Favourite decade of the 19th Century

[some guy]

Well, one thing is certainly true: older pieces have been around longer.

And have been reacted to, including judgements, by more people.

One thing I know about myself, I know instantly whether I like something or not, no matter what year it was written. I also know that me liking something instantly has very little to do with, with, well anything, really. Some things that I liked instantly are things I never listen to any more. Some things that I disliked instantly are things that I can't get enough of now. And, naturally, some things that I liked instantly are things that I still listen to all the time now, and things that I disliked instantly I never listen to at all any more.

The things I dislike stay a permanent part of my sense of things yet to be done. I may never like them, but too many times I have encountered things I don't like under different circumstances, after months or years or even decades of listening to other things, and found them quite likeable indeed.

But that's as may be.

Thread duty: the current leader in the decades game was a decade of several wars, though it's true that that rat bastard from Corsica was safely dead for most of it.

Also, the thirties, forties, and fifties, which are getting very few votes, were dominated by M. Hector Berlioz, who is still very little known. The most famous composer hardly anyone ever thinks about aside from that first symphony of his, which has some really smashing music, it's true, but which continues to be overshadowed by that story.

[James]

Well, one thing is certainly true: older pieces have been around longer.

And have been reacted to, including judgements, by more people.

One thing I know about myself, I know instantly whether I like something or not, no matter what year it was written. I also know that me liking something instantly has very little to do with, with, well anything, really. Some things that I liked instantly are things I never listen to any more. Some things that I disliked instantly are things that I can't get enough of now. And, naturally, some things that I liked instantly are things that I still listen to all the time now, and things that I disliked instantly I never listen to at all any more.

The things I dislike stay a permanent part of my sense of things yet to be done. I may never like them, but too many times I have encountered things I don't like under different circumstances, after months or years or even decades of listening to other things, and found them quite likeable indeed.

But that's as may be.

Thread duty: the current leader in the decades game was a decade of several wars, though it's true that that rat bastard from Corsica was safely dead for most of it.

Also, the thirties, forties, and fifties, which are getting very few votes, were dominated by M. Hector Berlioz, who is still very little known. The most famous composer hardly anyone ever thinks about aside from that first symphony of his, which has some really smashing music, it's true, but which continues to be overshadowed by that story.

Again, as is the case with your posts .. this is more about you. Nothing about the Art or why those older pieces still resonate so strongly. We understand you like to listen to things .. learning next to nothing in the process, or as little as possible. Your posts certainly reflect that. A sort of "sub-conscious" experience.

Regarding the bit about Berlioz, and this goes back to what I was saying earlier, or a case & point of it .. even when we look at Beethoven from a few years prior, he was so far ahead of Berlioz. While it's easy to appreciate the colorful aspects of his "Fantastic" Symphony .. it is safe to say it pales to LvB's 9th in terms of musical vocabulary. The greatest musical monuments (heck, human achievements!) are often like this. We can like them or not, but either way, on a level of pure understanding they resonate for many reasons and when we dig deeper into their very substance .. the most can be learned.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

It's better to know why and how things are innovative than to just love them because someone said they are......

[some guy]

I guess it depends on what level that someone is on. Housewares, lingerie, computer and tv, pure understanding.

They all resonate, though, for many (unspecified) reasons, though the managers might get a little shirty if you do any serious digging in the walls and floors. Not the manager of men's wear, of course. He's always shirty.

[James]

It's better to know why and how things are innovative than to just love them because someone said they are......

Of course, but realizing it helps. The mere consequence of innovation (as the musician strives for the best they can) is often the least important thing at the end of the day for most people .. but it's often there in a substantial way (esp. with the greatest achievements) and it's all well documented too. It's just another layer, whether someone one wants to familiarize themselves with those aspects is up to them. Musicians are prone to take up that large task more than most, for obvious reasons ..

[Karl Henning]

I guess it depends on what level that someone is on. Housewares, lingerie, computer and tv, pure understanding.

They all resonate, though, for many (unspecified) reasons, though the managers might get a little shirty if you do any serious digging in the walls and floors. Not the manager of men's wear, of course. He's always shirty.

The shirty dozen.

[Madiel]

It's better to know why and how things are innovative than to just love them because someone said they are......

True. But count me as another person who doesn't think innovation is inherently better.

Of course, the innovations we tend to remember in the long term are the innovations that were really excellent. But there are probably innovations out there that didn't lead to anything. No other composer was inspired. No-one heard it and thought it was wonderful. People responded by saying, if they said anything at all, "what the hell were you thinking?"

There are periods of musical history that we're certainly not very fond of now, culturally. Trends that were "innovative" at the time which now tend to get considered as wrong turns. Sure, there's probably an audience out there somewhere for just about anything, but there are times and places we regard more highly than others. In fact it's inevitable: as soon as you mark out particular times, and places, as sources of rich and wonderful innovation, you're inevitably saying that other times and places... weren't as good. Didn't contribute to the cultural fabric to the same degree, didn't have that impact.

[(poco) Sforzando]

And then there's some people, like me, who don't really give a twig whether something was innovative and/or radical. That's the difference between you and me. I listen while you judge.

"Absolutely. I singled out this work because there really was nothing like it before. The way Debussy dissolved formalities and went his own way was truly an ear-opening revelation for its time."

[some guy]

With the indulgence of Maestro267, I would like to say a few words about innovation.

If the maestro so desires, I can open up a wee thread of its own for the wee concept. In the meantime... I'd like to say something about innovation, about the consequences of innovation. Now if something is truly new, then it stands to reason that it will be difficult to understand. It's new. There's no precedent for it. It doesn't fit into any of the neat boxes for, say, greatness or masterfulness or quality or any of the other vague words we use to demarcate the things we most admire from the stuff we think is crap. If it's truly new, a thing cannot be great or good because greatness and goodness are attributes that are grafted on a thing once its newness has worn off and its qualities can be understood.

It, in a nutshell, has to have changed how we think and what we value before it can be recognized as valuable.

Of course, the maker probably thinks its cool from the very start. And a few fanboys and girls will like it right away, too. The more of those there are over time, the more likely its innovations will be able to come to be seen as being valuable and necessary by other people who are not cognoscenti. In the meantime, other makers are busy at work making other incomprehensible (except to a few) things which may or may not over time come to be seen as desirable and necessary. There's nothing sure about any of this. The assignation of "quality" is capricious and inconsistent, hence the discoveries almost daily of "forgotten" or "neglected" masterpieces. Some of these will take their place in "the canon." Some will not. Some of the ones that don't will continue to please certain people.

There is nothing necessary about this cycle, I don't think. It's not a natural thing, in spite of my suggestion above that it was. It is natural given a certain ideological bent. But there is nothing necessary about being so bent. There are other ways of bending, as it were. The makers of new things are obviously capable of thinking in unique and unprecedented ways. And the fans of new things, some of them, are also capable of understanding things that seem to the majority to be incomprehensible. What do these makers and fans have that allows them to function thusly?

I don't want to take up any more of your precious time ( ), so I will say merely that what they have is a capacity for appreciating things that don't "fit." They have an ability to enjoy that is maybe prior to understanding (fully) because they are open to experience. They don't need others to have approved of what they encounter before they can appreciate their encounters. They can do it all on their own. It is not a particularly difficult capacity to develop, I don't think. What is difficult is giving up the old model of value--is giving up models, generally.

Does this mean that these people will be admiring things that other people do not? Of course. But that happens all the time, regardless, doesn't it? That is, even people who agree with the idea of greatness in the arts will disagree about which particular work is great.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Also, the thirties, forties, and fifties, which are getting very few votes, were dominated by M. Hector Berlioz, who is still very little known.

I think three or four people may have heard of him.

[Karl Henning]

I've heard of someone who has heard of him.

[some guy]

I know that guy. Well, I've heard of him.

Anyway, yeah, Berlioz is a famous composer. For a famous composer, he is still very little known.

Not trample on the joke or anything, which is funny, after all.

[Jo498]

The very premise of this poll is rather silly but it's not exactly astonishing that a lot of people think late Beethoven and Schubert are about as good as it gets in classical music. This is not directly related to some notion of innovation, I think. (Although the music was very innovative, it is in other respects also the end or summit of an era and quite a bit of it was considered hermetic and not very well known for several decades.)

[James]

Education / learning-curve - is often part and parcel for a 20th/21st century born & raised individual encountering/delving into the vast universe that is classical music; its so very different than mass pop entertainment, it has an long documented history, so it helps to have context etc. .. and with that  enormous wealth of educational material out there to guide us & teach us about the music, it's details, & it's composers, performers .. in all those mediums & formats  .. its impossible to ignore why these composers have respectfully earned their place, are still relevant to us today, and just why some of them are considered so Great.

[James]

With the indulgence of Maestro267, I would like to say a few words about innovation.

If the maestro so desires, I can open up a wee thread of its own for the wee concept. In the meantime... I'd like to say something about innovation, about the consequences of innovation. Now if something is truly new, then it stands to reason that it will be difficult to understand. It's new. There's no precedent for it. It doesn't fit into any of the neat boxes for, say, greatness or masterfulness or quality or any of the other vague words we use to demarcate the things we most admire from the stuff we think is crap. If it's truly new, a thing cannot be great or good because greatness and goodness are attributes that are grafted on a thing once its newness has worn off and its qualities can be understood.

It, in a nutshell, has to have changed how we think and what we value before it can be recognized as valuable.

Of course, the maker probably thinks its cool from the very start. And a few fanboys and girls will like it right away, too. The more of those there are over time, the more likely its innovations will be able to come to be seen as being valuable and necessary by other people who are not cognoscenti. In the meantime, other makers are busy at work making other incomprehensible (except to a few) things which may or may not over time come to be seen as desirable and necessary. There's nothing sure about any of this. The assignation of "quality" is capricious and inconsistent, hence the discoveries almost daily of "forgotten" or "neglected" masterpieces. Some of these will take their place in "the canon." Some will not. Some of the ones that don't will continue to please certain people.

There is nothing necessary about this cycle, I don't think. It's not a natural thing, in spite of my suggestion above that it was. It is natural given a certain ideological bent. But there is nothing necessary about being so bent. There are other ways of bending, as it were. The makers of new things are obviously capable of thinking in unique and unprecedented ways. And the fans of new things, some of them, are also capable of understanding things that seem to the majority to be incomprehensible. What do these makers and fans have that allows them to function thusly?

I don't want to take up any more of your precious time ( ), so I will say merely that what they have is a capacity for appreciating things that don't "fit." They have an ability to enjoy that is maybe prior to understanding (fully) because they are open to experience. They don't need others to have approved of what they encounter before they can appreciate their encounters. They can do it all on their own. It is not a particularly difficult capacity to develop, I don't think. What is difficult is giving up the old model of value--is giving up models, generally.

Does this mean that these people will be admiring things that other people do not? Of course. But that happens all the time, regardless, doesn't it? That is, even people who agree with the idea of greatness in the arts will disagree about which particular work is great.

You say a lot of this as if nothing has happened till now, or that seasoned-learned musicians don't have ears or are incapable of understanding what they are hearing or even where it's coming from, or getting to the bottom of it. The notion that something is ALIEN (how you seem to be defining "new") doesn't really exist in music, never really has when you trace things or peel back the layers (reverse-engineering/musical analysis), ditto incomprehensibility .. it's no secret that greatness doesn't just entail innovation (that's often the least of it, as far as how the majority experience truly great works of art and their beauty, the fact that it may happen to be innovative or not as well is a mere footnote). No matter how you want to slice & dice it .. ultimately music (and we know what that is) is by people, for people at the end of the day.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

If anyone cares I voted 1800s because I always find myself discovering new little gems I hardly know from that decade. And plus, the 1800s was a great century for new music.

[some guy]

That century was the first time that the split between old and new became a prominent and important idea. Before then, with some prescient exceptions--every century has one or two of those, eh?--music meant for all practical purposes new music.

With the establishment of a canon, however, one gives the past an increasing prominence, and that defines a struggle between new and old, in which, increasingly, the old won out.

Before that, the new was just taken for granted. Music was new music. The old, for the most part, was not even a factor.

So, yeah. The whole century was a great one for new music, possibly more noticable because it was also the first century in which you had a such contrast with a body of old music.

[André]

I voted 1870s because that's a period when great works by Bruckner, Wagner and Verdi were conceived and / or first produced. It's also the period of absolute power and madness from King Ludwig II, that saw the flowering of his 'real estate' frenzy.

[James]

That century was the first time that the split between old and new became a prominent and important idea.

Split? Not really ..  none of it would have been possible without what came before. Music is never rootless.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Split? Not really ..  none of it would have been possible without what came before. Music is never rootless.

That wasn't his point. His point was more an idea of old vs. new. In earlier centuries, all music was new, and the thought of preserving older music as a permanent repertoire was virtually non-existent. Starting in the 19th century, the idea of a permanent repertoire starting taking hold, and hence a split between what was understood as new music and what was preserved as old, or older.