GMG Classical Music Forum

I already am familiar with Sibelius and Vaughan Williams.

Which composers do you recommend besides these two? Which are essential?

Start with Mahler.

And Nielsen. But it all depends on where you draw the line on romantic vs modernistic.

Throw in some Korngold, Zemlinsky and Szymanowski, too.

Much of the music from the British Isles would fit the description of what you are looking for: Rubbra, Bax, Bantock, Alwyn, etc.

An obscure rec, but I can't help but promote him... Marcel Dupré was a continuation of the 19th century tradition of French composers who specialised in composition for the organ, and is one of the finest composers for the instrument that I have heard. His works for organ and orchestra are also very interesting. Naxos has produced a brilliant cycle of his organ works, and volume 3 may be a good introduction.

Of the "bigger" names, I second Szymanowski who is brilliant, and add Medtner, Barber (he is often underrated) and Walton.

Quote from: springrite on December 01, 2008, 07:23:33 AM
Much of the music from the British Isles would fit the description of what you are looking for: Rubbra, Bax, Bantock, Alwyn, etc.

In truth-we are all "late romantics" here ;D ;D

Seriously though-I do agree with you :) And would add...d'Indy, Franz Schmidt, Miaskovsky, Braga Santos(surprise, surprise), Respighi, Bloch ;D

The question is going to raise some difficult issues about just what constitutes romanticism in music, and at what point the term no longer applies. It could be said that the Sibelius 4th-7th symphonies have moved past romanticism into a different territory, one that may not align itself with any "modernist" movement, but which shows a clear break away from conventional forms to structures dictated by the nature of the thematic material, framed in a leaner, meaner instrumental texture.

Modernism, if defined totally in terms of dissonance and atonality, didn't come to English music until after WWII, but you can hear a definite break between the generation of Elgar and that of Vaughan Williams. British romanticism took its inspiration from the example of Mendelssohn, and later of Brahms. The new generation took its inspiration from folklore and Elizabethan music. And RVW showed in the 4th symphony that he himself could come up with good, pounding modern dissonances.

I would not let one faction of 20th century music define the whole century. Music which maintains tonality and symphonic form is not necessarily romantic.

I think, though, no one would dispute that composers like Richard Strauss, Rachmaninoff, Medtner, Dohnanyi and Hans Pfitzner carried late romanticism well into the 20th century. These are composers whose style was set at the turn of the century or before and did not vary from that style, though they lived to mid-century.

Quote from: Henk on December 01, 2008, 04:50:13 AM
I already am familiar with Sibelius and Vaughan Williams.

Which composers do you recommend besides these two? Which are essential?

It's a matter of taste but Edward Elgar, Carl Nielsen, Heitor Villa-Lobos and Gabriel Fauré are the most essential to me.

0:)

For late-Romantic opulence, little compares with Schoenberg's Gurrelieder. He wrote it when he was very young and it is clearly influenced by Wagner and perhaps Mahler. The opening evocation of nature is enough to hook you, then there is a very long journey. Men's choral work, heroic tenor, Wagnerian soprano, possibly one of the very greatest pieces of music ever written for a mezzo, a speaker then sends us into the peroration which allows the female chorus to join in an ecstatic sunrise.

It has amongst the largest physical orchestral scores published, so huge are the forces used.

After that Schoenberg took a somewhat more minimalist approach.

Mike

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on December 01, 2008, 07:42:21 AM
The question is going to raise some difficult issues about just what constitutes romanticism in music, and at what point the term no longer applies. It could be said that the Sibelius 4th-7th symphonies have moved past romanticism into a different territory, one that may not align itself with any "modernist" movement, but which shows a clear break away from conventional forms to structures dictated by the nature of the thematic material, framed in a leaner, meaner instrumental texture.

Modernism, if defined totally in terms of dissonance and atonality, didn't come to English music until after WWII, but you can hear a definite break between the generation of Elgar and that of Vaughan Williams. British romanticism took its inspiration from the example of Mendelssohn, and later of Brahms. The new generation took its inspiration from folklore and Elizabethan music. And RVW showed in the 4th symphony that he himself could come up with good, pounding modern dissonances.

I would not let one faction of 20th century music define the whole century. Music which maintains tonality and symphonic form is not necessarily romantic.

Excellent points!!

Quote from: knight on December 01, 2008, 08:05:32 AM
For late-Romantic opulence, little compares with Schoenberg's Gurrelieder. He wrote it when he was very young and it is clearly influenced by Wagner and perhaps Mahler. The opening evocation of nature is enough to hook you, then there is a very long journey. Men's choral work, heroic tenor, Wagnerian soprano, possibly one of the very greatest pieces of music ever written for a mezzo, a speaker then sends us into the peroration which allows the female chorus to join in an ecstatic sunrise.

It has amongst the largest physical orchestral scores published, so huge are the forces used.

After that Schoenberg took a somewhat more minimalist approach.

Mike

Yes-it was all downhill after the Gurreleider ;D What a shame!-Schoenberg did show such early promise :(

Poor thing, he overdid it really and wiped himself out. It really is a glut of a piece.

Mike

Quote from: knight on December 01, 2008, 08:05:32 AMAfter that Schoenberg took a somewhat more minimalist approach.

My quote of the day!

Quote from: knight on December 01, 2008, 08:34:23 AM
Poor thing, he overdid it really and wiped himself out. It really is a glut of a piece.

Mike

;D

Get the Kempe Box of Richard Strauss' music and Karajan's Heldenleben from 1959. Incredible. Then the Four Last Songs with Janowitz/Karajan.  :o :o :o

Can Ravel be considered here?

Quote from: Henk on December 01, 2008, 04:50:13 AM
I already am familiar with Sibelius and Vaughan Williams.

Which composers do you recommend besides these two? Which are essential?

Tanuki,

For really late romanticism you can´t go wrong with some of Gorecki, especially his Third Symphony.

Looks like the jury is out on Ravel. I suggest he is post-romantic, expressionist/impressionist.

From Mahler's music, the Fifth Symphony dates from 1901, so up to the Eighth and including the Ruckert Lieder, you are in late romantic territory. The Ninth moves into a different sound world.

Referring back to Schoenberg: although he roughed out Gurrelieder by 1903, he left it fallow for some time and had already moved into his starker experiments before he returned to finish it much later. I have long felt that it was influenced by Mahler's Klagende Lied, an early piece with some similarities. However, on reading it up I see the standard thinking is that the first part is Wagnerian, the second two parts more influenced by Mahler with his more chamber like deployment of large forces.

Mike

Quote from: knight on December 01, 2008, 10:40:43 AMThe Ninth moves into a different sound world.

Could not the same be said, to some extent, for the Seventh?

Yes, you are right; lazy thinking this end. What about Das Lied, is it also a bridge to a new place?

Mike

Quote from: knight on December 01, 2008, 10:48:16 AMWhat about Das Lied, is it also a bridge to a new place?

I'd say so.

has no one mentioned Bruckner? i swear people always leave him out of the mix

Since Bruckner died in 1896, he doesn't belong in a thread about 20th century composers.

late romantic?

ohhh late romantics who lived in the 20th century. yeah yeah never mind my post(s)

Quote from: knight on December 01, 2008, 10:48:16 AM
Yes, you are right; lazy thinking this end. What about Das Lied, is it also a bridge to a new place?

Mike

As well as 10....... oh, and i guess all the other ones, too.

Symphonies of:

Rachmaninov
Prokofiev
Shostakovich (+ the excellent 1st cello concerto)

Film music of:

Bernard Herrmann

Diamond, Hanson, Finzi, Madetoja, Atterberg, Novak, and Suk, to throw a few more names into the hopper.

I was going to suggest Joseph Jongen but I suppose he too comes under Post-Romantic. The distinction between the Post-Romantic school and some of the 'late romantic' composers above seems to be somewhat woolly. Another composer worth a mention is Busoni.

Quote from: Grazioso on December 02, 2008, 03:42:11 AM
Diamond, Hanson, Finzi, Madetoja, Atterberg, Novak, and Suk, to throw a few more names into the hopper.

Excellent choices. I'd add Klami, Rootham, Braga Santos ( ;D), Lilburn, Moeran, Ciurlionis ("The Sea"), Bax, Miaskovsky, Bloch (early Symphony in C), Kinsella (Symph 2 - bit more challenging),Stanley Bate's Viola Concerto, Bantock (Celtic Symphony)+there are many others.

Good call on Lilburn. And the Bantock 'Celtic' Symphony is an absolute must-hear - be sure to get the version with Handley on Hyperion.

FK

Quote from: Todd on December 01, 2008, 07:11:14 AM
Throw in some Korngold, Zemlinsky and Szymanowski, too.

Yes on the Zemlinsky. Don't know too much about the other two.

Quote from: Kuhlau on December 03, 2008, 04:25:52 PM
Good call on Lilburn. And the Bantock 'Celtic' Symphony is an absolute must-hear - be sure to get the version with Handley on Hyperion.

FK

Shame on me for forgetting Lilburn. I love this disc:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51cTJjZrc0L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

I still need to hear his symphonies...

That disc is a corker, all right. :)

FK

Quote from: Grazioso on December 04, 2008, 03:59:47 AM
Shame on me for forgetting Lilburn. I love this disc:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51cTJjZrc0L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

I still need to hear his symphonies...

There is a cheap Naxos version-same orchestra and conductor. You have NO excuse ;D

Quote from: Dundonnell on December 04, 2008, 04:19:42 AM
There is a cheap Naxos version-same orchestra and conductor. You have NO excuse ;D

Not sure I'd agree with an earlier poster about Gorecki - agreed the 3rd is more accessible than the 1st or 2nd, but none could be considered 'romantic'.
Definitely some of the Prokofiev symphonies (5,6,7) and Shostakovich (4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and even 15), and Khachaturians' 1st & 2nd symphonies as well as his big ballet scores. How about Coplands' 3rd and the symphonies of Roy Harris; Havergal Brian, Malcolm Arnold and Arnold Bax...there's so much, and it's all great fun to explore.

I'm not really sure how Prokofiev and Shostakovich fit in here...? (Unless it's a very, very, very broad defitinition of "romantic" we're talking about.)

There are many suggestions here that I'd second but I'm too lazy to go through the thread again. Let's just say that Rachmaninov and Szymanowski sort of stayed at the top of my head after reading it all once. Two very different brands of "late romantic" but both certainly qualify.

Also Karlowicz and Zemlinsky. (Though I've heard very little of the latter.)

You'd certainly want to give the "later" Penderecki a try. Anything written in the late 1970s up until today. Not the earlier works, though. (But, knowing your tastes, there's no reason to avoid those earlier pieces either. ;D)

And if I may be permitted something a bit more far fetched, I'd suggest Lutoslawski's Piano Concerto as well. :o 0:)

Quote from: Maciek on December 04, 2008, 11:11:06 AM
I'm not really sure how Prokofiev and Shostakovich fit in here...? (Unless it's a very, very, very broad defitinition of "romantic" we're talking about.)

There are many suggestions here that I'd second but I'm too lazy to go through the thread again. Let's just say that Rachmaninov and Szymanowski sort of stayed at the top of my head after reading it all once. Two very different brands of "late romantic" but both certainly qualify.

Also Karlowicz and Zemlinsky. (Though I've heard very little of the latter.)

You'd certainly want to give the "later" Penderecki a try. Anything written in the late 1970s up until today. Not the earlier works, though. (But, knowing your tastes, there's no reason to avoid those earlier pieces either. ;D)

And if I may be permitted something a bit more far fetched, I'd suggest Lutoslawski's Piano Concerto as well. :o 0:)

Made some purchases. Already have some Lutoslawski (the Philips 2 cd set), but Szymanowski and Penderecki were lacking in my collection.

I'm still not sure I understand your thread heading, Henk.  How "20th-century" do you want to go?  I suppose my reputation here is of a modern-lover, but I also enjoy a lot of late Romantic and Neoromantic music.

But I'd second an earlier mention of Howard Hanson.  He has to be considered a Neoromantic rather than a Romantic, because he wasn't really part of the European Romantic tradition like Rachmaninoff, Elgar or even Sibelius, but his music is both exciting and tonal.  His best-known work is the Second Symphony, titled "Romantic." ;D Hanson was also a very fine conductor and recorded (I believe) much of his own music on the Mercury label, including Symphony #2.

Also, if you're interested in a different approach to tonality and "Romanticism," try Alan Hovhaness.  His music is very much its own, not part of the "Romantic tradition" at all, but very beautiful and strictly tonal.  Like Hanson, his best-known work is Symphony #2; Hovhaness' is titled "Mysterious Mountain."  There's a legendary recording by Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony. 8)

Don't forget Joseph Marx; or Arnold Bax.

How about Scriabin??  :)

Hanson Hanson Hanson!  By definition, you need to get his 2nd Symphony (The Romantic).  I love his 4th, his Organ Concerto, his Lament for Beowolf, etc.  But if you haven't heard the second, you are in for a treat. (A tiny bit was cut into the end of the movie Alien)

Anybody mention Barber yet?

There are many wise hands here who could steer you well on the Brits.  I'd start with Moeran's (only) Symphony.  But the other recomendations you will get here are stellar.  You're gonna be happy with most of the suggestions you pick up here.  Your wallet may not be as happy.

Also, Braga Santos I've discovered in this forum, and it's amazing that someone could have written something with the romantic power and technical finesse in his 20s as his first four symphonies.  Currently, only the 4th is in print, but you can get the rest for download at classics online.  Each is a must. 

Right now I'm listening to Bortkiewicz's Lamentations and Consolations (1913); a nice concept, delightfully executed. Any fan of late Romanticism should love this.

For me the culmination of late romantic is Medtner's 3rd Piano Concerto.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on January 14, 2009, 12:22:49 PM
For me the culmination of late romantic is Medtner's 3rd Piano Concerto.

Definately Medtner.  Many composers were listed in this thread, I won't repeat the many fine composers discussed here. Whatr is intersting in 20th century musical history is that many composers writing in the 1930's, 1940's, and 50's were conservatives for the most part, and were swimming upstream amidst  the modernist, serialist, avant-gard composers whose works were "de rigeur" ar the time.  Composers like Hanson (mentined among others), Creston, Barber, Bax, Moeran, Bernard Reichel, Ward, Palmgen, early Szymanowsli, early Scriabin, Roslavetz, Alexandrov, early Klaus Egge, plus others perhaps fall in this "conservative" category.  During the first two decades of the last century there were critics and theorists who had critized composers like Scriabin, or even Faure, for doing just the opposite; these were accused at one time for developing themes, harmonies, or modalities often referred too as "late tonality."  The opposite problem was that later composers like Bax, Hanson, were considered too conservative and were not "up to par," as it were, being that music had to be "progressive,"  or "au courant." Several composers writing in mid century were too romantic.  During the last two or three decades this apparently had come to pass, and the once criticized composers who were not "in the club," at the time, are now revered; their works have been long available in CD recordings.

All the known suspects. 

How about composers like Marx, Reznicek, Rontgen, von Hausegger, and Gram just as an example.

Check out the Dacapo and CPO labels for these and more.

Enescu, another one of the usual suspects.

 ;D aha! so Harry isn't the only person who buys CPO records!  0:)

I love late Romantic music....in well defined doses.
The Etcetera CD with music by Arthur de Greef ( 2 pianoconcerti and orchestral songs / Pizarro : piano -Charlotte Riedijk (sopr.) and Néguet-Séguin conducting the Brussels PhO!) is delightfull.

Quote from: pjme on February 04, 2009, 12:02:00 PM
;D aha! so Harry isn't the only person who buys CPO records!  0:)

I love late Romantic music....in well defined doses.
The Etcetera CD with music by Arthur de Greef ( 2 pianoconcerti and orchestral songs / Pizarro : piano -Charlotte Riedijk (sopr.) and Néguet-Séguin conducting the Brussels PhO!) is delightfull.

One for me to get!  Thanks! ;D

Quote from: Maciek on December 04, 2008, 11:11:06 AM
I'm not really sure how Prokofiev and Shostakovich fit in here...? (Unless it's a very, very, very broad defitinition of "romantic" we're talking about.)

Perhaps you are not very familiar with their symphonies?!?
My core area of interest is late romantic symphonies, and I consider Prokofiev and Shostakovich to lie within this tradition, being personal and emotional, tuneful and tonal, with dense, powerful and colourful orchestration.
Prokofiev's 5, 6 and 7 have been mentioned. I would add the less-known 3 and 4 to this, and the "Classical" 1st should be familiar to all.

DELIUS!

Quote from: schweitzeralan on February 04, 2009, 05:34:40 AM
Definately Medtner.  Many composers were listed in this thread, I won't repeat the many fine composers discussed here. Whatr is intersting in 20th century musical history is that many composers writing in the 1930's, 1940's, and 50's were conservatives for the most part, and were swimming upstream amidst  the modernist, serialist, avant-gard composers whose works were "de rigeur" ar the time.  Composers like Hanson (mentined among others), Creston, Barber, Bax, Moeran, Bernard Reichel, Ward, Palmgen, early Szymanowsli, early Scriabin, Roslavetz, Alexandrov, early Klaus Egge, plus others perhaps fall in this "conservative" category.  During the first two decades of the last century there were critics and theorists who had critized composers like Scriabin, or even Faure, for doing just the opposite; these were accused at one time for developing themes, harmonies, or modalities often referred too as "late tonality."  The opposite problem was that later composers like Bax, Hanson, were considered too conservative and were not "up to par," as it were, being that music had to be "progressive,"  or "au courant." Several composers writing in mid century were too romantic.  During the last two or three decades this apparently had come to pass, and the once criticized composers who were not "in the club," at the time, are now revered; their works have been long available in CD recordings.

I would have nothing substantial to add about the majority of the composers you mention but I feel compelled to protest on behalf of Szymanowski. First of all, "early" Szymanowski would have to mean pieces written in the period between the late 1890s until about 1912 (Love Songs of Hafiz op. 26, completed in 1914, is usually considered the first piece of his "mature" period). Second of all, harmonically, the very earliest Szymanowski pieces (especially the Preludes and Etudes) were among the most adventurous music written at that time (and quite similar to Scriabin), there wasn't a trace of conservatism about them. Paradoxically, it wasn't until Szymanowski embarked on his studies with Noskowski (1901-1904), that a sort of retrograde movement could be noticed in his development. It took about 10 years to shake off Noskowski's "conservative" influence (those masterly yet annoying double fugues etc.). After that, he was again as innovative as possible - think about the novelty of some of the "middle period" pieces: the Violin Concerto, Metopes, Myths, Masques. His harmonic (atonal!) inventiveness can only be compared to that displayed, earlier - by Debussy, and later - by Bartok. And then, the middle "period" only lasted a couple of years, because at the end of World War I Szymanowski was already starting to develop a new aesthetic which would unite folk elements with a "constructivist" architecture. So the reason why Szymanowski appears in this thread has less to do with musical idiom than with a type of emotional expression that is much akin to romanticism. At least that was how I understood it. One does not have to be "conservative" to be, in some sense, a "late romantic".

Quote from: Maciek on February 07, 2009, 03:56:48 AM
I would have nothing substantial to add about the majority of the composers you mention but I feel compelled to protest on behalf of Szymanowski. First of all, "early" Szymanowski would have to mean pieces written in the period between the late 1890s until about 1912 (Love Songs of Hafiz op. 26, completed in 1914, is usually considered the first piece of his "mature" period). Second of all, harmonically, the very earliest Szymanowski pieces (especially the Preludes and Etudes) were among the most adventurous music written at that time (and quite similar to Scriabin), there wasn't a trace of conservatism about them. Paradoxically, it wasn't until Szymanowski embarked on his studies with Noskowski (1901-1904), that a sort of retrograde movement could be noticed in his development. It took about 10 years to shake off Noskowski's "conservative" influence (those masterly yet annoying double fugues etc.). After that, he was again as innovative as possible - think about the novelty of some of the "middle period" pieces: the Violin Concerto, Metopes, Myths, Masques. His harmonical (atonal!) inventiveness can only be compared to that displayed, earlier - by Debussy, and later - by Bartok. And then, the middle "period" only lasted a couple of years, because at the end of World War I Szymanowski was already starting to develop a new aesthetic which would unite folk elements with a "constructivist" architecture. So the reason why Szymanowski appears in this thread has less to do with musical idiom than with a type of emotional expression that is much akin to romanticism. At least that was how I understood it. One does not have to be "conservative" to be, in some sense, a "late romantic".

True.  I was thinking perhaps of Szymanowski's earlier period, perhaps his 2nd. Symphony.  His later works are much more modernist. Metopes, Masques, and Myths are superb pianistic works which suggest to some degree influences of Debussy.  I omitted mentioning another favorite of mine: Marx. His work had been largely neglected during much of the 20th century.  There is a good thread on Marx in this forum.

LANGGAARD!

Quote from: Grazioso on December 02, 2008, 03:42:11 AM
Diamond, Hanson, Finzi, Madetoja, Atterberg, Novak, and Suk, to throw a few more names into the hopper.

Indeed, such a superb list.  Personally I find it wonderful to see or to read comments by those individuals who are well informed and interested in so many composers' works I listen to regularly.  Many names are mentined in tis thread on the post Romanrtics.  I dabbled on about how so many of those who continued well after the early decades and continued to write romantic music, perhapsl at varying levels which include modernistic persuasions.  Many of these were criticized during their own time; and, many of their works were not performed, much less recorded. Other 20th century Romantcs could include Alexander Krein, Paul Creston, Vaino Raitio (expressionist and impressionistic color), Bax, of course; much has been stated on this, my second most favorite composer, Farwell, Palmgren, Gliere, Scriabin, Barber, Scott, Schmitt, Lili Boulanger, Alexandrov, etc., etc.

Quote from: Henk on December 01, 2008, 04:50:13 AM
I already am familiar with Sibelius and Vaughan Williams.  Which composers do you recommend besides these two? Which are essential?

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on December 01, 2008, 07:42:21 AM
The question is going to raise some difficult issues about just what constitutes romanticism in music, and at what point the term no longer applies. It could be said that the Sibelius 4th-7th symphonies have moved past romanticism into a different territory, one that may not align itself with any "modernist" movement, but which shows a clear break away from conventional forms to structures dictated by the nature of the thematic material, framed in a leaner, meaner instrumental texture.

Modernism, if defined totally in terms of dissonance and atonality, didn't come to English music until after WWII, but you can hear a definite break between the generation of Elgar and that of Vaughan Williams. British romanticism took its inspiration from the example of Mendelssohn, and later of Brahms. The new generation took its inspiration from folklore and Elizabethan music. And RVW showed in the 4th symphony that he himself could come up with good, pounding modern dissonances.

I would not let one faction of 20th century music define the whole century. Music which maintains tonality and symphonic form is not necessarily romantic.

I was puzzled by the original post which classified Sibelius and RVW as "Romantic."  Mark's response presented my view more cogently than I would have, though I would add that by the time of Sibelius's neoclassical 3rd Symphony he had already pushed well into post-Romantic territory.

An analogy that might be helpful to those with a curiously Balkanized sense of the term Modern:  Equating Modernism in music with Schoenbergian tonality is like equating Modernism in painting with Cubism.

I used to regard Mahler's music as the apotheosis of late-Romanticism, but then someone (Mark again, I think!) pointed out to me how very post-Modern Mahler is in some respects and I have accordingly revised my opinion on the matter.

There's a danger that when we think late Romantic we think orchestral/symphonic. But for my money among the most quintessentially late Romantic of composers - late in every sense, and stalked by an unbearable nostalgia - is Othmar Schoeck, the Swiss Lieder specialist. He's a composer with a very distinctive, haunting style, and something very definite to say (unlike some superficially comparable composers, mentioning no names...)

Quote from: BaxMan on January 13, 2009, 10:55:54 AM
How about Scriabin??  :)

Bax and Scriabin, two of my very favorites, along with Sibelius, Debussy, Joseph Marx (Automn Symphony).

But Sibelius and Debussy are not Romantics.  Heck, they practically define modernism, except among those whose limited understanding of the term confines its meaning to one little thread of modernism in music. 

Quote from: DavidRoss on February 10, 2009, 06:40:24 AM
But Sibelius and Debussy are not Romantics.  Heck, they practically define modernism, except among those whose limited understanding of the term confines its meaning to one little thread of modernism in music. 

Perhaps in the case of Debussy. I was just mentioning him as a favorite and should not have considered his inclusion within the discussion dealing with the late romantics.  For years I thought that modernism began with Stravinsky (Le Sacre), Prokofiev (Sythisn Suite), or the later neo-classical composers whose works dominat3ed the first half of the last century, alng with the avant-garde and a host of other "isms." I believed that Debussy, Ravel, Schmitt, Marx, and the impressionists were actually pre-modernist.  I may well be mistaken. I've always thought Sibelius' works were generally of the late romantic aesthetic. It's quite interesting to me that modernism and serialism have declined.  I know very little of works composed during the  late decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the current century. I tend to favor the late romantcs, the impressionists and works I thought were pre-modernist (Scriabin, Jongen, Brian, Lyatoshinsky's 1st Symphony, early Szymanovski, Alexandrov,etc.).  It is indeed a vast subject, and I'm no expert. Many contribtors are quite well infrmed in tis classical music forum, and I enjoy reading the many comments and perspectives.     

Quote from: schweitzeralan on February 10, 2009, 09:25:51 AM
I've always thought Sibelius' works were generally of the late romantic aesthetic.     

A mistaken belief commonly shared among those having only a cursory familiarity with his music or with the compass of the terms "Romantic" and "Modern."

First, let us recognize that classification itself is rather arbitrary, a convenience aiding understanding and discussion, not a straitjacket determining the means, methods, and aims of artistic creation.  Beethoven did not set out to write a Romantic symphony.  Rather, he wrote a symphony that critics later agreed (or not) possesses sufficient characteristics of works generally regarded as Romantic to justify inclusion in this category. 

Second, before classifying anything, we must first understand not only its characteristics, but also the distinguishing characteristics of the various classes into which we might place, squeeze, shoehorn, or hammer it.  One of the simplest to determine characteristic is date of origin.  If there is general consensus, for instance, that Modernism in music covered exclusively the period from, say, 1880 to 1960, then it may be unlikely that a work written in 1680 would generally be regarded as Modernist.

Third, meaningful discussion of appropriate classification can only proceed after establishing agreement on the characteristics alluded to above.  In the case of Modernism such agreement is complicated by confusion of the term "Modern"--referring to a distinctive period in the arts when creative developments were informed by a select set of social, economic, and intellectual circumstances--and the common adjective, "modern," referring to things vaguely contemporary or at least from the very recent past.

If I were teaching a course on the subject, therefore, the first assignment I might give would be to investigate usage of the more narrow term, "Modern," so as to discover a set of shared characteristics distinguishing things deemed "Modern" from those more appropriately classified as "Baroque," "Classical," "Romantic," or even "Post-Modern," and also distinguishing "Modernism" as a movement in the fine arts from that which is merely modern.  As this ground has been thoroughly plowed, I expect that substantial informed agreement should not be too difficult to arrive at.

Quote from: DavidRoss on February 10, 2009, 10:26:09 AM
A mistaken belief commonly shared among those having only a cursory familiarity with his music or with the compass of the terms "Romantic" and "Modern."

First, let us recognize that classification itself is rather arbitrary, a convenience aiding understanding and discussion, not a straitjacket determining the means, methods, and aims of artistic creation.  Beethoven did not set out to write a Romantic symphony.  Rather, he wrote a symphony that critics later agreed (or not) possesses sufficient characteristics of works generally regarded as Romantic to justify inclusion in this category. 

Second, before classifying anything, we must first understand not only its characteristics, but also the distinguishing characteristics of the various classes into which we might place, squeeze, shoehorn, or hammer it.  One of the simplest to determine characteristic is date of origin.  If there is general consensus, for instance, that Modernism in music covered exclusively the period from, say, 1880 to 1960, then it may be unlikely that a work written in 1680 would generally be regarded as Modernist.

Third, meaningful discussion of appropriate classification can only proceed after establishing agreement on the characteristics alluded to above.  In the case of Modernism such agreement is complicated by confusion of the term "Modern"--referring to a distinctive period in the arts when creative developments were informed by a select set of social, economic, and intellectual circumstances--and the common adjective, "modern," referring to things vaguely contemporary or at least from the very recent past.

If I were teaching a course on the subject, therefore, the first assignment I might give would be to investigate usage of the more narrow term, "Modern," so as to discover a set of shared characteristics distinguishing things deemed "Modern" from those more appropriately classified as "Baroque," "Classical," "Romantic," or even "Post-Modern," and also distinguishing "Modernism" as a movement in the fine arts from that which is merely modern.  As this ground has been thoroughly plowed, I expect that substantial informed agreement should not be too difficult to arrive at.

Interestng.  Labels and classifications on artists, artists, composers do perhaps tend to be  arbitrary.  I wonder what classical music will be like in the decades to come.  I would suppose that contemporary and/or future composers will no longer write or conceive musical styles, harmonies, scales  similar to those conceived by  past composers. I assume we're still in the post-modernst era. Then again, perhaps not. Music of the future may be consideraby different from the works conceived, yes, in the Baroque period, the Classical,the Romantic, the Modernist, the serialists and the avant-garde period  For me, personall, I believe I'll limit my interests and passions to the late romantics, the impressionists, and my neo-classical favorites, at least for now.  Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.

Quote from: DavidRoss on February 10, 2009, 10:26:09 AM
If I were teaching a course on the subject, therefore, the first assignment I might give would be to investigate usage of the more narrow term, "Modern," so as to discover a set of shared characteristics distinguishing things deemed "Modern" from those more appropriately classified as "Baroque," "Classical," "Romantic," or even "Post-Modern," and also distinguishing "Modernism" as a movement in the fine arts from that which is merely modern.  As this ground has been thoroughly plowed, I expect that substantial informed agreement should not be too difficult to arrive at.

Very eloquent, but you haven't actually explained why Sibelius should be considered as Modern.

Quote from: Dundonnell on December 01, 2008, 08:08:02 AM
Yes-it was all downhill after the Gurreleider ;D What a shame!-Schoenberg did show such early promise :(

"Verklärte Nacht" Op. 4, was written in 1899, ("Transfigured Night"--string sextet) late, late Romantic, just before the clock struck 20th century. Weird to note that in 1902, this expressionist work, for the most part tonal, (compared to the harmonic debacle to follow) was rejected by the Vienna Musical Society because it had an inverted 9th chord, not recognized by the academics.

ZB

Quote from: eyeresist on February 11, 2009, 03:20:11 PM
Very eloquent, but you haven't actually explained why Sibelius should be considered as Modern.

No, nor did I set out to do so.  A thorough exploration of the subject is more fit for an essay or even a book than for an internet forum post.   If you're really interested in examining the matter with an open mind, you might return to the post at the top of this page and begin by considering the comments by diegobueno quoted within.  To help you on that path I offer the following considerations:

In the interests of brevity (a Modernist virtue!), let's agree that the salient characteristics of Modernism are:

• A return to ancient standards of craftsmanship in reaction to industrial mass production,
• An insistence that form be dictated by function and by the artist's materials,
• An emphasis on process and the artist's subjective response to his subject rather than on an objective result,
• Experimentation with new forms, structures, and materials,
• A blurring of distinctions between genres,
• Inclusion of materials from other cultures, including domestic folk culture,
• Rejection of ornament and development of a new, lean, stripped down aesthetic characterized by Mies's dictum that "Less is more,"
• And, finally, the Modernist period spanned the timeframe roughly from 1860 to 1960.

Now we may choose to argue about these characteristics--whether all should be included, whether all are strictly Modernist, whether other salient characteristics should be included--but I think you will find that there is substantial agreement among respected critics who've considered the matter. I encourage you to investigate for yourself and not just to take my word for it.  The Web offers vast resources readily available to those with basic knowledge of research methods and sufficient education to distinguish the wheat from the chaff.  You might begin with the noted critic Clement Greenberg's famed essay on Modernism and Postmodernism (http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/postmodernism.html).

With the foregoing as your guide, I suggest that you exercise your own imagination and intellect to consider Sibelius's music.  I think you will find that even in his early, most apparently Romantic works--the first and second symphonies and early tone poems--elements of Modernism are present, and that by the time of his neoclassical Third Symphony he had already embarked on a distinctively Modernist path that left his Romantic origins far behind--especially in the Symphonies which he regarded as "absolute" music (a Modernist idea itself, distinct from the representational agenda of Romanticism), but even in tone poems like Oceanides and Tapiola and in the later theatrical music as well.

That is not to say that one could not claim that "There are Romantic elements in his work, therefore he's a Romantic!"  Of course there are Romantic elements in his work.  Romanticism preceded and informed Modernism.  Schoenberg himself--the very embodiment of musical Modernism to those who think superficially about such things--began as more of a Romantic than not, and the very method of composition by tone rows--seen by some as the ne plus ultra of Modernism--could well be viewed as essentially Romantic and anti-Modernist due to its rigid imposition of an industrial-like method to determine a given result, rather than following the Modernist approach of letting the materials--the musical motifs--determine their own structure and form.

Finally, for those with enough interest in the subject to read this post but no more, I offer a few passages from the Greenberg essay linked above that merit consideration:

Quote from: Clement GreenbergInnovation, newness have gotten themselves taken as the hallmark of Modernism, newness as something desired and pursued. And yet all the great and lasting Modernist creators were reluctant innovators at bottom, innovators only because they had to be -- for the sake of quality, and for the sake of self-expression if you will.

Modernism has to be understood as a holding operation, a continuing endeavor to maintain aesthetic standards in the face of threats -- not just as a reaction against romanticism...threats from the social and material ambience, from the temper of the times, all conveyed through the demands of a new and open cultural market, middlebrow demands. Modernism dates from the time, in the mid-nineteenth century, when that market became not only established -- it had been there long before -- but entrenched and dominant, without significant competition.

So I come at last to what I offer as an embracing and perdurable definition of Modernism: that it consists in the continuing endeavor to stem the decline of aesthetic standards threatened by the relative democratization of culture under industrialism; that the overriding and innermost logic of Modernism is to maintain the levels of the past in the face of an opposition that hadn't been present in the past. Thus the whole enterprise of Modernism, for all its outward aspects, can be seen as backward-looking. That seems paradoxical, but reality is shot through with paradox, is practically constituted by it.

One last passage form the close of that essay is of special note to the Philistines here who decry Modernism in both music and the plastic arts:

QuoteThe making of superior art is arduous, usually. But under Modernism the appreciation, even more than the making, of it has become more taxing, the satisfaction and exhilaration to be gotten from the best new art more hard-won.

For those unwilling or unable to make the required effort to dare to presume that their deficiency establishes the standard of taste...may be unfathomably arrogant, but needn't prove irremediably stupid. 

Thanks for the Greenberg essay, David. I've saved it as a PDF to read later. ;)

FK

Thanks for your detailed reply, even though I strongly disagree.
Greenberg's essay (http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/postmodernism.html) really is piffle - his argument is really metaphysical rather than concrete. He asserts but does not demonstrate. He pretends to discuss Modernism in general, but is really only talking about the plastic arts, painting in particular. His argument is finally based on a Bohemian pose.
From the top: Greenberg says Modernism rose in response to the crisis of Romanticism, in particular to the degenerations of revivalism and academicism (he mentions this didn't apply to music or literature, but doesn't think this exception to his thesis needs explanation).
What actually made this new movement different from previous new movements is rather vague. Greenberg says:

QuoteModernist innovation has been compelled to be, or look, more radical and abrupt than innovation used to be or look: compelled by an ongoing crisis in standards.

QuoteOver the past hundred and thirty years and more the best new painting and sculpture (and the best new poetry) have in their time proven a challenge and a trial to the art lover -- a challenge and a trial as they hadn't used to be. Yet the urge to relax is there, as it's always been. It threatens and keeps on threatening standards of quality. (It was different, apparently, before the mid-nineteenth century.)

So Modernism may be defined as being especially radical and challenging, in response to a threat to "standards of quality". (The phrase in brackets is particularly interesting - the word "apparently" suggests he doesn't understand why things use to be different.) Is "the urge to relax" really the great threat to standards of quality?
No, the threat is not the urge to relax, but the cause at the root of this urge, which is:

Quotethe demands of a new and open cultural market, middlebrow demands.

Quotethe relative democratization of culture under industrialism

Quotean opposition that hadn't been present in the past.

Quotethese threats, which came mostly from a new middle-class public

So that's the problem, you see. The common people became more affluent, and more interested in art. Their "middlebrow demands" precipitated the crisis, which could only be resisted by art becoming "a challenge and a trial". What were these "middlebrow demands"? How were these demands made? How did they differ from demands of previous times? ("It was different, apparently, before the mid-nineteenth century.")
In fact the basic problem was that the new public existed at all. After all, the elite do not want to be associated with the pastimes of the plebians. Imagine an aesthete in a concert hall listening to Beethoven's 9th symphony - and surrounded by suburbanites having a jolly good time. Intolerable! How could they possibly appreciate such a masterwork? It is in answer to this crisis that art must become "a challenge and a trial", in order to weed out those who desire to "relax" (this desire not being a problem before Modernism pronounced it so, "apparently"). This is in fact the archetypal Bohemian gesture, a ego-defensive attempt to shock the bourgeoisie (épater les bourgeoisie), and drive the impure ones from "our" temple.

What does this have to do with Sibelius? Not much. He began composing in the style of his time, and developed his individual voice, modifying his methods to facilitate expression. Nothing especially Modern about that. He wasn't endeavouring "to stem the decline of aesthetic standards threatened by the relative democratization of culture under industrialism", although he was resisting the pressure of Modernism to atonalism and a general pose of radicalism.

I made a good faith effort to provide what you seemed to request.  You did not respond in kind.  Rather than trying to see how Sibelius's work fits the Modernist criteria described, you went off on an irrelevant tangent to offer an incoherent and rather juvenile critique of one aspect of Greenberg's analysis of the roots of Modernism.  I seem to have misread your invitation to an adolescent pissing contest as an expression of sincere interest in a different point of view--a mistake I do not intend to repeat.

The music, of course, is what it is, irrespective of labels and how you or I choose to think about it, or whether we choose to think about it at all.

Have a lovely day and keep your powder dry.

Actually I think eyeresist makes some very valid points about the essay. If modernism is what Greenberg makes it out to be, I want no part of it.

The problem is, Greenberg can't define just what the standards of quality are that modernists are trying to defend, nor how the middle class is eroding them. All one can say about standards of quality is that they are whatever it is the middle class doesn't want. This turns modernism into a battle of class struggle, a kind of aesthetic Marxism.

Quote from: DavidRoss on February 12, 2009, 07:34:25 PM
I made a good faith effort to provide what you seemed to request.  You did not respond in kind.  Rather than trying to see how Sibelius's work fits the Modernist criteria described, you went off on an irrelevant tangent to offer an incoherent and rather juvenile critique of one aspect of Greenberg's analysis of the roots of Modernism.  I seem to have misread your invitation to an adolescent pissing contest as an expression of sincere interest in a different point of view--a mistake I do not intend to repeat.

The music, of course, is what it is, irrespective of labels and how you or I choose to think about it, or whether we choose to think about it at all.

Have a lovely day and keep your powder dry.

I see that you have added a few paragraphs to your previous post rather than responding directly to my criticism. One thing I did not say in my last post, which I probably should say just to get it said, is that this notion of Modernism as "A return to ancient standards of craftsmanship in reaction to industrial mass production" stikes me as bizarre. According to this, William Morris is much more Modern than the Bauhaus! It also connotes that standards of craftmanship were lax before the advent of Modernism, which I don't think is true, and implies that pre-Modern art was produced by some sort of mechanical apparatus.

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 14, 2009, 09:30:04 AM
Actually I think eyeresist makes some very valid points about the essay.

My friend! (To quote Kenneth Williams ;) )

Quote from: eyeresist on February 15, 2009, 04:32:08 PM
My friend! (To quote Kenneth Williams ;) )

;D (But I wonder whether Mark will instantly hear Kenneth Williams's distinctive voice inside his head. Your reference is very British...)

That's what Google is for

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=kenneth+williams&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=0V6ZSfXTF9W5tweYosWzCw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 14, 2009, 09:30:04 AM
Actually I think eyeresist makes some very valid points about the essay.

That may be, but I could not discern what those points were, nor how they relate to the question regarding Sibelius.

Quote from: Mark G. SimonIf modernism is what Greenberg makes it out to be, I want no part of it.

Greenberg describes Modernism as a reaction against stale academism and bourgeois tastes, a reassertion of traditional standards of quality and the new aesthetic of art for art's sake.  If you really "want no part of it" and did not just make that statement as a rhetorical device, then I suspect that you did not read his lecture very carefully.  I suggested it to eyeresist (what an apt user name, as he seems to read with an eye to resisting rather than to understanding; understand first--then you may resist if you choose--but resisting first usually prevents understanding) as but a beginning in expanding his thinking about Modernism beyond the boundaries of the conceptual box in which he's confined it.  The link to that essay was just an accessory to my thoughtful response to him that he did not address at all.

Quote from: eyeresist on February 15, 2009, 04:32:08 PM
I see that you have added a few paragraphs to your previous post rather than responding directly to my criticism.

Then you see wrongly.  I added nothing.  I did correct some faulty diction in the earlier post, editing it seven hours and 52 minutes before you responded, as you can see simply by checking the time stamps of the edit and the posts.  And I did respond directly to your criticism, stating that it was incoherent and addressed an irrelevant tangent and not the substance of my entry.

Quote from: eyeresistOne thing I did not say in my last post, which I probably should say just to get it said, is that this notion of Modernism as "A return to ancient standards of craftsmanship in reaction to industrial mass production" stikes me as bizarre. According to this, William Morris is much more Modern than the Bauhaus! It also connotes that standards of craftmanship were lax before the advent of Modernism, which I don't think is true, and implies that pre-Modern art was produced by some sort of mechanical apparatus.

Not at all.  It suggests that Morris and Mies are both Modern.  In the plastic arts and I think in music as well, Romanticism was descending into kitsch, the artistic equivalent of shoddy industrial mass production.  The Modernist movement reasserted traditional standards and established the artist himself as the arbiter of aesthetic quality and not the mass consumer public.  Indeed, one of the unfortunate hallmarks of Modern art, including music, is that even today it's despised by a general public who think Thomas Kinkaid is a great artist and that Picasso couldn't draw, and who welcome John Williams's movie music in the concert hall while still turning their noses up at Stravinsky.

Quote from: DavidRoss on February 16, 2009, 05:54:36 AM
In the plastic arts and I think in music as well, Romanticism was descending into kitsch, the artistic equivalent of shoddy industrial mass production.

Some examples, please? You'll need to be really, really convincing, because there's a lot of really great romantic music out there of the highest artistic standard.

Brahms, kitsch?
Wagner, kitsch?
Tchaikovsky, kitsch?
Schumann, kitsch?
Fauré, kitsch?

And what is this about industrial mass production? Heck, the early musical modernists glorified industrial mass production. Look at the titles: Iron Foundry, Pas d'acier, Pacific 231, Ballet Mechanique.

Quote from: DavidRoss on February 16, 2009, 05:54:36 AM

Greenberg describes Modernism as a reaction against stale academism and bourgeois tastes

You see, the whole marxist class struggle bullshit. That's what I want no part of, and I hardly think that the modernist composers we admire were interested in what is and isn't bourgeois taste. This "bourgeois taste" business is the kind of thing art critics come up with to justify themselves and get themselves tenure. Artists are too busy creating art to take that kind of theorizing seriously. Except for Wagner, who had an opinion on just about everything, and probably has something about bourgeois taste in his essays. Stravinsky reacted against Wagner.

Schoenberg, for another example, saw his music as an extension of Romanticism, not a repudiation of it.

Quote from: DavidRoss on February 16, 2009, 05:54:36 AM
Then you see wrongly.  I added nothing.  I did correct some faulty diction in the earlier post, editing it seven hours and 52 minutes before you responded, as you can see simply by checking the time stamps of the edit and the posts.

You are corrent - sorry about that.

Quote from: DavidRoss on February 16, 2009, 05:54:36 AM
The link to that essay was just an accessory to my thoughtful response to him that he did not address at all.

I think "thoughtful response" might be overstating it. You posted a list of characteristics of Modernism, some of which points I found bizarre, and to back these up you cited the Greenberg essay as evidence of "substantial agreement among respected critics".

Then you asserted that "even in [Sibelius's] early, most apparently Romantic works ... elements of Modernism are present, and that by the time of his neoclassical Third Symphony he had already embarked on a distinctively Modernist path that left his Romantic origins far behind". You did not produce any supporting evidence for this assertion, however.

Presumably Sibelius's Modernism was supposed to be made obvious by the list of Modern characteristics you provided. Let's go through this list point by point:

1. A return to ancient standards of craftsmanship in reaction to industrial mass production
What "ancient standards" did Sibelius return to? His 3rd symphony is arguably neoclassical, but his 7th certainly isn't. Was Sibelius reacting to industrial mass production, or expressing himself through his materials as ALL good artists have done?
2. An insistence that form be dictated by function and by the artist's materials
Now, this has relevance to developments in industrial design and architecture in the Modern period, specifically prompted by new materials like steel and glass. It is also tangentially related to developments in the theatre, stripping away naturalism in order to get at the dramatic "truth". At a stretch, we might say this also applies to painting, which was guilty of "lying" by the illusory nature of its representational function. However, it's unlikely this criterium applies directly to music or literature - Modern music did turn away from the extreme emotionalism of Late Romanticism, but only in some cases. Sibelius's major works have a strong emotional power, and (arguably) intention.
3. An emphasis on process and the artist's subjective response to his subject rather than on an objective result
What, like action painting? :) This criteria would apply to Modernist writing, painting, dance and drama, but not to architecture or design. Its application to music is arguable - all "classical" music requires of composers a commitment to the process of composing. Much "advanced" music of the 20th century is intended to serve as a kind of academic essay, as much as (or more than) a work to be heard; academicism gained much artistic legitimacy under Modernism, because of course the academy became the main producer of progressive theory. But of course dry, academic counterpoint is nothing new - plenty of pre-Modern composers were damned with the faint praise of "proficiency in counterpoint".
The "subjective response" thing was hardly an innovation in music.
4. Experimentation with new forms, structures, and materials
This has always gone on.
5. A blurring of distinctions between genres
Ditto.
6. Inclusion of materials from other cultures, including domestic folk culture
Mozart wrote minuets (domestic folk culture) and a famous "Turkish" march, so this too is nothing new.
7. Rejection of ornament and development of a new, lean, stripped down aesthetic
I largely agree with this, though it doesn't apply to literature (Proust, Woolf, Joyce, etc.).
8. And, finally, the Modernist period spanned the timeframe roughly from 1860 to 1960
Yes, although Modernism really kicked in just before the Great War, and has in some fields carried on to the present day.

Quote from: DavidRoss on February 16, 2009, 05:54:36 AMThe Modernist movement reasserted traditional standards and established the artist himself as the arbiter of aesthetic quality and not the mass consumer public.

On the contrary, I believe that Modernism is chiefly characterised by a conscious, radical break with the past, and an attempt to start from zero (this inspired by the industrial revolution; the effect of sudden social progress in education, health, communications; political upheavals including the spread of democracy and the unification of Germany; the "scientific" progressivism of Marx, et al.).

Painting did away with traditional methods, traditional subjects, and finally the ideal of representation. Architecture and design banned traditional ornamentation, and went further to impose a new dogmatic purity at odds with practical requirements (flat roofs without eaves, the eradication of interior walls, large glass windows without curtains or blinds). Novelists attempted a new, radical subjectivity, paradoxically combined with a distancing technique of kaleidoscopic detail. In politics, Fascism and Communism attempted the complete transformation of society by force of will and "scientific" means.

In music, "advanced" technique was where it was at, and the avant garde came to be seen as the only legitimate area of composition (pity poor Prokofiev, who so wanted to be an infant terrible, but was crippled by his gift for melody (Bourgeois! Decadent!)).
Sibelius remained tonal and melodic to the last, and even his spare, late orchestrations have a warmth and organic contour which we might call Romantic. He was excoriated by Modernist ideologues, including Virgil Thomson, who found his second symphony "vulgar, self-indulgent and provincial beyond any description", and René Leibowitz, who called Sibelius "the worst composer in the world". Adorno said "If Sibelius is good, then the musical criteria that have been applied from Bach to Schoenberg (...) are invalid." From their point of view, Sibelius was not Modern but actually anti-Modern, an enemy to be stamped out.

I think attempts to rehabilitate Sibelius by saying he was actually a Modernist play into the arguments of his critics, and in the end reduce his stature, making his music merely a phenomenon of political dogma - he was "progressive" (good) rather than "reactionary" (bad). From his period and his style, I would call him Late Romantic - although the spareness and "coolness" of his later works show he has breathed some Modern air.

It doesn't really matter to me if Sibelius is counted in with the modernists or not. There are some characteristics of his later orchestral works, though, that fit in with common characteristics of modern music, such as economy of means, rejection of conventional forms and letting the materials themselves determine the form. Other aspects of his music don't fit the modernist agenda. He had his own agenda, and it belonged to no one else. He wrote with an original voice, and that's why I admire him.

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 16, 2009, 08:48:24 PM
It doesn't really matter to me if Sibelius is counted in with the modernists or not. There are some characteristics of his later orchestral works, though, that fit in with common characteristics of modern music, such as economy of means, rejection of conventional forms and letting the materials themselves determine the form. Other aspects of his music don't fit the modernist agenda. He had his own agenda, and it belonged to no one else. He wrote with an original voice, and that's why I admire him.

Me too :)  Kundera called him an "anti-Modern Modernist", but I think that's an untenable paradox.

Quote from: eyeresist on February 16, 2009, 07:23:49 PM
You are corrent - sorry about that.
I think "thoughtful response" might be overstating it. You posted a list of characteristics of Modernism, some of which points I found bizarre, and to back these up you cited the Greenberg essay as evidence of "substantial agreement among respected critics". [This is a misreading of my post.  I offered Greenberg as a place to start exploring the concept of Modernism--something you seem to be doing in spite of your resistance, albeit more belligerently than graciously.  ;) ]

Then you asserted that "even in [Sibelius's] early, most apparently Romantic works ... elements of Modernism are present, and that by the time of his neoclassical Third Symphony he had already embarked on a distinctively Modernist path that left his Romantic origins far behind". You did not produce any supporting evidence for this assertion, however. [That's right--I suggested that you examine his work in light of generally accepted characteristics of Modernism to see how it fits.  I'm not trying to spoon feed you my thoughts, but encouraging you to think for yourself.]

Presumably Sibelius's Modernism was supposed to be made obvious by the list of Modern characteristics you provided. Let's go through this list point by point: [Close enough, if we strip out the attitude.  ;D  I'll offer some hints as to how one might see it if looking with an open mind.]

1. A return to ancient standards of craftsmanship in reaction to industrial mass production
What "ancient standards" did Sibelius return to? His 3rd symphony is arguably neoclassical, but his 7th certainly isn't. Was Sibelius reacting to industrial mass production, or expressing himself through his materials as ALL good artists have done?  [Sibelius did look back to old forms in the 3rd and the 6th particularly, he moved away from the facile illustration characteristic of Romantic music from Berlioz to Strauss back to what he called "absolute" music, and he progressively stripped away extraneous embellishment.  His obsessive craftsmanship--refining, eliminating, condensing--is well known.  Compare especially the trajectory of his symphonies and tone poems culminating in the 7th and Tapiola with late-Romantic excess and bloat.]
2. An insistence that form be dictated by function and by the artist's materials
Now, this has relevance to developments in industrial design and architecture in the Modern period, specifically prompted by new materials like steel and glass. It is also tangentially related to developments in the theatre, stripping away naturalism in order to get at the dramatic "truth". At a stretch, we might say this also applies to painting, which was guilty of "lying" by the illusory nature of its representational function. However, it's unlikely this criterium applies directly to music or literature - Modern music did turn away from the extreme emotionalism of Late Romanticism, but only in some cases. Sibelius's major works have a strong emotional power, and (arguably) intention.  [Rather than forcing his materials to fit preconceived forms, Sibelius progressively allowed the materials--his motifs or cells--to dictate the logical structure and final form of his symphonies.  In the tone poems, instead of forcing his material to fit the form of illustrating events in a story, he sought to express his emotional responses, and stayed true to them even when it led to such a peculiar result as Nightride and Sunrise--not the only instance of proto-minimalism in his music, but perhaps the most obvious.]
3. An emphasis on process and the artist's subjective response to his subject rather than on an objective result
What, like action painting? :) This criteria would apply to Modernist writing, painting, dance and drama, but not to architecture or design. Its application to music is arguable - all "classical" music requires of composers a commitment to the process of composing. Much "advanced" music of the 20th century is intended to serve as a kind of academic essay, as much as (or more than) a work to be heard; academicism gained much artistic legitimacy under Modernism, because of course the academy became the main producer of progressive theory. But of course dry, academic counterpoint is nothing new - plenty of pre-Modern composers were damned with the faint praise of "proficiency in counterpoint".
The "subjective response" thing was hardly an innovation in music.  [See my response immediately above, and consider his method of building from cells--"piecing together mosaics," as he put it.]
4. Experimentation with new forms, structures, and materials
This has always gone on.  [To some extent, of course--but never remotely near as much as during the Modern era.  Each of Sibelius's symphonies from the 3rd on is an experiment in structure and form.]
5. A blurring of distinctions between genres
Ditto.  [And ditto.  Consider Tapiola and the 7th in particular.]
6. Inclusion of materials from other cultures, including domestic folk culture
Mozart wrote minuets (domestic folk culture) and a famous "Turkish" march, so this too is nothing new.  [Ditto for the third time: a feature need hardly be startlingly new or unique but only sufficiently widespread to be characteristic.  "High" culture rejected these materials as substandard (allowing for fads such as Austria's coffee-inspired Turkish craze), but in the Modern era artists aggressively explored them as sources of inspiration.  In the early 1890s the folk material of the Kalevala began inspiring Sibelius in the same way that Balinese gamelan music inspired Debussy, Japanese Ukiyo-E prints inspired Impressionist painters, and African art inspired Picasso.]
7. Rejection of ornament and development of a new, lean, stripped down aesthetic
I largely agree with this, though it doesn't apply to literature (Proust, Woolf, Joyce, etc.).  [Then application to Sibelius is clear, I trust.  The stream-of-consciousness writers you mention are but an eddy in the Modernist current, more typified by the stripped-down prose of Hemingway or the poetry of William Carlos Williams.]
8. And, finally, the Modernist period spanned the timeframe roughly from 1860 to 1960
Yes, although Modernism really kicked in just before the Great War, and has in some fields carried on to the present day.
On the contrary, I believe that Modernism is chiefly characterised by a conscious, radical break with the past, and an attempt to start from zero   [I regard this as more a feature of self-conscious avant-gardism, which overlaps but is not congruent with Modernism.](this inspired by the industrial revolution; the effect of sudden social progress in education, health, communications; political upheavals including the spread of democracy and the unification of Germany; the "scientific" progressivism of Marx, et al.).

Painting did away with traditional methods, traditional subjects, and finally the ideal of representation. Architecture and design banned traditional ornamentation, and went further to impose a new dogmatic purity at odds with practical requirements (flat roofs without eaves, the eradication of interior walls, large glass windows without curtains or blinds). Novelists attempted a new, radical subjectivity, paradoxically combined with a distancing technique of kaleidoscopic detail. In politics, Fascism and Communism attempted the complete transformation of society by force of will and "scientific" means.

In music, "advanced" technique was where it was at, and the avant garde came to be seen as the only legitimate area of composition (pity poor Prokofiev, who so wanted to be an infant terrible, but was crippled by his gift for melody (Bourgeois! Decadent!)).
Sibelius remained tonal and melodic to the last, and even his spare, late orchestrations have a warmth and organic contour which we might call Romantic. He was excoriated by Modernist ideologues, including Virgil Thomson, who found his second symphony "vulgar, self-indulgent and provincial beyond any description", and René Leibowitz, who called Sibelius "the worst composer in the world". Adorno said "If Sibelius is good, then the musical criteria that have been applied from Bach to Schoenberg (...) are invalid." From their point of view, Sibelius was not Modern but actually anti-Modern, an enemy to be stamped out.

I think attempts to rehabilitate Sibelius by saying he was actually a Modernist play into the arguments of his critics, and in the end reduce his stature, making his music merely a phenomenon of political dogma - he was "progressive" (good) rather than "reactionary" (bad). From his period and his style, I would call him Late Romantic - although the spareness and "coolness" of his later works show he has breathed some Modern air.  [Conflation of self-conscious avant-gardism with Modernism explains many of your preceding comments.  I especially agree with you that the self-proclaimed avant garde tried to exert ideological hegemony over Art and claim Modernism for themselves.  I dispute their claim and think it ironically narrow-minded and pretentiously absurd.  One of the things I most admire about Sibelius is that he didn't give a fig for the fads and fashions dictated by a self-appointed elite, but stayed true to his own muse, confident in the value of the timeless virtues to which he aspired.  For those lacking the capacity to discern for themselves, History will judge whether he or Thompson, Liebowitz, and Adorno were right.  I think it already has.  ;) ]

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 16, 2009, 08:48:24 PM
It doesn't really matter to me if Sibelius is counted in with the modernists or not. There are some characteristics of his later orchestral works, though, that fit in with common characteristics of modern music, such as economy of means, rejection of conventional forms and letting the materials themselves determine the form. Other aspects of his music don't fit the modernist agenda. He had his own agenda, and it belonged to no one else. He wrote with an original voice, and that's why I admire him.

Quote from: eyeresist on February 16, 2009, 09:46:51 PM
Me too :)  Kundera called him an "anti-Modern Modernist", but I think that's an untenable paradox.

(http://thefamilybiz.org/ezboard/emoticons/cheer4.gif)

Whew.  Amazing how finding agreement on the simplest things can sometimes be like pulling teeth.  Y'all can continue to discuss usage of the term bourgeois (last I knew the Marxists had no copyright on it), the relationship of class struggle to mass consumer tastes (if any), the peculiar notions of a "Modernist agenda" and "rehabilitating" Sibelius, and the lunacy of ideological "taste-makers" and third-rate composers such as Thompson et al if you like,  but you'll have to proceed without me as I've no interest whatsoever in these subjects.

Edited to expand on the avant garde/Modernist question, and to sum up my thoughts so as to finally lay this digression to rest--or at least my part of it!--and return the thread to its original purpose.  Thanks for your patient indulgence.  8)

Quote from: Bunny on December 01, 2008, 05:20:25 AM
Start with Mahler.

And Bruckner. And I'm going to say Tod und Verklarung, though I'm not positive it qualifies.

Quote from: DavidRoss on February 17, 2009, 05:27:42 AM
(http://thefamilybiz.org/ezboard/emoticons/cheer4.gif)

Whew.  Amazing how finding agreement on the simplest things can sometimes be like pulling teeth.

The problem is with you, not with me. You erroneously assume that I disagreed with everything in your posts and Greenberg's essay

Quote
Y'all can continue to discuss usage of the term bourgeois (last I knew the Marxists had no copyright on it),

But nevertheless Marxists are the only ones who actually use the term. And remember, it wasn't just that particular word that set off my B.S. detectors, but the whole argument put forth by Greenberg about "bourgeois values" that were just being introduced into music (presumably by the rise of public concerts open to the paying public) and how those values were debasing music.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Romantic music is "kitsch".

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 17, 2009, 10:21:28 AM
The problem is with you, not with me. You erroneously assume that I disagreed with everything in your posts and Greenberg's essay

But nevertheless Marxists are the only ones who actually use the term. And remember, it wasn't just that particular word that set off my B.S. detectors, but the whole argument put forth by Greenberg about "bourgeois values" that were just being introduced into music (presumably by the rise of public concerts open to the paying public) and how those values were debasing music.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Romantic music is "kitsch".

No, Mark--In the first place, my response was aimed at el Resisto; I quoted you because his comment hinged on your post.  Secondly, I've known you long enough from these forums to know that you would agree with quite a bit and have even expressed some similar sentiments in the past--including your comments on this very thread regarding "Modernist" elements in Sibelius's music.  Marxists are not the only ones who use the term "bourgeois".  I use it, and I'm no more a Marxist than a conservative Christian Republican--though some here and elsewhere who read and think only on the most superficial level have accused me of both!  (A sign that I must be doing something right.  ;) )  I'll no more allow Marxists hegemony over the term "bourgeois" than I'll allow the blow-hard avant garde hegemony over "Modernism."

As for Greenberg, IIRC he was an ivory-tower Marxist, as were many of the intelligentsia of his generation, particularly those in the Arts.  He was also one of the most articulate and influential art critics of his day--focused, as I'm sure you know, on the plastic arts and not on music.  What merit there may be in the ideas he expresses is not contingent on his ideology (long discredited, I might add, everywhere but in the US Congress), but in the ideas themselves--and as he was one of those who shaped 20th Century concepts of Modernism, he seemed like a good place to start.  (Personally, I rather despised the fellow when I encountered him first in Aesthetics and later in Art History.)

Finally, when it comes to kitsch in music specifically, lets not beat around the bush with minor figures but go straight for the leading lights among late Romantics: much of Strauss is dreadfully kitschy IMO, and Puccini practically screams kitsch with every note.  ;D  As always, before any meaningful discussion can proceed, we must start by defining terms.  A quick search of the web turned up this informative essay on usage of the term kitsch. (http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/kitsch.htm)

edited to add PS:  Please give my regards to Owlice.  She's one of the old-timers who was here when I arrived and whose clear-headed warmth I still miss.
edited again to correct a misplaced emphasis  (and add a pointed joke  ;) )

Quote from: DavidRoss on February 17, 2009, 11:00:06 AM
much of Strauss is dreadfully kitschy IMO, and Puccini practically screams kitsch with every note.  ;D  As always, before any meaningful discussion can proceed, we must start by defining terms.  A quick search of the web turned up this interesting exploration of the usage of kitsch. (http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/kitsch.htm)

I agree as to Strauss and even a little Puccini. But I think there's a little kitsch to any composer. Including Beethoven and Wagner, whether intentional or not.

Strauss and Puccini kitsch? Get real!!
(of course this guy even thinks Wagner is kitsch, which really show how out to lunch he is)

I'll tell you what kitsch is: John Rutter's Beatles Concerto, the aural equivalent of crying clowns on black velvet.

The subject of kitsch came up on CMG and I referred people to this essay on the subject.

http://www.denisdutton.com/kitsch_macmillan.htm

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 17, 2009, 11:25:52 AM
Strauss and Puccini kitsch? Get real!!
(of course this guy even thinks Wagner is kitsch, which really show how out to lunch he is)

I'm amazed you'd write anything disrespectful toward me, Mark. I've always been deferential toward you. I wonder if perhaps you were kidding, I'd be astounded if you weren't.

I see kitsch in everything, because I just don't take life too seriously. If you do, maybe you should re-evaluate your own life.

If I didn't see everything as having a humorous side, I would consider myself a loser. So maybe I am out to lunch.

I'm going to rely on over 2 years of respect and pretend like you were joking. The alternative is too disappointing.

Quote from: AndyD. on February 17, 2009, 11:47:34 AM
I'm amazed you'd write anything disrespectful toward me, Mark. I've always been deferential toward you. I wonder if perhaps you were kidding, I'd be astounded if you weren't.

Actually I was dissing  Whitney Rugg, the author of the text about kitsch that DavidRoss cited.

I should have made that clear.

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 17, 2009, 12:09:54 PM
Actually I was dissing  Whitney Rugg, the author of the text about kitsch that DavidRoss cited.

I should have made that clear.

Oh! It was actually at least half my mistake. All apologies.

It would have been hard to know what the heck I was referring to without an explanation, and your post intervened between the post with the link that I was responding to. So I have to take the blame for the misunderstanding. And if you disagree with me, boy am I ever going to flame you but good!

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 17, 2009, 12:42:12 PM
It would have been hard to know what the heck I was referring to without an explanation, and your post intervened between the post with the link that I was responding to. So I have to take the blame for the misunderstanding. And if you disagree with me, boy am I ever going to flame you but good!

I agree  ;) :).

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61q1L-h1mPL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
O.Schoeck, Notturno, K.Mertens, Minguet Quartet - NCA 60133-215 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000CDRXI/goodmusicguide-20)
"Notturno" is a stunning work... Incredibly long lines, incredibly romantic, but always at the brink of total dissonance; even a-tonality. It reminds me of Berg's op.1.
ECM will release a version with the Rosamunde Quartett & Christian Gerhaher later this year.

This music teeters at the last ledge of 20th century romanticism. If all you know from Schoeck are his sweetly Straussian "Elegie", you might be shocked at what's to hear, here. (Review of a concert performance here (http://www.musicweb-international.com/SandH/2008/jul-Dec08/rosamunde1110.htm), describing the work a bit more in detail.)

Quote from: jlaurson on February 18, 2009, 02:36:13 AM

This music teeters at the last ledge of 20th century romanticism. If all you know from Schoeck are his sweetly Straussian "Elegie", you might be shocked at what's to hear, here.

Or Schoecked at the very least.

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 18, 2009, 04:56:33 AM
Or Schoecked at the very least.

(dying)

Quote from: jlaurson on February 18, 2009, 02:36:13 AM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61q1L-h1mPL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
O.Schoeck, Notturno, K.Mertens, Minguet Quartet - NCA 60133-215 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000CDRXI/goodmusicguide-20)
"Notturno" is a stunning work... Incredibly long lines, incredibly romantic, but always at the brink of total dissonance; even a-tonality. It reminds me of Berg's op.1.
ECM will release a version with the Rosamunde Quartett & Christian Gerhaher later this year.

This music teeters at the last ledge of 20th century romanticism. If all you know from Schoeck are his sweetly Straussian "Elegie", you might be shocked at what's to hear, here. (Review of a concert performance here (http://www.musicweb-international.com/SandH/2008/jul-Dec08/rosamunde1110.htm), describing the work a bit more in detail.)

You are spot on. Schoeck is one of my favorite. No other composer's music can be be described as consistently dancing at the edge of atonality without actually going into atonality. I love it!

Hey! No fair! I mentioned Schoeck a few pages back and no one noticed! I agree entirely, and the disc posted is a real winner, but I wouldn't call the Elegie either sweet or Straussian - it's a highly individual, very subtle and extremely skillful piece, and Schoeck at his very best (the Notturno is more complex, but I don't think it is necessarily finer). The Elegie also represents one extreme of a particular type late Romanticism - I don't know any other piece which explores this particular region of nostalgia, loss, late-ness more thoroughly than this one does. No, not even Strauss's Four Last Songs - this is the brown study to end all brown studies, the autumnal flipside of Schumann's equally extreme op 39 Liederkreis, and that is high praise in my book!

Quote from: sul G on February 18, 2009, 09:50:37 AM
Hey! No fair! I mentioned Schoeck a few pages back and no one noticed! I agree entirely, and the disc posted is a real winner, but I wouldn't call the Elegie either sweet or Straussian - it's a highly individual, very subtle and extremely skillful piece, and Schoeck at his very best (the Notturno is more complex, but I don't think it is necessarily finer). The Elegie also represents one extreme of a particular type late Romanticism - I don't know any other piece which explores this particular region of nostalgia, loss, late-ness more thoroughly than this one does. No, not even Strauss's Four Last Songs - this is the brown study to end all brown studies, the autumnal flipside of Schumann's equally extreme op 39 Liederkreis, and that is high praise in my book!

(laughing sympathetically) Don't feel alone, sul G, that happens to me all the time.

Quote from: sul G on February 18, 2009, 09:50:37 AM
Hey! No fair! I mentioned Schoeck a few pages back and no one noticed!

Maybe because some people did not believe the "Not Saul" disclaimer.   ;)

But seriously, I was not following this thread and only read it today, and only read the last page at that. Otherwise I would have responded to you for sure. Feel better now?  ;D

Slightly [sniff]  :'(


Though I do know Saul's a big Schoeck fan. Well, it sounds a bit Yiddish, doesn't it?

Quote from: sul G on February 18, 2009, 10:03:52 AM
Though I do know Saul's a big Schoeck fan.

Schoeck fan?  Or schlock fan?

Yes, you're right - must be the latter. Can't be both, they are mutually exclusive.

Quote from: DavidRoss on February 18, 2009, 10:22:19 AM
Schoeck fan?  Or schlock fan?

;D >:D