# Progression of Classical Music



## Sephron (Jul 21, 2009)

Hey everybody!

I found this really interesting article on the progression of classical music, and I wanted to get your thoughts on it. I'm going to provide the link from where I got it to give credit where credit is due. Plus, his thoughts are pretty much exactly what I think about the subject of it.

http://www.classicalconnect.com/node/2245

Enjoy!


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Very good article indeed. Made me like to read the book mentioned.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Sephron said:


> Hey everybody!
> 
> I found this really interesting article on the progression of classical music, and I wanted to get your thoughts on it. I'm going to provide the link from where I got it to give credit where credit is due. Plus, his thoughts are pretty much exactly what I think about the subject of it.
> 
> ...


Interesting indeed. I believe Berlioz' teacher also is said to have said, after experiencing the 5th Symphony, 
'Such music! It should not be written.' 
To which Berlioz is reputed to have replied, 
'Don't worry. Not much will be.'

On balance, I would prefer not to have people gorging on popcorn and chatting to each other during a recital, but then I don't like this in a movie theatre either.

Hopelessly retrograde, me.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

It explains the complainings of 'too many notes' Mozart recieved.

But it is curious to think that it was uncommon to heard a complete sonata or String quartet, even the late Beethoven, so much depending on the sequence of movements.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Thanks for sharing this.

Of course, for me the most obtuse progression is that we have become so entrenched in old, dead people music. It's all good and that, but the audiences in general have become very skeptical of new music. This is a shame. I think it stems from the idea that a new piece has not had the filter of time to reveal it's worth, therefor new music is unpredictable, and audiences are not sure if they should like it or not - too much thinking. And I'm not saying I am above this...

Applauding between movements - sometimes it is good, sometimes not. I think that it should be allowed, but, if it desired not to by the performers, they simply tell the audience this. (ie. how can one NOT applaud after the 1st movement of the Tchaikovsky violin concerto?) And even sometimes it is best with no applause after - rarely, but sometimes there should be a lingering emotion that will be upset by applause.

Mixing the repertoire - I am so very for this. How fresh a solo piano can sound in and amongst a symphonic program - like a palette cleanser. Why not a string quartet playing from the wings, or a vocal ensemble. There is so much room here to really invigorate the concert experience. + this would diversify the rehearsal pressures - a Mahler symphony could be accompanied by chamber music, thus allowing the orchestra to really dig into rehearsing the Mahler and not become overly expensive.

Personally, when I am listening to great music, I want silence! Our world is littered with extraneous, hard, mechanical grinds, honks, sirens, beeps and blops.. I want to hear the detail that the performer and composer are providing. I want the RIGHT to have this experience. I get very upset with noise makers...

...unless, it is obviously that kind of concert. In a bar or some kind of casual setting. And these can be good as well. But if I'm out for a night with classical music, can ya'll just be quiet...please! I don't think this is "bourgeois", just a respect for the ears, and what they can do.

Would you like a movie with someone every so often waving their hands in your face? Or a meal where every 4th bite is laced with salt? Or viewing art but part of the canvass is covered?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Fascinating article. Sounds like the classical concerts of the old days were more like the jazz gigs of today, with the audience applausing during the music, etc...


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> And even sometimes it is best with no applause after - rarely, but sometimes there should be a lingering emotion that will be upset by applause.


A prima facie example being the last three Beethoven piano sonatas, especially Op 109, 111.
Applause is simply inappropriate in that it does not represent what one feels.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

The past few years I've been attending mostly contemporary music concerts. And in that enviroment, there is definately a lot more freedom for the audience, since, in many cases, the works themselves call for an interaction with the audience.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Well, one of the main reasons I consider myself among those who loathe modern music in concert is that most modern music concerts appeal to a vast array of non-musical procedures I can't support. Another problem is that it is something shot and miss, because most of the times I find myself counting the time before the concert ends, so bored I often am with new compositions. Not that I think that modern music is crap, it has some pearls, but most of it is, like, I guess, it was in every period.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> Well, one of the main reasons I consider myself among those who loathe modern music in concert is that most modern music concerts appeal to a vast array of non-musical procedures I can't support.


For the same reason I really like going to contemporary music concerts.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

danae said:


> For the same reason I really like going to contemporary music concerts.




"Well, one of the main reasons I consider myself among those who loathe modern music in concert is that most modern music concerts appeal to a vast array of non-musical procedures I can't support."

bdelykleon, would you care to elaborate on this? I'm curious. Maybe there should be a new thread...

I would also like to add that one of the issues surrounding contemporary new music is programming. First, it is often difficult to program new works because they will require extra rehearsal time, as they are both unfamiliar and often, tricky to navigate. But more importantly, where to put the piece - and with what?

In relation to the article, I think it will be (and already is), one of the saving graces of modern music is it's adaptability. Unusual music paired with unusual setting - they could compliment each other. Music can be composed FOR new concert venues or programming styles.

And yes, it is true, the weeds have not been pulled from the modern repertoir - there will be some works that fail to stimulate, or move. But I think, to a degree, the audience should try to be open to the experience, and allow the composer to speak their language. At least, this is how I like to try and present it.

And things are constantly changing. I'm sure there are more composers in the world than ever before. The idea of "new music" is changing - and we are all part of it, as it is the art of our time.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> Applauding between movements - sometimes it is good, sometimes not. I think that it should be allowed, but, if it desired not to by the performers, they simply tell the audience this. (ie. how can one NOT applaud after the 1st movement of the Tchaikovsky violin concerto?) And even sometimes it is best with no applause after - rarely, but sometimes there should be a lingering emotion that will be upset by applause.


Today, if there is applause in the middle of a work, the applauders are often seen as idiots, and you can almost hear the sighs in the orchestra. 



> Mixing the repertoire - I am so very for this. How fresh a solo piano can sound in and amongst a symphonic program - like a palette cleanser. Why not a string quartet playing from the wings, or a vocal ensemble. There is so much room here to really invigorate the concert experience. + this would diversify the rehearsal pressures - a Mahler symphony could be accompanied by chamber music, thus allowing the orchestra to really dig into rehearsing the Mahler and not become overly expensive.


I couldn't agree more! It's sad how chamber music is shoved to the side. I would love to go to a concert with solo or chamber music before the intermission and orchestra music after.



> Personally, when I am listening to great music, I want silence! Our world is littered with extraneous, hard, mechanical grinds, honks, sirens, beeps and blops.. I want to hear the detail that the performer and composer are providing. I want the RIGHT to have this experience. I get very upset with noise makers...
> 
> ...unless, it is obviously that kind of concert. In a bar or some kind of casual setting. And these can be good as well. But if I'm out for a night with classical music, can ya'll just be quiet...please! I don't think this is "bourgeois", just a respect for the ears, and what they can do.


Absolutely! When it comes to classical music, it doesn't take much to ruin the whole experience for other people. And the usual classical concert crowd knows this, and behaves accordingly. It's just a matter of respect, as you say.

But then, it can be a cultural thing too. I once heard a Swedish musician describe a small concert tour he made in China in the 80's or so. To his surprise, the audience never got quiet. People talked and talked. He started playing, but after a while, he stopped playing and asked them to please be quiet. And they got furious! So he finished the concert and then got the hell out of there. 



> Would you like a movie with someone every so often waving their hands in your face?


Isn't that what it's like at the movies nowadays? Constant chatter and cell phones going off and people running around?


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> And yes, it is true, the weeds have not been pulled from the modern repertoire - there will be some works that fail to stimulate, or move. But I think, to a degree, the audience should try to be open to the experience, and allow the composer to speak their language.


Speak whose language? The composer's, or the audience's? (Sometimes grammar matters!)

I think it may be a bit ingenuous to refer to the devastation caused by certain 20th century schools in terms of 'weeds that have not been pulled'. I see this more in terms of a huge problem for contemporary composers.

Given the prevalence of sheer garbage in the 20th century repertoire, one can hardly blame audiences for assuming that contemporary work X is unlikely to grab them. However unfair this may be to certain composers, this is the way it is. (naturally, as always, imho)


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Yosser said:


> Given the prevalence of sheer garbage in the 20th century repertoire, one can hardly blame audiences for assuming that contemporary work X is unlikely to grab them. However unfair this may be to certain composers, this is the way it is. (naturally, as always, imho)


Don't forget that there was a lot of "garbage" prior to th 20th century, and they, too, were performed, some of them with great success. I don't think that garbage prevails -as you put it- in concerts of 20th century music or contemporary music. Maybe the musical language used by many composers, especially after WW II is not easily accessible, but I wouldn't call the music garbage.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

danae said:


> Don't forget that there was a lot of "garbage" prior to th 20th century, and they, too, were performed, some of them with great success. I don't think that garbage prevails -as you put it- in concerts of 20th century music or contemporary music. Maybe the musical language used by many composers, especially after WW II is not easily accessible, but I wouldn't call the music garbage.


The 20th century, as any other period, has a majority of pure garbage with some few gems. Just look at the operas shown in late 18th century Austria, few were later re-staged and an even fewer number is even remembered these days.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> The 20th century, as any other period, has a majority of pure garbage with some few gems. Just look at the operas shown in late 18th century Austria, few were later re-staged and an even fewer number is even remembered these days.


I guess for me it is the word "garbage" that bothers me. What about "Ok", or "decent"? That is where I find most music lies. Some is great, some is bad - most is in the middle - works that both pass and fail on different measures. I just can't take someone's artistic efforts and summarize them as garbage - at least not easily.


----------

