When Did Modernism Begin?

[DavidRoss]

Really? Quick, name a contemporary composer who is the equal of a Bach, or a Beethoven.

That you think such an exercise would be meaningful or prove anything suggests a rather sizable blind spot in your understanding.  Put Bach or Beethoven into the world today and what would they be? And whatever it is, would you--or anyone else--recognize and value it?

[Josquin des Prez]

And whatever it is, would you--or anyone else--recognize and value it?

[CRCulver]

Really? Quick, name a contemporary composer who is the equal of a Bach, or a Beethoven.

Per Nørgård. Next question?

[karlhenning]

Really? Quick, name a contemporary composer who is the equal of a Bach, or a Beethoven.

Charade.  We've been through this a hundred times before.

It's funny, really, that you go on imagining that this means what you suppose it means.

[DavidRoss]

I take it that's a "no."

BTW, where did you get that photo of me reading one of your posts?

[karlhenning]

I take it that's a "no."

BTW, where did you get that photo of me reading one of your posts?

The machine here at the office blocks the image, but now, reading your post, Dave, I've got it! 

[Josquin des Prez]

We've been through this a hundred times before.

Yes, and the question has been avoided every single time without fail. I think that means precisely what i think it means.

[karlhenning]

Yes, and the question has been avoided every single time without fail.

Complete dishonesty on your part (no surprise). The question has not "been avoided."  The question has been criticized for being simplistic to the point of falsehood.

You and your amusing attempts at "gotcha"!

[karlhenning]

The equivalent in our day of Bach would be, what? A composer-performer under-employed and under-recognized in his lifetime, whose stature is not generally recognized until a hundred years after his death?  Your very "invocation" of Bach demonstrates your question for the fraud that it is.  Bach's stature is what it is, partly because his entire work is a matter of history and assimilation.  To take your absurdly simplistic question even at face-value, you cannot expect an answer before a hundred years hence.

And in your self-serving, pinheaded view, that "means" that the question is "avoided."

[Josquin des Prez]

I take it that's a "no."

If i can understand the genius of a Bach, or a Beethoven, why wouldn't i be able to understand genius in others? There is no logic in your argument.

[Josquin des Prez]

The equivalent in our day of Bach would be, what? A composer-performer under-employed and under-recognized in his lifetime, whose stature is not generally recognized until a hundred years after his death?  Your very "invocation" of Bach demonstrates your question for the fraud that it is.  Bach's stature is what it is, partly because his entire work is a matter of history and assimilation.  To take your absurdly simplistic question even at face-value, you cannot expect an answer before a hundred years hence.

And in your self-serving, pinheaded view, that "means" that the question is "avoided."

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that i would have been able to recognize the genius of Bach had i come across his works in the early 18th century. The entire argument is based on a fallacy, that a genius is such only when society as a whole becomes aware of his existence.

[DavidRoss]

If i can understand the genius of a Bach, or a Beethoven, why wouldn't i be able to understand genius in others? There is no logic in your argument.

(1) See Karl's explanation of what's obvious to any reasonably intelligent and informed person:

The equivalent in our day of Bach would be, what? A composer-performer under-employed and under-recognized in his lifetime, whose stature is not generally recognized until a hundred years after his death?  Your very "invocation" of Bach demonstrates your question for the fraud that it is.  Bach's stature is what it is, partly because his entire work is a matter of history and assimilation.  To take your absurdly simplistic question even at face-value, you cannot expect an answer before a hundred years hence.

That you cannot understand even arguments this simple, clear, and compelling demonstrates precisely why you would not even recognize, let alone understand, genius in others.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that i would have been able to recognize the genius of Bach had i come across his works in the early 18th century. The entire argument is based on a fallacy, that a genius is such only when society as a whole becomes aware of his existence.

(2) You cannot even understand reasonably bright people, like Karl, when they go to the lengths of explaining relatively simple concepts step by step to make it easy for you to follow their reasoning.  Claiming that you would have recognized Bach in his time, in the way that you have learned to think of him today, is just empty delusional grandiosity...no different from thinking that you would have understood the peculiar genius of an undistinguished former high school dropout working as a clerk at the Swiss patent office in Bern in 1903.  The claim, like your belief in its validity, is simply absurd.

(3) Your fixation on a ridiculous notion of "genius" and your belief that you are such a "genius" are apparent to everyone here who has ever seen at least two or three of your posts.  That you are neither such a "genius" nor qualified to define or divine "genius" is equally apparent to everyone but you.  To you, that seems "proof" of your genius.  To others, it's just evidence of pathological grandiosity

(4) You are not an idiot, but your inflated assessment of your own intelligence makes you stupid, not smart, especially as it impedes your ability to learn.  If you really want to be smart--and what seems much more important to you, to be recognized as smart--then you must begin by honest recognition of your limitations, after which you may become teachable.

(5) In telling you this I'm giving you a lot of credit for capacity that most others who present similarly--such as Sean, Pinkie, and Saul--do not seem to have.  Take it to heart and apply it if you dare, or dismiss it with your customary arrogance.  It's a gift and you may do whatever you like with it. 

[karlhenning]

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind

Only one of your errors, though it be the foundation of many others.

[jochanaan]

Really? Quick, name a contemporary composer who is the equal of a Bach, or a Beethoven.

Edgard Varèse.  Alan Hovhaness.  Witold Lutoslawski.  There are three, and I haven't even had to search my mind!

[Catison]

As I have come to understand it, the Modern era is characterized by the objective not just to achieve beautiful and convincing art, but to also somehow move the very fabric of art forward.  Schoenberg's music is undoubtedly beautiful, but it is modern because it achieves that beauty through novelty.  This is entirely different from the achievement of Bach, who, as everyone knows, was operating in an antiquated style when he wrote his masterpieces.  And it is different from Mozart because Mozart wrote in the style of his contemporaries, but just better than anyone else.  It was not really until Beethoven that we see an appreciation for unusual techniques.  But still, I would say, Beethoven was not trying to create a new music, he simply pushed it in the direction he needed it.

And in this way Modernism is indebted to Beethoven, although he was not modern.  There has always seemed to be a recognition of Beethoven as a precedent, not because Beethoven tried to move music ahead, but because he was so successful at it.  The universal acknowledgment of Beethoven's achievements laid the groundwork for composers to take a small piece of his genius, novelty, and make it their raison d'etre.

It didn't happen overnight, of course.  For their part, Berlioz, Liszt, and Wagner pushed music a little, but it didn't consume them.  I don't think you reach it until Schoenberg, who was the first composer who sought novelty for its own sake, not at the expense of beauty, but in order to nudge music toward a perceived higher beauty.  In that way, music ceased to naturally progress and started to be pushed ahead, at times rather forcefully.  Stravinsky, I don't think, was a modernist, because he was more after shock value and effects than in the history of Art music.  You can see that by his career; he had no progression.  For him, serialism was a tool, not a higher calling.

That is what separates the modernist from the other composers of the 20th Century, a gazing toward the future and an active role of the composer to force it there.  The modern composer thinks, "Well, music was going to do that anyway, so why not just do it now?"  There is no time to sit and let things take their course.  So you see a lot of, perhaps, silly things happening.  Music composed upside down, without notes, on instruments that are unplayable, etc.  Of course, some of these silly things ended up producing amazing music, but we can look back now and see that it was not the silliness itself we have to thank, but the craft the composer, as it has always been.

I think in the coming years we will begin to separate modernism from its social and political implications and simply enjoy it.  We no longer have to believe that serialism is an emancipation of the notes to enjoy Milton Babbitt's music.  Nor must we go into meditative trance to find the hidden beauty of Cage's music.  Although these ideas are undoubtedly linked to their music, I think we can get beyond that now.

[Herman]

As I have come to understand it, the Modern era is characterized by the objective not just to achieve beautiful and convincing art, but to also somehow move the very fabric of art forward.  [...] And it is different from Mozart because Mozart wrote in the style of his contemporaries, but just better than anyone else.  It was not really until Beethoven that we see an appreciation for unusual techniques. 

I have severe doubts about the Mozart statement.

[DavidRoss]

Herman--you're a bright and worldly fellow, educated in such matters and thoughtful about them:  Do you have a guess as to why so many on this site equate serialism with modernism, rather than recognizing it as but one expression of modernist tendencies in music?  I confess that it baffles me.

[Catison]

I have severe doubts about the Mozart statement.

In the "Newman" sense, or in some intelligent sense?

[Catison]

Do you have a guess as to why so many on this site equate serialism with modernism, rather than recognizing it as but one expression of modernist tendencies in music?  I confess that it baffles me.

I don't know if you are counting me among this bunch, and I am not Herman, but I'll answer anyway.

I think it is because modernism and serialism are inherently linked, not because serialism is the only form of modernism or because serialism necessarily required modernist thinking, but because serialism was seen as the highest achievement for many of the modernist.  They made the association for us.  The most vocal of the early modernists were all dabbling in serialism and proclaiming it to be The Way, e.g., Webern, Boulez, and Stockhausen.  Serialism is the most tangible forms of modernism in most people's minds.

[DavidRoss]

I don't know if you are counting me among this bunch, and I am not Herman, but I'll answer anyway.

Well, yes, it was seeing your implicit claim to this effect that prompted my asking.  I was hoping to get Herman's perspective, as one who might not share that mindset and whose perspective on the matter has not been much aired on this site in recent years (that I've seen, anyway).