Impressionism
Chad McCrite
Would anyone here like to discuss composers that
may fall into the category of impressionism,
and their music?
--
Chad McCrite
ch...@cicdphx.com
piper
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:07:53 +0000, Chad McCrite <ch...@cicdphx.com>
wrote:
Sure. Who were you thinking of, and what do you think of them? :-)
Joe
Impressionism is a mis-nomer. While some composers were labeled as such
(and generally unhappy about it), it is a label best used in the area of
painting. The same said composers were / are such a unique, strong and
innovative talent and of such great importnace musically that calling
any of them Impressionist is simply insulting.
JOE
Constantin Marcou
Joe wrote:
> Impressionism is a mis-nomer. While some composers were labeled as such
> (and generally unhappy about it), it is a label best used in the area of
> painting. The same said composers were / are such a unique, strong and
> innovative talent and of such great importnace musically that calling
> any of them Impressionist is simply insulting.
> JOE
While you are, strictly speaking, technically correct about "impressionism"
being a misnomer for musical style, I wouldn't be so harsh in condemning the
term. The description aptly summarizes certain characteristics that are
shared with the style of painting, as catalogued in the mini-Grove:
"In 1882, Renoir mentioned `musical impressionism' in discussion with
Wagner. It was applied, as a criticism, to Debussy's Printemps in 1887, to
signify that the writer thought the work lacking in structural precision and
exagggeratedly occupied with colour.... [M]any critics regard it as a
useful critical concept, particularly for music that blurs the outlines of
traditional tonal progression with modal or chromatic features and conveys
moods and emotions around a subject rather than presenting a detailed
musical picture."
Well, I suppose some of that amounts to florid academic newspeak (about
"emotions" vs. "detailed musical pictures"), but I think the bit about
blurring tonal progression with chromaticism is fairly analogous to the
blurring of outlines and details in impressionistic painting.
--
Best regards,
Con
*****************************************************************
"Mozart is too easy for beginners and too difficult for artists."
- Artur Schnabel
*****************************************************************
Please remove * from address to reply.
Chad McCrite
Constantin Marcou wrote:
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> > Impressionism is a mis-nomer. While some composers were labeled as such
> > (and generally unhappy about it), it is a label best used in the area of
> > painting. The same said composers were / are such a unique, strong and
> > innovative talent and of such great importnace musically that calling
> > any of them Impressionist is simply insulting.
> > JOE
>
> While you are, strictly speaking, technically correct about "impressionism"
> being a misnomer for musical style, I wouldn't be so harsh in condemning the
> term. The description aptly summarizes certain characteristics that are
> shared with the style of painting, as catalogued in the mini-Grove:
>
> "In 1882, Renoir mentioned `musical impressionism' in discussion with
> Wagner. It was applied, as a criticism, to Debussy's Printemps in 1887, to
> signify that the writer thought the work lacking in structural precision and
> exagggeratedly occupied with colour.... [M]any critics regard it as a
> useful critical concept, particularly for music that blurs the outlines of
> traditional tonal progression with modal or chromatic features and conveys
> moods and emotions around a subject rather than presenting a detailed
> musical picture."
>
> Well, I suppose some of that amounts to florid academic newspeak (about
> "emotions" vs. "detailed musical pictures"), but I think the bit about
> blurring tonal progression with chromaticism is fairly analogous to the
> blurring of outlines and details in impressionistic painting.
>
Consider the derivation of the word "chromatic". With not too much of a
stretch, I believe the phrase "blurring tonal progression with
chromaticism"
to be apt in description of so-called impressionism of either medium.
I wonder if the fact that the term was originally used (according to
JOE)
in derision may not have "colored" the opinions of those to whom the
term
was applied. Also, were Monet and his fellows not as "unique, strong
and
innovative [...] and of such great importance" in their medium? Is that
a
reason that a label descriptive of their style should be considered
insulting?
This next I mean as a serious question: _Why_ is "impressionism" a
misnomer?
Also, could you point me in the direction of composers besides Debussy
that
would fit into the category if it _were_ valid?
> --
> Best regards,
> Con
>
> *****************************************************************
> "Mozart is too easy for beginners and too difficult for artists."
>
> - Artur Schnabel
> *****************************************************************
>
> Please remove * from address to reply.
--
Chad McCrite
ch...@cicdphx.com
Chad McCrite
>
> >Would anyone here like to discuss composers that
> >may fall into the category of impressionism,
> >and their music?
> >--
> >Chad McCrite
> >ch...@cicdphx.com
>
I brought it up because of a discussion I've been having with a
friend in which Debussy was the only composer we could think of
to whom we'd heard the term applied, but there must be others.
I maintained that Liszt could be considered ("Les jeux d'eauz
`a la villa d'Este" in places being a nice sample), but was at
a loss to substantiate for lack of authoritative reference.
Any ideas?
--
Chad McCrite
ch...@cicdphx.com
Christopher Johnson
Constantin Marcou <conm...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<3518D08F...@earthlink.net>...
>
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> > Impressionism is a mis-nomer. While some composers were labeled as such
> > (and generally unhappy about it), it is a label best used in the area
of
> > painting.
>
> [Constantin then quotes from New Grove:]
> [M]any critics regard it as a
> useful critical concept, particularly for music that blurs the outlines
of
> traditional tonal progression with modal or chromatic features and
conveys
> moods and emotions around a subject rather than presenting a detailed
> musical picture."
>
> Well, I suppose some of that amounts to florid academic newspeak (about
> "emotions" vs. "detailed musical pictures"), but I think the bit about
> blurring tonal progression with chromaticism is fairly analogous to the
> blurring of outlines and details in impressionistic painting.
Certain of Debussy's orchestral works (such as "La Mer," second movement,
or "Fetes" from the "Nocturnes") use an "impressionist" orchestration; one
hears little melodic fragments with rapidly changing orchestral timbres
("colors"). This could be likened to the technique used by Impressionist
painters to achieve brilliant color--that is, the use of discrete bits of
color that would be mixed in the eye ("optical mixture"). (This technique
was carried to its ultimate in Seurat's pointillist paintings.)
Of course, all such types of comparisons between art and music are highly
subjective.
For me, there are more points of similarity between fin de siecle music
and Symbolist art than there are to Impressionist art. Exhibit A: "Pelleas
et Melisande," with a libretto based on one of the best-known Symbolist
dramas, set in a mythic medieval seting. Exhibit B: "Sirenes," from the
"Nocturnes"--clouds and festivals are "Impressionist" subjects, but the
idea of depicting mythological "femmes fatales" is right out of the
Symbolist movement.
It is only in recent years that the Symbolist movement in the arts has
received its due respect as the source of much of the Modernist movement.
Many aspects of Modernism in the arts owe much to the Symbolist movement,
including: (1) the fascination the Modernists had for the interrelationship
between the arts, (2) the fact that many Modernists (mainly painters) saw
themselves as prophets of a "religion of art," and (3) the fascinaton with
hermetic techniques. Even "The Rite of Spring" owes much to the Symbolist
movement, thanks to that work's links with myth and ritual.
Christopher Johnson
Diane Wilson
In article <3518DD1E...@cicdphx.com>, ch...@cicdphx.com says...
> This next I mean as a serious question: _Why_ is "impressionism" a
> misnomer?
If "impressionism" has a single meaning at all. Last year the
Smithsonian hosted a major show of early Picasso, entirely pre-cubist.
There was one panel with a series of paintings from about a two or
three month period, where Picasso went through every known variation
of impressionist style, started making up his own impressionist styles,
and then discarded the whole concept. But the variation between each
painting was remarkable.
It seems best to keep the fit with music as loose as possible, but
without discarding it.
> Also, could you point me in the direction of composers besides Debussy
> that
> would fit into the category if it _were_ valid?
Some of Ravel, certainly; Daphnis and Chloe. And although he would
rebel at the label *and* at the association with Debussy, a good deal
of Scriabin would seem to fit, starting with the later symphonies.
--
Diane Wilson | Marriage is really tough because
anon-...@anon.twwells.com | you have to deal with feelings
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/ | and lawyers.
http://www.acm.org/chapters/trichi/ | --Richard Pryor
Joe
Why not simply replace the phrase 'impressionism' with 'heavy / frequent use of
chromanticism in a naturalistic topic'? The word impressionist still applies far
better to painting.
Composers who were mis-labelled as impressionistic (imo) were Claude Debussy,
Maurice Ravel and Andre Caplet, and any Puccini's Turandot. With a severe stretch
you could include Sibelius, Nielsen and Szymanowski, even Richard Strauss Alpine
Symphony for instance or Rachmaninov's second piano concerto with its bells in fog
effect at the opening. But as none of these examples and composers fit the
prescribed description of ""blurring of outlines and details in impressionistic
painting.""
The Liszt reference to Jeux de Villa d'Este and Valee d'Obermann are from a very
early works and are no more impressionist than the famous 'scene by the brooke' in
Beethoven's Pastorale symphony. Nearly all of Sibelius' work has the same elements
of 'tone poem', and Sibelius openly admitted to Liszt as his example for this area
of composition.
I think that the orchestration is being confused with composition. Debussy's La
Mer, Tchaikovsky's Tempest or Francesca Di Rimini - all three works offer
descriptive elements with a high degree of colour.
Is Debussy Preludes any more descriptive than Chopins Heroic Polonaise? Vivaldi's
Four Seasons are another example of music describing physical aspects of some
event. How about the Descent into Nibelheim from Das Rheingold? It effectively
demonstrates a descent into a large smithy. Impressionistic or descriptive?
over to you
JOE
Chad McCrite wrote:
> Constantin Marcou wrote:
> >
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> > > Impressionism is a mis-nomer. While some composers were labeled as such
> > > (and generally unhappy about it), it is a label best used in the area of
> > > painting. The same said composers were / are such a unique, strong and
> > > innovative talent and of such great importnace musically that calling
> > > any of them Impressionist is simply insulting.
> > > JOE
> >
> > While you are, strictly speaking, technically correct about "impressionism"
> > being a misnomer for musical style, I wouldn't be so harsh in condemning the
> > term. The description aptly summarizes certain characteristics that are
> > shared with the style of painting, as catalogued in the mini-Grove:
> >
> > "In 1882, Renoir mentioned `musical impressionism' in discussion with
> > Wagner. It was applied, as a criticism, to Debussy's Printemps in 1887, to
> > signify that the writer thought the work lacking in structural precision and
> > exagggeratedly occupied with colour.... [M]any critics regard it as a
> > useful critical concept, particularly for music that blurs the outlines of
> > traditional tonal progression with modal or chromatic features and conveys
> > moods and emotions around a subject rather than presenting a detailed
> > musical picture."
> >
> > Well, I suppose some of that amounts to florid academic newspeak (about
> > "emotions" vs. "detailed musical pictures"), but I think the bit about
> > blurring tonal progression with chromaticism is fairly analogous to the
> > blurring of outlines and details in impressionistic painting.
> >
>
> Consider the derivation of the word "chromatic". With not too much of a
> stretch, I believe the phrase "blurring tonal progression with
> chromaticism"
> to be apt in description of so-called impressionism of either medium.
>
> I wonder if the fact that the term was originally used (according to
> JOE)
> in derision may not have "colored" the opinions of those to whom the
> term
> was applied. Also, were Monet and his fellows not as "unique, strong
> and
> innovative [...] and of such great importance" in their medium? Is that
> a
> reason that a label descriptive of their style should be considered
> insulting?
>
> This next I mean as a serious question: _Why_ is "impressionism" a
> misnomer?
> Also, could you point me in the direction of composers besides Debussy
> that
> would fit into the category if it _were_ valid?
>
zanzibar
Almost all of the "impressionist" composers mentioned so far in this
thread have been French, however I have heard Kodaly referred to as the
Hungarian impressionist. Any opinions on that?
where's walda?
zanzibar... hee hee
kodaly's music contains some "impressionistic" devices; (e.g. its use
of dance rhythms and evocative moods.) however, i think it is more
similar to bartok, (maybe hindemith) and other nationalistic composers
in style, than to debussy and co. correct me if i am wrong, but kodaly
wasn't big into modes, parallelism, delicacy and most of the
characteristics that define impressionism. he was most likely
influenced by the impressionist movement (as were most composer apres
debussy). however, i don't think i would classify him as "the hungarian
impressionist."
what do you think of composers like delius, rephighi, szymanowski,
bloch, defalla, and griffes as non-French impressionists?
:)
Alain
Joe wrote:
> Impressionism is a mis-nomer. While some composers were labeled as such
> (and generally unhappy about it), it is a label best used in the area of
> painting.
Almost all such labels are, strictly speaking, misnomers. But they gradually
acquire a certain meaning. For example, Impressionist music refers to a
certain loosely defined school of composers centred around France at the
turn of the century. That they didn't call themselves that isn't really
important.
Why, for example, is the 18th century music of Vivaldi, Handel and Bach
called "baroque", a term that refers to 17th century Italian architecture
and art? I've never understood that. I don't think even the great Panofsky
had an explanation.
Impressionism is different than other artistic terms like baroque or roccoco
in that it was chosen by the impressionist painters themselves.
alain
piper
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 01:08:57 -0330, Joe <jos...@avint.net> wrote:
>Impressionism is a mis-nomer. While some composers were labeled as such
>(and generally unhappy about it),
Debussy despised the term, I've read.
> it is a label best used in the area of
>painting. The same said composers were / are such a unique, strong and
>innovative talent and of such great importnace musically that calling
>any of them Impressionist is simply insulting.
How is this different from great painters like Renoir and Monet?
Should we consider it equally "insulting" to call such innovative and
great artists "impressionist"?
Michael
P.S. I think the term "Impressionist" does fit for some of Debussy's
works. Think of his Preludes, for example. They do in fact give an
impression of a scene, event, etc. Think of "La cathedrale engloutie"
- doesn't that give a beautiful impression of a sunken cathedral?
piper
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:31:58 +0000, Chad McCrite <ch...@cicdphx.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>I wonder if the fact that the term was originally used (according to
>JOE)
>in derision may not have "colored" the opinions of those to whom the
>term
>was applied.
But it was first applied to Monet's "Impression: Aube" by a derisive
critic. Monet and his associates adopted the term anyway.
[snip]
>Also, could you point me in the direction of composers besides Debussy
>that
>would fit into the category if it _were_ valid?
Satie, definitely. Ravel, except when he was more
neoclassic/neo-Baroque (Le tombeau de Couperin, e.g.). Roussel's
earlier period (later, he, too, became neoclassic).
Michael
Simon Roberts
Alain (al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: Why, for example, is the 18th century music of Vivaldi, Handel and Bach
: called "baroque", a term that refers to 17th century Italian architecture
: and art? I've never understood that. I don't think even the great Panofsky
: had an explanation.
Especially when you consider what that word originally meant....
Simon
piper
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:49:55 -0600, zanzibar <lan...@rice.edu> wrote:
>Almost all of the "impressionist" composers mentioned so far in this
>thread have been French, however I have heard Kodaly referred to as the
>Hungarian impressionist. Any opinions on that?
I disagree. He's a post-Romantic/mildly modernist
folk-music-influenced composer, but not an Impressionist.
Alain DAGHER
piper (pi...@interport.net) wrote:
: On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:31:58 +0000, Chad McCrite <ch...@cicdphx.com>
: wrote:
: >I wonder if the fact that the term was originally used (according to
: >JOE)
: >in derision may not have "colored" the opinions of those to whom the
: >term
: >was applied.
: But it was first applied to Monet's "Impression: Aube" by a derisive
: critic. Monet and his associates adopted the term anyway.
"Impression, Soleil Levant"
You are right that they then adopted the term, even calling one of
their exhibitions the Impressionist Exhibition.
--
Regards,
"De la musique avant toute chose"
Alain Dagher, M.D.
Montreal Neurological Institute -Paul Verlaine
Joe
Yes, but so does Vivaldi's Summer from the Four Seasons - barking dogs and
flies. Beethoven' 6th symphony with the rumbling thunder. There are lots of
examples of music deliberating on a topic or event resulting in imagery in
the mind of the listener.
I still think the phrase refers to orchestrations more than compositions. la
catherdral engloutie - I get it and really enjoy the piece, and admitt to
its heavy pictoral imagery but I still think that Impressionist fits
painting better. Would anyone say Debussy's etudes were impresionistic in
the sence of this discussion? Academic sems to be a more common label.
Which it my main point - that the term Impressionist does not fit any
composer very well - a few individual pieces but no more than that. Are some
early Beethoven - the Septet and Serenades/Trios which have multiple
movements non-classical. The form of these pieces are very similar to
baroque suites but no one calls early Beethoven 'Baroque'.
JOE
piper
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:23:11 -0330, Joe <jos...@avint.net> wrote:
>Yes, but so does Vivaldi's Summer from the Four Seasons - barking dogs and
>flies. Beethoven' 6th symphony with the rumbling thunder. There are lots of
>examples of music deliberating on a topic or event resulting in imagery in
>the mind of the listener.
Yeah. But the context is different. I think part of what Debussy is
often about is delighting in the beauty of the harmonies themselves.
And you'd have to admit that the feeling of "Voiles" from the Preludes
Book I is a lot different from these other works you mention, because
there isn't nearly the linear motion that was in Baroque or Romantic
work. Impressionist music absorbed some influence from the cyclical
structure and motion of the gamelan music that so captivated French
composers at the 1888 Exposition Universelle.
>
>I still think the phrase refers to orchestrations more than compositions. la
>catherdral engloutie - I get it and really enjoy the piece, and admitt to
>its heavy pictoral imagery but I still think that Impressionist fits
>painting better.
Sure. But there's something "colorist" about lots of Debussy's,
Ravel's, Satie's, Roussel's music which is comparable.
> Would anyone say Debussy's etudes were impresionistic in
>the sence of this discussion?
Yes. I think I would. They're colorist.
> Academic sems to be a more common label.
Unfair, because of the negative connotations of that word.
>
>Which it my main point - that the term Impressionist does not fit any
>composer very well - a few individual pieces but no more than that.
Impressionism is an outgrowth of Romanticism (in a different way, so
is Expressionism). Some of Debussy's works are more properly called
Romantic, and his late works are already Post-Impressionist. Yeah,
it's not so clear, but isn't the term "Classical" also a bit
questionable when applied to Haydn?
We basically agree, but there IS a relationship between Monet and
Debussy.
> Are some
>early Beethoven - the Septet and Serenades/Trios which have multiple
>movements non-classical. The form of these pieces are very similar to
>baroque suites but no one calls early Beethoven 'Baroque'.
How about "Classical", a la Mozart?
Michael
zanzibar
piper wrote:
> P.S. I think the term "Impressionist" does fit for some of Debussy's
> works. Think of his Preludes, for example. They do in fact give an
> impression of a scene, event, etc. Think of "La cathedrale engloutie"
> - doesn't that give a beautiful impression of a sunken cathedral?
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:23:11 -0330, Joe <jos...@avint.net> wrote:
>Yes, but so does Vivaldi's Summer from the Four Seasons - barking dogs and
>flies. Beethoven' 6th symphony with the rumbling thunder. There are lots of
>examples of music deliberating on a topic or event resulting in imagery in
>the mind of the listener.
I have always been taught that immpressionist composers did not describe
a scene or an event, but rather the emotions evoked by a scene or
event. This creates a definition of musical impressionism entirely
different from that of the painting style. If one accepts this
definition, then Vivaldi's barking dogs and Beethoven's thunder aren't
impressionist while Debussey's "coloration" is.
LM
piper
Nice argument, but I think one could in fact make the same argument
about the Beethoven Pastoral Symphony. He was describing the "cheerful
sentiments" of peasants on a nice day, for example.
But the fact that it's hard to precisely define in words a term like
Impressionism - or Romanticism - when applied to music does not
totally invalidate it. Musical sounds and styles are hard to define in
words beyond a certain point, in general, don't you all think?
Michael
Joe
JOE Replies
zanzibar wrote:
> piper wrote:
>
> > P.S. I think the term "Impressionist" does fit for some of Debussy's
> > works. Think of his Preludes, for example. They do in fact give an
> > impression of a scene, event, etc. Think of "La cathedrale engloutie"
> > - doesn't that give a beautiful impression of a sunken cathedral?
>
> On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:23:11 -0330, Joe <jos...@avint.net> wrote:
>
> >Yes, but so does Vivaldi's Summer from the Four Seasons - barking dogs and
> >flies. Beethoven' 6th symphony with the rumbling thunder. There are lots of
> >examples of music deliberating on a topic or event resulting in imagery in
> >the mind of the listener.
>
> I have always been taught that immpressionist composers did not describe
> a scene or an event, but rather the emotions evoked by a scene or
> event.
Schnittke's very chromantic/acidic Peer Gynt attempts to create the feelinngs of
terror, anguish etc. of the hero of the Ibsin play - Is piece this
impressionist? It is completely occupied withthe emotional conctent of the
event.What of Malipiero? He argued that the form of his late pieces rely on the
emotional developement more than the more recognised musical development.
> This creates a definition of musical impressionism entirely
> different from that of the painting style. If one accepts this
> definition, then Vivaldi's barking dogs and Beethoven's thunder aren't
> impressionist while Debussey's "coloration" is.
>
> LM
So the style of painting is different from the style of composition? I harken
back to my Beethoven Septet and its stylization of baroque dance movements.
Another example of style can be heard with Respighi orchestration of the Rossini
Boutique Fantastique - same material as found in the various short piano pieces,
or Britten's Soiress Musicaile after the Rossini. And all of the different
Pictures at an Exhibition orchestrations - different styles of presenting
essentially the same music.
So is Impressionism a 'style' or an actual group of composers dedicated to one
arena of aesthetics in presenting their art?
JOE
zanzibar
> Nice argument, but I think one could in fact make the same argument
> about the Beethoven Pastoral Symphony. He was describing the "cheerful
> sentiments" of peasants on a nice day, for example.
>
> But the fact that it's hard to precisely define in words a term like
> Impressionism - or Romanticism - when applied to music does not
> totally invalidate it. Musical sounds and styles are hard to define in
> words beyond a certain point, in general, don't you all think?
>
> Michael
I certainly wouldn't dare try to confine the expressive potential of
music to a few words in a dictionary, but that aside I don't think you
quite caught the distinction I was making (if I'm wrong,then please
accept my apologies). I think there is a difference between Beethoven
observing the cheerful sentiments of the peasants and Debussey writing
about the emotions that the sea evokes, and that is the difference
between expression and impression. Granted this is an extraordinaraly
fine line, but I think it is valid none the less.
LM
DArtagnan
okokok..... you've suckered me into answering :)
the term Baroque, as applied to "classical" music, refers to the period
(roughly) 1600-1750..
the term itself is derived from architecture, and was coined by a critic
early in the 17th century to criticise a composition he had recently heard
as "overly ornate"
thus spake my History Lecturer, at any rate :)
Alain DAGHER
DArtagnan (s35...@student.uq.edu.au) wrote:
: the term Baroque, as applied to "classical" music, refers to the period
: (roughly) 1600-1750..
: the term itself is derived from architecture, and was coined by a critic
: early in the 17th century to criticise a composition he had recently heard
: as "overly ornate"
: thus spake my History Lecturer, at any rate :)
One of you is wrong. Must have been much later that the term was
invented. It was actually first applied in a derogatory manner to a
church in Rome: Sant'Ivo della Sapienza, which is absolutely beautiful
(and not really ornate compared to other baroque churches).
richard hihn
Alain DAGHER (al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: DArtagnan (s35...@student.uq.edu.au) wrote:
: : the term Baroque, as applied to "classical" music, refers to the period
: : (roughly) 1600-1750..
: : the term itself is derived from architecture, and was coined by a critic
: : early in the 17th century to criticise a composition he had recently heard
: : as "overly ornate"
: : thus spake my History Lecturer, at any rate :)
: One of you is wrong. Must have been much later that the term was
: invented. It was actually first applied in a derogatory manner to a
: church in Rome: Sant'Ivo della Sapienza, which is absolutely beautiful
: (and not really ornate compared to other baroque churches).
The generally accepted origin is from a Portuguese word meaning an
irregularly shaped pearl. Although the term is from the 18th century,
It was not until the late 19th/early 20th century that the term lost
its pejorative connotation.
Dick Hihn
Barry Volkman
Named for a mishapen Portuguese pearl, the era is so called for its
embellished musical lines-to the point of gaudiness. My favorite era for
misnomenclature is this post-modern we seem to be in. By definition
modern is now. Post-modern can only mean some time in the future,
whenever that may be. It's all twaddle, as Nero Wolfe might have said.
Barry
Simon Roberts (si...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
: Alain (al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: : Why, for example, is the 18th century music of Vivaldi, Handel and Bach
: : called "baroque", a term that refers to 17th century Italian architecture
: : and art? I've never understood that. I don't think even the great Panofsky
: : had an explanation.
: Especially when you consider what that word originally meant....
: Simon
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Charles Jordan
Joe <jos...@avint.net> wrote:
>Impressionism is a mis-nomer. While some composers were labeled as such
>(and generally unhappy about it), it is a label best used in the area of
>painting. The same said composers were / are such a unique, strong and
>innovative talent and of such great importnace musically that calling
>any of them Impressionist is simply insulting.
The term "impressionism" was originally used to insult painters.
However, it has become an accepted term to describe a delicate
artistic style in which attention is directed to transitory phenomena
and vivid sensual quality rather than emotion, nostalgia, and
theatrics. Recognizing that certain composers created a fresh and
enduring means of perception and description is appreciation on our
part, not insult. Even a newborn baby can express emotion. Skill and
maturity are required to share with others the beauty that one sees
and hears. To say that Debussy and his contemporaries merely concluded
a romantic, nationalist, or internationalist period begun by others is
to ignore their creative originality.
--Spud DuBoise <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/couchpotato>