Neoromanticism

[karlhenning]

I guess it depends on the definition of "finding new ways".

In which case you don't have any case for asserting that it is not consistent with writing great music.

[Josquin des Prez]

In which case you don't have any case for asserting that it is not consistent with writing great music.

I suppose i should have added that it isn't "necessarily" consistent with writing great music. There's nothing particularly new about Monteverdi's Mass a 6, not even in terms of personal style, since he modeled the entire piece after Nicolas Gombert (a testament to Monteverdi's good taste, to be sure). Does this Mass qualify as great music?

[karlhenning]

I suppose i should have added that it isn't "necessarily" consistent with writing great music. There's nothing particularly new about Monteverdi's Mass a 6, not even in terms of personal style, since he modeled the entire piece after Nicolas Gombert (a testament to Monteverdi's good taste, to be sure). Does this Mass qualify as great music?

It may;  I don't know the piece.

But that is a very interesting example in support of your idea.

"Is not necessarily consistent with writing great music" is a defensible rewording.  Yet, another point of interest in this specific example of yours (a polyphonic mass, by a composer whose greatness is generally considered to rest upon other musical accomplishments) is this:  can the question of "finding new ways" have variable weight, depending on context?  In many of your posts, you seem eager to assert blanket truths which supposedly apply to all music in all places at all times.  And while I would not quite claim that there are no such truths, I sincerely doubt that they are anywhere near so numerous, or so easy, as you appear to think.

I don't know Monteverdi's Mass in six parts;  but perhaps, if that Mass were the greatest thing he's written, Monteverdi would not be held in such high historical esteem.

[Brian]

A very valid point, Sydney. "Romantic" is a blanket term, and a misleading one; at any rate the diversity of the expressive forms the "era" includes is simply enormous.

To criticize a composer for "extended tonality...as well as a frank expression of emotional sentiment" seems like perverse cultural decadence. If someone has to force himself to write or listen to music that artificially ignores or subverts tonality, resulting in what would be considered conventionally "ugly" and/or impenetrable, perhaps he's trying to broaden his expression or aesthetic sensibility, but perhaps he's just woefully jaded and unable to find pleasure or solace in its more "natural" forms.

Good point; then again, were I a composer I would consider intentional subversion of tonality to be a tool, not a foundation; much like garlic in cooking - it makes almost everything taste [much] better, but I wouldn't eat it raw.

My experience with a lot of postmodern/neoromantic stuff is that the aim to narcotize the listener with "emotion" was so hypertrophic to systematically exclude the chance to write sincere and sober music. Of course the narcotized would disagree..

My experience with a lot of self-consciously "modern" stuff is that the aim to bulldoze the listener with the composer's "cleverness" in finding new ways of expression is so hypertrophic to systematically exclude the chance to write sincere and sober music. Of course the bulldozed would disagree....

I cheerfully agree with you both.

Karl, I shall respond after I have been fortified by a nice hot lunch. Thank you for the reply though; I was afraid that maybe my original post was the equivalent of skiing down a molehill. Now, perhaps, it is luge. 

[karlhenning]

. . . much like garlic in cooking - it makes almost everything taste [much] better, but I wouldn't eat it raw.

Oh, you're missing out! (One thing, though, is everyone you're with needs to eat some, as well . . . .)

[karlhenning]

Of course, raw garlic is very potent, and I do not advise just peeling a clove and starting to chomp on it.  But sliced thin, on a slice of black bread with Vermont butter, delicious.

[Josquin des Prez]

In many of your posts, you seem eager to assert blanket truths which supposedly apply to all music in all places at all times.

I'm merely trying to assert the possibility there are certain universal truths regarding art which exist outside individual perception. I don't pretend  to fully understand what those truths may be but i still feel compelled to reject the notion which pervades contemporary criticism that the only valid artistic assessment is in fact individual perception.

can the question of "finding new ways" have variable weight, depending on context?
.
.
.
I don't know Monteverdi's Mass in six parts;  but perhaps, if that Mass were the greatest thing he's written, Monteverdi would not be held in such high historical esteem.

I think the question of finding new ways has variable weight depending on the results. If you were able to write a string quartet in a perfect replica of Beethoven's late style, i doubt your name would be held on the same level of esteem, particularly considering that was nearly 200 years ago, but it would still a pretty considerable feat, no?

Therefore, while "finding new ways" may enhance the value of a work of art, it isn't a virtue in and of itself, and a piece of music isn't great merely because it's new. That, in essence, is my argument. 

[Brian]

Very interesting paragraph.  So much is going on in it, and not necessarily to an end, that I am not sure how to 'answer' it, but these are my initial thoughts:

1.  I appreciate the go at neutrality in the description of "atonality" as 'unnatural'.

As well as my comment that value judgments were not implied (or were not intended) in the labeling. Should you find the terminology troublesome, simply substitute "acquired taste"; then you may be proud to have acquired what some have not.

2.  Seemingly implicit, is a broader notion of tonality than (as is often presumed in musical discussion) Western Common Practice.  So one difficulty in addressing the remarks is, Where have Dennett and Levitin drawn The Line?

I haven't got either book at hand, but your question immediately sends me back in memory-time to a Thai restaurant in Michigan where they played the traditional music of the region and I couldn't abide by it. In any case the middle east has a different scale and structure too - though having never learned music theory I don't know how to go about talking about such things ...

4.  Even tonal art music, in many places and communities, is an acquired taste;  so there are instances of tonality which are probably "unnatural" in ways not dissimilar to "atonality."

Yep .

As I see it, the flaw in (or unwitting dishonesty of) "neoromanticism" is in forgetting that the original Romantics were bold adventurers, not in any wistful kind of retreat.

Bingo. I agree. I do not think that there are any "neoromantics" who write in a style that directly digs up the bodies of the old romantic masters; after all I am almost as romantic as they come and have yet to find a "neoromantic" that is to my taste (prior slightly ignorant comments about "Schindler's List" notwithstanding). The composers who want to belong to this school - if they do want to belong - are not actually producing music that could have just as easily been found in Dvorak's attic; but the question of what they are doing is obscured by the question of their music's worth. The problem with associating it with "kitsch" is that these musical equivalents of Thomas Kinkade may thus be tempted to write "angst for the sake of angst", to show that their school of music doesn't have to be all syrup and Hollywood. Several potential "neoromantics" may have already fallen into the trap. As Mr. Hurwitz says regarding the composer Michael Hersch:

The romantic period ended nearly 100 years ago, yet so many composers today still feel that in order to be taken seriously they have to self-indulgently wallow in rage, despair, and tragedy to the exclusion of just about everything else.

Is this the way "neoromanticism" can be defined - wallowing in emotion? Are the neoromantics folks who would mix the moodiness of Tchaikovsky (on a wrong-side-of-the-bed day) with more modern musical language? Have the neoromantics forgotten how to write outside of total emotional extremity? That, frankly, would be a self-limiting field to get into, and an unrewarding one. It would also cast a bizarre light upon an era in music which brought us a great deal of cheer (Johann Strauss, anyone?).

Anyway, in truth we agreed more than we disagreed, perhaps, and I shall be looking to the previously quoted "experts" to see what exactly they have to say on the subject if indeed it is relevant at all. Discussions like these can easily turn into tonality/atonality bashing sessions (this author acknowledges he is partially responsible) and ultimately that is probably rather irrelevant to the questions in hand. If the "neoromantics" can put out great music the way Stravinsky, Hindemith & Co. did, they can pretty effectively end the conversation. But of course, as we know, that takes unusual talent ...

[Scriptavolant]

I cheerfully agree with you both.

I agree with myself and longears too, but I make a separation. In my view, atonalism has been firstly (firstly is quite important here) an aesthetic choice. Yet I find a lot of extra-musical ideology in neoromantic aesthetics.
I have no problem in admitting that modern music can be Great being both atonal or tonal. Do the neoromantics feel the same?
I would never state that the music I like most is more natural than the one I like less. Do the neoromantics feel the same?     

[Mark G. Simon]

Who are these dreaded neoromanticists anyway? I haven't seen any names yet.

[longears]

Who are these dreaded neoromanticists anyway? I haven't seen any names yet.

Yanni?  But seriously, is neo-romantic meant to be a disparaging term applied to composers working with traditional Western scales and concepts of harmonic and melodic beauty?

[karlhenning]

Yanni?  But seriously, is neo-romantic meant to be a disparaging term applied to composers working with traditional Western scales and concepts of harmonic and melodic beauty?

Speaking as someone who has worked some with traditional Western scales and concepts of harmonic and melodic beauty . . . no, I don't think so.

[Mark G. Simon]

As I said, I'm an ardent and unapologetic romantic, and I have a hard time giving Corigliano et. al. credit for the type of romantic genius that is exhibited by, say, Jean Sibelius or Johann Kalliwoda.

Surely you can't mean to insult Corigliano that badly as to compare him to Kalliwoda!

Corigliano's Clarinet Concerto has already entered the clarinetists' standard repertory, take that as you will. But as you yourself have noticed, it's not exactly romantic. Far from it. My problem with the label "neoromantic" is that it's being slapped on a lot of composers that just aren't.

[karlhenning]

Initials L.L.?

[longears]

Speaking as someone who has worked some with traditional Western scales and concepts of harmonic and melodic beauty . . . no, I don't think so.

Glad to hear it!      0:)

[Mark G. Simon]

Initials L.L.?

Bean?

[knight66]

But there is something bogus or forced about this word "romantic" we have always found. It is often used as a term of blanket disapprobation of everything done between 1800 and 1908. But actually it is a term not validly applicable to music at all. Beethoven did not think of himself as a "romantic" composer. Schumann did not think of himself as a "romantic" composer. Brahms did not think of himself as a "romantic" composer. Nor even did Liszt and Wagner. This whole category of "romanticism" is deeply distasteful to the thinking person. We - music critics that is - would be much better off if we dropped it entirely.

I don't suppose the people of The Stone Age referred to themselves in those terms. Nor do I feel it likely that 27 years into the 100 years war, folks were calling it, 'The 100 Years War'.

How composers referred to themselves in terms of a movement is not always a clincher from my point of view. The long take that history affords enables us to define, categorise and discern trends and connections where the contemporary commentator could not have seen them. Some might have been dimly aware of being part of a swell and change without naming it at all. For scholars as well as laymen, the Romantic Movement is a useful and in the main legitimate label.

Mike

[greg]

as the philosopher Daniel Dennett and scientist Daniel Levitin have noted, listening to tonal music is "natural", in the sense that say walking or drinking water is "natural", while listening to atonal music, or riding a bicycle, or drinking Vanilla Coke are "unnatural". You have to either be predisposed to like atonal music or cherry Coke, or learn to appreciate them over time (I'm not a big fan of either, but notice that value judgments are not involved in this distinction). Furthermore, there are a lot of emotional "buttons" we have which authors of music can push to elicit certain reactions. That's why so much syrupy pop music sounds exactly the same, and why war movies seem to all have the same darn soundtrack. Flutes can conjure up thoughts of youth or innocence or purity in nearly anyone (in fact, I seem to recall that it was explicitly connected with such in Brahms' plan for his First Symphony - can anyone confirm this?).

i think someone posted this before...

[Kullervo]

We - music critics that is - would be much better off if we dropped it entirely.

Music critic? I don't think a few extremely affected and (probably unintentionally) hilarious posts on music forums doesn't give one that title.

[Brian]

Music critic? I don't think a few extremely affected and (probably unintentionally) hilarious posts on music forums doesn't give one that title.

What about reviewing orchestral concerts, opera performances, and classical CDs for a college student newspaper? That might make me a "music critic," if amateur.