Name that year
SHamann965
as to what 20th Century Classical music will be Labeled as when we enter
the 21st Century? We have the Medieval Age, Gothic Age, Renaissance
Period, Baroque Period, Rococo, Classical Period, Romantic Period, and now
"?". This is a once in a liftime question.
Scott
Charles Eggen
>Scott
Given the variety - how about the "Experimental Period".
Chuck
"The sound of a harpsichord - two skeletons copulating on a tin roof
in a thunderstorm". -Sir Thomas Beecham-
Larisa Migachyov
: It is getting close to the time to ask this. Does anyone have any ideas
: as to what 20th Century Classical music will be Labeled as when we enter
: the 21st Century? We have the Medieval Age, Gothic Age, Renaissance
: Period, Baroque Period, Rococo, Classical Period, Romantic Period, and now
: "?". This is a once in a liftime question.
"The Dissonant Period"? :)
-Larisa
Bruce Knoll
Migachyov) says:
>SHamann965 (shama...@aol.com) wrote:
>: It is getting close to the time to ask this. Does anyone have any ideas
>: as to what 20th Century Classical music will be Labeled as when we enter
>: the 21st Century? . . . .
>"The Dissonant Period"? :)
Or, what about, "The Period of Music which is Difficult to Listen to on
First Acquaintance, but Sometimes Yields Wonderful Results with Patience
and Commitment"
Bruce
Chris M Fang-Yen
>shama...@aol.com (SHamann965) wrote:
>
>>It is getting close to the time to ask this. Does anyone have any ideas
>>as to what 20th Century Classical music will be Labeled as when we enter
>>Period, Baroque Period, Rococo, Classical Period, Romantic Period, and now
>>"?". This is a once in a liftime question.
>
>Given the variety - how about the "Experimental Period".
>
"Experimental" seems to imply music that is unfinished or
tentative. I can't imagine that Stravinsky or Berg will ever be
known as experimental composers.
I think the whole idea of musical "period" may very well go the
way of tonality and traditional harmony. Certain pieces may fit
various labels (impressionist, neoclassicist, aleatoric...) but
the immense variety of 20th century music as a whole will always
defy any clear labeling. And to me it seems unlikely that the
present variety of music will ever go away (it would be terribly
boring if it did). It might sound arrogant, but in some sense
modernism may be the final "period" of music history.
---
Chris Fang-Yen
Department of Physics, MIT
Bruce Knoll
M Fang-Yen) says:
>I think the whole idea of musical "period" may very well go the
>way of tonality and traditional harmony. . . .
> . . . . It might sound arrogant, but in some sense
Hmmm. Sounds uncannily like Fukuyama's "end of history". (Or
Heidegger or Hegel, if you want to trace it back that far). But I
agree with M Fang-Yen. The stops have been certainly pulled out in
the twentieth century. It's hard to imagine any new forms of music
developing in the future. Perhaps invention will now belong to the
use of available forms to create a new musical syntax. Just when
you think everything's been said, though, along comes a Reich, a
Reilly, a Glass or an Adams.
Bruce Knoll
bwk...@psuvm.psu.edu
Robert Fink
>Bruce Knoll
>bwk...@psuvm.psu.edu
Mr. Yen's hypothesis might well be correct ("end of (music) history"), in
which case there will be no name for the 20th-century. BTW, Leonard Meyer,
in _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_, put forward this hypothesis in the mid-60s!
(talked about a "fluctuating stasis" instead of stylistic "progress").
If history continues, *and* if anybody remains interested in Western
Classical Music, I think that the "integrity" of the 20th-century will not
be respected. I would propose the following:
1750-1890: The Classic-Romantic Period
1890-1960: The Modernist Period
1960-20??: The Post-Modernist Period
Thus "Post-modernist" would take its place next to "Late-Romantic" and
"Pre-Classical" as a name for a self-consciously belated or transitional
artistic time.
As for what comes next--and when--ask Joan Dixon.
Robert Fink
Eastman School
Bruce Knoll
es...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Robert Fink) says:
> . . . . I would propose the following:
>1750-1890: The Classic-Romantic Period
>1890-1960: The Modernist Period
>1960-20??: The Post-Modernist Period
>Thus "Post-modernist" would take its place next to "Late-Romantic" and
>"Pre-Classical" as a name for a self-consciously belated or transitional
>artistic time.
An interesting hypothesis, especially the "fluctuating statis" part.
As for post-modern, that's a very complex term, (as many of the labels
applied to the twentieth century seem to be). My understanding of post-
modernism is a tendency toward the superficial, and avoidance of depth,
a kind of eclecticism, as different styles get mixed together with none
really "settling down."
But much of the music of the 20th century seems quite deep, perhaps
with the exception of some of Bernstein's (which I do not mean disparag-
ingly at all). I don't know of much seriously composed classical music
in this century that tries to concentrate on presenting an image without
something deeper to say.
I'm very interested in your definition of post-modernism, Robert Fink,
and how you apply it to music. My only work with post-modern theory has
been with literature, so I'm way out of my league when it comes to music.
I look forward to your further ideas.
Bruce Knoll
bwk...@psuvm.psu.edu
alan...@argonet.co.uk
> SHamann965 (shama...@aol.com) wrote:
> : It is getting close to the time to ask this. Does anyone have any ideas
> : as to what 20th Century Classical music will be Labeled as when we enter
> : the 21st Century? We have the Medieval Age, Gothic Age, Renaissance
> : Period, Baroque Period, Rococo, Classical Period, Romantic Period, and now
> : "?". This is a once in a liftime question.
>
> "The Dissonant Period"? :)
>
> -Larisa
I am not sure that musical periods can be classified by century, and this
century has been charactarised by a huge range of styles.
For want of anything better, how about:
:-) THE DISPARATE PERIOD :-)
Regards: Alan
--
* 'Curiouser * * *
* and * * alan...@argonet.co.uk *
* Curiouser' * said Alice * *
Rick Hayward
> I would propose the following:
>1750-1890: The Classic-Romantic Period
>1890-1960: The Modernist Period
>1960-20??: The Post-Modernist Period
>Thus "Post-modernist" would take its place next to "Late-Romantic" and
>"Pre-Classical" as a name for a self-consciously belated or transitional
>artistic time.
There is an equally good case to be made that the 'Romantic' (perhaps
not a good term in itself) period as defined socially/culturally
stretches well into the 20th century, and in this sense includes the
developments of the second Viennese School and others. In other words,
despite immense material changes and variation, we still live with a
world view and concept of art that recognisably relates to its roots
in the 19th century.
From this perspective, really significant time divisions are much
longer than is suggested above, and the division between the 'modern'
and what lies before falls in the 18th century.
Of course, like all categorization, this is also simplification, but
may explain the difficulty that gave rise to this thread : we are not
currently able to envisage (by definition) what comes next because our
frame of reference, essentially anchored in a pre-existing frame of
reference, does not permit us to do so.
RH
Rick Hayward, Wakefield, West Yorkshire
rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk
Bruce Knoll
Hayward) says:
>Bruce Knoll <BWK...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>> Just when
>>you think everything's been said, though, along comes a Reich, a
>>Reilly, a Glass or an Adams.
>....and proves the point -?
That there are ways of drawing on more traditional forms of melody,
rhythm and harmony, but combining them to produce something new.
Bruce Knoll
bwk...@psuvm.psu.edu
Allan Jones
> >SHamann965 (shama...@aol.com) wrote:
> >: It is getting close to the time to ask this. Does anyone have any ideas
> >: as to what 20th Century Classical music will be Labeled as when we enter
> >: the 21st Century? . . . .
Post Early?
Paul Dormer
> not a good term in itself) period as defined socially/culturally
> stretches well into the 20th century, and in this sense includes the
> developments of the second Viennese School and others. In other words,
> despite immense material changes and variation, we still live with a
> world view and concept of art that recognisably relates to its roots
> in the 19th century.
The art historian Kenneth Clark put forward this review in the classic TV
series 'Civilisation' in 1969. It was only when the BBC repeated this a
couple of years ago, I realised how true this was.
Roger Lustig
>In <95344.174...@psuvm.psu.edu> Bruce Knoll <BWK...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <4afan6$l...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, min...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris
>>M Fang-Yen) says:
>>>I think the whole idea of musical "period" may very well go the
>>>way of tonality and traditional harmony. . . .
>>> . . . . It might sound arrogant, but in some sense
>> Hmmm. Sounds uncannily like Fukuyama's "end of history". (Or
>>Heidegger or Hegel, if you want to trace it back that far). But I
>>agree with M Fang-Yen. The stops have been certainly pulled out in
>>the twentieth century. It's hard to imagine any new forms of music
>>developing in the future. Perhaps invention will now belong to the
>>use of available forms to create a new musical syntax. Just when
>>you think everything's been said, though, along comes a Reich, a
>>Reilly, a Glass or an Adams.
>Mr. Yen's hypothesis might well be correct ("end of (music) history"), in
>which case there will be no name for the 20th-century. BTW, Leonard Meyer,
>in _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_, put forward this hypothesis in the mid-60s!
>(talked about a "fluctuating stasis" instead of stylistic "progress").
Didn't we have a good deal of that in art music of, say, the latter
half of the 16thC? Look what happened afterward...
>If history continues, *and* if anybody remains interested in Western
>Classical Music, I think that the "integrity" of the 20th-century will not
>be respected. I would propose the following:
>1750-1890: The Classic-Romantic Period
>1890-1960: The Modernist Period
>1960-20??: The Post-Modernist Period
>Thus "Post-modernist" would take its place next to "Late-Romantic" and
>"Pre-Classical" as a name for a self-consciously belated or transitional
>artistic time.
Right. Of course, there's a good deal of overlap here, and to my
mind, modernism in music (insofar as we apply the term as it's used
elsewhere, e.g., d'apres Baudelaire) can be seen to grow out of
Berlioz (with Wagner following, albeit accompanied by a huge tendency
in entirely opposite directions). Likewise, Romanticism stretches
forward beyond 1890 (or beyond 1848, if you wish); Classicism
influences anyone with a historicist streak or a desire to
continue in traditional/conservative ways (Spohr, Mendelssohn,
Brahms, Bruch--four *every* different cases); and hallmarks of
po-mo (collage, quotation, disjuncture, juxtaposition, indeterminacy,
ambiguity, etc.) typify a good deal of the music of the entire
century. (You also get some of this in Baudelaire's essays, though
"modernism" as defined later on doesn't seem to take as much
note of it.)
I'm interested to note that neither Great War forms a boundary in
your table, though of course there are only two boundaries at
all. From where I sit, there seems to have been a huge sea-change
on each of those occasions; the end of each war led to a great
deal of reorientation, redefinition, and salvage work. (The
Napoleonic era, which forms the broad boundary of Classic/Romantic
for many, would count as another such; and in terms of philosophy,
the revolutionary year 1848 is worth considering.)
To sum up: no disagreement at all, but a caveat: there is a great
deal of overlap, and generally there are two or three eras going
on at once. (Also a myriad causes; right after WW I we got
radio and electric recording, and then sound films; right after
WW II television started to make its mark, along with the LP.)
>As for what comes next--and when--ask Joan Dixon.
I assume you mean Jean; but why bother? She'd only channel
Rosemary Brown for the answer...
Roger (typographical era, myself)
Robert Fink
history...]
I have to say that I agree with all that Roger says; the division I proposed
is, in fact, *not* what I teach now, but what I figure the 21st-ct
Grout/Palisca/McClary :) general text will do. In fact, I start my
discussion of modernism in music with Wagner's _Tristan_, and then take
about half the class to cover the modernist "mainstream" from 1860 to about
1960. Within this span, WWI marks a fundamental sea-change between two
phases of "modernism"--perhaps the end of all traces of the "post-romantic"
strain of modernism is one way of putting it.
Then I go back to 1916, pick up DADA and Satie, and trace the
"pre-postmodern" (oy!) fringe-type composers who use collage and anti-art
gestures: Satie-Stravinsky in the 20s-Ives-Cage...; finally 1965-1990, the
actual "postmodern", with lectures on "historical postmodernism" and
"minimalism".
And then, "post-minimalism"...<sigh>
bob fink
Roger Lustig
>[Roger Lustig and Robert Fink having a colloquy on periodization in music
>history...]
>I have to say that I agree with all that Roger says; the division I proposed
>is, in fact, *not* what I teach now, but what I figure the 21st-ct
>Grout/Palisca/McClary :) general text will do.
Why don't me and you just write it and save the world a lot of trouble?
8-)
>In fact, I start my
>discussion of modernism in music with Wagner's _Tristan_, and then take
>about half the class to cover the modernist "mainstream" from 1860 to about
>1960.
Something in my gut tells me to include Berlioz in this idea. Hard to
express, but I don't think I'm alone...
>Within this span, WWI marks a fundamental sea-change between two
>phases of "modernism"--perhaps the end of all traces of the "post-romantic"
>strain of modernism is one way of putting it.
Yes, indeed. (Taruskin on Stravinsky and Schoenberg and Skryabin is
even more emphatic about this point.) Another way to look at it is
the splitting of music into various forms of reaction; *all* the
new strains were reacting to the no-longer-supportable way of the
end of the Long 19th Century.
>Then I go back to 1916, pick up DADA and Satie, and trace the
>"pre-postmodern" (oy!) fringe-type composers who use collage and anti-art
>gestures: Satie-Stravinsky in the 20s-Ives-Cage...;
Several different reactions right there, including two early ones (Satie
and Ives); but why not Berg in that list? (Collage and multi-media
more than anti-art...) Berg really didn't get the respect he has now
until the pomo ideas started to become really obvious elsewhere.
>finally 1965-1990, the
>actual "postmodern", with lectures on "historical postmodernism" and
>"minimalism".
I still think there's need (and room) for a WWII articulation.
The Schoenberg String Trio, Boulez, Babbitt, Carter, Messiaen,
the deification of Webern in some circles, Stravinsky's and
Sessions' decidedly pomo-oid transitions to serial technique.
And all through this, serious consideration of the various
revivals of Early Music--not least Vivaldi and Mozart (yes!).
>And then, "post-minimalism"...<sigh>
I'm a Post Toasties man, myself.
Roger
Len Fehskens
wrote
>
>Within this span, WWI marks a fundamental sea-change between two
>phases of "modernism"--perhaps the end of all traces of the "post-romantic"
>strain of modernism is one way of putting it.
>
who was still writing romantic stuff well into the '40s, and don't you find
some distinctly (post-?)romantic flavors to some Shostakovich, for example?
I agree with the gist of what you're saying, it's just the "all traces" seems
a bit too emphatic.
len.
Robert Fink
>len.
>
You are probably right. Although...when I say "all traces of the
post-romantic strain *of modernism*" I am not saying all traces of
'post-romantic' compositional practice, am I? One might argue that before
WWI, Strauss and Scriabin and Reger, etc. were part of a modernist
continuum; after WWI that kind of composing did not go away, but
self-consciously "progressive" music became more self-consciously
"anti-romantic". Strauss and Shostakovich continued on, but they were
increasingly seen as *not* modernist, as having "betrayed" or "lost their
nerve" or (in Shostakovich's case) having been "crushed by socialist
realism."
Still, you are right to point out the overgeneralizations in what was
hastily penned post.
robert fink
Len Fehskens
wrote
>Although...when I say "all traces of the
>post-romantic strain *of modernism*" I am not saying all traces of
>'post-romantic' compositional practice, am I?
Yes, that occurred to me after I had posted my observation, and it's fair.
I recently used a somewhat far fetched analogy to try to explain to someone
what seemed to me to happen to music somewhere around 1910. There seems to
be a recurring theme in mythology of western shores as "places of spiritual
leave-taking" (it must have something to do with the setting sun), and it
seemed to me that the advent of modernism was a similar sort of "western
shore". But just as shores have islands, there are composers whose oeuvre
can be thought of as islands off this shore of modernism. I can further
stretch this analogy by comparing the "solid ground" of this coast and these
islands to the "solid ground" of music that is (to borrow the theme of a
reply I posted elsewhere) "physiologically easy to apprehend" (and here, to
really abuse the analogy, I feel like I'm on very thin ice), as opposed to
the "offshore" music which is more abstract (I really don't want to say
"spiritual").
len (wondering if someone didn't slip a mild hallucinogen into this
morning's cup of hot chocolate...).
Roger Lustig
>On Sat, 16 Dec 95 14:58:15 GMT, Robert Fink at es...@uhura.cc.rochester.eduP
>wrote
>>Within this span, WWI marks a fundamental sea-change between two
>>phases of "modernism"--perhaps the end of all traces of the "post-romantic"
>>strain of modernism is one way of putting it.
>Maybe I'm misinterpreting your terminology, but what about Richard Strauss,
>who was still writing romantic stuff well into the '40s, and don't you find
>some distinctly (post-?)romantic flavors to some Shostakovich, for example?
What about Strauss, indeed? Take a look at his operas: Guntram, Feuersnot,
Elektra, Salome....Rosenkavalier. ROSENKAVALIER? Talk about a switch!
And look what followed. Post-Romantic, sure; but post- in a completely
different way from what had come before.
Roger
William J. Karzas
(Roger Lustig) wrote:
> In article <4b6pgh$4...@mrnews.mro.dec.com>
fehs...@pcbuoa.enet.digital.com (Len Fehskens) writes:
> >On Sat, 16 Dec 95 14:58:15 GMT, Robert Fink at es...@uhura.cc.rochester.eduP
> >wrote
>
> >>Within this span, WWI marks a fundamental sea-change between two
> >>phases of "modernism"--perhaps the end of all traces of the "post-romantic"
> >>strain of modernism is one way of putting it.
>
> >Maybe I'm misinterpreting your terminology, but what about Richard Strauss,
> >who was still writing romantic stuff well into the '40s, and don't you find
> >some distinctly (post-?)romantic flavors to some Shostakovich, for example?
>
> What about Strauss, indeed? Take a look at his operas: Guntram, Feuersnot,
> Elektra, Salome....Rosenkavalier. ROSENKAVALIER? Talk about a switch!
Please clarify. What is the switch?
> And look what followed. Post-Romantic, sure; but post- in a completely
> different way from what had come before.
These words are meaningless unless you define what you mean by Post-Romantic.
--
Bill Karzas wjk...@pacificnet.net
wjk...@alumni.caltech.edu
ah...@lafn.org
Roger Lustig
>In article <4bqe15$3...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, ro...@silvertone.Princeton.EDU
>(Roger Lustig) wrote:
>> In article <4b6pgh$4...@mrnews.mro.dec.com>
>fehs...@pcbuoa.enet.digital.com (Len Fehskens) writes:
>> >On Sat, 16 Dec 95 14:58:15 GMT, Robert Fink at es...@uhura.cc.rochester.eduP
>> >wrote
>> >>Within this span, WWI marks a fundamental sea-change between two
>> >>phases of "modernism"--perhaps the end of all traces of the "post-romantic"
>> >>strain of modernism is one way of putting it.
>> >Maybe I'm misinterpreting your terminology, but what about Richard Strauss,
>> >who was still writing romantic stuff well into the '40s, and don't you find
>> >some distinctly (post-?)romantic flavors to some Shostakovich, for example?
>> What about Strauss, indeed? Take a look at his operas: Guntram, Feuersnot,
>> Elektra, Salome....Rosenkavalier. ROSENKAVALIER? Talk about a switch!
>Please clarify. What is the switch?
Uh, let's see: no more verging on atonality; sudden fondness for 18th-C forms;
incessant reference to older types and styles of music; etc.
>> And look what followed. Post-Romantic, sure; but post- in a completely
>> different way from what had come before.
>These words are meaningless unless you define what you mean by Post-Romantic.
"After, following, or proceeding from the Romantic era and its musical
styles." How's that?
Roger
PS: You any relation to Andy Karzas of the Recording Horn?
R