Modern vs Postmoden Music

[Mandryka]

I think I would agree that the musics of Sciarrino, Lachenmann, and Scelsi (at least what little I have heard) has very little to do with the touchstones of previous music, things like melody, harmony, rhythm, development of motives etc. I'm not sure whether they have abandoned timbre or made it the key focus of their works. At least to take a piece like Lachenmann's first string quartet for example, I've heard it described as "musique concrète instrumentale", with the connotation that the sounds produced by the strings are sound objects, to be manipulated similarly to how a tape artist might mix and match sound effects recorded on magnetic tape (or in the present day, I suppose, digital audio, though I have yet to hear any digital musique concrète, maybe I should try and make some with Ableton ) rather than traditionally developed à la Beethoven or Schoenberg. As you say, presenting music in this manner may prove influential as it's an entirely new way to conceptualize and write music. That being said, I'm not entirely sure that this is an escape from music altogether.

Lachenmann, Scelsi and Sciarrino do this, but...

... arguable.

Edit: I don't know which mod moved this discussion into its own thread, but good call, I thought about requesting as much.

Here's something by the wonderful Etha Williams on Sciarrino's relationship to Gesualdo.

[atardecer]

I think the terms 'modernism' and 'post-modernism' don't function the same way as earlier stylistic descriptive terms like 'baroque', 'classical', 'romantic' etc.

The reason for this is that music went in so many different directions in the 20th century. I see them now more as terms describing the period of time in which a composer is/was working. The exceptions are composers that are clearly working in older idioms. For example I don't really see composers that are still composing in essentially a romantic style 'post modernists'.

I think referring to composers like Bruckner and Berlioz as 'modernist' or 'post-modernist' confuses the issue. They are both romantic composers in my view. In any of the eras you will find stylistic differences among major composers because virtually all of the major composers we remember today were unique in some way.

All this said in modernism I feel it is less difficult to see some unity in style than with post modernism. I look at modernism as basically starting with Debussy, and all of the composers that use this basic kind of harmonic language as modernist so - Ravel, Bartok, Stravinsky, Poulenc etc. are modernists. Schoenberg I see as having some modernist traits but his music is expressionism and is in some ways the entry point or beginning of post modernism. If not actually post modern than pointing towards it in a similar way that Wagner points to modernism.

[hopefullytrusting]

I think referring to composers like Bruckner and Berlioz as 'modernist' or 'post-modernist' confuses the issue. They are both romantic composers in my view.

I look at modernism as basically starting with Debussy, and all of the composers that use this basic kind of harmonic language as modernist so - Ravel, Bartok, Stravinsky, Poulenc etc. are modernists. Schoenberg I see as having some modernist traits but his music is expressionism and is in some ways the entry point or beginning of post modernism.

As a point of clarity, I view both Berlioz and Bruckner as modernist in their compositional orchestrations, but I feel musically that Berlioz is a romantic, but I do think, ultimately, that I find Bruckner more modernist than romantic.

Interestingly, your second list of composers are part of what I'd call impressionism, which, I feel, predates modernism. Although, I feel Bartok does become modern to postmodern, and Stravinsky is completely context-dependent, as he freely moved from one phase to another, but I feel he is the most modern on that list, at least when he was in his neoclassical phase.

[atardecer]

As a point of clarity, I view both Berlioz and Bruckner as modernist in their compositional orchestrations, but I feel musically that Berlioz is a romantic, but I do think, ultimately, that I find Bruckner more modernist than romantic.

Interestingly, your second list of composers are part of what I'd call impressionism, which, I feel, predates modernism. Although, I feel Bartok does become modern to postmodern, and Stravinsky is completely context-dependent, as he freely moved from one phase to another, but I feel he is the most modern on that list, at least when he was in his neoclassical phase.

That is interesting, and I think it further shows that the many stylistic differences we see in modernism and post-moderism make these compositional trends difficult to neatly organize and to some degree they are open to different interpretations.

I agree with you somewhat about Stravinsky. To be honest I don't understand where you are coming from in regards to Bartok and Bruckner, but I'm sure you have your reasons. Similarly, many consider Mahler 'modern'.

I see composers like Bruckner, Mahler and R Strauss as essentially 'grey area' composers, meaning they don't fit neatly into one era (similar to CPE Bach), however they seem to me most closely related to romanticism.

I see impressionism is one trend within the larger context of modernism, just as minimalism or polystylism could be seen as trends existing within the context of post modernism.

[atardecer]

I'm not particularly attached to my ideas on this topic being 'correct'. The categorizations aren't really that important to me, just the way I organize things in my brain. If anyone thinks I am wrong in any of my ideas that is ok, I don't mind. I am more interested in learning, than I am in being 'right'.

[Opus131]

To be honest, i'm not entirely sure i ever understood in what way post-modernism is actually an "evolution" of modernism. 

As far as i understanding it, the problem for Wagner and his bygones was that of attempting to escape the limits of form, in what seemed to be a kind of rebellion against the rationalism and formalism of the Enlightment. Reason having been deemed to be too limiting and restritive, "inspiration" was then set up as its antagonist, even though at times what was called inpiration was merely just irrationalisnm.

Modernism, as far as i understand it, was merely the process of codifying this notion of having to escape the limits of form into its own formal principle, and i think the problem eventually was reduced to the question of variation. Since every pattern, even the most rarified, could be seen as being a "form", repetition was deemed to be the root of the problem, hence the development of twelve-tone technique and ultimately serialism which one might call a kind "absolute" variation.

Sadly i don't have it with me but years ago i remember reading an article referencing Schoenberg specifically talking about variation in his own words, and i think this was what Schoenberg had in mind when he referred to Brahms as a "progressive", because Brahms too was actually concerned with variation, even if he rejected the musical direction undertook by Wagner.

So what is post-modernism exactly? According to wikipedia, it is a movement characterized by skepticism towards the "grand narratives" of modernism, which i'm not sure how that relates to the music of Anton Webern if we for instance set up him up as the final word of "modernism" in this particular field. Post-modernism rejects the "epistemic certainty or the stability of meaning" and "claims to objectivity are dismissed as naïve realism".

I honestly cannot think of a lot of post-Webern composers that fit this description aside for someone like John Cage. Basically, post-modernism doesn't "move" away from modernism, it basically declares everything modernism believed was pointless. Is Ligeti post-modern? I don't see how. He was certainly post-Werbern but only in the sense he came after and was attempting to find new ways to go from where Webern had ended, which means Ligeti still considering the aims and "narratives" of modernity to have been "meaningful".

[Mandryka]

@vers la flamme One thing I forgot yesterday. While as far as I know no one disputes the existence of modernism in the sense I defined it (serialism to various degrees really, break music down to its elements, create a system to put it all back together), postmodernism is a much more disputed concept, and arguably it refers to nothing - just invented by academics who were desperate to justify the rejection revolutionary politics by declaring that "grand narratives" are an illusion. The locus classicus is Alex Callinicos,  Against Postmodernism.

Stylistic eclecticism has been around for ever - think of Berio's Sinfonia, Bach's Clavier Übung III.

[hopefullytrusting]

I am more interested in learning, than I am in being 'right'.

This is exactly where I always sun to be. I am not interested in right/wrong, correct/incorrect, etc., as what I value is the conversation.

Going back aways now, I mentioned that my schooling is my primary influence in how I am meting out romanticism, modernism, and the like. For me, the example I fall back to is Joyce whose three major works describe each of these schools: Portrait is romantic; Ulysses is modern; and Finnegans is postmodern, or, to put it another way - Portrait is focused on the author; Ulysses is focused on the audience; and Finnegans is focused on reality.

This is my metric, so going back to Bruckner - I do not feel he is focused on himself but on the audience, whilst I do feel such indulgences in Mahler, who'd I class as late romantic. I then move to Bruckner's structure which is dense and grand, and slots closer to Ulysses on my continuum.

Is this idiosyncratic? More than likely, but it is how I got here.