>Bach was a traditionalist, very much so. He didn't break new ground, but rather summed up everything in the Baroque Period. On the other hand, Beethoven broke new ground, expanding and/or breaking away from the rigid formalities of the Classical Period. The Classical Period itself was even a reaction to the even stricter formalities of the Baroque.
>Since Beethoven, everyone else has had to deal with him; that's how strong his influence was, and it continues to this day. It led to Stravinsky, who I do not consider to be atonal except in his later works. Rite of Spring, Firebird, and Petrouchka are not atonal. In the same way, Hindemith is not atonal at all.
>So-called atonality (which I still insist is a figment of our imagination) that is in evidence in Schonberg after Transfigured Night which is not atonal, Berg, Webern, and others is simply the logical continuation of what Beethoven started.
>Music had to develop in this way. It was inevitable. This progress continues on, and will always do so.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornI disagree that Classical music was an advancement from Baroque. I think that new boundaries were tested with Baroque music, but in Classical, a much stricter set of rules and guidelines was imposed. This is why most classical music sounds very much the same -- CPE Bach with Salieri with Haydn with Mozart etc. Although the latter two did test boundaries somewhat, neither were especially innovative. Beethoven simply created the Romantic spirit combined with the Baroque creativity and individuality.
>Bach was a traditionalist, very much so. He didn't break new ground, but rather summed up everything in the Baroque Period. On the other hand, Beethoven broke new ground, expanding and/or breaking away from the rigid formalities of the Classical Period. The Classical Period itself was even a reaction to the even stricter formalities of the Baroque.
> ...[text shortened]... to develop in this way. It was inevitable. This progress continues on, and will always do so.
In the same way, Hindemith is not atonal at all.
In some respects he is.
>So-called atonality (which I still insist is a figment of our imagination) that is in evidence in Schonberg after Transfigured Night which is not atonal, Berg, Webern, and others is simply the logical continuation of what Beethoven started.
>Music had to develop in this way. It was inevitable. This progress continues on, and will always do so.
Again, I disagree that this is a continuation of the same progress used from Bach through Brahms stylistically. I feel that it's a new type of "progress," which emphasizes art not necessarily for the interest of the viewer/listener, but the interest of the artist (I say this for visual art, ie painting, sculpting, as well as music). That's the difference.
>Classical music very much broke the boundaries of the Baroque. All of a sudden, composers were not tied down to rigid and regular changes of harmony. Now they could hang onto a chord for as long as they wanted, all for expressive purposes, which were not available in the stricter rules of Baroque.
>Haydn was perhaps more inventive than Mozart, but I feel Mozart was superior, but not by much. Both were so good that other Classical composers pale in comparison. True, they did not test boundaries, but both were very inventive. It had to wait until Beethoven for Classical boundaries to be tested. He could not have ushered in the Romantic Period unless he broke the very rigid boundaries that existed in both the Baroque and Classical eras.
>This in turn created a bit of chaos with composers now pushing "rules" of harmony ever further, leading step by step to Dodacahponic music 100 years later.
>Again, this caused composers to be ever more inventive. Hindemith was very much a traditionalist, in both his composition and his teaching, but he used his own system based not upon the piling up of 3rds as was the traditional method of harmonic expression, but in quartel harmony and adherance to conclusions he drew from careful examination of the unchangable harmonic series. While he can sound atonal, if you examine his music carefully you will see that he is not.
>Because of this march of progress, which in fact can be traced back to its beginning in Gregorian Chant, the listener is challenged ever more severely, just as the viewer is in art.
>In the end, a composer never wants to isolate himself, but this is often the effect when the listener refuses to keep up. Beethoven, the great giant of all composers, knew what was going on in this regard, but refused to compromise himself. He insisted that the listener listen more carefully, and he was proven right in the end. So too are the modern composers, some of whom have not yet been accepted, but some will eventually, just like Stravinsky was, Schonberg too because Schonberg is very much accepted today, maybe not yet with the general public, but with those who know and have carefully done their homework.
>This is a very interesting discussion.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn>Classical music very much broke the boundaries of the Baroque. All of a sudden, composers were not tied down to rigid and regular changes of harmony. Now they could hang onto a chord for as long as they wanted, all for expressive purposes, which were not available in the stricter rules of Baroque.
>Classical music very much broke the boundaries of the Baroque. All of a sudden, composers were not tied down to rigid and regular changes of harmony. Now they could hang onto a chord for as long as they wanted, all for expressive purposes, which were not available in the stricter rules of Baroque.
>Haydn was perhaps more inventive than Mozart, but I ...[text shortened]... se who know and have carefully done their homework.
>This is a very interesting discussion.
I disagree that classical was an advancement from Baroque because most of the harmonic rules were stricter. In Classical, voice mixing (S below T, etc.) would have been considered horrendous. Bach did it several times, even though it was discouraged then too. It tends to confuse the singers.
>Haydn was perhaps more inventive than Mozart, but I feel Mozart was superior, but not by much. Both were so good that other Classical composers pale in comparison. True, they did not test boundaries, but both were very inventive. It had to wait until Beethoven for Classical boundaries to be tested. He could not have ushered in the Romantic Period unless he broke the very rigid boundaries that existed in both the Baroque and Classical eras.
I agree with this. They were, however, adhering to stricter rules, and tended to follow them fairly strictly.
>This in turn created a bit of chaos with composers now pushing "rules" of harmony ever further, leading step by step to Dodacahponic music 100 years later.
Romantic music was not really about testing borders. Romantic music was about depicting the imagination. After Romantic, there were brief periods of Nationalist music (ie Tchaikovsky) and Impressionism (ie Ravel) before the rise of 20th century music, which is so varied there's not really a single category for it.
>Because of this march of progress, which in fact can be traced back to its beginning in Gregorian Chant, the listener is challenged ever more severely, just as the viewer is in art.
Around the minimalist period, it becomes not a way to please a listener (or viewer), but a way for the artist to express himself in a way that is not necessarily understood. Take Jackson Pollock. When I see his art it looks like somebody vomited on a canvas multiple times. Maybe it's supposed to. I don't know. Only he did.
>I think the Classical Period was an advancement from the Baroque because after Bach and Handel, there was no other choice but to move beyond the Baroque which was much stricter than the Classical. The Classical Period introduced far more freedoms than existed in the Baroque, and late in his life even Bach admitted this (it was enthusiastically taken up by his sons), although he lamented and did not like it. However, so great were Bach and Handel, that there was nothing left to do in Baroque forms.
>Not every composer tries to please the listener. (Handel did; Bach didn't for example. Beethoven didn't; Schubert did.) This is true in every period. The composers who don't are asking the listener to meet them half way, and although I can't speak too knowledgeably about art, I think this is also true with artists such as Pollack and others, and also with poets and writers. Pleasing the listener is only a secondary consideration, perhaps not a consideration at all.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn>I think the Classical Period was an advancement from the Baroque because after Bach and Handel, there was no other choice but to move beyond the Baroque which was much stricter than the Classical. The Classical Period introduced far more freedoms than existed in the Baroque, and late in his life even Bach admitted this (it was enthusiastically taken up by his sons), although he lamented and did not like it. However, so great were Bach and Handel, that there was nothing left to do in Baroque forms.
>I think the Classical Period was an advancement from the Baroque because after Bach and Handel, there was no other choice but to move beyond the Baroque which was much stricter than the Classical. The Classical Period introduced far more freedoms than existed in the Baroque, and late in his life even Bach admitted this (it was enthusiastically taken u ...[text shortened]... Pleasing the listener is only a secondary consideration, perhaps not a consideration at all.
Therein lies the disagreement. And so I ask you this: have you ever seen a Mozart opera, mass, etc., where voice changing is used?
>Not every composer tries to please the listener. (Handel did; Bach didn't for example. Beethoven didn't; Schubert did.) This is true in every period. The composers who don't are asking the listener to meet them half way, and although I can't speak too knowledgeably about art, I think this is also true with artists such as Pollack and others, and also with poets and writers. Pleasing the listener is only a secondary consideration, perhaps not a consideration at all.
For some "artists," pleasing the listener is all they care about. These people are extremely superficial and their work is laughable. Brittany (sp?) Spears is an example. For other "artists," they create a work of art solely to confuse or intimidate or make an impression on the listener (ie Steve Reich). For still other "artists," they neither know nor care as to how they are perceived by the public. A good artist balances imitation, innovation, cultural norms of the setting (time and place), and enough imagination to make it seem plausible. Using too much of one or two or three of these without regard to the other(s) is a mark of doom.
>I've often played Mozart operas, so I've seen lots of them.
>I'm not so sure I agree with a composer being good if he balances pleasing the listener with other things. Beethoven cared nothing about pleasing the listener. He expected the listener to catch up to him. That is true with many today too. I have worked closely with good composers who have this attitude and it is very interesting because the only thing they care about is the art form. At first, I too thought I was hearing "finger nails on a blackboard." It was hard work on my part to keep up with them, but in the end I felt I understood, and I grew as a musician and a person.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn>I've often played Mozart operas, so I've seen lots of them.
>I've often played Mozart operas, so I've seen lots of them.
>I'm not so sure I agree with a composer being good if he balances pleasing the listener with other things. Beethoven cared nothing about pleasing the listener. He expected the listener to catch up to him. That is true with many today too. I have worked closely with good composers who have t ...[text shortened]... ep up with them, but in the end I felt I understood, and I grew as a musician and a person.
And is there any voice crossing, parallel 4ths/5ths/octaves, etc.?
>I'm not so sure I agree with a composer being good if he balances pleasing the listener with other things. Beethoven cared nothing about pleasing the listener. He expected the listener to catch up to him. That is true with many today too. I have worked closely with good composers who have this attitude and it is very interesting because the only thing they care about is the art form. At first, I too thought I was hearing "finger nails on a blackboard." It was hard work on my part to keep up with them, but in the end I felt I understood, and I grew as a musician and a person.
One of my good friends, Peter Gilbert, writes a similar style of music. And it amuses him how much I hate it. Beethoven was dictating what he heard in his head. People like Schoenberg, it seems, merely write what they think will annoy the audience.
>The history of parallel 5th is interesting. At first the interval itself was considered a dischord. Once it was accepted, parallel 5ths were normal harmonic writing, but when the 3rd was introduced (at first this was viewed as a severe, almost violent, dischord), parallel 5ths became a bad fault since they do not make for good voice leading in the traditional harmonic system. It was not really until the 20th century that they returned, and even then only in a minor way. Basically, there are no parallel 5ths in anything in the Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, and Romantic Periods, so you won't hear them in Bach, Mozart, Beethoven et al because they are bad voice leading. This is always taught in teaching harmony, because they have no place in traditional harmony.
>Composers do not compose to annoy, none of them do. They may try to shock, and they all do this at some point, but they do not try to annoy. If the composer can demonstrate to me that he can hear it in his head without it being played, then I feel it must be respected. The average person might be astounded at what a well educated composer can hear before putting pen to paper.
>The history of dissonance is really the history of how the human ear and brain has adapted to it, and this evolution continues.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn>The history of parallel 5th is interesting. At first the interval itself was considered a dischord. Once it was accepted, parallel 5ths were normal harmonic writing, but when the 3rd was introduced (at first this was viewed as a severe, almost violent, dischord), parallel 5ths became a bad fault since they do not make for good voice leading in the traditional harmonic system. It was not really until the 20th century that they returned, and even then only in a minor way. Basically, there are no parallel 5ths in anything in the Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, and Romantic Periods, so you won't hear them in Bach, Mozart, Beethoven et al because they are bad voice leading. This is always taught in teaching harmony, because they have no place in traditional harmony.
>The history of parallel 5th is interesting. At first the interval itself was considered a dischord. Once it was accepted, parallel 5ths were normal harmonic writing, but when the 3rd was introduced (at first this was viewed as a severe, almost violent, dischord), parallel 5ths became a bad fault since they do not make for good voice leading in the tra ...[text shortened]... lly the history of how the human ear and brain has adapted to it, and this evolution continues.
Parallel 5ths create poor tuning between the singers and a thin sound between the voices. This is, of course, assuming that they are both perfect 5ths. But it did not sound any better in Baroque than it did in Classical, hence my belief that Classical was a repressing of the various methods of innovation that were being used by Bach, Handel, etc. during the Baroque period.
>Composers do not compose to annoy, none of them do. They may try to shock, and they all do this at some point, but they do not try to annoy. If the composer can demonstrate to me that he can hear it in his head without it being played, then I feel it must be respected. The average person might be astounded at what a well educated composer can hear before putting pen to paper.
How can it be demonstrated? Furthermore, shouldn't some consideration of culture and the social norms be taken into account? I suppose that the line is being drawn further and further into the boundaries of dissonance and atonality, as it has been for centuries, and there are always grumpy people saying they don't know who can call the new music of their era music .... I guess I'm just another one of those grumpy conservative musicians. 😉
Yes, I have read it, but that wasn't the book we used in school. We used one by Walter Piston, but that was a while ago. I have also read Hindemith's books, largely because I had a professor who was one of his pupils. I had another professor who was a pupil of Zoltan Kodaly, so I've always been interested in his teaching on ear training.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornThat's actually a very good music education. I'm impressed.
Yes, I have read it, but that wasn't the book we used in school. We used one by Walter Piston, but that was a while ago. I have also read Hindemith's books, largely because I had a professor who was one of his pupils. I had another professor who was a pupil of Zoltan Kodaly, so I've always been interested in his teaching on ear training.
I've never especially admired Hindemith, as in not any more than other composers such as Prokofiev, but I would give anything to be educated by either.
I have been silent just listening to the back and forth between you two, but I have to come down on the side of horn guy. i am blessed with an excellent library system and shall give berg's violin concerto a go since I have not heard this particular work. I shall also use Wagner in between moves to cleanse/rest my ears until I get more used to the atonality. I also reserved string quartets by Schoenberg, Webern and Berg. On the opposite extreme I do believe some music is gooey sweet. Early Haydn, Boccherini and Mozart quartets are too sweet for my tastes and understand explorations of alternatives by both composers and listeners.
Originally posted by scacchipazzo>In his Violin Concerto, Berg quotes a famous Bach chorale and weaves it into his 'atonality.' Very interesting. It's a very moving piece but you have to get used to it.
I have been silent just listening to the back and forth between you two, but I have to come down on the side of horn guy. i am blessed with an excellent library system and shall give berg's violin concerto a go since I have not heard this particular work. I shall also use Wagner in between moves to cleanse/rest my ears until I get more used to the atona ...[text shortened]... weet for my tastes and understand explorations of alternatives by both composers and listeners.
>If you're trying string quartets, try the Bartok quartets. Again, you have to get used to them, but they are quite moving. They are almost the logical continuation of the Beethoven late quartets.