makes me wish not to like this music - I don't think I'm allowed within the terms of service of this site to express my depth or the fervency of my feeling on this point - and I'm sure it turns away a lot of other people who are not yet as devoted to the music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

If I was a composer, (or ever become one), I would want to follow more or less in the footsteps of composers like Schnittke and Gubaidulina who both wrote/write in avant-garde as well as more traditional styles. Why not do both? That's what I say. Come to think of it Prokofiev and Stravinsky were kind of like that too, whats with all these Russians being so nicely balanced in their approach?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

tdc said:


> If I was a composer, (or ever become one), I would want to follow more or less in the footsteps of composers like Schnittke and Gubaidulina who both wrote/write in avant-garde as well as more traditional styles. Why not do both? That's what I say. Come to think of it Prokofiev and Stravinsky were kind of like that too, whats with all these Russians being so nicely balanced in their approach?


Come to think of it Beethoven is another example of this type, and a lot of other composers to varying degrees.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I guess ordinary human activity in any field probably is a mix of inherited technique and creativity. I'll also guess that if we were totally indifferent to it, we'd see both the most innovative composers (or artists or whatever) and the most traditional as simply a mix of inherited technique and creativity. The sturm und drang begins when we start prescribing the proportions of tradition and creativity, and intensifies when we start attempting to socially punish people whose preferred proportions don't match ours.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

tdc said:


> If I was a composer, (or ever become one), I would want to follow more or less in the footsteps of composers like Schnittke and Gubaidulina who both wrote/write in avant-garde as well as more traditional styles. Why not do both? That's what I say. Come to think of it Prokofiev and Stravinsky were kind of like that too, whats with all these Russians being so nicely balanced in their approach?


I love Schnittke and Gubaidulina  Wuorinen (an American) is another great contemporary composer on the conservative side. He's serial, but pretty accessible if you've heard enough Second Viennese music. Indeed, there still is a lot of great stuff to explore in this area. The string sextet, mass, and microsymphony are pretty good.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

science said:


> I guess I just don't understand using the word "hate" in this kind of situation. To hate some kind of music is inevitably and precisely to hate the people who make it and enjoy it. I can't see a reason to do that. What's at stake that would require us to have such strong feelings about it? Surely they're no threat to us! I'd rather just settle for saying that I don't enjoy it, or perhaps that I don't understand the appeal of it, or that it doesn't do what I want music to do... something like that, so that I'm not attacking the people who do like it.
> 
> Using the word "hate" is just another volley in the eternal and unproductive war between the anti- and the pro-. The primary effect of that whole thing at this point in time is to shoo many people away from either sort of music, and that is the opposite of what I want us to do. I'd like people to be able to enjoy any kind of classical music without feeling that doing so requires them to engage in a culture war.
> 
> Edit: What I wanted that last sentence to mean is: I'd like people who don't want to engage in any kind of culture war to feel welcome to enjoy any kind of classical music. To enjoy the music for the music's sake, as it were, and allow them space to avoid the ideological battles. Saying "hate" forces, or attempts to force, them either to take up the fight or to give up the music. So, I really wish we could tone down the rhetoric in discussions like this. It's the classic thing, tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance. I think we can even look down on them within the privacy of our own minds without expressing it _at all_, for music's sake! Maybe it's a case of hoping to catch more flies with honey. But no matter what, the ideological warfare sometimes makes me wish not to like this music - I don't think I'm allowed within the terms of service of this site to express my depth or the fervency of my feeling on this point - and I'm sure it turns away a lot of other people who are not yet as devoted to the music.


Amen brother! Enjoy both the avant-garde and the neoromantic, Xenakis and Adams  There's great stuff in both camps, and everything in between.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Amen brother! Enjoy both the avant-garde and the neoromantic, Xenakis and Adams  There's great stuff in both camps, and everything in between.


That's my ideal, and I'm glad that a lot of people agree with this.

But I figure, if someone enjoys Xenakis exclusively, that's fine; or if someone enjoys Adams exclusively, that's fine. There's enough room in the pool for everyone. I wish more people agreed with this.


----------



## OlivierM (Jul 31, 2014)

I might sound a bit illiterate, but I don't associate music with historical context (too much). I like lots of church music pieces, while I live my life without the idea of religion, for instance.
In my opinion, the music that comes from a period is a testimony of the way artists used to write in that day, so why not making music like that if you can/like/want ?
Why being condescending to people who would write romantic (or any other genre) compositions nowadays, while we should acclaim two gazillions of Mozart, Bach or Beethoven interpretations (which sums up the programs of lots of classical concerts pretty well) ?
I tend to prefer difference over repetition (Deleuzian pun, but it's still early), if by any chance, someone is able to introduce some variation or other view compared to the period composers, if there are contemporary composers doing other things than contemporary, I'm interested in knowing them.
That was the body of my question.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Andreas said:


>


Wow, that's some of the most dreadful well-written music I've heard in a long time. It more than confirms to me "you just can't go back home again" as far as being able to express the ethos of another time without its sounding like a later sentiment which has gone dilute, been egregiously distorted and gone stale or rancid. I found this saccharine sweet, in a way no romantic from the romantic era could have ever come up with, saccharine not ever having been a part of the romantic era, in reality as an artificial sweetener nor part of the romantic ethos.

This also confirms my suspicion that there are _a lot_ of people who will accept anything 'romantic-like' because they evidently have worn out all the actual romantic repertoire they loved, or finally wearied of it, but they still seem _terrifically desperate_ in their hunger for "more like," and it seems for some with that hunger just about _anything_ remotely like will do.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I'm confused now, isn't Britten considered to be Neo-Romantic?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> I'm confused now, isn't Britten considered to be Neo-Romantic?


Whaaaaat? I bet he'd roll over in his grave if he knew he was thought of as any kind of romantic!


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

OlivierM said:


> I might sound a bit illiterate, but I don't associate music with historical context (too much). I like lots of church music pieces, while I live my life without the idea of religion, for instance.
> In my opinion, the music that comes from a period is a testimony of the way artists used to write in that day, so why not making music like that if you can/like/want ?
> Why being condescending to people who would write romantic (or any other genre) compositions nowadays, while we should acclaim two gazillions of Mozart, Bach or Beethoven interpretations (which sums up the programs of lots of classical concerts pretty well) ?
> I tend to prefer difference over repetition (Deleuzian pun, but it's still early), if by any chance, someone is able to introduce some variation or other view compared to the period composers, if there are contemporary composers doing other things than contemporary, I'm interested in knowing them.
> That was the body of my question.


The problem I personally have with writing romantic, classical, renaissance or baroque music nowadays is that, as a composer, you run a huge risk of simply condensing what has already been done into formulas. For example: If I were to write a baroque suite then I would probably be influenced by Händel, Bach and Rameau. I would use their music as a sort of foundation in ways a contemporary of them wouldn't have. It would never be as original as Scarlatti for example because I have already ruled out certain musical constructs because they don't "fit the style". It would be an approach of what I think a baroque piece should be at best because I can never forget my knowledge about happened musically after the baroque period.

What you can do however is simply be inspired by romantic music and give your own personal modern twist to it. That would be far more interesting.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Whaaaaat? I bet he'd roll over in his grave if he knew he was thought of as any kind of romantic!


Unless it was with young boys:S


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

OlivierM said:


> In my opinion, the music that comes from a period is a testimony of the way artists used to write in that day, so why not making music like that if you can/like/want ?


The key word there is "the way artists _*used to write*_, the other key element, inseparable and equally as important, is "_*in that day.*_"

The artists composing in "that day" were writing _contemporary music,_ and whatever their world-view, their thought patterns, beliefs, philosophies, emotions, _and the most contemporary of their musical vocabulary, the harmonies, the types of gestures,_ what they wrote, and why it still sounds _vital_ to us, is all inexorably tied to their "being there," i.e. a part of their own time and culture.

It is virtually impossible to recreate that, or to create it 'anew.' Composers today who are trained _simply know too much,_ of harmony, past history, and are infused with the set of same sensibilities I listed before, _but those sensibilities are of their own, current, time._ Even if they should opt / prefer / deliberately set down to write 'in the old manner,' it would be no longer a fresh adventure into the new, but an excursion into a past already first explored and fully mapped out by those composers of the past.

At best, one might get a very polished and somewhat believable _replica,_ or pastiche, of past style, but without its being creative and fresh, you have the inevitable difference between a replica and fresh invention. That difference is vast, regardless of the outward appearances or sound of the replica.

You may as well be asking for authors who write convincingly -- and genuinely -- like Flaubert.

What we do have, without the exact sound-world of the same use of harmony, is more contemporary composers whose works still manifest some of the traits (emotional) of romantic music. Something akin to that 19th century penchant for 'glory,' 'gigantism' and / or communicating _similar_ sentiments, declamatory and / or lyric music.

Samuel Barber is often called a modern 'very late romantic' composer. His _Violin Concerto_ and his _Piano Concerto_ are very romantic in tendencies, while still being in a conservative for the time 'modern' musical vocabulary. 
Barber:
Piano Concerto




Violin Concerto





The Rautavaara _Piano Concerto No. 1_ is one of the most romantic tinged pieces (the first movement, anyway) of any more contemporary piece I can think of, yet its harmonic vocabulary is near to completely remote from the romantics of the past, as I would expect it to be if it were to be at all successful as a new piece of music.





But really, is there not enough of the actual romantic composers and all they wrote to satisfy every bit of hunger or yearning for romantic music?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> I have recently become interested in exploring some of his music. It was Wikipedia that called him neo-romantic  Thanks for the recommendation.


Wikipedia, because it is so infamously unreliable, is banned as a source, i.e. any citations from it deemed unacceptable in just about every school, from primary school on up, on the planet.

I try not to trust Wikipedia on many matters unless I knew whatever 'it says' is already confirmed in more reliable sources, i.e. I use it to confirm my memory of what I've already learned elsewhere.

If you took some of what it said about classical music, or composers tagged as being of this school or another, as factual, you can sometimes end up with Wiki-Whacky conceits having nothing much to do with reality.


----------



## OlivierM (Jul 31, 2014)

Piwikiwi, those are valid arguments indeed. I'm not a composer, therefore I won't be able to aply your wise advice, but I definitely understand it.

PetrB, I can understand your point of view, but let's see it like this: if, in this day and age, we can still enjoy music composed by Beethoven, it might be because it is still historically compatible with our time. Which makes it... contemporary, in a way.
So, in my opinion, 'contemporary' being a suitcase-word (meaning anybody can associate the concept they want with it, like 'freedom' or 'truth'), I think dismissing the possibility to make a genre evolve, or even reproduce itself, outside of its era, is a bit monolithic.
The fact that most attempts have given questionable results, so far, doesn't mean it would be impossible to hear good examples.
But that's just my uneducated opinion.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Wikipedia, because it is so infamously unreliable is banned as a source, any citations from it deemed unacceptable in just about every school, from primary school on up, on the planet.


There's good and bad there. The good, that it helps students learn how to figure out what is likely to be true. The bad, that it perpetuates the assumption that perfectly reliable sources exist, when the truth is that nothing can be trusted absolutely.

The best way would be to acknowledge that Wikipedia (and Google and the internet in general) is one of the most powerful tools of our time, albeit (like many powerful tools) a dangerous one. Given that these things change rather quickly, probably the skill students really need is how to figure out how to use any such tool, how to judge when it's working and when it isn't. And actually I get the impression that the best, most thoughtful teachers at the best schools are doing precisely that, rather than merely pass on the prejudices of older generations of researchers.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

OlivierM said:


> Piwikiwi, those are valid arguments indeed. I'm not a composer, therefore I won't be able to aply your wise advice, but I definitely understand it.
> 
> PetrB, I can understand your point of view, but let's see it like this: if, in this day and age, we can still enjoy music composed by Beethoven, it might be because it is still historically compatible with our time. Which makes it... contemporary, in a way.


I wouldn't even say the effect this music of the past has on us is much of anything near the effect it had on its contemporaries, again because that was then and we are now. Sorry, I see your proposal as something akin to a syllogism, the conclusion being based on then and now. That older works still speak to us at all is already known, marveled at, but what we hear and how we hear it is irrefutably completely different from being a contemporary in the audience in Beethoven's time.

There was a thread on the 'landmark' piece first considered modern, the general (informed) consensus is that is Debussy's _Prélude à l'Après-midi d'un faune._ That piece, heard today, even knowing full well music theory, harmony, form and history in general, is nigh to impossible to hear as radical, oddly dissonant, weirdly shaped, etc. -- all of which it was, and how it struck the ears of its contemporary audience at its première. Hell, it is likewise with hearing Wagner as being wildly radical, so used to the musical procedures which are _Tristan und Isolde_ or music written not much later, even if you had never heard Wagner.

This phenomenon of not at all hearing music in the same way as a contemporary of that music in its own period is quite the same, and likely moreso, the further back in history the music sits.

Beethoven's music, the middle and late works especially, are talked about by some musicologists as probably sounding as strange to the ears of Beethoven's contemporaries as Schoenberg's music sounds to those audiences of the first serial music in the early part of the 20th century. This, I think, is really impossible to but imagine, i.e. we will never perceive it that way: simply too much time and change has happened since.

Even those emotions we think are embodied in the romantic era music, to which we give the same name, were somehow differently felt and thought of differently too by people in the past; as much as we may recognize them as near to the same, I am certain they were not exactly 'the same.'

As to the type of piece you think you might find from the mid, late 20th or made more currently, you will and can hear very well-done pastiche, or even parody, run across a brilliantly executed 'successful forgery,' if I may call it that, and no doubt some such efforts were / are wholly sincere, but I seriously doubt you would find anything which rings as 'sincere' or true to likeness as the genuine articles do.

But please, help me out personally and answer, "why yearn for, want for 'more' -- and it seems hope to find that more as made in a completely different era -- when there is so much of the real thing of such extraordinary high quality?


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2014)

OlivierM said:


> ...the music that comes from a period is a testimony of the way artists used to write in that day, so why not making music like that if you can/like/want ?


The music that comes from a period is not a testimony of the way, it is simply the way.

Making music that is "like" the music of the past is to treat the past--your past--_in a way that people in the past did not treat the musics of their past._

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand. (Well, I do have my suspicions....) If the people in the past whose music you admire had made music in the way you desire composers today to make music ("contemporary composers doing other things than contemporary"--Wow. Now there's revealin'!), then you would have much much less of the music you now admire to admire. You do understand that, don't you? If Beethoven had recycled Dowland or Gabrieli or Caccini, do you suppose that you would have any Beethoven to admire today? Even if he had introduced "some variation or other view" to their musical practices, you still wouldn't have the Eroica or the Appassionata or the Choral or the Grosse Fuge.

Or take Tchaikovsky, who adored Mozart and even wrote a suite which is known as the Mozartiana. Even there, the point is the same. Do you ever, even for a second, seriously suppose that if Tchaikovsky had made a career of channeling Mozart (and doing it less idiosyncratically even than in that suite, which I doubt would remind anyone of Mozart if they didn't have the name of the suite to go by) that you would be admiring his music today? Maybe admiring it so much that you formulated a wish that it would be nice if composers of your own time could very sweetly just for you maybe write a little bit more like Tchaikovsky than they do?

But that's just the point. Composers today--the ones doing things other than testimonies to bygone ages--*are* writing like Beethoven did. They *are* writing like Monteverdi and Bach and Berlioz and Schumann and Brahms and Debussy did. Which is to say that, being Lachenmann and Andre and Ferreyra and Barrett (Natasha) and Marchetti (either one), they are writing the music of Lachenmann and Andre and Ferreyra and Barrett and Marchetti.

Even Stravinsky at his most neoclassical (which is more a journalistic tag than anything else) was still writing Stravinsky music. But Schmidt-Kowalski, say, who is neoromantic in a nostalgic way, is not really writing Schmidt-Kowalski music. Indeed, I would say that we have no idea what Schmidt-Kowalski music could possibly be, since he never did any of it. And once the taste for faux-Romantic music has faded, Schmidt-Kowalski's neoromantic stylings will vanish forever.

And Haydn, who never did anything like Schmidt-Kowalski did, but wrote his own music, well Haydn's music will continue to nourish and to delight for any forseeable future.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

^^^

Or, as Oscar Wilde put is so well, 
*"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."*


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

To me, the idea that there is so much romantic music out there yet to explore is a compelling reason to explore more of it, regardless of whether anyone today is composing in that style, or how they are getting treated for doing so. On this specific matter I myself rest reasonably secure from fear of punishment by the cultural elite. 

Alas, though, the heart wants what the heart wants, and if someone's heart wants to hear romantic-ish works composed in the present, I cannot blame them, my own desires also being such as the cultural police do not always approve. 

I can't compose anything, but in other realms I sometimes have found myself wishing that a certain sort of thing - a certain work of art, let us say, using "art" with lamentably rude hands - would exist, and I find that I sometimes have to create it myself. It may not turn out exactly as I'd wish, but it's something rather than nothing. Perhaps there is an opportunity here for a musical version of creative anachronism. The community of people who want to hear contemporary compositions in romantic style can organize themselves and make them. You couldn't expect to gain the approval of the academies, but you could have a jolly good time anyway - maybe even more fun than if the cultural elite approved of your work or did the job for you!


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2014)

PetrB said:


> But really, is there not enough of the actual romantic composers and all they wrote to satisfy every bit of hunger or yearning for romantic music?


Your post already acknowledges that their music is not a replica of romanticism. Just like neoclassicism is not a replica of classicisim. Therefore, this sentence could really say "But really, we have Mozart and Haydn - do we really need these clowns Stravinsky and Prokofiev?" - which I know you didn't mean to say


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Don't know if anyone mentioned Barber's Adagio for Strings.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Your post already acknowledges that their music is not a replica of romanticism. Just like neoclassicism is not a replica of classicisim. Therefore, this sentence could really say "But really, we have Mozart and Haydn - do we really need these clowns Stravinsky and Prokofiev?" - which I know you didn't mean to say


That is completely twisted, and had nothing to do with what was very clearly said. I maintain you're trying to be clever with a slight inversion / insertion of the original, and have failed to be clever at all.

What you have twisted it to would get the same answer from me as if someone was asking for more music very like Prokofiev and Stravinsky, and my answer would be the same, "isn't there enough of the real thing from the original sources?"


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Don't know if anyone mentioned Barber's Adagio for Strings.


Barber already mentioned as a conservative modern with _very_ romantic musical tendencies and traits.

More and more certainly, the OP is looking for something akin to a very well-done forgery, an original work which could pass as having been written by a romantic composer in the romantic era. This is something I will never be able to fathom, looking for replicas and passable forgeries. There seems to not be a scintilla of interest in any newer slant on romantic, later modern romantic, or the more recent neoromantics, all of whom wrote / are writing something fresh and vital. ...all while there are stunning originals from the actual period littering the landscape aplenty -- go figure. I find in that mindset something highly effete or downright decadent, i.e. worn thin to threadbare, not long to live / barely alive, and that rather frightens me, actually.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

OlivierM said:


> PetrB, I can understand your point of view, but let's see it like this: if, in this day and age, we can still enjoy music composed by Beethoven, it might be because it is still historically compatible with our time. Which makes it... contemporary, in a way.
> So, in my opinion, 'contemporary' being a suitcase-word (meaning anybody can associate the concept they want with it, like 'freedom' or 'truth'), I think dismissing the possibility to make a genre evolve, or even reproduce itself, outside of its era, is a bit monolithic.
> The fact that most attempts have given questionable results, so far, doesn't mean it would be impossible to hear good examples.
> But that's just my uneducated opinion.


I understand your desire, and although I do not share the feeling, I think it certainly makes sense. You enjoy Romantic music and would like to hear more. Why not? It doesn't matter that people hearing Romantic music when it was contemporary responded differently than you do today. You're are not seeking their feeling - you're seeking more of your own.

As people have pointed out, there's plenty of Romantic music. Modern and contemporary composers generally do not compose strictly in the Romantic style for reasons already discussed. Some composers have evolved far from the Romantic style while others compose with romantic elements. I'm still not certain if you are looking for strictly Romantic era music composed later or if music with romantic elements would satisfy you. Have you found any of the suggested works enjoyable? If so, you might find that continued listening will open up a whole new set of music to enjoy.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> I'm confused now, isn't Britten considered to be Neo-Romantic?


One of Britten's epithets for music he despised, like that of Rachmaninoff and Puccini, was "sentimental slop". His own hard-edged style is related much more closely to Stravinsky (whom he had something of a rocky musical relationship with), Shostakovich (whose temperament was not towards the sentimental), and Berg.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Barber already mentioned as a conservative modern with _very_ romantic musical tendencies and traits.
> 
> More and more certainly, the OP is looking for something akin to a very well-done forgery, an original work which could pass as having been written by a romantic composer in the romantic era. This is something I will never be able to fathom, looking for replicas and passable forgeries. There seems to not a scintilla of interest in any newer slant on romantic, later modern romantic, or the more recent neoromantics, all of whom wrote / are writing something fresh and vital. ...all while there are stunning originals from the actual period littering the landscape aplenty -- go figure. I find in that mindset something highly effete or downright decadent, i.e. not long to live / barely alive, and that rather frightens me, actually.


Oh. Okay...I think... 

My mistake for taking the thread title as written?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Oh. Okay...I think...
> 
> My mistake for taking the thread title as written?


No one's fault. I don't think anyone thought, until the OP made it pretty clear in a post a good number of entries after the OP, that what was being sought was a near replica of earlier period music. Everyone was trying hard, and giving good suggestions, of any and all twists and varieties of genuine later music which had some romantic feel or impulse. I would be delighted if the OP found some joy in all that later good music, which is not a near replicate of any earlier composers.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> ^^^
> 
> Or, as Oscar Wilde put is so well,
> *"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."*


Yes. This is good advice. If you can't be yourself, then it's perhaps because "yourself" is lacking a bit in substance.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Yes. This is good advice. If you can't be yourself, then it's perhaps because "yourself" is lacking a bit in substance.


Even if that self lacks substance, and is a composer, that self would not be 'writing like name your romantic period composer, any more than a French writer today would think it keen to write, both content and style, what essentially would amount to another _Madame Bovary._

Like a friend of my commented when she heard the film _The Omen_ had been remade, _*"I mean, Gregory Peck and Lee Remick. Why Bother?"*_


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Even if that self lacks substance, and is a composer, that self would not be 'writing like name your romantic period composer, any more than a French writer today would think it keen to write, both content and style, what essentially would amount to another _Madame Bovary._
> 
> Like a friend of my commented when she heard the film _The Omen_ had been remade, _*"I mean, Gregory Peck and Lee Remick. Why Bother?"*_


I can see composing a piece in a certain style, long gone, as a theoretical exercise at a conservatory.

Prokofiev's Classical symphony was anything but direct imitation.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Prokofiev's Classical symphony is very original. It's a piece that is inspired by the Classical era and has some similarities to music from that time. The difference is, it could absolutely NOT be passed off as a piece written in 1790. It's a piece that belongs to the early 20th century 100%.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> Prokofiev's Classical symphony is very original. It's a piece that is inspired by the Classical era and has some similarities to music from that time. The difference is, it could absolutely NOT be passed off as a piece written in 1790. It's a piece that belongs to the early 20th century 100%.


That piece has Prokofiev's DNA stamped on every note of it, lol.

More to the point of discussion in the OP, Prokofiev very much remained himself as a composer, his thought when he wrote it was, _to compose a symphony which was very "Haydnesque," *but as if Haydn was still alive and composing in 1917.*_ Again, whenever the era, whatever the degree of innovation or even a less innovative composer 'just writing in the style of his own time,' *that perspective as taken by Prokofiev is ultimately progressive vs. retrogressive...* and therein lies a world of difference -- between something vital, or as dead (and just about as interesting and moving) as a taxidermied moose head.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I have no way of knowing, but I would bet a farthing that Haydn would have been absolutely delighted with Prokofiev's Classical Symphony, after being resurrected and brought up to speed in modern composition techniques, which would probably take Haydn a day and a half, if that long.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

violadude said:


> Prokofiev's Classical symphony is very original. It's a piece that is inspired by the Classical era and has some similarities to music from that time. The difference is, it could absolutely NOT be passed off as a piece written in 1790. It's a piece that belongs to the early 20th century 100%.


I agree, but even Prokofiev knew that it was a sort of playful re-masking of the past... which is why he didn't continue to do so. He was very much present in the 'now'.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> I agree, but even Prokofiev knew that it was a sort of playful re-masking of the past... which is why he didn't continue to do so. He was very much present in the 'now'.


It is less a re-making of any past, but imagining Haydn from the past into the present, a very different regard. There is but the slightest of slight echos of "Haydnesque," which also makes it more of a rather singular _à la manière de_ genre piece and not the more stringent neoclassical as not much later forged by Stravinsky.

Prokofiev's much later _Cinderella_ is also more a less than usual à la manière de, sort of work, again not really neoclassical. He got closer to something like neoclassicism with that wonderful _Sonata for Flute and Piano_, which I think is his only real excursion into pandiatonic writing, and perhaps even more into neoclassical mode in his brilliant but slightly orphaned and a bit too neglected _Piano Concerto No.4,_ especially with its more overtly baroque-ish 'bachian' first movement.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> It is less a re-making of any past, but imagining Haydn from the past into the present, a very different regard. There is but the slightest of slight echos of "Haydnesque," which also makes it more of a rather singular _à la manière de_ genre piece and not the more stringent neoclassical as not much later forged by Stravinsky.
> 
> Prokofiev's much later _Cinderella_ is also more a less than usual à la manière de, sort of work, again not really neoclassical. He got closer to something like neoclassicism with that wonderful _Sonata for Flute an Piano_, which I think is his only real excursion into pandiatonic writing, and perhaps even more into neoclassical mode in his brilliant but slightly orphaned and a bit too neglected _Piano Concerto No.4,_ especially with its nore overtly baroque-ish 'bachian' first movement.


Just for clarification, I said "masking" not "making." He was taking the structures of the past and putting a modern mask on it. And it was quite lovely, but I'm sure he knew that it wasn't the strongest way to progress.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Just for clarification, I said "masking" not "making." He was taking the structures of the past and putting a modern mask on it. And it was quite lovely, but I'm sure he knew that it wasn't the strongest way to progress.


Apology, that led to a slight misunderstanding. Still, I agree with you, (though I perhaps dither over your choice of words, which I think could mislead those not already in the train of thought here, i.e. I don't think he was "masking" anything.)

Prokofiev's _Classical Symphony_ was an essay (a highly successful try at that, and not anything in the way of a development along the way or a new direction. I'm sure he knew that, and to listen to it, it is difficult to imagine that he was not enjoying himself immensely, chuckling here and there, along his way in composing it. It still radiates ebullient good humor and charm, nearly one hundred years after he drew the double bar.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Apology, that led to a slight misunderstanding. Still, I agree with you, (though I perhaps dither over your choice of words, which I think could mislead those not already in the train of thought here, i.e. I don't think he was "masking" anything.)
> 
> Prokofiev's _Classical Symphony_ was an essay (a highly successful try at that, and not anything in the way of a development along the way or a new direction. I'm sure he knew that, and to listen to it, it is difficult to imagine that he was not enjoying himself immensely, chuckling here and there, along his way in composing it. It still radiates ebullient good humor and charm, nearly one hundred years after he drew the double bar.


Agreed, a more thoughtful verbiage could have been utilized, but I wasn't planning on going from the ground up. I was using that in the assumption of having people who already immersed themselves in what we are actually talking about. But, again, you have a bit more command of language than I do. I guess years of experience have done that. I'm 24, and in a slight yield of faulty remembrance, you're in your 50s... maybe 60s? Either way, I'm glad we have these dynamics.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2014)

PetrB said:


> That is completely twisted, and had nothing to do with what was very clearly said. I maintain you're trying to be clever with a slight inversion / insertion of the original, and have failed to be clever at all.
> 
> What you have twisted it to would get the same answer from me as if someone was asking for more music very like Prokofiev and Stravinsky, and my answer would be the same, "isn't there enough of the real thing from the original sources?"


You acknowledge that neoromanticism is NOT the same as romanticism in your earlier posts, and yet you imply that they are essentially the same by saying "isn't there enough of the real thing from the original sources?" Clearly the latter question was a joke, or you actually believe that neoromanticism is a replica of romanticism. Which is it?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> You acknowledge that neoromanticism is NOT the same as romanticism in your earlier posts, and yet you imply that they are essentially the same by saying "isn't there enough of the real thing from the original sources?" Clearly the latter question was a joke, or you actually believe that neoromanticism is a replica of romanticism. Which is it?


Well, you _were_ trying to be clever with a bit of word inversion as I thought. As I said, it failed, and now I think you're backfiring as well. Best not to play about with the words of someone who is in the midst of an action with intent of trying to clarify terms that are not understood by others, at least best to not venture that in next to the same moment.

I too have a fairly decent and flexible sense of humor (by some reports, anyway), yet I completely failed to recognize your joke as a joke. If you would consider me as a sort of guinea pig audience in that regard: I advise not taking that particular part of the set out on the road yet.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> One of Britten's epithets for music he despised, like that of Rachmaninoff and Puccini, was "sentimental slop".


He evidently was not too interested in putting a finer tuned spin on that, eh? 

(Britten also used to read through _all of_ Brahms annually, to reconfirm to himself what dreadful music it was, lol.)


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Well, you _were_ trying to be clever with a bit of word inversion as I thought. As I said, it failed, and now I think you're backfiring as well. Best not to play about with the words of someone who is in the midst of an action of intent in trying to clarify terms that are not understood by others at that same moment.
> 
> I too have a fairly decent and flexible sense of humor (by some reports, anyway), yet I completely failed to recognize your joke as a joke. If you would consider me as a sort of guinea pig audience in that regard: I advise not taking that particular part of the set out on the road yet.


I was pointing out that you contradicted yourself, and you have twice now pulled a standard move of some er...less reputable posters by completely avoiding the question.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> I was pointing out that you contradicted yourself, and you have twice now pulled a standard move of some er...less reputable posters by completely avoiding the question.


I did not controvert anything. I don't understand your misunderstanding, or think nor recall that I did an about face. I'll leave it up to you to assemble the string of entries which led you to believe so, and not out of any embarrassment on my part, but maybe a pm instead of cluttering up a thread with a misunderstanding between just two parties, since you seem to be the only one who found that I've contradicted what I've earlier said? Hmmm?

Until such time, and I will look at what you assemble, am also known to admit to error, etc. Meanwhile, I would very much appreciate it if you would give it a rest, as this 'issue' must be a yawn-inducing space waster to other readers in this thread.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2014)

PetrB said:


> I did not controvert anything. I don't understand your misunderstanding, or think nor recall that I did an about face. I'll leave it up to you to assemble the string of entries which led you to believe so, and not out of any embarrassment on my part, but maybe a pm instead of cluttering up a thread with a misunderstanding between just two parties, since you seem to be the only one who found that I've contradicted what I've earlier said? Hmmm?
> 
> Until such time, and I will look at what you assemble, am also known to admit to error, etc. Meanwhile, I would very much appreciate it if you would give it a rest, as this 'issue' must be a yawn-inducing space waster to other readers in this thread.


Very well. Perhaps I did misunderstand. I try to keep myself from arrogance from time to time. Who am I to think I'm anything special?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Very well. Perhaps I did misunderstand. I try to keep myself from arrogance from time to time. Who am I to think I'm anything special?


Me too.

Back to our business, guy...

I looked, and immediately found this:


arcaneholocaust said:


> You acknowledge that neoromanticism is NOT the same as romanticism in your earlier posts, and yet you imply that they are essentially the same by saying "isn't there enough of the real thing from the original sources?" Clearly the latter question was a joke, or you actually believe that neoromanticism is a replica of romanticism. Which is it?


I don't correlate "neoromanticism is NOT the same as romanticism" with any such implication that then saying ""isn't there enough of the real thing from the original sources?" is any sort of contradiction....

The actual romantic and neoromantic not being anything like the same thing (the neoromantic, the better of it, not at all trying to exactly replicate forms, vocabulary or procedures, but only sharing a bit of an ethos and using similar musico-dramatic gestures.) A near to perfect example of neoromantic might be Rautavaara's _Piano Concerto no. 1._ That is no real attempt at replicating romantic music while it is very much in sync with one aspect of the spirit of the romantic era ethos. _It uses a completely different form and vocabulary_, sharing really only some very similar musico-dramatic gestures of the romantic. Its sentimental import (whatever that is) is also not at all trying in any way to emulate or evoke the past.

That Rautavaara piece is no way imitative, it is not trying to replicate any kind of romantic era piece anywhere near exactly, nor does it pretend to be 'romantic as like to or of or from the period.' It is actually quite aggressively modern. This is a HUGE set of numerous differences between that and the most odd and treacle-sweet violin concerto someone put up in this thread.

Likewise, _classicism and neoclassicism coexist without the latter at all trying to directly imitate the former_. Neoclassicism looked / looks only slightly and somewhat lightly to the classical. Neoclassical could much more aptly be named neobaroque, since that is the font of the formats most looked at as their springboard models when first taking that plunge (no doubt at least in part looking for an alternative to the classical / romantic symphonic form box.) Martinů quite extensively, and Stravinsky not just a little, also used earlier _renaissance_ forms, as did both Webern and Berg.

My quandary is fathoming why anyone would want 'more music almost exactly like Mendelssohn, Schubert, (name of your favored romantic era composer(s) here) when those composers have supplied so much which many would concur is 'perfection in the romantic vein.'

Can anyone be that so thoroughly versed and cognizant in their listening experience, or have lived long enough, to completely tire of and 'run out of music' from those actual romantic sources? I find that impossible to believe, and find something disturbingly vacuous and effete about it, self-indulgent and passive in the extreme, it seems without being able or willing to put any real personal effort into plumbing anything close to the actual meaning and import of that older music, or meet it closer to something like on its own terms.

I think that mind-set is more truly about a type of pseudo-nostalgia, false because it is a longing for whatever the music from the romantic evokes, while the current listener did not live in that time, ergo, even with a thorough knowledge of the period's history, they cannot have any real nostalgia for the actual period or its actual sentiments, but only what they quite _selectively (and empirically) find is their own contemporary evoked sentiments layered upon that music of the past._

I really wonder if they are much discerning of what they actually hear, and I tend to think (rather unforgivingly, I confess) that they are more imposing their own 'contemporary/romantic notions' on the actual romantics of the past and are using the music in the most supremely passive manner possible vs. any working at even trying to meet its real vitality half-way on its own terms.

Any way you slice it, there is plenty more of the real and great stuff for them to feed upon, without reasonably expecting any contemporary to write to their whim.

The more successful (in my estimate, natch) of the neoromantic composers were / are writing modern music with only some romantically tinged ethos to it, whether that was Samuel Barber or any slightly or more directly 'neoromatic' composers active thereafter, and in their so doing I consider that music both new and fresh, not in any way an immediate or direct attempt to retrieve any part of a past era, its replicate sound, procedures, forms or ethos, i.e. it is unmistakeably music from their own (later) time. That music too, to be best taken in, needs to be accepted as from its own time and on its own terms -- but most music tends to be like that, lol.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2014)

Of course I don't understand why people would want to write like Mendelssohn, etc in the modern day either... perhaps I was just aggressively defending Rautavaara cuz he's my #1 soft-spot


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

This thread is currently closed for repairs.

Members are reminded once again of the ToS:



> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner.
> 
> Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.


Members should also be aware of the impact of their posts on others. If a member appears distressed or upset by your comments, then, as a matter of courtesy and politeness, you should make some effort to rectify the situation.

Equally, if you feel upset by a particular topic or comments, then nobody is forcing you to take part. Members must learn to avoid topics that upset them.

However, the overall aim of the site is to create a friendly and polite forum for the discussion of all forms of Classical Music in a civilized manner.

Some posts have been removed and others edited.


----------

