posted
So every once in a while I'm discussing musical styles, and I want to refer to a certain type of music. This genre includes most of the music that has survived from the 19th century and earlier in Europe and its influenced cultures, and could also be used to describe much of the music written in the 20th century. It is a very broad categorization, including music from such diverse composers at Monteverdi, Wagner, Stravinsky, Chopin, and possibly even Gershwin and Glass. However, it does not include jazz, rock, rap, soul, techno, blues or pop.
This type of music is colloquially referred to as "classical music". However, as I have been taught since I can remember, this is a notoriously inadequate description. Depending on how you classify it, the term "classical music" can describe anything from (on the more conservative end of the scale) solely the music that was prevalent among professional European musicians roughly between the eras of C.P.E. Bach and Beethoven, to (by more liberal definitions) any music from any part of the world that has developed a canon and strict structural rules, from Chinese opera to American jazz.
However, although I've known as long as I can remember that this type of music isn't really "classical" music, I've never heard a better term to describe it. I can't call it orchestral music, because it can be written for anything from solo instruments to orchestra and solo voice to choruses. I can't call it concert music, because, for example, I'm going to see The Who in concert in a couple months and I don't expect them to be rolling out their new symphony. I can't call it "pre-20th century music" because much of it was written in the 20th century, and much of the music that was written before the 20th century, even in Europe, was folk music and didn't fall into that category.
So when I'm referring to this type of music I'm forced to call it classical music, even as my inner grammar Nazi cringes at the sound.
Has anyone here ever heard a better way to describe this type of music? Or do you just call it classical music and not let your OCD get the better of you? And if so, how do you refer to the music of Mozart, Haydn and Schubert without confusing it with Vivaldi and Tchaikovsky?
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if so, how do you refer to the music of Mozart, Haydn and Schubert without confusing it with Vivaldi and Tchaikovsky?
I just name the composer or the specific genre (Baroque, Romantic, High Renaissance, Chinese communist opera etc). However, I have a music 101 class tomorrow and I shall ask the question in class. I'm sure no one would mind discussing it.
Those were arbitrary groupings right? Beside my inner OCD can't figure out why Schubert is placed with Mozart and Haydn.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess Schubert was a bit borderline, right? I tend to think of him as more late-classical than early-romantic, but not having a heck of a lot of formal training, I'll have no trouble admitting I could be wrong.
Anyway, that would be cool if you'd ask your class about that. I'll be interested to hear what they say.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
So when I'm referring to this type of music I'm forced to call it classical music, even as my inner grammar Nazi cringes at the sound.
Has anyone here ever heard a better way to describe this type of music? Or do you just call it classical music and not let your OCD get the better of you? And if so, how do you refer to the music of Mozart, Haydn and Schubert without confusing it with Vivaldi and Tchaikovsky?
This is a matter of perception. I think we have a problem with the way we categorize music, not semantically, not based on what we call it, but based on how we think about it.
You said: anything that doesn't include pop, rock, jazz, blues, etc. The thing is these nitches have always existed in music. We don't often hear a Shcumann, Brahms or Schubert song and think "that's pop music." But the thing is alot of that music was aimed at a popular audience, and designed to be an intertaining, playable (sometimes) diversion for ordinary people. Alot of the German style leider weren't original "concert" peices, they were renderings of folk songs made for parlor amatuer.
I will define "classical" for you in the best way I can. The Classical movement in music, which saw its greatest advocates in Mozart, or Mendellsohn (some would argue), is interested in exploiting the relationships of diatonicism. That is, the most important relationship in classical music of any period is the relationship between the Dominant and Tonic chords in a given key.
The profound stability and structural integrity of Mozart's music is based on "classical" Greco-Roman philosophies of order and structure. A peice is divided into two or three equal parts, each is repeated, each is varied, then repeated, then the larger structure repeats itself. The idea is the same as building a large dome with columns, the key to stability will be to have a well balanced structure, one that mirrors itself by half, or by thirds, and then by smaller peices which are mirrors of eachother.
Romantic music benifits entirely from this schema of balance and structure, but takes joyous pleasure in agrandizing every building, making everything bigger, balancing smaller unique peices on the original structure, and manipulating the basic design until it grows into something far more organic, rather like a giant, knotted tree. Mahler could never have succeeded in producing hour or more long symphonies without this inherent appreciation of balance; he characterized Romantic music by taking that balance one further, into the intellectual rhelm. While Mahler's music benefitted enormously from the lessons taught by Beethoven and Mozart, he was the most successful, probably of all time, in programming his music to balance musical structure and literary meaning in hand in hand. This was the height of romanticisml the exploitation of ultimate control over the forces of music to express the most broad and the most detailed thoughts it could express.
Where all that I have just described bares a relationship to Mozart, or to Bach? Great question. It doesn't really build on the foundation that was set by Bach, or Mozart or even Beethoven. No, it doesn't really build on that foundation; instead it takes the picture of what music is known to be capable of, and it morphs that image, it stretches things and bends things, and warps reality.
To say that the basis of Mahler or Beethoven is Mozart or that the basis of Mozart is Bach would be silly. Though there is an obvious influence, you aren't going from A, to B, to C. Your taking A and applying you world view to what A taught you, and that is helping you to create K, which in turn colors the world view of the composer who incorporates some new philosophy into what he knows and creates X.
In fact pop and rock, and blues and everything in popular music is most strongly influenced by a simplistic idea of what music IS, based on the forms of music first codified in the 13th and 14th centuries. "Songs" as we know them in pop music are the latter day cousins of early music "dances," they same patterns of music which would later serve as frameworks for the classical composers, and the romantics. There is not a continuous stream of evolution in all music which is "academic," or "pure;" but in fact the whole of our musical heritage serves as a guide to the possibilities that await us.
I think that often times today people see "pop" music as something new having evolved recently to suit some sort of simple-hearted desire of the people to just like music for sounding good. Well, people have always wanted good sounding music, and in fact people have always listened to pop music, since before music was first written down nearly a millenium ago. Actually the music people listen to on the radio is preserving a tradition of music FAR older than that of classicism or romanticism, one that predates mozart and Bach and all the late greats. Songs and dance music predate all the philosophy behind structure in music, to a time in which music filled a space, any space where it was required, and by any instrument on hand, if not only the human voice.
Since I've rambled and given you my personal opinions on the workings of the universe, here is my answer to your question: Use the best terms you know withing the greater "classic-romantic" umbrella. Bach is a boroque composer, Dowland was renaissance, Josquin was gallant, Perotin was early polyphony, etc.
If people turn their noses up at you for using these more specific classifications, then they are either very rude or very ignorant, since anyone should at least be interested in knowing more about such an important topic. Its alright if people don't know, but it isn't ok for people to try to silence you and marginilize you by making you feel like an eccentric , arcane thinker. I don't know why I said this just now, but I think I had the feeling this was all in reaction to your frustration in trying to talk to people about music they have pigeon-holed as "boring classical," or something like that. Then again that's just an expression of my own interactions with the world, so maybe I am getting a little cathardic on you. Oh well.
I suggest you check out a couple of books on music history from your library and just read about the philosophies involved in each period of music, including the one I've ignored here, 20th century music, as it is a particular hornets nest of categorical issues. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's some good info, Orincoro. Thanks for going into so much detail... I'm always interested to hear what scholars say on the subject, and it was a most interesting read.
Nevertheless, it does leave part of my question unanswered. Perhaps I ought to clarify--I don't know if my original post stated the problem coherently enough.
The problem isn't that I think that some of these pieces didn't fill some sort of "popular music" function when they were written. Nor is it that I'd ever refer to Vivaldi or Shostakovich themselves, when discussing them individually, as "classical" composers. It's when I have to make more general statements.
For example, sometimes I want to describe radio shows that I used to do where I'd play anything in my collection from Machaut to Copland. If I can't call that a "classical" show, what do I call it without spending 30 seconds giving an exhaustive list of genres and sub-genres? Or when I'm showing someone how my CD collection is organized. "This is the rock section, this is the techno section, this is the hip-hop section, this is the jazz section, and this is the... renaissance/baroque/classical/romantic/20th Century... section"? It seems like there should be a quicker and easier way of making admittedly broad generalizations without wasting so much breath and sounding like such a looney as well.
I mean, if you can talk about anyone from Scott Joplin to Louis Prima to Dave Brubeck to John McLaughlin by saying "jazz" without having to go into swing, bebop, hard bop, cool, fusion, modal, etc, you'd think there would be an analogue for these other genres.
posted
In our household that kind of music was collectively called "Dad's Music" by all members of the family but one. That one called it "Music" and used a modifier for the other stuff.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Baron, in that case unfortunately very few people are going to know or care about the difference between Machaut and Copland. I'd call it "early to modern" music, if pressed for a snappy category. It really just isn't "classical," now when your talking about either of those composers, so saying that just isn't fair.
I always think its ok for most people to generalize incorrectly, but I try not to do it. I see your responding to a need to be succinct and specific when talking about two very different things which is pretty tough. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a technically correct term here. In broad general terms, most people divide music into two broad classes. Popular music and Classical music.
Within the broad class of popular music, we have folk, jazz, rock, pop, and so on. Each of those classes can be further subdivided.
Withing the broad class of "Classical Music", we have baroque, classical, romantic, modern, impressionist, neo-classical, expressionist, minimalist and so on.
The confusion comes because Classical is a subclass or style within the broad class of "Classical Music". While it would be nice if there was a widely accept different term, I haven't been able to find one.
The same problem exists in literature as well as music. The term "literature" in its broadest sense refers to any writing in prose or verse. Missionaries and salesman hand out "literature" to spread their message all the time. And yet literature also has a much more specific meaning when it is used to denote writings that achieve an excellence of form and address ideas of universal importance or interest. We distinguish the two meanings based on context.
It would be useful if we had different widely accepted words that clearly distinguished the different meanings, but we don't. We must communicate with the language we have and not the language we wish had.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It would be useful if we had different widely accepted words that clearly distinguished the different meanings, but we don't. We must communicate with the language we have and not the language we wish had.
If Shakespeare had followed that advice, his plays would have suffered horribly. He invented new words all the time, and its perfectly acceptable to apply new meanings or adopt new usages into the language for your own purposes, so long as it is done clearly and with good judgment.
Machaut is as relative to "classical" music as Tupac, and in fact Tupac is more heavily influenced by classicism, since his music came after centuries of classical development. Machaut's music was all coloquial, all improvizational, and it doesn't bare a significant resemblence to Beethoven in any way more significant than any other type of music. It only preceded Beethoven, it did not evolve into Beethoven. I can't see why we should be forced to "settle" on a term which is simply not sufficient for expressing that point. There is NO dividing line between genres!
You start off saying: "Within the broad class of popular music, we have folk, jazz, rock, pop, and so on. Each of those classes can be further subdivided."
Well that's the way we tell ourselves to think about music, but the generalization doesn't fit the reality in a supportable way. The greater part of what some call "classical" music is and was equally popular. In fact Clara Shumann privately critisized Brahms first symphony because it wasn't "popular." By this she meant that it wasn't catchy enough, and didn't include enough memorable tunes. There was NOTHING academic about Brahms' music, because he wasn't writing it to prove a point about anything. We tend to look at that era in music as if the composers were mad scientists concocting musical experiments, or mathematicians proving complex quadratics through the tones of a symphony or a song. It doesn't work that way though, that music is neither "popular" or "academic," it simply fills the need of the composer, no matter when it was written, to express whatever the composer needs it to. This hasn't changed in a thousand years, and its as true for Britney Spears as it is for Beethoven (although history is the judge of which composer or performer is worth remembering, and Spears will not be one of them).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, your explanation was marvelous. If only I'd had that to draw upon as I was taking my Nature of Music course and Music History sequence in college...
Though you were very complete, I have one thing to add, if I may. It is this:
One cannot classify a composer in a single category. Beethoven started off as a Classical composer, using, as Orincoro said, quite diatonic music and rather simple forms. His later music (just about everything after Symphony no. 3 "Eroica") would fall more into the Romanticism category. George Harrison of the Beatles wrote music for filmscores that wouldn't even be recognizable when placed next to a Beatles chart.
I really admire this statement, in particular, Orincoro:
"To say that the basis of Mahler or Beethoven is Mozart or that the basis of Mozart is Bach would be silly. Though there is an obvious influence, you aren't going from A, to B, to C. Your taking A and applying you world view to what A taught you, and that is helping you to create K, which in turn colors the world view of the composer who incorporates some new philosophy into what he knows and creates X."
This is a VERY elegant means of stating a great truth about the development of art, in general, not just music. But we must also remember that sometimes, forms and styles of an art develop in reaction AGAINST a particular style. Schoenberg destested the over-emotional sentimentalism of much of the Romantic music of his era, and desired to create music that was based solely on numbers, structure, and form. Hence, serialism.
Anyway, my hat is off to you, Orincoro, for your VERY apt explanation of a tricky and oft-debated question.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A thought, but I haven't the time to flush it out:
Perhaps 'classical music' is really about the combination of the instruments involved and the method in which the musical knowledge is transmitted (notation).
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand your point, Orincoro. Nevertheless, I do think there is a certain utility in lumping these types of music together. I'll give you a couple of examples:
First off, as I mentioned, I used to be a DJ. It was a college station, and I was the station manager, so I could play pretty much whatever I was in the mood for. However, I liked to try to maintain a consistent listenership, at least over the course of individual shows, so I'd often choose a theme. So say I'm playing Shostakovich's Symphony no. 5 in D-minor. In your opinion, would it be more appropriate to follow that up with a Brandenberg Concerto, or "Dead or Alive" by Bon Jovi? As you said, there are enormous stylistic differences between Bach and Shostakovich, and Bon Jovi did have much of the same couple centuries' musical development to draw on in his compositions, which, along with the chronological proximity, might seem to make him a better match. Nevertheless, if I were to follow Shostakovich with Bon Jovi, a person who liked one of those things would very likely be annoyed by the other, and I'd soon find myself with no audience. Even scholars who understand the relative similarities and differences in compositional styles would probably find it an easier transition to go backwards 200 years to Bach than forward 50 years to Bon Jovi.
Second, go into a library and browse through their CD collections. You'll find that Stravinsky is in the same general section as Mozart, and nowhere near the sections containing Def Leppard and Tupac. In fact, even when they subdivide these categories, in the libraries I've seen they don't go chronologically, or in order of musical innovations. They'll divide them into compositional types. For example, in my library you'd find Appalachian Spring in the same section as Art of the Fugue, but not Debussy's etudes, because the first two are orchestral works. And even among similar composition types, we'll find differences. La Boheme would be in the same section as Fidelio, but not The Who's "Tommy". Brahms' German Requiem will be in the same section as St. Matthew's Passion, but not the new Polyphonic Spree album. Mozart's 9th piano concerto would be in the same section as Rachmaninoff's 2nd, but not Bill Evans' "Waltz for Debby". And I'd be surprised if you found anyone, no matter how extensive their knowledge of music history and theory, that will argue that it should be any different.
Yes, there may be enormous stylistic differences in these categories that are obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of music theory. But there is still a certain logic to having a very broad musical category for situations like these that includes Handel and Stravinsky, but not Snoop Dogg or Billy Ray Cyrus. As useful as it may be to understand the difference between baroque and romantic composers, it can be just as useful to see their similarities. And since these people are going to continue to be put in the same category, all I'd really like is a bleedin' word for that category, so that I'll know how to describe it.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: In fact pop and rock, and blues and everything in popular music is most strongly influenced by a simplistic idea of what music IS, based on the forms of music first codified in the 13th and 14th centuries.
My music theory teacher in high school taught us modality using pretty much heavy metal and hard rock. Iron Maiden got in a lot of Dorian, Aoelian, and Phrygian modes. It was a great teaching technique, as I still recognize a lot of the "sounds" . . .
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would "Orchestral Music" be a fitting name? I am far from an expert regarding the composers you mentioned, but from what I do know it seems that they mostly composed for large orchestral ensembles (or for instruments commonly found in orchestras, in the case of string quartets, etc.). Obviously there are exceptions to this, but in general I think the name is appropriate, and has the added benefit of being descriptive even to the uninformed through the obvious reference to the type of ensemble making the music.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I mentioned in my first post, I'd considered the term "orchestral music." But it doesn't seem to work. For example, Chopin's nocturnes or the Goldberg variations, which were composed for solo piano, are certainly not orchestral. Neither is something like The Messiah, which is just as much choral as orchestral. Operas tend to be lumped into this category, even though the solo human voice tends to be the focus of the composition. And the term "orchestra" is imprecise enough that you could probably apply it to George Clinton's P-Funk All-Stars more easily than a woodwind or percussion ensemble that you'd find playing some of this music. And finally, the orchestras that people like Puff Daddy and Metallica hire to back them up, and the pop orchestras that make cheesy albums covering the music of Sting and Led Zeppelin, are clearly nowhere near this genre, despite their instrumental composition.
It's a good thought, and one I have given much consideration to, but in the end it just doesn't work for me.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You start off saying: "Within the broad class of popular music, we have folk, jazz, rock, pop, and so on. Each of those classes can be further subdivided."
Well that's the way we tell ourselves to think about music, but the generalization doesn't fit the reality in a supportable way. The greater part of what some call "classical" music is and was equally popular. In fact Clara Shumann privately critisized Brahms first symphony because it wasn't "popular."
Just one other issue I have with this point. Pop music, according to my understanding, is just the name of a genre of music. "Pop" music doesn't have anything more to do with being popular than "romantic" music has to do with being about two people in love, or "20th Century" music has to do with anything written between 1901 and 2000. If you're saying that Mozart was "pop music" because people liked it, you're using a different definition of the term than the one I've heard in any of my studies. Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bando, thanks for the Kudos, I'm flattered that I seem to have struck a chord. *pun intended.
Baron Samedi makes a good point about the culture surrounding music collecting, and categorizing. I'm talking about something a bit different, the truth about the music is often quite different from our perception of the music, that is quite true.
I think this has to do partly witht the fact that most if not all early polyphonic music, and pre-baroque music which survives is introduced to the public through the establishment which is already in place to provide people with more recent, more "classical" works. Think about this: who is more likely to go into the old codices and look up interesting peices that haven't been recorded? Well its always going to classically trained performers, and they are always going to network through their classically minded social groups. If a more popular group like Rockapella dug up the chantilly codex and did a few interpretations of the music, its likely that music would be labeled as 'pop' influenced, because of who recorded it, and their general style. I would welcome that, since polyphony isn't sacrisanct, reserved only for bearded bespectacled white men in tweed to know and love and extol.
The culture encourages people to label and judge the importance, the relevance, or the beauty and funness of a peice of music by association. If metallica does a Bach peice, its cool, and if the London Phil does a Nirvana peice, they are cool by association. Interestingly too, many people simply respond well, or badly, to the classicization of popular music. When I played a radiohead cd for my dad, he didn't like it, but when I played the Chris O'Reilly piano arrangement of the same Cd, he loved it. Why? I don't think it was entirely based on the style, or the orchestration, but he simply associated a certain sound with music he doesn't appreciate on any level.
Your local library shelves music by association, because that is the way we are trained to recognize things, those are patterns that appeal to our senses the most. They aren't more correct because they work that way, and we can nod knowingly, and accept that this is the way of things, this is the compromise that we must make. Don't assume, however, that your local library has gotten it right, and we should adopt these types of "classical v. Pop" music guidelines in our hearts, I don't think we should at all. Its the kind of attitude that makes me feel like an old man when I look into people's eyes and say I play "classical" guitar (even I say this).
What of this past century will survive as the great music of our age? Well let me ask you what great peices of music you remember from the 1940s, or the teens or 20s? Do you say Shostokovich, Rachmoninof, Stravinsky? Can you name an american crooner who was popular on the radio in those years? I can name exactly one, and I don't remember any of his music (Bing crosby). So that should tell you something about what history thinks of the recording industry. (just a side rant, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...) Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kristen: Perhaps 'classical music' is really about the combination of the instruments involved and the method in which the musical knowledge is transmitted (notation).
Ars Nova style notation (what evolved into modern day notation styles and technique), predates classicism by several centuries. Besides which, much baroque and romantic music was improvizational, notated in much the same way that modern chord charts and tabs work; essentially the same system that a studio pop musician would use to notate his work today. This style of "lead sheet" notation is very old indeed, and is a skeletal roadmap for the artist who plays mainly by feel.
Notation style are very much related to the development of modern and classical and romantic music, because ars nova notation allowed for the first time, and rythm and any melody to be notated exactly correctly. However that is not the chicken that begat the first egg, it is simply a vehicle, that carries no special ideology.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well let me ask you what great peices of music you remember from the 1940s, or the teens or 20s? Do you say Shostokovich, Rachmoninof, Stravinsky?
OK, I admit it. I have a very "pop" music sort of mind when it comes to the 1940s. My first thought on reading that was Danny Kaye's Tchaikovsky. (Scroll down. It's number 23. The preview will give you the idea.) Now, I know, this is not exactly Great Music, but it is very fun. Although I do prefer Mandy Patinkin's version to Danny Kaye's. (Track #3, but it cuts you off before it gets good. Lots of other fun songs from the pre 1940s era on that CD too.)
And I can name several crooners. Besides Crosby and Kaye (who could croon, even if he was better known for his patter), there was also Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Nat King Cole, Tony Martin, Perry Como . . .
Anyway. This post doesn't have much of a point. You're probably right. Chances are Shostokovich, Rachmoninof and Stravinsky will last longer than the Great American Songbook. I just wanted to say that some people (me) still love the pop music of that era, but couldn't hum a bar of Shostokovich for you.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without doubt, you're correct in as far as you go Amilia. The value of these composers is measured slowly, and over great periods of time.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I want to know is why did the classic rock station play Queensryche today? It wasn't that long ago that I used to listen to and love Silent Lucidity in High School. I'm not THAT old!!!
posted
A minor digression on some interesting things I learned today.
By some coincidence, I attended two seperate lectures today on the state of "modern music," in the post modern era. One was by a California composer, the other by a Dartmouth lecturer who specializes in eastern styles, and American modern music.
The morning lecture was about the paradigm shift in western thought through the twentieth century. What starts as adventurism and exoticism on the part of french composer like Debussy, opens up the world of tonal and non-tonal possibilities to be plundered by western composers. First and foremost is the abandonment of the absolute tonal center. In the whole-tone, octatonic and pentatonic worlds of eastern music, and adapted western styles, the tonal center, and the "direction" of composition were left behind. In the same way that advances in physics taught us that the agregate effect of a million reactions is immutable, the tiny reactions and exchanges in music became key.
No more did a composer start at A and end at B. This was no longer the goal, no longer the mind set of the post WWI artist. WWI did not abolish tonality and traditional form because people continued to believe at the end of that conflict, that a just war had been faught, and that good had triumphed over evil. However, to put it simply, following the devastation of WWII to the western world and culture, artists and academics no longer believed in a "white city" of the future for the human race. The immutable nature of man, his mortality, his insignificance and his dependence on the hands of fate and nature was reflected in the work of serialist composers. There was a definite and earnest need to express the unchangingness, and the dually infinite variability of the world in all forms of artistic expression, and much of the music that was composed for this purpose was not pleasant. It was not meant to be.
The composer from Dartmouth was a more hopeful soul, and he talked about his interest, and a current trend in composition, in which the subtle interactions of the player, the composer and the listener become more important. If a peice is set in stone, if a peice is composed to the minute detail, then the interest will be in its execution, in relating that music to an audience, and getting the reaction you want, in order to fulfill your needs as a composer. His work involved a very traditional eastern style of solo performance, with long sections of western diatonic orchestral music. The play was on the listener's expectance of the return of a motive, or a rythmn, or a set of important notes, and NOT providing them. The emptiness in some of his music is pretty profound, and interesting to imagine as a full on orchestral peice. No longer is the power in the hands of the orchestra to wow and hush the audience with a brilliant chord; the orchestra is now powerless, bound by the will of the recipient audience, to be either effective, or null and void in their silence. Its an interesting concept.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some composers write in a already existing style, some create new styles. Beethoven, Wagner, Scheonberg created new styles. Mozart, Bach wrote in already existing styles (and perfected them). Composers who create styles are followed by countless people either imitating, perfecting, or trying to figure out what they did by giving their styles names and characteristics/attributes that distinguish the styles from each other.
quote:Monteverdi, Wagner, Stravinsky, Chopin, and possibly even Gershwin and Glass
Monteverdi is easily Renaissance to Baroque style. I can't remember much about him from music history, but from some quick reading it seems to me he was probably a style creator, madrigals and opera. Wagner created German opera. Stravinsky wrote in many styles, including 12 tone. His ballets (his popular works) were polytonal stylisticly (2 tonal centers). But thsoe peices are probably not what Stravinsky would consider his most significant works as his styles later in life were different. Chopin was easily Romantic. Gershwin is easily symphonic jazz/popular. Glass is easily 20th century minimalist.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:how do you refer to the music of Mozart, Haydn and Schubert without confusing it with Vivaldi and Tchaikovsky?
Styles are often shared by composers who know each other or from teacher to pupil. And so localities often have a particular sound.
France has always followed tonality rules loosely. Thus Ravel and Debussy. France and Russia have often been politically close and thus composers from the 2 places often share similarities. However, Russian music has heavier melodoies (Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, etc). German music is heavily harmonic and complicated (Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Schoenburg, etc... atonal music is German in origin). English music is choral and has a folk quality (hymns, Vaughan Williams). Italian music is the other vocal place and has very lush melodies (madrigals and opera...). Spain is influenced by northern Africa, thus you have the Spanish dance music which was adopted by Central America and is now latin jazz. America is Jazz. Even Copland's classical music was very jazzy. Pop/country/rock music are branch offs of Jazz. Jazz was a result of a colision of religious hymns of white protestants and the songs of African slaves.
Oh, and all "Western music" decends from early Greek styles. Ironic we really don't exactly know what Greek music sounded like. We only have their writings about it.
Composers from one country study elsewhere. Copland studied with Nadia Boulanger in Paris. She started a music school style and is very influential. She learned from Faure and Widor. She also taught Leonard Bernstein, Philip Glass, and Stravinsky.
So style is really a soup. You know it has carrots and chicken, but it has a combination of spices that you remember from some other food, but you aren't sure what it is. So you can have a "category" of chicken soup, but that doesn't mean my chicken soup will taste anything like Orincoro's.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
