late romantic, 20th century music

[Mark G. Simon]

Greenberg describes Modernism as a reaction against stale academism and bourgeois tastes

You see, the whole marxist class struggle bullshit. That's what I want no part of, and I hardly think that the modernist composers we admire were interested in what is and isn't bourgeois taste. This "bourgeois taste" business is the kind of thing art critics come up with to justify themselves and get themselves tenure. Artists are too busy creating art to take that kind of theorizing seriously. Except for Wagner, who had an opinion on just about everything, and probably has something about bourgeois taste in his essays. Stravinsky reacted against Wagner.

Schoenberg, for another example, saw his music as an extension of Romanticism, not a repudiation of it.

[eyeresist]

Then you see wrongly.  I added nothing.  I did correct some faulty diction in the earlier post, editing it seven hours and 52 minutes before you responded, as you can see simply by checking the time stamps of the edit and the posts.

You are corrent - sorry about that.

The link to that essay was just an accessory to my thoughtful response to him that he did not address at all.

I think "thoughtful response" might be overstating it. You posted a list of characteristics of Modernism, some of which points I found bizarre, and to back these up you cited the Greenberg essay as evidence of "substantial agreement among respected critics".

Then you asserted that "even in [Sibelius's] early, most apparently Romantic works ... elements of Modernism are present, and that by the time of his neoclassical Third Symphony he had already embarked on a distinctively Modernist path that left his Romantic origins far behind". You did not produce any supporting evidence for this assertion, however.

Presumably Sibelius's Modernism was supposed to be made obvious by the list of Modern characteristics you provided. Let's go through this list point by point:

1. A return to ancient standards of craftsmanship in reaction to industrial mass production
What "ancient standards" did Sibelius return to? His 3rd symphony is arguably neoclassical, but his 7th certainly isn't. Was Sibelius reacting to industrial mass production, or expressing himself through his materials as ALL good artists have done?
2. An insistence that form be dictated by function and by the artist's materials
Now, this has relevance to developments in industrial design and architecture in the Modern period, specifically prompted by new materials like steel and glass. It is also tangentially related to developments in the theatre, stripping away naturalism in order to get at the dramatic "truth". At a stretch, we might say this also applies to painting, which was guilty of "lying" by the illusory nature of its representational function. However, it's unlikely this criterium applies directly to music or literature - Modern music did turn away from the extreme emotionalism of Late Romanticism, but only in some cases. Sibelius's major works have a strong emotional power, and (arguably) intention.
3. An emphasis on process and the artist's subjective response to his subject rather than on an objective result
What, like action painting? This criteria would apply to Modernist writing, painting, dance and drama, but not to architecture or design. Its application to music is arguable - all "classical" music requires of composers a commitment to the process of composing. Much "advanced" music of the 20th century is intended to serve as a kind of academic essay, as much as (or more than) a work to be heard; academicism gained much artistic legitimacy under Modernism, because of course the academy became the main producer of progressive theory. But of course dry, academic counterpoint is nothing new - plenty of pre-Modern composers were damned with the faint praise of "proficiency in counterpoint".
The "subjective response" thing was hardly an innovation in music.
4. Experimentation with new forms, structures, and materials
This has always gone on.
5. A blurring of distinctions between genres
Ditto.
6. Inclusion of materials from other cultures, including domestic folk culture
Mozart wrote minuets (domestic folk culture) and a famous "Turkish" march, so this too is nothing new.
7. Rejection of ornament and development of a new, lean, stripped down aesthetic
I largely agree with this, though it doesn't apply to literature (Proust, Woolf, Joyce, etc.).
8. And, finally, the Modernist period spanned the timeframe roughly from 1860 to 1960
Yes, although Modernism really kicked in just before the Great War, and has in some fields carried on to the present day.

The Modernist movement reasserted traditional standards and established the artist himself as the arbiter of aesthetic quality and not the mass consumer public.

On the contrary, I believe that Modernism is chiefly characterised by a conscious, radical break with the past, and an attempt to start from zero (this inspired by the industrial revolution; the effect of sudden social progress in education, health, communications; political upheavals including the spread of democracy and the unification of Germany; the "scientific" progressivism of Marx, et al.).

Painting did away with traditional methods, traditional subjects, and finally the ideal of representation. Architecture and design banned traditional ornamentation, and went further to impose a new dogmatic purity at odds with practical requirements (flat roofs without eaves, the eradication of interior walls, large glass windows without curtains or blinds). Novelists attempted a new, radical subjectivity, paradoxically combined with a distancing technique of kaleidoscopic detail. In politics, Fascism and Communism attempted the complete transformation of society by force of will and "scientific" means.

In music, "advanced" technique was where it was at, and the avant garde came to be seen as the only legitimate area of composition (pity poor Prokofiev, who so wanted to be an infant terrible, but was crippled by his gift for melody (Bourgeois! Decadent!)).
Sibelius remained tonal and melodic to the last, and even his spare, late orchestrations have a warmth and organic contour which we might call Romantic. He was excoriated by Modernist ideologues, including Virgil Thomson, who found his second symphony "vulgar, self-indulgent and provincial beyond any description", and René Leibowitz, who called Sibelius "the worst composer in the world". Adorno said "If Sibelius is good, then the musical criteria that have been applied from Bach to Schoenberg (...) are invalid." From their point of view, Sibelius was not Modern but actually anti-Modern, an enemy to be stamped out.

I think attempts to rehabilitate Sibelius by saying he was actually a Modernist play into the arguments of his critics, and in the end reduce his stature, making his music merely a phenomenon of political dogma - he was "progressive" (good) rather than "reactionary" (bad). From his period and his style, I would call him Late Romantic - although the spareness and "coolness" of his later works show he has breathed some Modern air.

[Mark G. Simon]

It doesn't really matter to me if Sibelius is counted in with the modernists or not. There are some characteristics of his later orchestral works, though, that fit in with common characteristics of modern music, such as economy of means, rejection of conventional forms and letting the materials themselves determine the form. Other aspects of his music don't fit the modernist agenda. He had his own agenda, and it belonged to no one else. He wrote with an original voice, and that's why I admire him.

[eyeresist]

It doesn't really matter to me if Sibelius is counted in with the modernists or not. There are some characteristics of his later orchestral works, though, that fit in with common characteristics of modern music, such as economy of means, rejection of conventional forms and letting the materials themselves determine the form. Other aspects of his music don't fit the modernist agenda. He had his own agenda, and it belonged to no one else. He wrote with an original voice, and that's why I admire him.

Me too   Kundera called him an "anti-Modern Modernist", but I think that's an untenable paradox.

[DavidRoss]

You are corrent - sorry about that.
I think "thoughtful response" might be overstating it. You posted a list of characteristics of Modernism, some of which points I found bizarre, and to back these up you cited the Greenberg essay as evidence of "substantial agreement among respected critics". [This is a misreading of my post.  I offered Greenberg as a place to start exploring the concept of Modernism--something you seem to be doing in spite of your resistance, albeit more belligerently than graciously.  ]

Then you asserted that "even in [Sibelius's] early, most apparently Romantic works ... elements of Modernism are present, and that by the time of his neoclassical Third Symphony he had already embarked on a distinctively Modernist path that left his Romantic origins far behind". You did not produce any supporting evidence for this assertion, however. [That's right--I suggested that you examine his work in light of generally accepted characteristics of Modernism to see how it fits.  I'm not trying to spoon feed you my thoughts, but encouraging you to think for yourself.]

Presumably Sibelius's Modernism was supposed to be made obvious by the list of Modern characteristics you provided. Let's go through this list point by point: [Close enough, if we strip out the attitude.    I'll offer some hints as to how one might see it if looking with an open mind.]

1. A return to ancient standards of craftsmanship in reaction to industrial mass production
What "ancient standards" did Sibelius return to? His 3rd symphony is arguably neoclassical, but his 7th certainly isn't. Was Sibelius reacting to industrial mass production, or expressing himself through his materials as ALL good artists have done?  [Sibelius did look back to old forms in the 3rd and the 6th particularly, he moved away from the facile illustration characteristic of Romantic music from Berlioz to Strauss back to what he called "absolute" music, and he progressively stripped away extraneous embellishment.  His obsessive craftsmanship--refining, eliminating, condensing--is well known.  Compare especially the trajectory of his symphonies and tone poems culminating in the 7th and Tapiola with late-Romantic excess and bloat.]
2. An insistence that form be dictated by function and by the artist's materials
Now, this has relevance to developments in industrial design and architecture in the Modern period, specifically prompted by new materials like steel and glass. It is also tangentially related to developments in the theatre, stripping away naturalism in order to get at the dramatic "truth". At a stretch, we might say this also applies to painting, which was guilty of "lying" by the illusory nature of its representational function. However, it's unlikely this criterium applies directly to music or literature - Modern music did turn away from the extreme emotionalism of Late Romanticism, but only in some cases. Sibelius's major works have a strong emotional power, and (arguably) intention.  [Rather than forcing his materials to fit preconceived forms, Sibelius progressively allowed the materials--his motifs or cells--to dictate the logical structure and final form of his symphonies.  In the tone poems, instead of forcing his material to fit the form of illustrating events in a story, he sought to express his emotional responses, and stayed true to them even when it led to such a peculiar result as Nightride and Sunrise--not the only instance of proto-minimalism in his music, but perhaps the most obvious.]
3. An emphasis on process and the artist's subjective response to his subject rather than on an objective result
What, like action painting? This criteria would apply to Modernist writing, painting, dance and drama, but not to architecture or design. Its application to music is arguable - all "classical" music requires of composers a commitment to the process of composing. Much "advanced" music of the 20th century is intended to serve as a kind of academic essay, as much as (or more than) a work to be heard; academicism gained much artistic legitimacy under Modernism, because of course the academy became the main producer of progressive theory. But of course dry, academic counterpoint is nothing new - plenty of pre-Modern composers were damned with the faint praise of "proficiency in counterpoint".
The "subjective response" thing was hardly an innovation in music.  [See my response immediately above, and consider his method of building from cells--"piecing together mosaics," as he put it.]
4. Experimentation with new forms, structures, and materials
This has always gone on.  [To some extent, of course--but never remotely near as much as during the Modern era.  Each of Sibelius's symphonies from the 3rd on is an experiment in structure and form.]
5. A blurring of distinctions between genres
Ditto.  [And ditto.  Consider Tapiola and the 7th in particular.]
6. Inclusion of materials from other cultures, including domestic folk culture
Mozart wrote minuets (domestic folk culture) and a famous "Turkish" march, so this too is nothing new.  [Ditto for the third time: a feature need hardly be startlingly new or unique but only sufficiently widespread to be characteristic.  "High" culture rejected these materials as substandard (allowing for fads such as Austria's coffee-inspired Turkish craze), but in the Modern era artists aggressively explored them as sources of inspiration.  In the early 1890s the folk material of the Kalevala began inspiring Sibelius in the same way that Balinese gamelan music inspired Debussy, Japanese Ukiyo-E prints inspired Impressionist painters, and African art inspired Picasso.]
7. Rejection of ornament and development of a new, lean, stripped down aesthetic
I largely agree with this, though it doesn't apply to literature (Proust, Woolf, Joyce, etc.).  [Then application to Sibelius is clear, I trust.  The stream-of-consciousness writers you mention are but an eddy in the Modernist current, more typified by the stripped-down prose of Hemingway or the poetry of William Carlos Williams.]
8. And, finally, the Modernist period spanned the timeframe roughly from 1860 to 1960
Yes, although Modernism really kicked in just before the Great War, and has in some fields carried on to the present day.
On the contrary, I believe that Modernism is chiefly characterised by a conscious, radical break with the past, and an attempt to start from zero   [I regard this as more a feature of self-conscious avant-gardism, which overlaps but is not congruent with Modernism.](this inspired by the industrial revolution; the effect of sudden social progress in education, health, communications; political upheavals including the spread of democracy and the unification of Germany; the "scientific" progressivism of Marx, et al.).

Painting did away with traditional methods, traditional subjects, and finally the ideal of representation. Architecture and design banned traditional ornamentation, and went further to impose a new dogmatic purity at odds with practical requirements (flat roofs without eaves, the eradication of interior walls, large glass windows without curtains or blinds). Novelists attempted a new, radical subjectivity, paradoxically combined with a distancing technique of kaleidoscopic detail. In politics, Fascism and Communism attempted the complete transformation of society by force of will and "scientific" means.

In music, "advanced" technique was where it was at, and the avant garde came to be seen as the only legitimate area of composition (pity poor Prokofiev, who so wanted to be an infant terrible, but was crippled by his gift for melody (Bourgeois! Decadent!)).
Sibelius remained tonal and melodic to the last, and even his spare, late orchestrations have a warmth and organic contour which we might call Romantic. He was excoriated by Modernist ideologues, including Virgil Thomson, who found his second symphony "vulgar, self-indulgent and provincial beyond any description", and René Leibowitz, who called Sibelius "the worst composer in the world". Adorno said "If Sibelius is good, then the musical criteria that have been applied from Bach to Schoenberg (...) are invalid." From their point of view, Sibelius was not Modern but actually anti-Modern, an enemy to be stamped out.

I think attempts to rehabilitate Sibelius by saying he was actually a Modernist play into the arguments of his critics, and in the end reduce his stature, making his music merely a phenomenon of political dogma - he was "progressive" (good) rather than "reactionary" (bad). From his period and his style, I would call him Late Romantic - although the spareness and "coolness" of his later works show he has breathed some Modern air.  [Conflation of self-conscious avant-gardism with Modernism explains many of your preceding comments.  I especially agree with you that the self-proclaimed avant garde tried to exert ideological hegemony over Art and claim Modernism for themselves.  I dispute their claim and think it ironically narrow-minded and pretentiously absurd.  One of the things I most admire about Sibelius is that he didn't give a fig for the fads and fashions dictated by a self-appointed elite, but stayed true to his own muse, confident in the value of the timeless virtues to which he aspired.  For those lacking the capacity to discern for themselves, History will judge whether he or Thompson, Liebowitz, and Adorno were right.  I think it already has.  ]

It doesn't really matter to me if Sibelius is counted in with the modernists or not. There are some characteristics of his later orchestral works, though, that fit in with common characteristics of modern music, such as economy of means, rejection of conventional forms and letting the materials themselves determine the form. Other aspects of his music don't fit the modernist agenda. He had his own agenda, and it belonged to no one else. He wrote with an original voice, and that's why I admire him.

Me too   Kundera called him an "anti-Modern Modernist", but I think that's an untenable paradox.

Whew.  Amazing how finding agreement on the simplest things can sometimes be like pulling teeth.  Y'all can continue to discuss usage of the term bourgeois (last I knew the Marxists had no copyright on it), the relationship of class struggle to mass consumer tastes (if any), the peculiar notions of a "Modernist agenda" and "rehabilitating" Sibelius, and the lunacy of ideological "taste-makers" and third-rate composers such as Thompson et al if you like,  but you'll have to proceed without me as I've no interest whatsoever in these subjects.

Edited to expand on the avant garde/Modernist question, and to sum up my thoughts so as to finally lay this digression to rest--or at least my part of it!--and return the thread to its original purpose.  Thanks for your patient indulgence. 

[Haffner]

Start with Mahler.

And Bruckner. And I'm going to say Tod und Verklarung, though I'm not positive it qualifies.

[Mark G. Simon]

Whew.  Amazing how finding agreement on the simplest things can sometimes be like pulling teeth.

The problem is with you, not with me. You erroneously assume that I disagreed with everything in your posts and Greenberg's essay

Y'all can continue to discuss usage of the term bourgeois (last I knew the Marxists had no copyright on it),

But nevertheless Marxists are the only ones who actually use the term. And remember, it wasn't just that particular word that set off my B.S. detectors, but the whole argument put forth by Greenberg about "bourgeois values" that were just being introduced into music (presumably by the rise of public concerts open to the paying public) and how those values were debasing music.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Romantic music is "kitsch".

[DavidRoss]

The problem is with you, not with me. You erroneously assume that I disagreed with everything in your posts and Greenberg's essay

But nevertheless Marxists are the only ones who actually use the term. And remember, it wasn't just that particular word that set off my B.S. detectors, but the whole argument put forth by Greenberg about "bourgeois values" that were just being introduced into music (presumably by the rise of public concerts open to the paying public) and how those values were debasing music.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Romantic music is "kitsch".

No, Mark--In the first place, my response was aimed at el Resisto; I quoted you because his comment hinged on your post.  Secondly, I've known you long enough from these forums to know that you would agree with quite a bit and have even expressed some similar sentiments in the past--including your comments on this very thread regarding "Modernist" elements in Sibelius's music.  Marxists are not the only ones who use the term "bourgeois".  I use it, and I'm no more a Marxist than a conservative Christian Republican--though some here and elsewhere who read and think only on the most superficial level have accused me of both!  (A sign that I must be doing something right.  )  I'll no more allow Marxists hegemony over the term "bourgeois" than I'll allow the blow-hard avant garde hegemony over "Modernism."

As for Greenberg, IIRC he was an ivory-tower Marxist, as were many of the intelligentsia of his generation, particularly those in the Arts.  He was also one of the most articulate and influential art critics of his day--focused, as I'm sure you know, on the plastic arts and not on music.  What merit there may be in the ideas he expresses is not contingent on his ideology (long discredited, I might add, everywhere but in the US Congress), but in the ideas themselves--and as he was one of those who shaped 20th Century concepts of Modernism, he seemed like a good place to start.  (Personally, I rather despised the fellow when I encountered him first in Aesthetics and later in Art History.)

Finally, when it comes to kitsch in music specifically, lets not beat around the bush with minor figures but go straight for the leading lights among late Romantics: much of Strauss is dreadfully kitschy IMO, and Puccini practically screams kitsch with every note.    As always, before any meaningful discussion can proceed, we must start by defining terms.  A quick search of the web turned up this informative essay on usage of the term kitsch.

edited to add PS:  Please give my regards to Owlice.  She's one of the old-timers who was here when I arrived and whose clear-headed warmth I still miss.
edited again to correct a misplaced emphasis  (and add a pointed joke  )

[Haffner]

much of Strauss is dreadfully kitschy IMO, and Puccini practically screams kitsch with every note.    As always, before any meaningful discussion can proceed, we must start by defining terms.  A quick search of the web turned up this interesting exploration of the usage of kitsch.

I agree as to Strauss and even a little Puccini. But I think there's a little kitsch to any composer. Including Beethoven and Wagner, whether intentional or not.

[Mark G. Simon]

Strauss and Puccini kitsch? Get real!!
(of course this guy even thinks Wagner is kitsch, which really show how out to lunch he is)

I'll tell you what kitsch is: John Rutter's Beatles Concerto, the aural equivalent of crying clowns on black velvet.

The subject of kitsch came up on CMG and I referred people to this essay on the subject.

http://www.denisdutton.com/kitsch_macmillan.htm

[Haffner]

Strauss and Puccini kitsch? Get real!!
(of course this guy even thinks Wagner is kitsch, which really show how out to lunch he is)

I'm amazed you'd write anything disrespectful toward me, Mark. I've always been deferential toward you. I wonder if perhaps you were kidding, I'd be astounded if you weren't.

I see kitsch in everything, because I just don't take life too seriously. If you do, maybe you should re-evaluate your own life.

If I didn't see everything as having a humorous side, I would consider myself a loser. So maybe I am out to lunch.

I'm going to rely on over 2 years of respect and pretend like you were joking. The alternative is too disappointing.

[Mark G. Simon]

I'm amazed you'd write anything disrespectful toward me, Mark. I've always been deferential toward you. I wonder if perhaps you were kidding, I'd be astounded if you weren't.

Actually I was dissing  Whitney Rugg, the author of the text about kitsch that DavidRoss cited.

I should have made that clear.

[Haffner]

Actually I was dissing  Whitney Rugg, the author of the text about kitsch that DavidRoss cited.

I should have made that clear.

Oh! It was actually at least half my mistake. All apologies.

[Mark G. Simon]

It would have been hard to know what the heck I was referring to without an explanation, and your post intervened between the post with the link that I was responding to. So I have to take the blame for the misunderstanding. And if you disagree with me, boy am I ever going to flame you but good!

[Haffner]

It would have been hard to know what the heck I was referring to without an explanation, and your post intervened between the post with the link that I was responding to. So I have to take the blame for the misunderstanding. And if you disagree with me, boy am I ever going to flame you but good!

I agree  .

[jlaurson]

O.Schoeck, Notturno, K.Mertens, Minguet Quartet - NCA 60133-215
"Notturno" is a stunning work... Incredibly long lines, incredibly romantic, but always at the brink of total dissonance; even a-tonality. It reminds me of Berg's op.1.
ECM will release a version with the Rosamunde Quartett & Christian Gerhaher later this year.

This music teeters at the last ledge of 20th century romanticism. If all you know from Schoeck are his sweetly Straussian "Elegie", you might be shocked at what's to hear, here. (Review of a concert performance here, describing the work a bit more in detail.)

[Mark G. Simon]

This music teeters at the last ledge of 20th century romanticism. If all you know from Schoeck are his sweetly Straussian "Elegie", you might be shocked at what's to hear, here.

Or Schoecked at the very least.

[Haffner]

Or Schoecked at the very least.

(dying)

[springrite]

O.Schoeck, Notturno, K.Mertens, Minguet Quartet - NCA 60133-215
"Notturno" is a stunning work... Incredibly long lines, incredibly romantic, but always at the brink of total dissonance; even a-tonality. It reminds me of Berg's op.1.
ECM will release a version with the Rosamunde Quartett & Christian Gerhaher later this year.

This music teeters at the last ledge of 20th century romanticism. If all you know from Schoeck are his sweetly Straussian "Elegie", you might be shocked at what's to hear, here. (Review of a concert performance here, describing the work a bit more in detail.)

You are spot on. Schoeck is one of my favorite. No other composer's music can be be described as consistently dancing at the edge of atonality without actually going into atonality. I love it!

[sul G]

Hey! No fair! I mentioned Schoeck a few pages back and no one noticed! I agree entirely, and the disc posted is a real winner, but I wouldn't call the Elegie either sweet or Straussian - it's a highly individual, very subtle and extremely skillful piece, and Schoeck at his very best (the Notturno is more complex, but I don't think it is necessarily finer). The Elegie also represents one extreme of a particular type late Romanticism - I don't know any other piece which explores this particular region of nostalgia, loss, late-ness more thoroughly than this one does. No, not even Strauss's Four Last Songs - this is the brown study to end all brown studies, the autumnal flipside of Schumann's equally extreme op 39 Liederkreis, and that is high praise in my book!