Does music develop, Improve, Mature and eventually Fade And Die Out?

[schweitzeralan]

Again a vast topic I've been struggling with for many a year.  Writers, historians and sociologists will inevitably differ in their many views of general culture.  One of the most "revered" I should say, are those concepts related to The cyclic nature of cultures and civilizations; music becomes very much inclusive within this "movement," or "cycle of development, maturity, and decay.  Spengler, Toynbee, Sorokin, plus other literary and music critics (Morrison, e.g.) are singular voices in defining this movement.

Thus does music actually "improve" over the centuries?  Is "Gotterdamerung" better than plainsong? Is the so called "advanced tonality in such composers as Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Debussy, Honneger, Sibelius, more "involved" than the Baroque or "classical" works? In the middle of the last century music aficionados were well aware that much criticism was given to the likes of Marx, Hanson, Bax, and many others  because these and other composers of that generation were too "conservative."

Atonality, bi tonality, avant-garde musical creations became the norm. But many neoclassical composers wrote in a vigorous, tightly controlled idiom, many of which were exclusive of feeling, passion, or, for that matter musical "color."

Where are we now?  I personally am quite aware that our conservatories are graduating well trained, brilliant musical minds.  What is their future in terms of composing? Sorokin, the sociologist claims that society undergoes three essential stages; ideational, idealistic, sensate which is akin to decadence.

Does music indeed "improve" only to become exhausted?  I have my own views which I won't go into here.  I'm just wondering what potential posters think.  Is classical music dead? Or, is it undergoing a new phase?  

Perhaps there is an overall 'global" phase which somehow absorbs and "expands" to a new developement stage.

I was pondering this as I was listening to Bax's Fifth Symphony.  Much depth here.  Perhaps this a much too involved thread.  I was just curious to read if there were any interests in terms of the status and future of  Euro and AmeriEuro music.

[karlhenning]

Another engaging thread/inquiry, Alan. Thank you!  Although I can only be brief at the moment, I want to plunge right in . . . .

Again a vast topic I've been struggling with for many a year.  Writers, historians and sociologists will inevitably differ in their many views of general culture.  One of the most "revered" I should say, are those concepts related to The cyclic nature of cultures and civilizations; music becomes very much inclusive within this "movement," or "cycle of development, maturity, and decay.  Spengler, Toynbee, Sorokin, plus other literary and music critics (Morrison, e.g.) are singular voices in defining this movement.

Thus does music actually "improve" over the centuries?  Is "Gotterdamerung" better than plainsong?

You do well to cast improve in scare-quotes!  It carries misleading resonances.

There are certainly cyclical aspects to stylistic shifts over music history.  And while there is development in music history (there is always some creative novelty, and yet, it is also a commonplace -- possibly a necessity -- that new musical ideas absorb and incorporate . . . build upon . . . the literature already in place).

The idea that Rigoletto is "better" than plainsong (e.g.) is impossibly problematic.

Atonality, bi tonality, avant-garde musical creations became the norm. But many neoclassical composers wrote in a vigorous, tightly controlled idiom, many of which were exclusive of feeling, passion, or, for that matter musical "color."

One model for this (not sure how closely I embrace it), is the idea that there is a dynamic between "Apollonian" and "Dionysian" elements in music.

Where are we now?

In a place which feels unusual after the 19th century, in which the idea of a 'core consesus' became 'ingrained', but which perhaps has parallels in the 'free-for-all' period between the High Baroque and full-blown Classical:  where there is a plurality of musical strands, and less of an acknowledged mainstream.

[Dr. Dread]

Diminishing returns...

[karlhenning]

Diminishing returns...

Oh, I don't think so, Dave.

(Alan, strike that erroneous e at the end of develop when you have a chance, please!)

[Dr. Dread]

If I want to hear new music, I just turn on the TV, vacuum cleaner, blow dryer and blender at the same time.

[karlhenning]

I've always liked your sense of humor, laddie!

[schweitzeralan]

Oh, I don't think so, Dave.

(Alan, strike that erroneous e at the end of develop when you have a chance, please!)

Right!  Thanks.

[Dr. Dread]

I've always liked your sense of humor, laddie!

Look for my music online soon... 

[Superhorn]

  Music neither "progresses" in the sense of improving as a whole, nor declines. It has merely evolved. There has been much great music in every era, as well as much that is trivial and formulaic or boringly arid.
 We have a greater variety of classical music avaiale to us,live or recorded, than ever before. Rather than wondering whether music progresses or declines, we should instead be profoundly grateful for the sheer bounty that is available to us. Think of it; we can hear everything from Medieval and Renaissance music to the latest works by living composers.
 The 20th century was the most diverse in style; tonality co-existed with atonality, some composers wrote highly approachable music while others wrote music that was as impenetrable as a scientific or mathematical treatise. There were Schoenberg and his second Viennese school and Stravinsky's neo-classicism;  Hindemith's "new objectivity", the frivolity of Les Six, music influenced by Jazz and Asian musics, microtonal music, electronic music,minimalism and other isms.
 In the 19th century Wagner and Liszt were pitted against Brahms;
  Nationalism emerged, with composers such as Smetana, Dvorak, Grieg, Rimsky-Korsakov,Mussorgsky and others.
  Who knows how the 21st century will progress and what important composers will energe? There's no way to know.
 But we should avoid false dichotomies such as tonal vs atonal, simplevs complex,old vs new, etc.
 

[schweitzeralan]

 Music neither "progresses" in the sense of improving as a whole, nor declines. It has merely evolved. There has been much great music in every era, as well as much that is trivial and formulaic or boringly arid.
 We have a greater variety of classical music avaiale to us,live or recorded, than ever before. Rather than wondering whether music progresses or declines, we should instead be profoundly grateful for the sheer bounty that is available to us. Think of it; we can hear everything from Medieval and Renaissance music to the latest works by living composers.
 The 20th century was the most diverse in style; tonality co-existed with atonality, some composers wrote highly approachable music while others wrote music that was as impenetrable as a scientific or mathematical treatise. There were Schoenberg and his second Viennese school and Stravinsky's neo-classicism;  Hindemith's "new objectivity", the frivolity of Les Six, music influenced by Jazz and Asian musics, microtonal music, electronic music,minimalism and other isms.
 In the 19th century Wagner and Liszt were pitted against Brahms;
  Nationalism emerged, with composers such as Smetana, Dvorak, Grieg, Rimsky-Korsakov,Mussorgsky and others.
  Who knows how the 21st century will progress and what important composers will energe? There's no way to know.
 But we should avoid false dichotomies such as tonal vs atonal, simplevs complex,old vs new, etc.
 

Indeed!  I am so pleased that we have so much available now.  So many erstwhile "condemned" 20th century music (for its supposed conservatism) is, and has been recorded on CD.

[snyprrr]

Sounds like a job for SuperBach (b. 2012).

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Look for my music online soon... 

My neighbors must've been playing your music earlier...

[DavidRoss]

If I want to hear new music, I just turn on the TV, vacuum cleaner, blow dryer and blender at the same time.

Yeah, one aspect of word processing that sucks in comparison to typewriters.  We must be in the "decay" phase.

[drogulus]

      I think the point where conflict arises repeatedly is whether music is supposed to progress. I say it does progress in the sense of evolve, so the "supposed to" is superfluous and often mischievous. The ultras have made it central to their approach to see this as a forced march into the future and stragglers must be killed off. This misreads history, which does not choose between preservationists and revolutionaries. The point for me is that music evolves anyway whatever conservatives or modernists say, and in the long run the course it takes will not vindicate any of the oversimplifying ideologies. We should expect the unexpected, because that's what we get. In addition, I like it that way.

[Bulldog]

The thread topic applies more to humans than it does to music.

[Dr. Dread]

The thread topic applies more to humans than it does to music.

Music is just like humans, only different.

[owlice]

Ah, but not all humans improve and mature!

[Dr. Dread]

Ah, but not all humans improve and mature!

[owlice]

Music neither "progresses" in the sense of improving as a whole, nor declines. It has merely evolved.

More to the subject, I agree with the above. Art does not progress; it evolves. Science progresses. That is why art of centuries ago is still so compelling and can be so satisfying, and science from centuries ago makes us glad to be living now, not then.

[jochanaan]

Music grows in cycles, perhaps somewhat like societies.  First there is a new idea, then a period of growth and development which often spirals to tremendous complexity, at the end losing touch and demanding another new idea.

One cycle began when the first church musicians began to add a second line to plainsong.  That led to polyphony, of which Guillaume de Machaut was one of the first great masters, and then to ever-increasingly complex polyphony expressed in such things as Thomas Tallis' 40-part Spem in alium.

Another cycle began about 1600 when Claudio Monteverdi and some musical colleagues invented opera, a mostly monodic form that demanded new ways of handling the voice in a dramatic context.  So in maybe a half-century or so, music had retreated from the increasing polyphonic complexity of the late Renaissance and placed great emphasis on solo singing and playing with simple accompaniment.  But then, naturally enough, composers began to add other solo lines and extra-musical reference like the birdsongs, thunderclaps and so on in Vivaldi's The Seasons, eventually leading to the wonderfully complex music of J.S. Bach and Handel.

And then the Classical period began, again featuring simple harmonies and melodies but this time strengthening the element of form, or shape.  (Once again an opera composer, Christoph Willibald von Gluck, led the way.)  Early Classical-period music is, on the one hand, a stylistic leap from late Baroque music, but a leap to simplicity.  Listen to Stamitz, Boccherini, early Haydn and very early Mozart and you get the idea.  Late Mozart and Haydn is beautiful and still has elements of the early simplicity, but again it's more complex.

Then come the Romantics.  Schubert in his songs, Weber in his romantic operas, and Beethoven and Berlioz in several masterworks re-added strong emotion and elements of fantasy to their music.  (It's an open question, though, whether Beethoven should be classed as Classical-period or Romantic.  He's best described as a transitional figure.)  Yet very quickly Romantic music got bigger, longer, and more complex, culminating in Wagner's awesome music dramas.

Another cycle began in the early 20th century with Arnold Schoenberg's atonality and 12-tone systems.  In one sense it was the next logical step from Wagner's and Liszt's expanded, indefinite tonal styles, but in another it was a break with the past.  And again, Schoenberg, Berg and Webern started small and simple, then gradually worked in larger forms and with increasing complexity.  In a closely-related development, Edgard Varèse's music represents a break with traditional forms and definitions of music.

And even the minimalist movement is another cycle, representing a break with the complexity and atonality of the mid-20th century to the simple idea of progressive repetition.

These cycles seem to show that progression, "improvement" and increasing complexity are very well and natural up to a point, and then music seems to need a Monteverdi, a Gluck, a Schubert or Schoenberg to take it in a new direction.