Classical Music Forum banner

Where are the current composers interested in classical era styles?

13K views 115 replies 32 participants last post by  helenora 
#1 ·
There has to be someone in this world that has composed a symphony or sonata, in the classical style. The problem would be interesting anyone in something like that these days. There is not reason that the classical style couldn't be active today in the musical world, its a musical grammar after all that could yield any number of new constructions. The same could be said for any other style that is ignored these days. The problem is, people are so concerned with being innovative, which could mean any number of things.

Does this kind of viewpoint make me a complete and total reactionary? I tend to think of myself as someone interested solely in forms that are now thought to be historical, but I don't see why conservative or radical is relevant in this case. But I'm sure that if I ever get out in the music world, and go to school to study it, I'm going to find a lot of opposition just in this way if I at all advertise this viewpoint. I ultimately would like to, even if just as a hobby, compose some classical sonatas and symphonies. So far I've heard of people inspired by Baroque music, but none that are inspired by CPE Bach, Haydn, W.F. Bach, Clementi, and Mozart.
 
#45 · (Edited)
It isnt about art music, so if I am breaking the rules by bringing up pop music please forgive me, but do you know the story behind Ricky Nelson's "Garden Party" song? The short short version is that he was booed off the stage at a concert when he started to play some of his newest songs. He was of course very distraught about it, but in response he wrote his greatest hit "Garden Party" about that experience. The message of Garden Party is the most sage advice any artist or potential artist could ever receive "you cant please everyone, so youve got to please yourself."
 
#47 ·
Pleasing myself is what I try to clear my mind back to when I get too particular of an idea of what I want to sound like. My teacher tells me that he just started composing by "doing what came to him." I find it difficult not to try make a conscious effort to sound like something, but really, the only time I've ever been able to composer is when I wheedled my way around my consciously imposed restrictions and parameters. I think that those who try to sound "up to date" miss something just as much as those who try to sound historical, and vice versa. So, I have to remind myself just to do what I do.
 
#49 ·
Pleasing myself is what I try to clear my mind back to when I get too particular of an idea of what I want to sound like. My teacher tells me that he just started composing by "doing what came to him." I find it difficult not to try make a conscious effort to sound like something, but really, the only time I've ever been able to composer is when I wheedled my way around my consciously imposed restrictions and parameters. I think that those who try to sound "up to date" miss something just as much as those who try to sound historical, and vice versa. So, I have to remind myself just to do what I do.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. That's how Stravinsky composed from what I have read.

"The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one's self. And the arbitrariness of the constraint serves only to obtain precision of execution." -Igor Stravinsky
 
#54 ·
I really do not see any issue with imitation. If a composer is composing something that they enjoy, I say go for it. Despite 20th-century mindset, a composer does not have to be innovative to be good, in my mind.

But I do agree it is great if one decides to combine an old style with modern day music theory, such as Prokofiev's Classical Symphony, as mentioned above, or Bartok's Divertimento or Stravinsky's Dumberton Oaks. Actually, one of my favorite composers, who incorporated this into his music, is Felix Mendelssohn. While his style and form is mostly conservative compared to his contemporaries, he incorporated several aspects of Romanticism as well.
 
#64 ·
While, of course, there is nothing wrong with this for your own pleasure, don't expect other people to take it too seriously. As I said much earlier in this thread, what is the point of imitating composers from 200-250 years ago who, in all likelihood, said it all (and at a very elevated level) at that time?
 
G
#62 ·
You can't be serious. After all this thread, and this is where you've ended up?

Wow.

Anyway, here's a wee quote. I don't know who said it first. I can find out in a bit.

"It is the composer's duty to write music that you do not yet like."
 
#68 ·
Its just like the modern artist who berates the skilled painter for trying to make money on visual art that resembles the classics, when the modern artist probably lacks the technique to paint things as they actually appear anyway.

I'm done some guy, I don't agree with you at all. I think you are the one who is misguided. And what I do does absolutely no harm to the world, everyone I've played my pieces for has liked my compositions, found them interesting and fresh.
Modernists: Telling everyone else how to write their music since 1900.

Write for the people that actually matter in your life, and ignore all those who are enraged that you aren't obsessed with claiming your spot in history or your place in the ultimate pantheon. I commend you for bringing music to those around you and am glad to see someone else who believes that bringing joy or tears to grandma with his own creation is worth more than the approval of the nameless thousands who want to take it all away from you and tell you to stop composing for being disobedient to their own narrow aesthetics.
 
#63 · (Edited)
Its just like the modern artist who berates the skilled painter for trying to make money on visual art that resembles the classics, when the modern artist probably lacks the technique to paint things as they actually appear anyway.

I'm done some guy, I don't agree with you at all. I think you are the one who is misguided. And what I do does absolutely no harm to the world, everyone I've played my pieces for has liked my compositions, found them interesting and fresh.
 
#72 ·
I do understand the idea of pinning a sound to an era. The culture and politics of the time do go into defining art of an era. But nobody complained when Romanesque artwork came about. Nobody cried when Byzantine characteristics were taken up in later art. Nobody whined when the characteristics of Anglo-Saxon art were appropriated into other art later. If I love the sound of the harpsichord and I want to compose in that voice then I damn well will do what I please. The sounds may have come out of a certain situation, but that doesn't mean those sounds are inherent in nature to be defined as that era. We may associate a certain characteristic with a certain culture like the Romans, but until it was conceptualized as being so it wasn't Roman in nature.
 
#79 ·
Btw, If I was a composer, I would try to spend as little time online as possible. Distractions are not good for progress. Haydn probably didn't have much to do other than making music. Lack of entertainment/distractions made this type of writing possible. I do enjoy your posts here but I would enjoy posts about your works more. Keep it going.
 
#82 ·
I am a professional of music and am very dissapointed with the current status of the so called "Classic Contemporary Music" regarding its relationship with the public. Contemporary music is since the very beginning of the 20th, very far from the public.Many people liked Haendel, Beethoven, Liszt and Verdi in their days. Very few people like 20th classic music.

I have done some opinion polls among hundreds of persons, regarding his tastes in music: most 20th century classical compositions, including Stravinsky, Bartok etc, were considered " very ugly and unpleasable", being the Baroque, Classic, and early Romanticism the favourite classic music for these people(amonst which there were some music students and professionals).

Contemporary literature is alive, as it was in 19th, 18th, 17th centuries....but the so called contemporary music, and other 20th musical styles, already far from us like those of Bartok and Stravinsky are not enjoyed by people.

If you compare an adventures book from the 18th -its style, its contents, its language etc.- it differs very little with a contemporary literary publication, enjoyed by the public. Instead...a composition by C.P.E. Bach(although many common people like them) is very far from what an "ortodox" view of modern composition style, which has to be (as common people say) "ugly" , to be considered by the "elite" a decent and acceptable contemporary piece.

Then: If contemporary literature(and cinema stories) is its main structures so similar to those of past ages, Why couldn´t a modern composer to create, let´s say, a concerto in the 18th or early 19th style? Why not? You are reading many stories and watching many films which could have beed conceived in 1850. You,all, are reading not avant-garde books, nor going to the cinema to see "experimental" films: You are reading stories and watching films which stories may have been written in 1700, or 1800.
 
#84 ·
I think literature followed music for a while in the 20th Century - try reading "How it is" by Samuel Beckett. But otherwise you are right - literary novelists - thankfully - hope to sell their books - and write accordingly.
I know a contemporary composer who has had operas performed - his early works sound beautiful - but obviously under the influence of Richard Strauss - ok for his student years - but as he said - he will only succeed with a work and it will only be accepted by producers and get the money for production if it is truly new.
 
#85 ·
You are right: literature only tried those paths in the first decades of 20th, then it left it. Obviously, the public and the producers are, for the artist, one of the most importants clefs of his work..Aeschylus, Shakespeare and Cervantes wrote for the public, as Monteverdi, Corelli, Haendel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Verdi composed -mainly- for the public.
 
#86 ·
And now...please, remind this argument(using it -together with the literary argument- I get to keep silence and without arguments to some lecturers ridiculizing the posibility of composing not in the style of a composer, but in the style of a period: baroque, classic, romantic): 1- If using a composition style used in the past doesn´t make any sense, please don´t read any more any horror, love, war stories, as it were already cultivated(in its main features as today) many centuries ago. Save your money instead. 2- Renaissance, Baroque(remember the Opera) and Classicism, were no more than periods were all artists tried to imitate the style of the past. However, as imitating 100% is a very difficult task, the Greek-Roman past, could´t be absolutely and exactly as it was in heir original times. Authors trying to imitate, always leave a track, a detail of them, so, Renaissance, Baroque and Classicism, are reputed are the highest splendour art periods, when their artists only tried to imitate. 3. Iy you -contemporary composer who try to create different, and original works, please, don´t compose any more, and enjoy life´s pelasures isntead, as within 100/150 years, if most people think like you, you won´t be appreciated, as you will be an outdated composer.
 
#88 · (Edited)
I think composers should just compose in whatever style they want.
Music doesn't have to be innovative to be great. If innovation is all that matters, the result can be dreadful music that is only avantgarde for the sake of being avantgarde.
I would love to hear new romantic music in the style of Chopin, Schumann, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin etc... In the end every composer has a unique personal voice. I think it's entirely possible to create something in the romantic style that still sounds fresh enough today.
Surely innovation isn't the most important aspect of music. People keep listening to the 'old greats' again and again because it is timeless art.
 
#90 ·
Hello, ComposerOfAvantGarde, and DeepR. Your comments are the most wise ones I have read on this forum, regarding this matter. On the one hand, I had forgotten to quote the case of Stravinsky´s The Rake´s Progress, so astoundingly "out of mode", sounding so ancient and traditional, in the 50s!
On the other hand, DeepR has mentioned an important clef: "In the end every composer has a unique personal voice. I think it's entirely possible to create something in the romantic style that still sounds fresh enough today". That is the clef. A composer can create in the style he wants, even mixing styles(Why not?) and his voice, even composing Baroque, won´t sound exactly like Marin Marais´voice, nor Haendel´s etc. So, music in Romantic style can be composed today, sounding totally fresh. In fact, as I said, and as you all know, we, tosay, are writting on forums using ideological and phraseological structures almost simillar to those of a 18th century writer, and reading books showing almost identical phraseological and plot structures than a Greek Theatre work, and we are reading contemporary literature.
 
#91 ·
Exactly! Composers should and can write in their own personal way however they like. This is why the works you seem to detest exist, and please stop asking why - as Stockhausen was simply writing how he wanted!
 
#92 ·
Of course a composer can write in whatever style they want to. If you're a composer and you want to write music in the style of Beethoven and that is what makes you happy than go for it!

But on the other hand, if you are going to write in an older style, you can't expect the larger music community to give you extra recognition. The composers that gain recognition are the ones that either pave new directions in the way of music or build on current trends in a way that progress those trends and that is just how it works.
 
#93 ·
Emiellucifugue: I don´t want to start again the same discussions. I never said a composer can´t write what he wanted, even when I didn´t like his style. I am, simply, pointing out a reality you can see everywhere: contemporary composers are, more and more, gone away from the general public. Does he want it? All right. Perfect. However, on the other side, I don´t -and many other don´t- admit that a "supposed ellite" could determine what is "orthodox" and what is not. Of course, if they insist, they can opine, but also they have to realize that they are almost alone, if we consider the general panorama of music. Should any famous composer working on traditional styles, and earning millions pay attention to a largely unknown minority?



violadude: Who is "The musical community"? I am afraid it is not a homogeneous group. Do you refer to the "minority elite above mentioned?. Contemporary music, I repeat, is by far, the less heard style today. Do I considere it a reputable and interesting style? Yes, of course. But it not the only style.

And now, please, I would like you answered me a question I have asked in other messages but nobody as answered to:

Were Renaissance and Classicism born while all artists were trying to IMITATE as exactly as possible the Greek-Roman world, but, as imitating exactly and reconstructing 100% a lost culture is impossible, other styles were born?
 
#96 ·
Many contemporary composers live off their work! Nearly all the ones I can think of...

There may be up to 10 recordings of Boulez's piano sonatas, and he's still alive. Monteverdi cant claim that :p

I really do feel like im repeating myself, and others, but you continue to make the same claims. Throughout history, nearly all the composers wrote for small, elite audiences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: science
#98 ·
Also, please, let me know how to get recordings at least of the 80% contemporary works of the last years. Not for me, of course, but for some friends of me, lovers of contemporary music, willing to access easily to recent contemporary music recordings.
Please, let´s concentrate on reality: Exists public for the contemporary music, but EVEN among professionals of music(and I can be sure of that, as I belong to that world), contemporary music is minority. That doesn´t mean you have not to like it. But you have to recognize than among middle classes loving "classic" music(let´s leave aside people with little culture),Bellini was much more successful that Berio. If you don´t see that, I can´t explain it in any other way, as then we are entering the path of beliefs, and beliefs are unmovable.
 
#99 ·
While I applaud any composer today who attempts to compose in a strictly earlier style (classical and baroque being my favorites), I think the issue may be that those styles have already been perfected by geniuses of those times. Personally, my favorite art forms are of the High Renaissance, but I honestly doubt that anyone today can really eclipse, or even equal, Michelangelo, Raphael and Bramante. In fact, I don't think later artists like Rembrandt, Delacroix, Cezanne and Picasso seem to equal their predecessors, despite their genius and awe-inspiring innovations. Many composers who write in an earlier form may eventually produce works that can potentially rival, say, Salieri or Czerny. But, Mozart, Bach and Beethoven are composers of staggering and extremely rare genius and, for most artists, the only choice is to do something different.

Or, perhaps there is too great an emphasis on innovation and we are no longer interested in perfecting existing art forms.
 
G
#100 ·
I don't remember if this has come up before in this thread that will not die, nor if it were me who brought it up, but I can't help thinking that a little, just a little, bit of history would not be amiss in this conversation.

One thing is sure, Mozart, Haydn, Gluck, Beethoven, and a host of others writing in the second half of the 18th century did none of them ever write anything in a "classical era style."

It wasn't the classical era then. At the time, it was referred to as "romantic." So one could equally have asked "Where were the 18th century composers interested in classical era styles?"

Another thing, "style" is a word that usually applies after the fact. That is, when things are being done, currently, in the heat of the moment, there's usually no word for it. Too new. (Or the words are pejorative, like that anonymous journalist's "atonal.") It's not a style; it's just writing music. Of course, there are many constraints in any time that limit what's possible. And looking back at it--that is the key that would have made this thread impossible (at least improbable) to even start--we can recognize certain patterns (caused by the constraints) and call those things a "style." People are doing things; there's a zeitgeist; and looking back we recognize things.

Once they're recognized, they can be imitated. But it can never be anything more than imitation. The constraints peculiar to an era no longer apply. (Each era has its own constraints and its own rare geniuses that can break those constraints. Hence the concept of an "era." A time of certain things, recognizable when we look back at it.) It's not the 18th century any more. We do not have the same circumstances; we do not share the same assumptions; we don't have the same past. (For us, the 18th century is past; for them, it was present. Looks obvious, put like that. But that obvious thing rarely ever informs this kind of conversation.) Because that is true, the kinds of things characteristic of the era, the things we recognize when we look back at it, are no longer creating the circumstances that created the possibilities of that time.

We're in a different time now, with the 18th century as part of our past. If any of us makes a piece of music in the style of the "classical era," we have made pastiche. But the music written in the 18th century was not pastiche. It was just what was done back then, a result of physical and spiritual and ideological and political and moral and artistic realities that were peculiar to that time. None of the physical, spiritual, ideological, political, moral, or artistic realities peculiar to 2012 would ever produce a piece of music that sounded as if it were from the late 18th century. Some of those realities have produced individuals willing to mimic the sounds and patterns of the era. But what produced the genuine 18th century works of art did not include a willingness to mimic the sounds and patterns of an earlier era. That would have been philosophically alien to a "classical" composer.

So that's at least one major difference between Mozart writing what we have come to call "classical" music and a composer in the 21st century writing in "classical era styles." The Mozarts of today are doing just what's being done today--they are named Steen-Andersen and Karkowski and Neumann and so forth. The people today writing pastiche have no 18th century equivalents. (They apparently have some 19th century equivalents, but those people were uniformly scorned. Today, they win Pulitzer prizes.)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top