Unpopular Opinions

[Florestan]

Common-practice tonality was the mainstream until well into the 20th Century..

Yes, but common-practice tonality is neither a genre nor a composer. 

[mc ukrneal]

+ 1.

Except for opera, how many of the genres which flourished in that timespan survived it for more than 50 years? What composer of that timespan can be said to have had tremendous, enormous and huge influence on any other composer outside the operatic field? 

Jo is spot on: 1750-1800 is the most influential period of classical music, period.

This is like saying 'except for Haydn', which is not really helpful. I don't buy the 1750-1800 period, but I do buy the early 1600s. And there are plenty of composers to name, though Monteverdi is probably the pivotal one. Still, isn't the symphony and string quartet dead today? As a whole, do you think they have the relevance they used to have?

[Ken B]

+ 1.

Except for opera, how many of the genres which flourished in that timespan survived it for more than 50 years? What composer of that timespan can be said to have had tremendous, enormous and huge influence on any other composer outside the operatic field? 

Umm, the whole modern harmonic system? Caccini, Monteverdi, Gabrielli for example.

[Florestan]

isn't the symphony and string quartet dead today? As a whole, do you think they have the relevance they used to have?

They (together with other genres such as the instrumental concert or the solo/duo piano sonata or piano trio) are still the backbone of most symphonic concerts or chamber music recitals offered today across the world.

They might not have the relevance they used to have for composers, but for the general audience, orchestras and soloists alike they are as alive as it gets. For evidence, look no further than the WAYLT thread or the 2017 schedule of any major orchestra / concert hall.

[Ken B]

Setting aside that King James thingy, how can call 1611 an influential year in the English language? I mean, people don't write Gospels or Apocalypses anymore.

[Florestan]

Caccini, Monteverdi, Gabrielli

Okay, which classical / romantic / modern composer --- ie, post 1750 --- acknowledged being essentially and heavily influenced by these three?

[Florestan]

Setting aside that King James thingy, how can call 1611 an influential year in the English language? I mean, people don't write Gospels or Apocalypses anymore.

Strawman and apples&oranges all in one. Way to go, my friend! 

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Okay, which classical / romantic / modern composer --- ie, post 1750 --- acknowledged being essentially and heavily influenced by these three?

All of them were the product of the changes in style that began with these composers. They are the earliest real examples of a shift from polyphonic style to the increased emphasis on vertical triadic harmony in composition.

[Ken B]

Okay, which classical / romantic / modern composer --- ie, post 1750 --- acknowledged being essentially and heavily influenced by these three?

Anyone who used a key.

[Ken B]

Strawman and apples&oranges all in one. Way to go, my friend! 

Do be (quite so) silly Andrei. English grammar and syntax and idioms are all heavily influenced by the KJV. That is also the period of Shakespeare. Certainly more influential and formative than any subsequent period. Well, 1590-1610 is like that for music. Keys, mainstream harmony, monody, and even our modern notation all form more or less in those 20 years.

[mc ukrneal]

They (together with other genres such as the instrumental concert or the solo/duo piano sonata or piano trio) are still the backbone of most symphonic concerts or chamber music recitals offered today across the world.

They might not have the relevance they used to have for composers, but for the general audience, orchestras and soloists alike they are as alive as it gets. For evidence, look no further than the WAYLT thread or the 2017 schedule of any major orchestra / concert hall.

You make my argument for me. How many of those schedules have symphonies and quartets written in the last 20 years. Heck, go back 50 years if you like. Somewhere in the 20th century, writing a symphony (for example) no longer attains the status it once did (in fact, it takes a nosedive).

I think there are differences though in the changes that took place in these periods, so perhaps that is part of the issue. Baroque seems to me something of a break with the earlier period (renaissance), while the later classical period seems to me an evolution of forms/structures. Of course, that simplifies things, but that is the heart of my thinking. Do you disagree with that characterization?

[Madiel]

You make my argument for me. How many of those schedules have symphonies and quartets written in the last 20 years. Heck, go back 50 years if you like. Somewhere in the 20th century, writing a symphony (for example) no longer attains the status it once did (in fact, it takes a nosedive).

Yeah, but elsewhere on the forum are busily arguing that using the stuff developed around 1590-1610 is old hat as well. So you kill that off too. You don't demonstrate any kind of priority of Monteverdi over Haydn by declaring people don't do symphonies and quartets any more. They don't do C major any more, either.

Declaring your opponent's thesis dead doesn't help you if your thesis was killed by the same stroke.

[Jo498]

Obviously all sharp cuts or claims that x was singlehandedly introduced by y or in narrow timeframe t are simplifications. This is even true for "revolutions" like the monody and other innovations around 1600. A lot of 17th century music sounds fairly odd to modern ears, it is not an accident that when people say "baroque" they almost always mean late baroque, namely Bach, Handel, Vivaldi (all far closer it time to Haydn than to Monteverdi) all of which sound far more functional-tonal than Monteverdi or Schütz. So I think one cannot pin the "modern" (i.e. functional) harmony on the early 17th century when it took until Rameau to become standard.

Now look at 1750-1800.

First of all, it does hardly make sense to evaluate this period "except for Haydn and Mozart" because they were by far the most important composers of the period and are obviously far more central for today's repertoire and most listeners today than anyone earlier, except JS Bach and maybe Monteverdi and Handel. (Just for a test: 1700-1750 would immediately drop to negligible for almost everyone if one said: without Bach, Vivaldi and Handel. It is true that Haydn and Mozart dominate that period in our perception maybe even more than those three the first half but it is not a large difference.)

Now the genres: True, some of them existed before, although not by much if one takes the later standard forms of e.g. the symphony. But it can hardly be denied that if one picks any important instrumental piece between 1800 and 1930, it is very likely to conform to or be very close to the forms and genres established in the late 18th century. There are far more important symphonies, string quartets or piano trios in the 19th and early 20th century than there are concerti grossi, church sonatas, toccatas or suites of dance movements. And 1930 is an early cutoff. There are important "classicist" pieces even in the 1970s (e.g. late Shostakovich). And there can also be no question that music from ca. 1780 until the 1930s or so dominates the current repertoire. So going by what is played most frequently in professional concerts today, most frequently recorded, it will also be the genres and forms established in the late 18th century. Without a doubt, there are also forms established later ("miniatures" usually for keyboard, unless one counts Rameau and Couperin, and art songs certainly became far more important in the 19th century), there are also fields where said period is almost negligible (organ and choral music).

Finally, as said above, the first operas that remained in the repertoire are from that time, 19th century German opera including Wagner would not have been possible without Mozart's pioneering achievements (one could probably also argue that Mozart set a striking example for an uncommonly rich and important role for the orchestra and "instrumental" forms in opera, again this seems important for the development of musical drama), and 3-4 operas by Mozart still make the top 10-15 of the most frequently played/staged ones more than 200 years later.

[Florestan]

Baroque seems to me something of a break with the earlier period (renaissance), while the later classical period seems to me an evolution of forms/structures. Of course, that simplifies things, but that is the heart of my thinking. Do you disagree with that characterization?

No, I don´t.

[Florestan]

Obviously all sharp cuts or claims that x was singlehandedly introduced by x or in narrow timeframe t are simplifications. This is even true for "revolutions" like the monody and other innovations around 1600. A lot of 17th century music sounds fairly odd to modern ears, it is not an accident that when people say "baroque" they almost alwas mean late baroque, namely Bach, Handel, Vivaldi all of which sound far more functional-tonal than Monteverdi or Schütz. So I think one cannot pin the "modern" (i.e. functional) harmony on the early 17th century when it took until Rameau to become standard.

Now look at 1750-1800.

First of all, it does hardly make sense to evaluate this period "except for Haydn and Mozart" because they were by far the most important composers of the period and are obviously far more central for today's repertoire and most listeners today than anyone earlier, except JS Bach and maybe Monteverdi and Handel. (Just for a test: 1700-1750 would immediately drop to negligible for almost everyone if one said: without Bach, Vivaldi and Handel. It is true that Haydn and Mozart dominate that period in our perception maybe even more than those three the first half but it is not a large difference.)

Now the genres: True, some of them existed before, although not by much if one takes the later standard forms of e.g. the symphony. But it can hardly be denied that if one picks any important instrumental piece between 1800 and 1930, it is very likely to conform to or be very close to the forms and genres established in the late 18th century. There are far more important symphonies, string quartets or piano trios in the 19th and early 20th century than there are concerti grossi, church sonatas, toccatas or suites of dance movements. And 1930 is an early cutoff. There are important "classicist" pieces even in the 1970s (e.g. late Shostakovich). And there can also be no question that music from ca. 1780 until the 1930s or so dominates the current repertoire. So going by what is played most frequently in professional concerts today, most frequently recorded, it will also be the genres and forms established in the late 18th century. Without a doubt, there are also forms established later ("miniatures" usually for keyboard, unless one counts Rameau and Couperin, and art songs certainly became far more important in the 19th century), there are also fields where said period is almost negligible (organ and choral music).

Finally, as said above, the first operas that remained in the repertoire are from that time, 19th century German opera including Wagner would not have been possible without Mozart's pioneering achievements (one could probably also argue that Mozart set a striking example for an uncommonly rich and important role for the orchestra and "instrumental" forms in opera, again this seems important for the development of musical drama), and 3-4 operas by Mozart still make the top 10-15 of the most frequently played/staged ones more than 200 years later.

Amen!

[Florestan]

English grammar and syntax and idioms are all heavily influenced by the KJV.

I can´t remember where and when I denied that. Like I said, strawman.

That is also the period of Shakespeare. Certainly more influential and formative than any subsequent period.

Moving the goalpost, huh? First influential, now formative*.

Well, 1590-1610 is like that for music.

You offer something which has been widely read ever since it was published and has become something of an English national treasure and cultural icon (King James´ Bible) as an analogy for something which had disappeared from Italian public musical life for almost 250 years and had it not been for the 20th century revivals and especially the advent of the recording technology and industry would have laid dormant for another 250 (the music of around 1600). Like I said, apples and oranges.

*Look, I don´t deny the quality of Monteverdi´s or Caccini´s or Gabrielli´s music, which is indeed exceptional. But to claim that it has been more influential than that of Haydn or Mozart or Beethoven is an exaggeration. On the other hand, I quite agree with "formative".

[mc ukrneal]

Yeah, but elsewhere on the forum are busily arguing that using the stuff developed around 1590-1610 is old hat as well. So you kill that off too. You don't demonstrate any kind of priority of Monteverdi over Haydn by declaring people don't do symphonies and quartets any more. They don't do C major any more, either.

Declaring your opponent's thesis dead doesn't help you if your thesis was killed by the same stroke.

I'm ok with that, because I am not saying that the extension of those forms/structures to today is important in deciding which period had more influence. It doesn't have much weight (if any) in my view. One can objectively list what did have influence, but then which is more important is subjective to a good degree.

[71 dB]

If you're going to miss the point, you might as well be rude about it.

My opinions are unpopular even in "Unpopular Opinions" section. That says alot! 

[Ken B]

No Andrei. I am not arguing monteverdi is more popular than Mozart. But I do argue western music changed more as a result of the doings of that 20 year period that it did as a result of the other 50 year period.

Darwin is more influential than any biologist since,  but he is cited in papers less than many others. That seems the analogy of your measure of influence,  where composers cite Mozart not caccini. It's a bad measure in biology and in art.

Formative is a form of influential!

[mc ukrneal]

*Look, I don´t deny the quality of Monteverdi´s or Caccini´s or Gabrielli´s music, which is indeed exceptional. But to claim that it has been more influential than that of Haydn or Mozart or Beethoven is an exaggeration.

Why? I think perhaps you're using the word 'influence' too literally. Haydn and Mozart are more clearly influencers, in part because they are closer in time to us (well, and for other reasons). I think it is perhaps a question of collective influence vs individual influence. This is why I mentioned how I think of it.