A subversive's history of 20th Century Classical music
mp4...@albnyvms.bitnet
The century begins in the crumbling ruins of Romanticism, the
weight of its over stacked chords bearing heavily upon it, the
desperate delaying of the cadence become more difficult. But here
there were great Cathedrals of music built, Wagnerians lead the way,
Richard Strauss and Gustav Mahler and Scriabin. But by 1912 this
could go no further, and the remaining Romantics were forced to
simplify, Rachmaninoff being an example. Other romantics took the
spirit of the age past and simplified the Romantic system away from
their music, Sibelius, Puccini and Orff are the chief examples.
The other solution to tonal disintegration came from the
impressionist Debussy. Free harmony from its sequential nature, and
make it as melody is, a spirit to find its way through the piece. His
student Ravel is to meld this with the influences of Jazz, but it is the
welding to the nationalist spirit by Stravinsky and Vaughn Williams
that bears the greatest fruit.
Meanwhile in obscurity, to the concert world, Wood and Joplin
compose piano music of variety, simplicity and colour, owing much to
the lightness of perhaps Schubert and the melody and rythym of the
gospel and spiritual.
The first world war sweeps away the vestiges of the 19th Century,
dissonance reigns and the crisis comes to a head. The modernists
declare that music is system and an abstract art and storm the
academic establishment. Schoenburg, a Brahmsian composer of dense
chamber music, leads the new movement, joined by Scriabin and
later Stravinsky. From here it is war, between the mechanism
mongers and those whose concerns are asethetic, cinematic and
dramatic. Of these the foremost are Prokofiev, Barber and Bartok.
In England the wedding of pastoralism and nationalism yields not
only VW but Britten, a composer of sprawling operas and tight
orchestral works, and Holst, known for his suites. Martinu composes
his harsh symphonies in Czeckoslovakia and in the US a fusion of
classicism and jazz is born in Gershwin.
Then there is the war, and modernism is compounded with a
nowism, the view that all is a series of fragmented moments. The
Harmonists who followed Brahms and now Schoenburg are in
ascendance, and all but declare war on those they label
"Traditionalists". Lead by Boulez, who brow beats composers Copland
and Stravinsky to join the modernist movement. But the horror of
the war leads others into the momentarist nihilism, including
Shostakovich, whose bleak "Music for our times" is an embrace of the
modernist spirit.
In America film composers pillage the late romantics for material,
and the sounds of Mahler and Strauss are heard in bastardized form
while the composers are still unaccepted in America. But otherwise
the situation is bleak, Sibelius gives up composing, Martinu dies in
America. Even composers whose talents lie elsewhere accede the
future to modernism.
The late 20th Century produces fine composers in cinema, such as
Williams, Elfman, Newman and Goldsmith, but laboring in film and
television leads to immensely apealling music, but without greater
symphonic structure, the dialog between concert hall and stage is
lost. Impoverishing both.
The modernists coerce and defame their opposition, claiming
cynically that theirs is the future, because they control the present.
Students are required to learn and like the modernist doctrine,
symphony orchestras openly talk of driving the audience away and
begin programming huge quantities of modernism. In reaction to the
varnish and dross arises the period instrument movement and the
increased popularity of completions of unfinished works. Hogwood,
Norrington and others demonstrate the disturbance and validity of
faster tempos, cleaner articulation and esemble rather than massive
orchestral sound.
And across the country, discontent at the wretched excesses of the
modernist hegemony are heard.
A short list of Works
Late Romantics and Post Romantics
Mahler
9th Symphony
10th (performing version by Cooke)
Strauss
Elecktra
Alpine Symphony
Zarathustra
Puccini
Madame Butterfly
Vaughn Williams
Variations on a theme of Tallis
Sibelius
4th Symphony
7th Symphony
Tapiola
Schoenburg
Verklate Nacht
1st String Quartet
Scriabin
Poem of Ecstasy
Impressionist
Debussy
Pelleas and Melissande
La Mer
Stravinsky
The Firebird (1911 version)
Sacre du Primtemps
Cinematist
Vaughn Williams
Sinfonia Antarctica
Sea Symphony
Britten
Eaters of Darkness
War Requiem
Mass in C
John Williams
Star Wars
Elfman
Batman
Ravel
Daphnis and Chloe
Barber
Adagio for Strings
Martinu
Symphony No 6
Holst
The Cloud Messenger
The Planets
Orff
Carmina Burana
Prokofiev
Romeo and Juliet
Lt. Kije Suite
Margaret-Mary Petit Internet: MP4...@uacsc1.albany.edu
Rockefeller College Bitnet: MP4...@albnyvms.bitnet
SUNY Albany, NY
----`---,---{@
Roger Lustig
>A subversive's history of 20th Century Music
>The century begins in the crumbling ruins of Romanticism, the
>weight of its over stacked chords bearing heavily upon it, the
>desperate delaying of the cadence become more difficult. But here
That's not "subversive" history; it's commonplace. Schoenberg
said as much.
>there were great Cathedrals of music built, Wagnerians lead the way,
>Richard Strauss and Gustav Mahler and Scriabin. But by 1912 this
>could go no further, and the remaining Romantics were forced to
>simplify, Rachmaninoff being an example.
Or not, Zemlinsky being an example. (Not that Rachmaninoff had
anything much to do with the above composers; besides, he'd
been simplifying fora while already.)
>Other romantics took the
>spirit of the age past and simplified the Romantic system away from
>their music, Sibelius, Puccini and Orff are the chief examples.
Orff as Romantic. Hmmm...
>The other solution to tonal disintegration came from the
>impressionist Debussy. Free harmony from its sequential nature, and
>make it as melody is, a spirit to find its way through the piece. His
>student Ravel is to meld this with the influences of Jazz, but it is the
>welding to the nationalist spirit by Stravinsky and Vaughn Williams
>that bears the greatest fruit.
Again, where's the subversion? This is potted Austin, which is potted
indeed. (Oh, and what *is* the "nationalist spirit"?)
>Meanwhile in obscurity, to the concert world, Wood and Joplin
>compose piano music of variety, simplicity and colour, owing much to
>the lightness of perhaps Schubert and the melody and rythym of the
>gospel and spiritual.
Gospel music? In 1905? Now, that *is* subversive.
>The first world war sweeps away the vestiges of the 19th Century,
>dissonance reigns and the crisis comes to a head. The modernists
>declare that music is system and an abstract art and storm the
>academic establishment.
Reet. "The modernists," of course, do no such thing; what composer
*ever* declared that "music is a system"? If anyone said anything
like that, it was Schenker, who doesn't quite count as a modernist.
>Schoenburg, a Brahmsian composer of dense
>chamber music,
And a Wagnerian composer of operas and cantata and syphonic poems,
and a post-Reger-and-Wolf composer of songs, and a man with no 'u'
in his name,
>leads the new movement,
Having been in academia for several years *before* WW I...
>joined by Scriabin and
who's dead as of 1916, and not an academic,
>later Stravinsky.
who never saw the inside of a university between the day he got
his law degree and the Norton Lectures.
>From here it is war, between the mechanism mongers
who don't exist
>and those whose concerns are asethetic, cinematic and dramatic.
>Of these the foremost are Prokofiev, Barber and Bartok.
Not to mention Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Skryabin.
>In England the wedding of pastoralism and nationalism yields not
>only VW but Britten,
What's "pastoralism"?
>a composer of sprawling operas and tight
>orchestral works, and Holst, known for his suites. Martinu composes
>his harsh symphonies in Czeckoslovakia
Finally--more real subversion. Martinu wrote very little music
in Czechoslovakia; before he moved to the US (where he wrote all
his symphonies) he lived in Paris. After the war he moved to
Switzerland.
>and in the US a fusion of classicism and jazz is born in Gershwin.
What's "Classicism"? Is that like romanticism? I don't detect
much of what anyone's ever referred to as "Classicism" in
Gershwin's music.
Incidentally, Gershwin's later music was heavily influenced
by a *real* system-monger: Joseph Schillinger. About him it
may be said that he elevated system above other things.
>Then there is the war, and modernism is compounded with a
>nowism, the view that all is a series of fragmented moments. The
What does this have to do with the war?
>Harmonists who followed Brahms and now Schoenburg are in
>ascendance, and all but declare war on those they label
>"Traditionalists". Lead by Boulez, who brow beats composers Copland
>and Stravinsky to join the modernist movement.
Boulez browbeat Stravinsky? How risible. Besides, I thought Stravinsky
had been a modernist after WW I already; why would Boulez need to
sign him up now?
Get your story straight.
>But the horror of
>the war leads others into the momentarist nihilism, including
>Shostakovich, whose bleak "Music for our times" is an embrace of the
>modernist spirit.
As was his bracing First Symphony, written in 1925, and "The Age of Gold."
But then, chronology can *so* get in the way of real subversion, don't
you think?
As for this "modernist spirit," go back over your posting and look how
you use the word "modernist/-ism." It would seem to stand for whatever
you don't like, but not for much else.
>In America film composers pillage the late romantics for material,
>and the sounds of Mahler and Strauss are heard in bastardized form
>while the composers are still unaccepted in America. But otherwise
Oh, right. Strauss unaccepted in America. Pull the other one
for a change.
(For the record, the big pillaging of Romantic style in film
music came *before* the war, with Korngold --who certainly had
earned the right-- and Tiomkin and so on.)
>the situation is bleak, Sibelius gives up composing,
In 1928, which I believe is*before* the war by just a few
years...
>Martinu dies in America.
You know, I've *been* to Liestal/Basel, and I could swear
they were speaking Swiss German. Ah, well, Texas is even
bigger than it looks on the map...
>Even composers whose talents lie elsewhere accede the
>future to modernism.
Uh, right. Such as?
>The late 20th Century produces fine composers in cinema, such as
>Williams, Elfman, Newman and Goldsmith, but laboring in film and
>television leads to immensely apealling music, but without greater
>symphonic structure, the dialog between concert hall and stage is
>lost. Impoverishing both.
As though the dialogue had been doing real well recently anyway.
When did the grand operatic tradition end? 1926, with the
premiere of _Turandot_.
>The modernists coerce and defame their opposition, claiming
>cynically that theirs is the future, because they control the present.
Poor baby. Isn't it remarkable how this conspiracy, which
sounds like it should put Trilateralism to shame, *still*
deosn't get morethan the odd concert date in most places?
How most composers who *do* get lots of performances have
nothing to do with it?
And, once again, who are the Modernists? What makes them
modern? What is Modernism? Can you tell us?
>Students are required to learn and like the modernist doctrine,
Uh huh.
>symphony orchestras openly talk of driving the audience away and
>begin programming huge quantities of modernism.
Name one.
>In reaction to the
>varnish and dross arises the period instrument movement and the
>increased popularity of completions of unfinished works. Hogwood,
Oh, please. The period-instrument movement is a reaction to
Romanticism, if anything; and arose rather earlier than you
think. As for completions, the advances in source studies make these
possible, not that they hadn't been popular in the past, along
with orchestrations.
>Norrington and others demonstrate the disturbance and validity of
>faster tempos, cleaner articulation and esemble rather than massive
>orchestral sound.
Even though Furtwaengler, Klemperer, and Toscanini often took
the same passages faster.
>And across the country, discontent at the wretched excesses of the
>modernist hegemony are heard.
It are, are it? Of course, most people aren't even aware that the
hegemony is on, which rather defeats its purpose; and audiences
also give notice that they've heard enough Howard Hanson for a
while, thank you.
>A short list of Works
>Late Romantics and Post Romantics
>Mahler
>9th Symphony
>10th (performing version by Cooke)
>Strauss
>Elecktra
A modernist manifesto, fwiw
>Alpine Symphony
>Zarathustra
>Puccini
>Madame Butterfly
>Vaughn Williams
>Variations on a theme of Tallis
>Sibelius
>4th Symphony
>7th Symphony
>Tapiola
>Schoenburg
>Verklate Nacht
>1st String Quartet
>Scriabin
>Poem of Ecstasy
>Impressionist
Is this a musical category? You didn't mention it above;
what makes a piece "impressionist"?
>Debussy
>Pelleas and Melissande
>La Mer
This is also a post-romantic symphonic suite, tone poem,
you name it.
>Stravinsky
>The Firebird (1911 version)
>Sacre du Primtemps
Impressionism? Wowsers.
>Cinematist
>Vaughn Williams
>Sinfonia Antarctica
>Sea Symphony
>Britten
>Eaters of Darkness
>War Requiem
>Mass in C
>
>John Williams
>Star Wars
>
>Elfman
>Batman
>
>Ravel
>Daphnis and Chloe
Which have *so* much in common. For that matter,
what do all of the above have in common with movies?
Could you define "cinematism" for us?
>Barber
>Adagio for Strings
Not post-romantic or Impressionist? How can you tell?
>Martinu
>Symphony No 6
>Holst
>The Cloud Messenger
>The Planets
>Orff
>Carmina Burana
Just like a movie. Mhm.
>Prokofiev
>
>Romeo and Juliet
>Lt. Kije Suite
Well, the above is neither subversive nor history, for the
most part. It *is* a good collection of commonplaces,
platitudes, and superficial categorizations, with the odd
insult or slander thrown in at predictable places.
And it's as confused as ever--why would Boulez browbeat the
arch-modernist Stravinsky to become a modernist?
Now, if you'd just sit down and tell us what "modernism"
*is*, we might be able to understand what you're trying to
say.
Roger
Donald Pajerek
>In article <1994Apr11.1...@sarah.albany.edu> mp4...@albnyvms.bitnet writes:
[article deleted]
>Now, if you'd just sit down and tell us what "modernism"
>*is*, we might be able to understand what you're trying to
>say.
>
>Roger
>
Post-Tchaikovsky?
Don Pajerek
Standard disclaimers apply.
Joseph Pollard White
um, in what way is this subversive?