Virgil Thompson's "Modern" era definition
techfiddle
I am re-designing a very brief handout for my private students to put
in their notebooks, regarding eras in music history. (One of my
22-year-old students thought that Bach and Vivaldi were in the Romantic
era!), and have the following online at
http://www.geocities.com/techfiddle/musicology_mod1.html
MUSICOLOGY:
Medieval ca. 500-1400 Hildegard von Bingen, Machaut, Landini.
Renaissance 1400-1600 Josquin, Dufay, Palestrina.
Baroque 166-1750 Bach, Vivaldi, Lully.
Classical 1750-1825 Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven.
Romantic 1825-1900 Schubert, Schuman, Chopin, Brahms.
Modern, Contemporary, 20th Century, Post-Modern 1900-current Bartok,
Bernstein, Cage.
The last era is not handled correctly, however, and I'm looking for
help with that. I remember from one of my courses that Virgil Thompson
subdivided the 20th century era into seven categories, but I have not
been able to locate this again.
And are we not, now, in a "post-modern" era, and what composers are
significant now? It's probably impossible to tell, really, isn't it,
given the lack of historical perspective.
But how is this last era generally handled nowadays?
Thanks!
Connie
Steve Latham
"techfiddle" <renai...@australiamail.com> wrote in message
news:1154884242.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, good morning;
>
> I am re-designing a very brief handout for my private students to put
> in their notebooks, regarding eras in music history. (One of my
> 22-year-old students thought that Bach and Vivaldi were in the Romantic
> era!), and have the following online at
> http://www.geocities.com/techfiddle/musicology_mod1.html
>
> MUSICOLOGY:
> Medieval ca. 500-1400 Hildegard von Bingen, Machaut, Landini.
>
> Renaissance 1400-1600 Josquin, Dufay, Palestrina.
>
> Baroque 166-1750 Bach, Vivaldi, Lully.
>
> Classical 1750-1825 Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven.
>
> Romantic 1825-1900 Schubert, Schuman, Chopin, Brahms.
>
> Modern, Contemporary, 20th Century, Post-Modern 1900-current Bartok,
> Bernstein, Cage.
>
>
> The last era is not handled correctly, however, and I'm looking for
> help with that.
If you want to keep it broad, "20th century" would be Ok. However, a lot of
people break down time into smaller segments as we get closer to the
present.
Usually after Romanticisim you have Impressionism (Debussy, Ravel) and
Expressionism (Schoenberg et al). Problem is, there are other things
happening simultaenously like Nationalism (think Grieg and Sibelius,
composers in some cases who are not necessarily Romantic per se). Sometimes,
for lack of a better term, people use "between the wars" for the 19teens
through 1945, largely to cover Bartok and Stravinsky (which are interesting
blends of classicism, romanticism, impressionism, nationalism, and so on -
sometime just refered to as Eclecticism, but that's a rather broad term).
The 1950s, in America at least is often dubbed Experimentalism, with Brown's
graphic scores and John Cage. The 1960s se the rise of Minimalism, and the
1970s usher in interest in mixed media with electronics. There's a lot of
overlap in all of these of course. And of course there are other things like
Musique Concrete that pop up (which is more a form than a time period, but
you get my point). Of course there's also a "counter-reformation" ro
Expressionism in the forms of Neo-Classicism (Stravinsky) and
Neo-Romanticism (Howard Hanson).
I remember from one of my courses that Virgil Thompson
> subdivided the 20th century era into seven categories, but I have not
> been able to locate this again.
Impresionism
Expressionism
Wartime Eclecticism
Neo Classicism
Neo Romanticism
Experimentalism
Minimalism
might be a rough match. Of course when he was writing, a lot of the 1970s on
stuff hadn't really been "named".
>
> And are we not, now, in a "post-modern" era,
Well, the art world thought so recently, but I'm told by my art collegues
that post modern is now passe and we're into something else. I've always
despised Post-Modern - it's a little self-important don't you think!
and what composers are
> significant now?
Depends on who you talk to. For the world, it might be J. Lo. For people who
distinguish between "composers" and "simger/songwriters" it might be John
Williams. John Williams is definitely the most well-known living composer
for the general public.
Some people will still list Babbit and Stockhausen. Some people Takemitsu.
It really depends on how you want to define "significant".
It's probably impossible to tell, really, isn't it,
Yes.
> given the lack of historical perspective.
Which is why I think Post Modern is such a ludicrous term. Yes, we really
can't say - well-known, long lasting influence, long lasting popularity, and
rediscovery don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.
>
> But how is this last era generally handled nowadays?
Many writers simply use "contemporary" (as of this writing) to avoid having
to use a term altogether.
Best,
Steve
Jim
"techfiddle" <renai...@australiamail.com> wrote in message
news:1154884242.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
might be considered important by future musicologists. But, if I had to
select three significant composers, those three are as good as any three
from
Bartok, Bernstein, Schoenberg, Ravel, Stravinsky, Cage, etc.
I would change the Baroque era as:
Baroque 1660-1750 Bach, Vivaldi, Handel
Beethoven was a transition composer; he had one foot in the Classic camp and
the other in the Romantic camp.
Jim
techfiddle
Expressionism
Wartime Eclecticism
Neo Classicism
Neo Romanticism
Experimentalism
Minimalism
Thank you! That's extremely helpful. And yes, "contemporary" is what
I've always used.
Still, I wish I could find the Virgil Thompson material.
Steve Latham
"techfiddle" <renai...@australiamail.com> wrote in message
news:1154884242.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> I am re-designing a very brief handout for my private students to put
> in their notebooks, regarding eras in music history. (One of my
> 22-year-old students thought that Bach and Vivaldi were in the Romantic
> era!), and have the following online at
> http://www.geocities.com/techfiddle/musicology_mod1.html
>
> MUSICOLOGY:
> Medieval ca. 500-1400 Hildegard von Bingen, Machaut, Landini.
>
> Renaissance 1400-1600 Josquin, Dufay, Palestrina.
>
> Baroque 166-1750 Bach, Vivaldi, Lully.
>
> Classical 1750-1825 Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven.
>
> Romantic 1825-1900 Schubert, Schuman, Chopin, Brahms.
>
Usually,
Medieval ca. 500 - 1450 (though some put the beginning at the fall of Rome
in 476)
Renaissance is 1450 - 1600
B 1600-1750
C 1750 - 1820 (don't forget Rococo if you want to be specific :-)
R 1820 - 1900 (or 1910 more often now).
Modern Era 1910 - Present
So you're in the ballpark and if you want to round everything to quarter
centuries, I think that's fine.
Interestingly, as another responder notes, Beethoven is more often placed in
a "straddling" position (that'll put a little joy in your ode! :-) and
Schubert I am more and more seeing listed as a "Classical" composer. This
seems to represent an attempt to categorize them by style rather than time
period in which they were born - and an attempt to make a distinction
between Classical as time period, and Classical as style, but for students,
it's probably better to put them chronologically by birth and just explain
if they composed in a different style than the era in which they lived.
HTH,
Steve
techfiddle
the other in the Romantic camp.
Yeah, there's a sentence in Grout something like Beethoven "strode the
two eras 'like a collosus'." Funny.
Jim
Jim
techfiddle
Well maybe. And human life always resists being set in any sort of
restricted categories. Which makes it interesting. But I think there
is value in having a mental picture of a general sense of what has
happened in the past. Don't you?? And also, there's no excuse for
thinking Baroque composers were working in the 18th century, like my
new viola student. There are some things that need to be learned, at
least in a general sense. :-)
techfiddle
Look at it again:
http://www.geocities.com/techfiddle/musicology_mod1.html
How would you do this differently if you were handing it out to
string/piano students, as a sort of note pad, to refer to in the course
of lessons?
Whom else should I add, also, as there are some blank spots in the
list.
Thanks!
Connie
David Gray Porter
news:OJqBg.3558$qw5.3079@trnddc06...
>
> "techfiddle" <renai...@australiamail.com> wrote in message
> news:1154884242.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi, good morning;
>>
>> I am re-designing a very brief handout for my private students to put
>> in their notebooks, regarding eras in music history. (One of my
>> 22-year-old students thought that Bach and Vivaldi were in the Romantic
>> era!), and have the following online at
>> http://www.geocities.com/techfiddle/musicology_mod1.html
>>
>> MUSICOLOGY:
>> Medieval ca. 500-1400 Hildegard von Bingen, Machaut, Landini.
Perotin.
David Gray Porter
> think!
According to Lloyd Rodgers, we've been in the "post-Avant Garde" era since
the 1970s.
techfiddle
But what's Perotin without Léonin? And then you open a whole bag of
worms.
:-)
Lora Crighton
techfiddle wrote:
>>>Perotin.
>
>
> But what's Perotin without Léonin?
Good point.
> And then you open a whole bag of
> worms.
>
How so? Perhaps 500-1450 should be represented by more than just 3 or 4
composers - there's an incredible variety of fascinating music that
happened during that time!
--
Io la Musica son, ch'ai dolci accenti
So far tranquillo ogni turbato core,
Et or di nobil ira et or d'amore
Poss'infiammar le più gelate menti.
techfiddle
I am very interested in your recommendations. Actually, *no* period
can be represented by two or three composers. This is the reason I put
links to the larger lists on Wikipedia.
Jim
20th century.
Jim
Jim
wound up as a Romantic one?
Jim
Peter T. Daniels
Donald Jay Grout said to his class: "We revere Bach. We admire
Beethoven. But we _love_ Mozart."
Peter T. Daniels
You'd have better luck if you looked under Thomson.
And Schuman is a recent American; the one you wanted in the Romanticism
list is Schumann.
techfiddle
Thanks!
techfiddle
It's okay; I should have said the 19th century, not the 18th.
David Gray Porter
news:1154908159....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Huh. I feel the reverse, except that in-the-middle Beethoven usually bores
me.
Oh, well, it is Grout.
I get the same feeling from late Bach as I do late Ives.
David Gray Porter
>> Perotin.
But what's Perotin without Léonin? And then you open a whole bag of
worms.
Ah. Leonin was a great composer, but he was also like Bruckner -- except
that perhaps in his case the windiness was part of the liturgical need. And
he only dabbled in duets.
Now, Perotin! -- he went so far as to do at least 2 parge-scale works and
(I'm covinced by the listening) at least 2 smaller works in FOUR parts --
and more works in 3 parts. There is a catchiness and "kick" in his music
that is not found in the more meditative Leonin's.
Maybe one might compare Leonin/Perotin as (if contemporaties)
Feldman/Killmayer -- or (if as mentor/pupil) then George/Charlie Ives in the
movement from the 4th Violin Sonata.
This shot in the arm to Western music would not have happend but for the
Crusades. Maybe toilet paper in Europe too.
Steve Latham
> Steve, I appreciate your help. (It's nice running into you again).
>
> Look at it again:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/techfiddle/musicology_mod1.html
>
> How would you do this differently if you were handing it out to
> string/piano students, as a sort of note pad, to refer to in the course
> of lessons?
I would have the periods as you do, and three representative composers from
each period, until the 20th century where I might limit it to only 1 or 2
if using the shorter time periods. I might also want to pick some String
specific or Piano specific composers where important - Tartini, Paganini,
etc. - Chopin might not mean as much to Violinists as Paganini for example.
>
> Whom else should I add, also, as there are some blank spots in the
> list.
Minimalism Glass, Reich.
Piston and or Barber could go in neo Romanticism
Neo Classicism might also include Copland
Expressionism you almost have to pick Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern.
so to avoid it getting unwieldy, you might want to just list 20th c.
composers and style with which they were most associated:
Debussy: Imp.
Schoenberg: Exp.
Stravinsky: Ecl.
Copland: Americana
Cage: Exper.
Glass: Min.
That's a nice smattering catching the "biggies". I would want to include
Gershwin for jazz, but then you might as well include Varese or Messiean to
be complete, etc. etc.
HTH,
Steve
Steve Latham
>> Perotin.
:-)
Yeah, same problem with Schoenberg and Berg without Webern :-)
LSL
techfiddle
Peter T. Daniels
What, "We desecrate Bach, we despise Beethoven, we hate Mozart?"
And this was in the last class he taught before retirement, The Music
of J. S. Bach.
(It was Monday evenings, 2nd semester; on Monday mornings, his graduate
seminar was Handel Oratorios 1st semester, Handel Operas 2nd semester
[or vice versa].)
(He had somehow amassed an unmatched collection of early opera scores,
which he donated to the Cornell Music Library well before retirement,
so they were fully catalogued and available to the public, but shelved
in his office, which adjoined the regular music library stacks, so at
certain times (most of the time, since he mostly only came in on
Mondays), the pages would retrieve the key to the back door and fetch
the requested items -- I think they didn't circulate, though. Grout's
books were bound in light blue buckram; everything else was in maroon
buckram.)
techfiddle
"Through external circumstances and the force of his own genius he
transformed this heritage and became the source of much that was
characteristic of the Romantic period. But he himself is neither
Classic nor Romantic; he is Beethoven, and his figure towers like a
colossus astride the two centuries." (Grout, p. 521, 3rd. ed.)
Jerry Kohl
Or, to use a slightly less convoluted formulation: "derrière garde"
;-)
--
Jerry Kohl
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
David Gray Porter
I met Thomsom once -- gad what a pompous fool.
"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hPzBg.29792$Lh4.18787@trnddc02...
David Gray Porter
>
> David Gray Porter wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:1154908159....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > techfiddle wrote:
>> >> >> Beethoven was a transition composer; he had one foot in the Classic
>> >> >> camp and
>> >> the other in the Romantic camp.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, there's a sentence in Grout something like Beethoven "strode the
>> >> two eras 'like a collosus'." Funny.
>> >
>> > Donald Jay Grout said to his class: "We revere Bach. We admire
>> > Beethoven. But we _love_ Mozart."
>>
>> Huh. I feel the reverse, except that in-the-middle Beethoven usually
>> bores
>> me.
>> Oh, well, it is Grout.
>> I get the same feeling from late Bach as I do late Ives.
>
> What, "We desecrate Bach, we despise Beethoven, we hate Mozart?"
No, Suleiman, I tend to love Bach and enjoy Mozart.
> And this was in the last class he taught before retirement, The Music
> of J. S. Bach.
Did you ever hear his "method" for making the full volume of music history
into the abridged? I heard it from one Roger Vaughan. Read two paragraphs
and cut the 3rd and see if it still flows.
Tom K.
"Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1154965696.1...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
David Gray Porter wrote:
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:OJqBg.3558$qw5.3079@trnddc06...
> >
> > I've always despised Post-Modern - it's a little self-important don't
> > you
> > think!
>
> According to Lloyd Rodgers, we've been in the "post-Avant Garde" era since
> the 1970s.
Or, to use a slightly less convoluted formulation: "derrière garde"
;-)
I believe it was Charles Wourinen who declared (some 30 years ago, IIRC)
"How can you have a revolution when the revolution before last said
'Anything goes.' ?"
Tom K.
David Gray Porter
news:1154965696.1...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
David Gray Porter wrote:
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:OJqBg.3558$qw5.3079@trnddc06...
> >
> > I've always despised Post-Modern - it's a little self-important don't
> > you
> > think!
>
> According to Lloyd Rodgers, we've been in the "post-Avant Garde" era since
> the 1970s.
Or, to use a slightly less convoluted formulation: "derrière garde"
;-)
Or really, especially when mixing tonality and non-tonality, "couvrez votre
derrière."
In Russian, "???????? ??? ?????."
David Gray Porter
news:r4GdnfgRKaCZ6UrZ...@comcast.com...
To quote Bill Griffith, "With its triumph over tradition, the avant garde
has ceased to exist!"
To which toad Louie replies, "It a dilemma!"
Or is that where Griffy sez about the houses on Nob Hill, "I want to either
own them or destroy them!"?
I can guess the Donal Michalsky answers: "That revolution was not
ligitimate. It didn't happen." Or, "The adults are back in charge."
[Remember when the nutjobs said that about Cheney, Rummy and Rice a few
years back?]
Jerry Kohl
You have grasped my meaning precisely.
Lora Crighton
I've always loved Bach. The first record I bought for myself was of his
music - it had the 3rd Brandenburg concerto & something else, which I
don't remember now.
I never used to admire Beethoven until recently listening to some of his
later works in class & studying some of his songs. I still hate the 1st
movement of his 5th symphony, and hate it more every time I hear it -
it's so over-played on the radio & it seems like every single class that
touches on classical music has to cover that in great detail (2 classes
in high school, and 3 in university so far for for me).
Lora Crighton
David Gray Porter wrote:
> Huh. I feel the reverse, except that in-the-middle Beethoven usually bores
> me.
I agree about the Beethoven.
> Oh, well, it is Grout.
> I get the same feeling from late Bach as I do late Ives.
>
Explain?
Lora Crighton
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> And this was in the last class he taught before retirement, The Music
> of J. S. Bach.
>
It must have been an amazing class.
--
Io la Musica son, ch'ai dolci accenti
So far tranquillo ogni turbato core,
Et or di nobil ira et or d'amore
Poss'infiammar le piů gelate menti.
Lora Crighton
David Gray Porter wrote:
> Did you ever hear his "method" for making the full volume of music history
> into the abridged? I heard it from one Roger Vaughan. Read two paragraphs
> and cut the 3rd and see if it still flows.
>
LOL!
--
Io la Musica son, ch'ai dolci accenti
So far tranquillo ogni turbato core,
Et or di nobil ira et or d'amore
Poss'infiammar le più gelate menti.
David Gray Porter
David Gray Porter wrote:
>
> Or really, especially when mixing tonality and non-tonality, "couvrez
> votre
> derrière."
> In Russian, "???????? ??? ?????."
You have grasped my meaning precisely.
It was supposed to read, "???????? ???? ?????" in Cyrilic.
Or just "pokrojte vash papka."
David Gray Porter
news:eb7ufi$cv0$3...@news.datemas.de...
>
>
> David Gray Porter wrote:
>
>> Huh. I feel the reverse, except that in-the-middle Beethoven usually
>> bores me.
>
> I agree about the Beethoven.
>
>> Oh, well, it is Grout.
>> I get the same feeling from late Bach as I do late Ives.
>>
>
> Explain?
A sense of a lot of greater counterpoint going on.
Peter T. Daniels
The name sounds vaguely familiar ... like he may have been an advanced
grad student when I started as an undergrad? E.g., Joscelyn Godwin, who
has written a book on Athanasius Kircher and translated the
Hypnerotomachia Polyphili, was in his last year of graduate musicology
classes during my first year, so I knew him slightly. (He doesn't seem
to have done much musicology since.)
I never felt the need to acquire a Palisca version of Grout; and now I
see that Peter Burkholder has done the latest, but the price has gotten
very high (they charge a textbook price for it).
Peter T. Daniels
Lora Crighton wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > And this was in the last class he taught before retirement, The Music
> > of J. S. Bach.
> >
>
> It must have been an amazing class.
Well, there's only so much you can do in 13 three-hour sessions.
Homework each week was the analysis of one of the fugues from the WTC;
I don't recall that any papers were required (it was basically music
appreciation -- but everyone was delighted to Take Grout).
And he wouldn't reschedule the next-to-last class so that we could go
to the Beethoven's Ninth, the graduation concert over at Ithaca College
(which in those days was half music school and half phys. ed. school);
the emcee of the event in those days was none other than Milton Cross,
the voice of the Metropolitan Opera (as it were); the special guest
performer for the other of the two I went to was none other than Jan
Peerce. (He may have retired from the Met by then -- though I did see
Richard Tucker at the Met, twice.)
So I never did know what DJG had to say about the Art of Fugue and
Musical Offering ...
Margo Schulter
> Hi, good morning;
>
> I am re-designing a very brief handout for my private students to put
> in their notebooks, regarding eras in music history. (One of my
> 22-year-old students thought that Bach and Vivaldi were in the Romantic
> era!), and have the following online at
> http://www.geocities.com/techfiddle/musicology_mod1.html
>
> MUSICOLOGY:
> Medieval ca. 500-1400 Hildegard von Bingen, Machaut, Landini.
>
> Renaissance 1400-1600 Josquin, Dufay, Palestrina.
>
> Baroque 166-1750 Bach, Vivaldi, Lully.
>
> Classical 1750-1825 Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven.
>
> Romantic 1825-1900 Schubert, Schuman, Chopin, Brahms.
>
> Modern, Contemporary, 20th Century, Post-Modern 1900-current Bartok,
> Bernstein, Cage.
Please let me offer a few comments drawing in part on responses I've seen so far.
First, if we are limited to four composers per era or period, I would
still include Perotin under medieval, because the 13th century shouldn't be left out.
Of course, I'd argue for a longer list -- but given four composers maximum, I would say
better Perotin than jump from monophony to 14th-century polyphony.
If you are beginning the Baroque at around 1660, a date that might roughly be keyed to
the approaching advent of major/minor tonality (e.g. Corelli c. 1680), then this implies
a "Manneristic" era which could include something like 1540-1650 -- but not necessarily
exclusively for the earlier portion, which could also be "late Renaissance," for example
Palestrina in contrast to Wert. The usual Renaissance-Baroque chronology draws the line
around 1600 with the advent of the opera and oratorio and the thoroughbass or continuo
technique. Monteverdi is an ideal example of the later Manneristic period, and from a
more traditional chronological viewpoint could be seen as a transitional figure moving
from "late Renaissance" (in the early madrigal books, for example) to "early Baroque."
If you are going with the traditional 1400-1600 for Renaissance, and 1600-1750 for
Baroque, then Monteverdi would be early Baroque. As long as the early 17th century
gets included one way or the other, I would be happy.
On the Renaissance: Dufay should be placed before Josquin, and in a recent view is
taken as marking the beginning of the Renaissance (c. 1420-1440) with his early
compositions. This kind of perspective, for example that of Richard Hoppin, tends to
focus on vertical or harmonic technique (textures with pervasive thirds and sixths,
a more cautious treatment of seconds and sevenths, etc.). Another perspective, however,
might place the transition to "Renaissance" techniques more around 1450 (say the likely
point for the introduction of meantone temperament for keyboards), or even later (say
the kind of text-setting associated with the new kind of Classicism and humanism, e.g.
in Josquin).
At one time music history might follow the historical concept of the Middle Ages as
from 476 to 1453 (fall of Rome to fall of Constantinople), but now musical factors
are often debated, with various "solutions" for placing the transition to a "Renaissance"
era. The more "traditional" approach tends to regard Dufay as a transitional figure,
while a recent approach agrees but places him more on the Renaissance side.
Personally I would go with 1400-1600, as you do, and list Dufay as Renaissance; for this
kind of reference, that's probably accurate enough (a usual date for the transition is
around 1420).
I'm sorry not (at least yet) to have addressed the "Modern" question which is your main
focus here, although for me either Dufay or Monteverdi can be very "modern."
Most appreciatively,
Margo
techfiddle
>> 'Modern' really needs to be broken down into:
1910-1945 (modernism),
1945-1985 (high modernism),
1985-current (minimalism).
and
>> This is interesting, as it echoes (differently) the way I teach the basic arch of the century to my basic classes: 1913-1945 is early modernism, 1945-1968 high modernism, and 1968 to about 1997 is postmodernism. (Post-1997? I think it's something else, and doesn't have a name yet.)
Jerry Kohl
techfiddle wrote:
> I got a couple of responses on the AMS list:
>
> >> 'Modern' really needs to be broken down into:
>
> 1910-1945 (modernism),
> 1945-1985 (high modernism),
> 1985-current (minimalism).
One thing that bothers me about this taxonomy is that the term
"modernism" is really quite general and may apply to a variety of
styles (e.g., Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Ives, Stravinsky, Hindemith,
Varèse, and Cowell can all plausibly fall under this umbrella),
whereas the term "minimalism" is a much narrower stylistic designator.
While "neoclassicism", "primitivism", "experimentalism", and
"serialism" (amongst others) are all generally regarded as varierties
of the modernist impulse, what are the corresponding varieties of
"minimalism" (not merely shades of difference, such as European vs
American minimalism)? There is also the issue of whether the minimalist
style (or styles) is really a spent force by 1985, having been at its
peak in the 1970s but, worst of all, minimalism is itself a modernist
subspecies, on a level with contemporaneous movements such as the New
Simplicity and the New Complexity.
David Gray Porter
>
>
> So I never did know what DJG had to say about the Art of Fugue and
> Musical Offering ...
TMO is the one work we know Bach wrote with a fortepiano in mind (as well as
the other keyboard instruments).
techfiddle
http://www.geocities.com/techfiddle/musicology_mod1.html#2
I think it will be useful for students to see this. If you do--or do
not--want your name attached, please let me know.
David Gray Porter
>One thing that bothers me about this taxonomy is that the term
>"modernism" is really quite general and may apply to a variety of
>styles (e.g., Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Ives, Stravinsky, Hindemith,
>Varčse, and Cowell can all plausibly fall under this umbrella),
>whereas the term "minimalism" is a much narrower stylistic designator.
"Modernism" doesn't mean anything anymore. This was almost 100 years ago
anyway. Ives, Schoenberg and Stravinsky are all 20th-Century Romantic
"19th-Century" figures. (Schoenberg especially so with his idea of a great
eon of pantonaity.) Their music is extended tonality, often extended to the
point of not being in a key, but their outlook is still late 19th-Century.
I'd put the end of the Romantic era as 1918 or 1919.
Ian Pace
"David Gray Porter" <port...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IS2Cg.1474$Qf....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
'clean breaks'. Rarely has there been any movement in culture that doesn't
have some links to those that precede it. What changes, often markedly, is
the set of priorities and emphases. The way you are defining a late
19th-century aesthetic could be used to encompass a vast amount of
twentieth-century music (and not just that seen as 'neo-romantic' or 'late
romantic', as well as the composers you mention). The term 'romantic' means
something very different when applied to Berlioz, Schumann, Chopin, Wagner,
Verdi, Brahms or Tchaikovsky, to the extent that I wonder if it has any
meaning, in a pan-European sense, any longer. Same with 'modernism', as you
say. But of course we need some general categories in order to be able to
perceive music history at all, let alone teach it. I tend to think nowadays
of a fundamental shift in the early 20th century (which has earlier roots)
between Austro-German developments and those in France, Russia and some of
Eastern Europe. American music of that period sort of overlaps with a bit of
both categories. But these categories - whilst not bereft of any common
factors - constitute sufficiently different types of 'modernism' that I
believe maintaining a duality in this respect is worthwhile.
'Post-modernism' is a term invariably predicated on a certain notion of what
'modernism' is - most often an extremely simplistic definition. 'Minimalism'
is more specific, but where do we draw the line? La Monte Young's early work
connects New York School 'experimentalism' with minimalism. Reich and Glass
in their heyday seem unequivocally minimalists, so does the classic
Andriessen or the early Nyman. But as all these schools develop, are the
boundaries so clear? Is not some Andriessen closer to other neo-Stravinskian
schools of composition? Is the later Adams a minimalist or a neo-romantic?
To what extent is 'The Wound Dresser' minimalist?
The term 'New Complexity' is rarely used any longer (I've heard various
claims for who invented it - amongst the candidates are Nigel Osborne, Harry
Halbreich and Richard Toop). It should be pretty self-evident that the
recent work of Brian Ferneyhough, Michael Finnissy, James Dillon, Richard
Barrett, Klaus K. Huebler, Claus-Steffen Mahnkopf and Alessandro Melchiorre
are extremely dissimilar, even if all to varying degrees use tuplet rhythms
relatively extravagantly (but so do various other composers who are not
usually classified in this way). It had meaning when there were various
young composers who were clearly influenced by either Ferneyhough or
Finnissy. Nowadays almost all of these have gone off in their own quite
personal directions; the areas of commonality are pretty tenuous. There are
other generations of students of either, but who pick up on other aspects of
these composers works (not necessarily the most 'complex' ones, especially
in the case of Finnissy students).
I'm pondering different demarcations that remain meaningful. Post-1968 music
historiography is still at the starting posts.
Ian
techfiddle
back a little later, Dr. Attinello at the U of Newcastle has an
interesting take on how he teaches this subject. See:
Further Discussion: Contempory Musicology
http://www.geocities.com/techfiddle/discussion.html
Paul Attinello:
Although these are of course enormous questions, they are also entirely
normal ones. When I tell students my 'period' divisions, I also pull
out the usual disclaimer, that periodizations and historical
generalities always overlap with numerous exceptions, and that they are
meant to give us broad, 'block' understandings of time periods, not to
operate as any kind of physical law. Given the nature of art forms,
that makes sense, I think.
And for anyone who dislikes periodizations for any reason, I usually
point out: our minds tend to generalize anyway - any philosopher or
psychologist can show that, quite easily. I would much rather have
those generalizations consciously created and, as it were, 'out in the
open' so that I can examine them - scholars and writers who claim that
there are no periods, or who hate generalizations, usually have a lot
of implicit generalizations strewn through their work, and implicitly
affecting their judgements and choices
As for composers who are intentionally reacting against a period/set of
trends? They exhibit completely normal human behavior; they fit easily
into social construction theories; and thereby they tend to become
exceptions that proves rules (i.e., a musical style or work constructed
in rebellion against a set of parameters is just as determined by those
parameters as is something constructed in line with them).
As for the other arts: large-scale trends do indeed happen at different
times in different media (and countries, etc.), and music is frequently
late in responding to given cultural stimuli. I just tell them that; I
wouldn't try to come up with some kind of Spenglerian explanation of it
(although I do like Spengler, nobody in their right mind would actually
*believe* in his theories).
Therefore:
Early modernism: Large changes in innovative ideas, an extended cluster
of experiments that parallel (and follow chronologically) experiments
in literature and the visual arts. Then that strange retrenchment, and
the chaotic 'between-the-wars' period, which does not however actually
return to pre-1913 values and systems; noting especially the
disintegrating hierarchy of values and expected centers of normative
musical behavior...
High modernism: Like the 'High Renaissance', an extreme and polished
development of earlier trends; the experiments become especially
specialized, and the casual splintering of styles that one sees in
early modernism hardens into something much more carefully considered
and rooted in ideas, but also much more problematic in a variety of
ways. Popular musics become vastly more culturally powerful, and
'classical' styles try to respond, at first by trying to universalize
values... but that doesn't work very well, of course. Which tends to
lead to...
Postmodernism: From 1968, even many major high modernist composers are
disoriented or eager to change styles, in response to the cultural
changes centered on that year (this is paradigmatic to Dahlhaus' use of
1848 as the shift from Romantic to post-Romantic, which I try to
explain to them - probably in vain, I talk a heck of a lot in those
first two lectures). Major resistance to the formal divisions of high
modernism, by younger composers (including many more women than
formerly) who don't wish to restricted to serialism, or
neo-romanticism, or chance, or rock'n'roll', or tonality or not, but
start to blend them in a variety of ways.
All of this is understood in terms of my 'asymptotic graph' - telling
the students that from about Debussy/Wagner, certain structures such as
experimentation, hybridization of several kinds (cultural, historical,
conceptual), and other familiar modern tropes appear; but the big
changes in the century have to do with how *many* people are using
those tropes, and how many people are paying attention to them. Thus
the big upswing in these tropes after 1945 (actually about 1948-9!),
and again from 1968 onwards.
After 1997: The impact of the Internet starts to create something
radically more conceptually 'imploded'; distinctions that have ruled
much of the century, even the postmodern period which tried to rebel
against them, are collapsing entirely and vanishing into history.
Electronic modification, hybridization, and the vast increase in access
to/knowledge of software that enables such things start to make
traditional musical skills (playing an instrument, notation)
increasingly beside the point...
Anyway, that's a summary of what I throw at the them in a semester.
Despite the vast weight of concepts and cross-genre repertory, they
love the course - I think because I try to convey enthusiasm for a wide
variety of musics, which makes them feel both as though their own
tastes are accepted, and also that the twentieth century can be seen as
a hugely fun circus of ideas.
Steve Latham
"Margo Schulter" <msch...@web1.calweb.com> wrote in message
news:44d845b8$0$84249$d36...@news.calweb.com...
[snip]
> I'm sorry not (at least yet) to have addressed the "Modern" question which
> is your main
> focus here, although for me either Dufay or Monteverdi can be very
> "modern."
I think you meant, "timeless"!
:-)
Steve
Steve Latham
>I got a couple of responses on the AMS list:
>
>>> 'Modern' really needs to be broken down into:
>
> 1910-1945 (modernism),
> 1945-1985 (high modernism),
> 1985-current (minimalism).
Shouldn't that say 1965 for Minimalism. Anyway, I don't believe minmalism
would run to "current". At this point, everything is running to "current".
People are still writing Expressionism and Experimentalism. I wonder what
"cutoff" point distinguishes 1985?
>
>
> and
>
>>> This is interesting, as it echoes (differently) the way I teach the
>>> basic arch of the century to my basic classes: 1913-1945 is early
>>> modernism,
Between the wars as I said.
1945-1968 high modernism,
Which covers Experimentalism
and 1968 to about 1997 is postmodernism.
Which begins with Minimalism and on but always problems as we approach the
present.
Steve
>
Ian Pace
>
> "techfiddle" <renai...@australiamail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155050229....@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 1945-1968 high modernism,
>
> Which covers Experimentalism
Where do Xenakis, Ligeti or Kagel fit into this?
>
> and 1968 to about 1997 is postmodernism.
>
> Which begins with Minimalism and on but always problems as we approach the
> present.
>
But does not the fact that minimalism has primarily been a product of
America, Holland, and to an extent the UK make this definition of
'postmodernism' problematic? What about what was going on in France,
Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Russia, say?
Ian
Steve Latham
"Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1155051538.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
techfiddle wrote:
> I got a couple of responses on the AMS list:
>
> >> 'Modern' really needs to be broken down into:
>
> 1910-1945 (modernism),
> 1945-1985 (high modernism),
> 1985-current (minimalism).
One thing that bothers me about this taxonomy is that the term
"modernism" is really quite general and may apply to a variety of
styles (e.g., Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Ives, Stravinsky, Hindemith,
Varčse, and Cowell can all plausibly fall under this umbrella),
whereas the term "minimalism" is a much narrower stylistic designator.
The same is true of "Classical" though. What is Sturm und Drung, Stile
Galant, etc. Using Classical as a Time Period (without using Rococo between
B and C) includes these styles (as distinct from periods).
May I reiterate that we are running into the "period" versus "style" issue.
Margo said using X dates would put Monteverdi in the Baroque period. While I
agree, I think the more practical matter is to introduce students to the
"general" time frames, and the composers who were most associated with that
style, whether they actually wrote solely in that style or not. Despite
Monteverdi's dual academic classification, for the "broad" info a music
student needs, and how they will most likely encounter Monteverdi, he will
be a Renaissance composer because he is most known (to the general populace)
as a Renaissance composer despite his prolific Baroque work and despite the
dates given for the Renaissance and Baroque periods.
Schubert, while living in the "Romantic" era, is considered in academia to
have composed more Classically. Yet he's known in a broad sense as a
Romantic composer, so he should go there.
So I think "modernism" might be fine to describe a *time period* (or
contemporary, or 20th century, etc.), but when we start talking about styles
we probably need to be more specific and have more categories (especially in
the 20th century where there are an abundance of styles).
So not to argue with Margo and Jerry, but my point is, your chart should
stick either to broad time frames as distinct from styles (thus the
Classical era, not "classicism" per se), or include more specific styles
within each time frame.
Steve
Steve Latham
We do? How? I'm curious.
Steve
Steve Latham
periodizations
Spenglerian explanation
retrenchment,
paradigmatic
Dahlhaus'
which I try to
> explain to them - probably in vain, I talk a heck of a lot in those
> first two lectures).
(no, really)
'asymptotic graph'
hybridization
tropes
I find I've lost my class at "periodizations" when I speak like this!
Again though, his concepts are what I've been saying: Stick to broad musical
time periods and general information, like composers who composed then, and
broad stylistic aspects. You can give more info if you like, but it should
be presented in a consistent manner.
Best,
Steve
Ian Pace
"techfiddle" <renai...@australiamail.com> wrote in message
news:1155058865.6...@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On the Atinello delineation:
>
> Therefore:
>
> Early modernism: Large changes in innovative ideas,
That could be said of most periods, certainly of the 19th century.
> an extended cluster
> of experiments that parallel (and follow chronologically) experiments
> in literature and the visual arts.
What is the direct equivalent, in literature or the visual arts, of
dodecaphony? ('Abstraction' alone will not do). Musicology seems to feel a
need to play second fiddle to the study of other arts. I recall seeing
Jonathan Dunsby asking the question of what it would be like if we tried to
apply Schenkerian analysis to the study of Proust. Direct equivalences made
between music and other movements (as if music only followed, never led) in
different art forms are similarly fraught with problems.
> Then that strange retrenchment,
Highly debatable whether this period constitutes a 'retrenchment' or not.
All depends on one's aesthetic point-of-view. Does he mean neo-classicism?
What about the work of Berg and Webern in this period?
> and
> the chaotic 'between-the-wars' period, which does not however actually
> return to pre-1913 values and systems;
Which need to be defined.
> noting especially the
> disintegrating hierarchy of values and expected centers of normative
> musical behavior...
This is when such historiography goes up the creek, because of the
presupposition of 'normative' musical behaviour in previous eras. There is
no reason to suppose that later historians will not see such later periods
as equally 'normative'. The battles between the Brahms/Joachim/Hanslick
faction on one hand, and the Liszt/Wagner/Bruckner one on the other, in the
late 19th century, is hardly 'normative'. And certain 'hierarchies of value'
arguably started disintegrating with Beethoven.
>
> High modernism: Like the 'High Renaissance', an extreme and polished
> development of earlier trends;
Is Xenakis highly 'polished'? And after about the mid-1950s, does this model
hold up at all?
> the experiments become especially
> specialized,
That could be said of many eras, needs defining more precisely.
> and the casual splintering of styles that one sees in
> early modernism hardens into something much more carefully considered
> and rooted in ideas,
That's banal and pretty meaningless. Many of the early romantics were very
much rooted in ideas as well. And with the growth of musical nationalism in
the 19th century we see a 'splintering of styles', arguably to a greater
extent.
> but also much more problematic in a variety of
> ways. Popular musics become vastly more culturally powerful,
I would put it a different way. The popular music industry becomes vastly
more economically and culturally powerful.
> and
> 'classical' styles try to respond, at first by trying to universalize
> values...
Meaningless in the extreme, but a typical casual New Musicological trope.
Certainly the immediate post-1945 avant-garde believed in moving beyond
styles rooted in national musics (and who wouldn't, bearing in the mind the
recent history of nationalism at the time), but that's not at all the same
as 'trying to universalise values'.
> but that doesn't work very well, of course.
Well, if you're an Attinello who stakes their career on a populist
anti-'modernist' position, maybe that's the case. To me, still a work such
as Stockhausen's Gruppen is more powerful than most of what has come to be
labelled 'postmodern'.
> Which tends to
> lead to...
>
> Postmodernism: From 1968, even many major high modernist composers are
> disoriented or eager to change styles, in response to the cultural
> changes centered on that year
Methinks he has Berio's Sinfonia in mind. Could he possibly support this
simplistic cause-effect explanation in the case of Boulez, Barraque,
Stockhausen, Nono, Maderna? (Stockhausen's Hymnen was written in 1966-67).
To what extent has Boulez ever made a clear break in terms of style?
> (this is paradigmatic to Dahlhaus' use of
> 1848 as the shift from Romantic to post-Romantic, which I try to
> explain to them - probably in vain, I talk a heck of a lot in those
> first two lectures).
They would learn a lot more from reading Dahlhaus instead. And Dahlhaus is
vastly more subtle on such periods in the 19th century.
> Major resistance to the formal divisions of high
> modernism,
Needs explaining, what he means by 'the formal divisions'.
> by younger composers (including many more women than
> formerly) who don't wish to restricted to serialism, or
> neo-romanticism, or chance, or rock'n'roll', or tonality or not, but
> start to blend them in a variety of ways.
Ah yes, wonderful pluralism, apparently a sign of music becoming much more
'feminised'. Nasty big bad serialism against nice feminine 'diversity'.
Except that it tells you nothing about the deeply individualistic and
focused work of Sariaaho, Ustvolsakaya, Gentile, etc., etc.
>
> All of this is understood in terms of my 'asymptotic graph'
I dread to think about that.
> - telling
> the students that from about Debussy/Wagner, certain structures such as
> experimentation,
Beethoven, Schumann, Liszt, all 'experimented' in various ways (as did
Machaut, Josquin, Monteverdi, Biber, etc., etc., etc.).
> hybridization of several kinds (cultural, historical,
> conceptual),
So general as to be meaningless.
> and other familiar modern tropes appear; but the big
> changes in the century have to do with how *many* people are using
> those tropes, and how many people are paying attention to them.
To ascertain that, something meaningful about what such tropes are is
needed.
> Thus
> the big upswing in these tropes after 1945 (actually about 1948-9!),
No, that tells practically nothing about the post-1945 period. Does he
recall Boulez's statements about how the work of Debussy, Stravinsky,
Schoenberg, Berg, Webern and Varese offered so much to build upon?
> and again from 1968 onwards.
That does not sit easily with the 1968 watershed that Attinello presented
earlier.
>
> After 1997: The impact of the Internet starts to create something
> radically more conceptually 'imploded';
It is FAR too early to posit such reductive cause-effect explanations so
blithely.
> distinctions that have ruled
> much of the century, even the postmodern period which tried to rebel
> against them, are collapsing entirely and vanishing into history.
> Electronic modification, hybridization, and the vast increase in access
> to/knowledge of software that enables such things start to make
> traditional musical skills (playing an instrument, notation)
> increasingly beside the point...
So the internet is a great democratic force then? Has Attinello considered
the ways in which the Internet might privilege certain types of information
over others? But Bill Gates would be very happy with Attinello's course,
methinks. Sounds like Attinello is a strong advocate of globalisation.
>
> Anyway, that's a summary of what I throw at the them in a semester.
Poor them.
> Despite the vast weight of concepts and cross-genre repertory, they
> love the course - I think because I try to convey enthusiasm for a wide
> variety of musics, which makes them feel both as though their own
> tastes are accepted, and also that the twentieth century can be seen as
> a hugely fun circus of ideas.
>
And perhaps little more than that when taught by Attinello. To present a
summary of 20th century musical history that does not mention any possible
impacts of the events during the Nazi period and the Second World War seems
extraordinarily sanitised to the point of meaninglessness. But that suits
Attinello's high-consumerist supermarket aesthetic.
Ian
Ian Pace
superficial hack academics, are very simple and simplistic ideas dressed up
in lots of fancy jargon so as to seem terribly 'scholarly' and 'informed'.
Attinello's stuff falls into that category.
Ian
Steve Latham
"Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message
news:Xi4Cg.5$s4...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Fd4Cg.63135$Lh4.24718@trnddc02...
>>
>> "techfiddle" <renai...@australiamail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155050229....@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Between the wars as I said.
>>
>> 1945-1968 high modernism,
>>
>> Which covers Experimentalism
>
> Where do Xenakis, Ligeti or Kagel fit into this?
They don't, except by being a major composer active during X time period.
I'm saying Expeimentalism is the name of a compositional style "cultivated"
within what's given here as the high-modernism time period (which might be
X).
>>
>> and 1968 to about 1997 is postmodernism.
>>
>> Which begins with Minimalism and on but always problems as we approach
>> the present.
>>
> But does not the fact that minimalism has primarily been a product of
> America, Holland, and to an extent the UK make this definition of
> 'postmodernism' problematic?
I didn't say postmodernism (another poster's text), and I don't like the
term despite the fact that it will probably stick. I'm proposing a name for
the time period 1968-2000 or whatever - "late modernism" if one so desires,
of which minimalism is a style.
Your point about minimalism in the other response is well put - the Reich
I've heard lately is a far cry from minimalism.
Let me put this in a different perspective: We should say that "Jazz" is a
period that goes from 1900 (circa always with time periods) to 1950. Rock
(or Rock and Roll for those so inclined) is from 1950 to 1980 (or whatever
we want to decide that time period includes). But, Ragtime, Dixieland,
Swing, Be-Bop, Afro-Cuban, etc. are all *styles* of Jazz that happen in that
time period.
Trying to say minimalism is a time period is a little like trying to say
Be-Bop is a time period. It is a style that was cultivated within a certain
time frame of a larger era, the Jazz era. IMHO minimalism is better
considered a style that was cultivated within a larger time period which we
might call "the post-war era" "high modernism" "post-modernism" , or the
"space-age" or "technology age" if we like.
It makes it easier to comprehend, just like when we say the "black and
white" film era versus the "color" film era, despite. The mid to late 1950s
(1957 always stuck me as a good line for some reason) might be seen as the
division between the two despite Gone with the Wind and Psycho crossing
boundaries. But Film Noir is a style that exists within the B&W era (and I
would say even if a Film Noir was in color, it would still be considered
part of the B&W era for stylistic reasons).
A distinction needs to be made between a style, and a time period in which
that style was born, cultivated, became popular, attracted major composers,
etc. instead of calling it a "stylistic era" because as you said above, it's
not necessarily universal.
Best,
Steve
Steve Latham
As an academic, I have to both agree and disagree with you. I actually think
there is a trend nowadays to uncover these hacks through a proliferation of
material in "everyday" language - I think the internet has played a large
role in this. I do still find academics who dress up ideas in fancy jargon,
but I'm not sure of the reasons. One might be because they are hacks.
Another might be because they learned that way and are so out of touch with
their students they can't relate. Another might be a method of distancing
themselves from their students (or combinations of all of those). I for one
would love if my incoming freshmen (or hell, seniors) understood the word
"trope". But the reality of it is, they don't know the difference between
base and bass (they spell the musical term bass, base, much to my chagrin).
I know I do try to tailor my vocabulary based on my perception (which can
always be wrong!) of my audience, but I try not to "dumb down" or
"overdress" things unnecessarily.
Not knowing Attinello, my assumption (and you know what they say of
assumptions :-) is that he is over-jargoning it (my favorite was the recent
use of the word paradigm in universities - it became a catch phrase like
"extreme" has become in the "normal" world - before that I remember
"cyberspace" being over-used, and before that, "meta-").
I had a professor like that and he came off as knowledgeable, but
unapproachable. But I've heard him give pre-concert lectures where he uses
an entirely different manner which the audience loves -so I think in his
case it might be a distancing mechanism in the classroom.
Of course, some others might feel the need to be accepted into X community
and have to exhibit the characteristics their other colleagues do (it also
has the effect of making it a little "club" which non-members can be
identified by their non-use of jargon-speak - even in tech fields like
lighting this is true - know what a "can" or a "par" is?)
Best,
Steve
David Gray Porter
theory of music history." Each period is analagous to a railroad car, all
lined up one afer the other in nice perfect little order. Real life isn't
like this.
David Gray Porter
exper4imentation and "modenism" are substantial. The 14th Century had The
Plague; the 20th Century had wars and genocide and finally the threat of
total annihilation. Populations are driven down -- life becomes
precarious -- rapid experimentation and evolution in the arts is the result
of questioning the existing systems. The first time we evolved into the
style of The Renaissance -- something that was completely new and unforseen.
(The shift from modal to mensural notation and even just the change of the
pen nib design had a lot to do with it.) Something like that is happening
now.
David Gray Porter
It was first created on-the-spot for the Duke who was later the recipient of
TMO -- he didn't even let Bach change out of his traveling clothes before
making him sit down at a newfangled fortepiano and improvize on the Duke's
new musical theme.
David Gray Porter
>
>
> No, that tells practically nothing about the post-1945 period. Does he
> recall Boulez's statements about how the work of Debussy, Stravinsky,
> Schoenberg, Berg, Webern and Varese offered so much to build upon?
Boulez is the idiot who also said he thought that he would have to recompose
all of Ives's works to make them "good" or some equivalent adjective.
techfiddle
Discussion" link, but experience suggests that some will. The hot
points of the disuccsion are archived here:
http://www.geocities.com/techfiddle/discussion.html
I am fascinated by this. Thank you for all of your input.
Peter T. Daniels
I didn't need DJG (or, for that matter, DGP) to tell me that.
Peter T. Daniels
Wait a minute ... pen nib design?
Sounds like something James "Connections" Burke would claim.
Jerry Kohl
"Duke"?? That is a very strange word to translate the German "König",
which was Frederick the Great's title as used in the newspaper report
of the encounter on 11 May 1747:
<http://www.martinschlu.de/kulturgeschichte/barock/spaetbarock/bach/bach1747.htm>
Bach's engraved score of the MO addresses the king in Latin: "Regis
Iussu Cantio Et Reliqua Canonica Arte Resoluta" (the first letters
spell out RICERCAR, but the operative word here is "Regis", genitive
case of "Rex" = King), and the famous melody is the "Thema Regium" =
royal theme.
In any case, it is true that Fred the Gross proudly showed Bach the
Silbermann pianofortes he had acquired, and that Bach improvised what
is probably the three-voice ricercar on one of them. He did not,
however, create the rest of the MO "on the spot" (in particular, not
the six-voice ricercar) and, when the finished score was engraved two
weeks later, no instrument is specified for the two ricercars (which
are notated in "open score"--that is, with a separate staff for each
line of the fugue--a common enough practice for organ fugues) or for
the canons, and the Trio sonata specifies only flute, violin, and
continuo. Conventional wisdom has it that, if Bach had shared the
king's enthusiasm for the new-fangled contraption, surely he would have
specified it somewhere in the score.
Steve Latham
> Lloyd Rodgers used to describe this periodization as "the freight-train
> theory of music history." Each period is analagous to a railroad car, all
> lined up one afer the other in nice perfect little order. Real life isn't
> like this.
I won't even bother to check the link because I agree - real life isn't like
that.
>
> http://www.lloydrodgers.com/
>
>
>
Steve Latham
Ok, I'm going to have to re-read this because my recollection (which is
often faulty) is a bit different and not so specific.
Thanks,
Steve
Steve Latham
Hey! I like that show :-)
(even if the connections are a wee bit tenuous at times!)
Steve
>
Steve Latham
now that I didn't know! Thanks Jerry.
but the operative word here is "Regis", genitive
case of "Rex" = King), and the famous melody is the "Thema Regium" =
royal theme.
In any case, it is true that Fred the Gross proudly showed Bach the
Silbermann pianofortes he had acquired, and that Bach improvised what
is probably the three-voice ricercar on one of them. He did not,
however, create the rest of the MO "on the spot" (in particular, not
the six-voice ricercar)
see - that jibes with my recollection - which is why I was questioning
David's interpretation.
and, when the finished score was engraved two
weeks later, no instrument is specified for the two ricercars (which
are notated in "open score"--that is, with a separate staff for each
line of the fugue--a common enough practice for organ fugues) or for
the canons, and the Trio sonata specifies only flute, violin, and
continuo. Conventional wisdom has it that, if Bach had shared the
king's enthusiasm for the new-fangled contraption, surely he would have
specified it somewhere in the score.
And this again agrees with my recollection of the story. David, I'm thinking
your info is a little off somewhere.
Best,
Steve
David Gray Porter
The change from the old-style "black" notation to the newer "white" notation
occured when thin pen nibs came into style. The old pen nibs had been wide
and flat, so drawing a square or a diamond was the morn. Outlining a note
for a white notehead v. outlining and fill it in was possibole only with a
new nib.
This is why the first "longs" are equivalent to a double-long today (the
rectangle with the dangling RH trail), the frst "breves" are our modern long
(either a square note or a columned whole), and "semibreves" are our whole
notes.
David Gray Porter
Once some "noble" rode by Beethoven and a contemporary literary figure --
the other guy bowed low but Beethoven stood bolt upright -- "Our is the
superior kindgom," he said.
And I know that somewhere Bach said to somebody that these new ones were a
vast improvement over the ones he'd seen some 20 years before.
"Continuo" means whatever the keyboard you have to back up the others. A
Fender Rhodes in a quartet band serves much the same pupose, you know.
"Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1155139650.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David Gray Porter wrote:
David Gray Porter
I did not mean that Bach improivized the *entire* TMO on the spot. I meant
that he improvized what was to be the germ, the genesis piece, that was
culminated in the presentation he made two weeks later (as JK reports).
"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BgoCg.14071$hj4.13450@trnddc03...
David Gray Porter
>
> "Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1155139650.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> weeks later, no instrument is specified for the two ricercars (which
> are notated in "open score"--that is, with a separate staff for each
> line of the fugue--a common enough practice for organ fugues) or for
> the canons, and the Trio sonata specifies only flute, violin, and
> continuo. Conventional wisdom has it that, if Bach had shared the
> king's enthusiasm for the new-fangled contraption, surely he would have
> specified it somewhere in the score.
>
> And this again agrees with my recollection of the story. David, I'm
> thinking your info is a little off somewhere.
There's no reason to imagine that he would EXCLUDE the fortepiano from use
as the Continuo instrument. The way I heard it, Bach was quite impressed
with the changes that answered many of his objections to the instrument when
he'd seen it in the 1720s. It is not unreasonable to conclude that in 1749
Bach accepted the fortepiano as a legit keyboard instrument for any legit
use.
Jerry Kohl
David Gray Porter wrote:
> "Continuo" means whatever the keyboard you have to back up the others. A
> Fender Rhodes in a quartet band serves much the same pupose, you know.
It isn't even that specific. A "basso continuo" is simply a bass line
that "continues through" the composition (which is why it is
alternatively called a "through" or thorough" bass). It is to be
realized on whatever instrument or instruments the performers deem
suitable, or happen to be available. A chording instrument (lute, harp,
harpsichord, organ, cittern, guitar) is usually but not always used.
Archangelo Corelli is supposed to have once snubbed the local keyboard
talent (I think it was in Naples), by doing a concert with the continuo
played only by a cello. The Fender Rhodes might, indeed, serve that
function on its own in a quartet band, but more likely it would share
the responsibility with bass and drums.
And this was exactly my point. Bach could have specified the
pianoforte, if he had cared to compliment the maker Silbermann or
endorse Frederick's enthusiasm, but he did not.
I heard an interesting recording recently of Frescobaldi ensemble
canzonas (some of which are for solo bass-register instrument,
unspecified) played on trombone, with the continuo realized on
accordion. It was surprisingly effective in that role. ("Anarchic
Harmonies", Mike Svoboda and Stefan Hussong,WERGO CD 6655.)
Jerry Kohl
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1155094407....@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > David Gray Porter wrote:
> >> The parallels between the 14th and 20th Centuries in musical
> >> exper4imentation and "modenism" are substantial.
> >>The first time we evolved into the
> >> style of The Renaissance -- something that was completely new and
> >> unforseen.
> >> (The shift from modal to mensural notation and even just the change of
> >> the
> >> pen nib design had a lot to do with it.)
> > Wait a minute ... pen nib design?
> >
> > Sounds like something James "Connections" Burke would claim.
>
> The change from the old-style "black" notation to the newer "white" notation
> occured when thin pen nibs came into style. The old pen nibs had been wide
> and flat, so drawing a square or a diamond was the morn.
Sometime in the afternoon, as well ;-)
> Outlining a note
> for a white notehead v. outlining and fill it in was possibole only with a
> new nib.
So far, so good, though there is also the problem with the acidic ink
used at that time eating holes in parchment. The change to "white"
notation helped reduce this problem.
> This is why the first "longs" are equivalent to a double-long today (the
> rectangle with the dangling RH trail),
Except that this note is still called a "long". (I suspect you may be
confused by the usual practice of halving or even quartering note
values when transcribing them into modern notation.) The double long
has a double-length rectangular head, sometimes with the appearance of
two connected heads (the little bounding vertical lines at the
beginning and end are joined by another in the middle of the elongated
head).
> the frst "breves" are our modern long
No, these are also called "breves" in modern notation. They have the
appearance of a rectangular note-head with the above-mentioned short
bounding lines (no descending stem). In modern notation these are
sometimes made by adding those lines to a whole-note (semibreve), which
is what I think you mean by:
> (either a square note or a columned whole),
> and "semibreves" are our whole
> notes.
Called "semibreves" in the UK.
The really confusing bit comes with the next-smaller note, the "minim",
which in "black" notation is written as a diamond-shaped note head with
a stem--more or less the appearance of our "quarter note" (or
"crotchet"), but having the equivalent value of our half note (or
"minim"). With the change to "white" notation, this note value took on
its familiar modern form (apart from the squared-off diamond shape),
but a new, still smaller value, the "semiminum" was made by using the
old "black" note. This is, of course, our modern quarter note
(crotchet). To make matters worse, there was a practice called
"coloration", which in black notation represented triplet values
(usually) by using red ink. In white notation, this was harder to see
(and, with the advent of printed music, more expensive to print), and
so instead the white noteheads were made into black ones. This was
unambiguous with the breves and semibreves, but a colored minim in
white notation looks exactly like an ordinary semiminim--and worst of
all, a "colored" semiminum was represented by making the noteheds
hollow, so they looked exactly like an ordinary minim! Only context
makes plain the difference, and sometimes not even that.
Steve Latham
> Mr. Kohl clarified the King's rank-by-supersitition/usurpation for me.
>
> I did not mean that Bach improivized the *entire* TMO on the spot. I
> meant that he improvized what was to be the germ, the genesis piece, that
> was culminated in the presentation he made two weeks later (as JK
> reports).
OK. Understood.
Steve
Steve Latham
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1koCg.14074$hj4.2233@trnddc03...
>>
>> "Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1155139650.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> and, when the finished score was engraved two
>> weeks later, no instrument is specified for the two ricercars (which
>> are notated in "open score"--that is, with a separate staff for each
>> line of the fugue--a common enough practice for organ fugues) or for
>> the canons, and the Trio sonata specifies only flute, violin, and
>> continuo. Conventional wisdom has it that, if Bach had shared the
>> king's enthusiasm for the new-fangled contraption, surely he would have
>> specified it somewhere in the score.
>>
>> And this again agrees with my recollection of the story. David, I'm
>> thinking your info is a little off somewhere.
>
> There's no reason to imagine that he would EXCLUDE the fortepiano from use
> as the Continuo instrument.
Granted.
The way I heard it, Bach was quite impressed
> with the changes that answered many of his objections to the instrument
> when he'd seen it in the 1720s. It is not unreasonable to conclude that
> in 1749 Bach accepted the fortepiano as a legit keyboard instrument for
> any legit use.
I'd just have to offer the counter position that sometimes older people do
not embrace new technology (or new musical styles, as we see all the time).
Since he was still working on Fugues (and Ricercars!) at the end of his life
(in a style his sons would see as old-fashioned), he may have note been
willing to accept a new technology too readily. And depending on one's
character, a negative experience in the 1720's might not have given him more
than the politeness to listen to it in 1749 due to the company. Without
concrete evidence though, either of these explanations could be plausible. I
do think he was smart enough to realize that any potential continuo
instrument(s) that could pull off the part would be satisfactory.
Best,
Steve
David Gray Porter
David Gray Porter wrote:
> >This is why the first "longs" are equivalent to a double-long today (the
> >rectangle with the dangling RH trail),
> Except that this note is still called a "long". (I suspect you may be
confused by the usual practice of halving or even quartering note
values when transcribing them into modern notation.) The double long
has a double-length rectangular head, sometimes with the appearance of
two connected heads (the little bounding vertical lines at the
beginning and end are joined by another in the middle of the elongated
head).
In the 12th Century it was called a long. We call it here a double-long.
> >the frst "breves" are our modern long
>No, these are also called "breves" in modern notation. They have the
appearance of a rectangular note-head with the above-mentioned short
bounding lines (no descending stem). In modern notation these are
sometimes made by adding those lines to a whole-note (semibreve), which
is what I think you mean by:
> >(either a square note or a columned whole),
Yes, they are in fact called longs here.
> >and "semibreves" are our whole
> >notes.
>Called "semibreves" in the UK.
But not in the States. Never except by elites. Everyone else calls them
wholes and nothing else.
David Gray Porter
David Gray Porter wrote:
> "Continuo" means whatever the keyboard you have to back up the others. A
> Fender Rhodes in a quartet band serves much the same pupose, you know.
It isn't even that specific. A "basso continuo" is simply a bass line
that "continues through" the composition (which is why it is
alternatively called a "through" or thorough" bass). It is to be
realized on whatever instrument or instruments the performers deem
suitable, or happen to be available. A chording instrument (lute, harp,
harpsichord, organ, cittern, guitar) is usually but not always used.
Archangelo Corelli is supposed to have once snubbed the local keyboard
talent (I think it was in Naples), by doing a concert with the continuo
played only by a cello. The Fender Rhodes might, indeed, serve that
function on its own in a quartet band, but more likely it would share
the responsibility with bass and drums.
DGP: Often the bass is absent (or drunk.) A good keyboardist in a band can
play the bass as well as RH chords. (And obviously throw in some
harmioniuzation atop the LH bass.) Drums really do not serve as continuo
did.
And this was exactly my point. Bach could have specified the
pianoforte, if he had cared to compliment the maker Silbermann or
endorse Frederick's enthusiasm, but he did not.
DGP: Why? He never specified "Play THIS keyboard continuo part on THIS
keyboard instrument X". It was whichever you had. (I'm not including the
Violin pieces with written accompaniment, I mean the "glue-part" in ensemble
pieces.) But I had heard, in grad seminar I think that he did remark that
the instrument was much inproved. Considering that he had dismissed it less
than 20 years earlier this is a significant turnaround. Imagne that you've
been using a Moog or Arp and then you get a sampling Roland. Or even more
basic, say you've been using something like what U of M had where each patch
had to be hard-wired, and then you got an Arp, or better still the Roland.
"Boy, this one is much better!"
DGP: BtW, yours is one post that doesn't automatically carat.
I heard an interesting recording recently of Frescobaldi ensemble
canzonas (some of which are for solo bass-register instrument,
unspecified) played on trombone, with the continuo realized on
accordion. It was surprisingly effective in that role. ("Anarchic
Harmonies", Mike Svoboda and Stefan Hussong,WERGO CD 6655.)
DGP: "Italians!" [say with a Shakespearian air]
Peter T. Daniels
> > Wait a minute ... pen nib design?
> >
> > Sounds like something James "Connections" Burke would claim.
>
> Hey! I like that show :-)
>
> (even if the connections are a wee bit tenuous at times!)
There weren't that many TV programs ... but when he had to do a monthly
column for Scientific American -- well, that was one of many reasons I
gave up my subscription.
Peter T. Daniels
That was clearer than the New Grove version.
tom
"Lora Crighton" <sin...@yorku.ca> wrote in message
news:eb7uaf$cv0$1...@news.datemas.de...
> it's so over-played on the radio & it seems like every single class that
> touches on classical music has to cover that in great detail (2 classes
> in high school, and 3 in university so far for for me).
>
And they'll keep making you study it until you understand what a great piece
it is!
Steve Latham
lol!
Steve
>
David Gray Porter
No points for pointing out wheN my dyslexia confounds me!
It took me three scans to see this. Fuck! I must need meds.
(Non-Potassium, hopefully.)
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1155173013.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Michael Haslam
> "Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1155148427.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >the frst "breves" are our modern long
>
> >No, these are also called "breves" in modern notation. They have the
> appearance of a rectangular note-head with the above-mentioned short
> bounding lines (no descending stem). In modern notation these are
> sometimes made by adding those lines to a whole-note (semibreve), which
> is what I think you mean by:
>
> > >(either a square note or a columned whole),
>
> Yes, they are in fact called longs here.
So how come I (a Brit) had a whole discussion with Peter (a Yank) about
the use of breves in which longs were never mentioned. The only long I
have ever met is the one described by Jerry, with a stem. I thought the
term used in the US for breve was Double Whole, as in the German.
>
> > >and "semibreves" are our whole
> > >notes.
>
> >Called "semibreves" in the UK.
>
> But not in the States. Never except by elites. Everyone else calls them
> wholes and nothing else.
You're all so accommodating and Germanic over there!
--
MJHaslam
Remove accidentals to obtain correct e-address
"What does your unnecessary question have to do with classical music,
tallis?" - Dr. David Tholen
Lora Crighton
>
> I never felt the need to acquire a Palisca version of Grout; and now I
> see that Peter Burkholder has done the latest, but the price has gotten
> very high (they charge a textbook price for it).
>
They did for the Palisca version as well - I paid over 90$ + tax for mine, which
I thought was way too much, but I needed to get it because the assigned textbook
for the course was so bad.
--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspire:
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.
Lora Crighton
> Lora Crighton wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> And this was in the last class he taught before retirement, The Music
>>> of J. S. Bach.
>>>
>> It must have been an amazing class.
>
> Well, there's only so much you can do in 13 three-hour sessions.
Most of our 1 term courses have been only 2 hour sessions, and it never seems
like there's enough time to cover everything.
> Homework each week was the analysis of one of the fugues from the WTC;
> I don't recall that any papers were required (it was basically music
> appreciation -- but everyone was delighted to Take Grout).
>
With all the analysis, it's more than any music appreciation course I've ever
seen. I haven't had to do an analysis in any of my courses yet - most of the
courses have required papers or class presentations, and several have required
concert reviews.
> So I never did know what DJG had to say about the Art of Fugue and
> Musical Offering ...
>
Did a lot of people skip that class?
Lora Crighton
Listen to some of his later works, especially the string quartets.
Lora Crighton
> David Gray Porter <port...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1155148427.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> the frst "breves" are our modern long
>>> No, these are also called "breves" in modern notation. They have the
>> appearance of a rectangular note-head with the above-mentioned short
>> bounding lines (no descending stem). In modern notation these are
>> sometimes made by adding those lines to a whole-note (semibreve), which
>> is what I think you mean by:
>>
>>>> (either a square note or a columned whole),
>> Yes, they are in fact called longs here.
>
> So how come I (a Brit) had a whole discussion with Peter (a Yank) about
> the use of breves in which longs were never mentioned. The only long I
> have ever met is the one described by Jerry, with a stem. I thought the
> term used in the US for breve was Double Whole, as in the German.
You're correct.
>> Everyone else calls them
>> wholes and nothing else.
>
> You're all so accommodating and Germanic over there!
I didn't know that was Germanic - it's what we're taught in Canada as well,
although I've seen all the English names in books.
Lora Crighton
> Despite
> Monteverdi's dual academic classification, for the "broad" info a music
> student needs, and how they will most likely encounter Monteverdi, he will
> be a Renaissance composer because he is most known (to the general populace)
> as a Renaissance composer despite his prolific Baroque work and despite the
> dates given for the Renaissance and Baroque periods.
>
What do you think he's most known for then? I had thought it was for some of
his church music and his operas, which seem more Baroque than Renaissance to me.
Peter T. Daniels
Lora Crighton wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Lora Crighton wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> And this was in the last class he taught before retirement, The Music
> >>> of J. S. Bach.
> >>>
> >> It must have been an amazing class.
> >
> > Well, there's only so much you can do in 13 three-hour sessions.
>
> Most of our 1 term courses have been only 2 hour sessions, and it never seems
> like there's enough time to cover everything.
>
> > Homework each week was the analysis of one of the fugues from the WTC;
> > I don't recall that any papers were required (it was basically music
> > appreciation -- but everyone was delighted to Take Grout).
> >
>
> With all the analysis, it's more than any music appreciation course I've ever
> seen. I haven't had to do an analysis in any of my courses yet - most of the
> courses have required papers or class presentations, and several have required
> concert reviews.
>
> > So I never did know what DJG had to say about the Art of Fugue and
> > Musical Offering ...
> >
>
> Did a lot of people skip that class?
i'm afraid I have no way of knowing! I wasn't there.
Lora Crighton
>>> So I never did know what DJG had to say about the Art of Fugue and
>>> Musical Offering ...
>>>
>> Did a lot of people skip that class?
>
> i'm afraid I have no way of knowing! I wasn't there.
>
Once I skipped a class because it conflicted with something I thought was far
more interesting, and saw that more than half my classmates had done the same.
Jerry Kohl
>
> That was clearer than the New Grove version.
Thank you! I've not bothered to look at the New Grove article, having
learned early notation long before even the Old New Grove was
published, from Willi Apel's textbook.
Jerry Kohl
David Gray Porter wrote:
> "Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1155148427.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> David Gray Porter wrote:
>
> > >This is why the first "longs" are equivalent to a double-long today (the
> > >rectangle with the dangling RH trail),
>
> > Except that this note is still called a "long". (I suspect you may be
> confused by the usual practice of halving or even quartering note
> values when transcribing them into modern notation.) The double long
> has a double-length rectangular head, sometimes with the appearance of
> two connected heads (the little bounding vertical lines at the
> beginning and end are joined by another in the middle of the elongated
> head).
>
> In the 12th Century it was called a long. We call it here a double-long.
Sorry, but I must disagree. In the 12th century there were no symbols
for discrete note values. What was called a "long" by the late 12th
century was a note longer than a "short" (i.e., breve, from the Latin
"brevis"). The short could be either 1/3 or 2/3 of the long. In the
so-called modal rhythmic notation that developed at that time and
persisted until the middle of the 13th century, these values were
discriminated by the forms of connected groups of notes, called
"ligatures". This article:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythmic_mode>
confesses the need of an expert on the subject to improve it, but
nonetheless gives a fairly good idea of the workings of the system.
Symbols for discrete note values first came into being in the mid-13th
century, but the specific forms we use today, along with at least some
of the nomenclature, were invented around the end of the 13th or
beginning of the 14th century.
> >Called "semibreves" in the UK.
>
> But not in the States. Never except by elites. Everyone else calls them
> wholes and nothing else.
Did I say otherwise? For Americans educated in the German-derived
terms, knowing the UK terminology can be useful in avoiding the kind of
confusion you seemed to be having with the relationships between the
various early notations and their modern analogs. Besides, it's only a
hunch, but there may be some non-Americans reading this newsgroup who,
unlike your good self, may be more familiar with these terms than the
American ones.
Jerry Kohl
Lora Crighton wrote:
> Michael Haslam wrote:
> > David Gray Porter <port...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1155148427.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>>> the frst "breves" are our modern long
> >>> No, these are also called "breves" in modern notation. They have the
> >> appearance of a rectangular note-head with the above-mentioned short
> >> bounding lines (no descending stem). In modern notation these are
> >> sometimes made by adding those lines to a whole-note (semibreve), which
> >> is what I think you mean by:
> >>
> >>>> (either a square note or a columned whole),
> >> Yes, they are in fact called longs here.
> >
> > So how come I (a Brit) had a whole discussion with Peter (a Yank) about
> > the use of breves in which longs were never mentioned. The only long I
> > have ever met is the one described by Jerry, with a stem. I thought the
> > term used in the US for breve was Double Whole, as in the German.
>
> You're correct.
>
> >> Everyone else calls them
> >> wholes and nothing else.
> >
> > You're all so accommodating and Germanic over there!
>
> I didn't know that was Germanic - it's what we're taught in Canada as well,
> although I've seen all the English names in books.
This comes from the fact that the model for music education in the US
and Canada (French-speaking Canada excepted) was based in the 19th
century on the German model. Germany was where most Americans went to
receive a musical education, rather than England, France, or Italy
(naturally, there were some exceptions), and the German system of using
numeric fractions is easier to remember than, say, the French "ronde",
"blanche", "noire", "croche", "double croche", etc. (not to mention a
separate system for rests: "quart de soupir", for example, being the
rest equivalent of a "double croche"). From an international point of
view, also, this avoids the confusion that, for example, an English
crotchet = French noire, while a French croche = English quaver.
Jerry Kohl
David Gray Porter wrote:
> "Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1155146592.0...@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> David Gray Porter wrote:
> > "Continuo" means whatever the keyboard you have to back up the others. A
> > Fender Rhodes in a quartet band serves much the same pupose, you know.
>
> It isn't even that specific. A "basso continuo" is simply a bass line
> that "continues through" the composition
> The Fender Rhodes might, indeed, serve that
> function on its own in a quartet band, but more likely it would share
> the responsibility with bass and drums.
>
> DGP: Often the bass is absent (or drunk.)
LOL! Too true!
> A good keyboardist in a band can
> play the bass as well as RH chords. (And obviously throw in some
> harmioniuzation atop the LH bass.)
Sure. Just as in the baroque continuo section, the jazz rhythm section
can be constituted in various ways. It is unusual for there to be no
chording instrument, but it does sometimes occur.
> Drums really do not serve as continuo
> did.
No, indeed (and this is the biggest difference from the baroque
continuo section), but the drums are almost always regarded as a part
of the rhythm section.
>
> And this was exactly my point. Bach could have specified the
> pianoforte, if he had cared to compliment the maker Silbermann or
> endorse Frederick's enthusiasm, but he did not.
>
> DGP: Why? He never specified "Play THIS keyboard continuo part on THIS
> keyboard instrument X". It was whichever you had. (I'm not including the
> Violin pieces with written accompaniment, I mean the "glue-part" in ensemble
> pieces.)
I'm not 100% sure about Bach, but Handel did on occasion indicate a
specific instrument for a continuo part. For example, in the autograph
manuscripts of three of the recorder sonatas, he specifies they are for
"flauto e cembalo". This has led some to believe that Handel did not
want a melodic bass instrument, as well as the obvious conclusion that
Handel did not want an organ, theorbo, or harp for these pieces.
> But I had heard, in grad seminar I think that he did remark that
> the instrument was much inproved.
That could be. I don't know that reference.
> DGP: BtW, yours is one post that doesn't automatically carat.
I have noticed that, but only in your own responses to my posts. Oddly
enough, your messages automatically "carat" (depending on how my
browser is set--in HTML I get a blue line) when I reply to them. It
must have something to do with different browsers or ISPs.
> I heard an interesting recording recently of Frescobaldi ensemble
> canzonas (some of which are for solo bass-register instrument,
> unspecified) played on trombone, with the continuo realized on
> accordion. It was surprisingly effective in that role. ("Anarchic
> Harmonies", Mike Svoboda and Stefan Hussong,WERGO CD 6655.)
>
> DGP: "Italians!" [say with a Shakespearian air]
Indeed! Especially Italians with names like Svoboda dna Hussong, eh?
Steve Latham
> Steve Latham wrote:
>> Despite Monteverdi's dual academic classification, for the "broad" info a
>> music student needs, and how they will most likely encounter Monteverdi,
>> he will be a Renaissance composer because he is most known (to the
>> general populace) as a Renaissance composer despite his prolific Baroque
>> work and despite the dates given for the Renaissance and Baroque periods.
>>
>
> What do you think he's most known for then? I had thought it was for some
> of his church music and his operas, which seem more Baroque than
> Renaissance to me.
True, but,
Ever heard of the Madrigals??????
:-)
Steve