View Poll Results: Did the common practice era peak with Brahms or Rachmaninov?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Common practice peaked with Brahms

    13 39.39%
  • Common practice ended with Rachmaninov

    7 21.21%
  • Other

    13 39.39%
Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 279

Thread: The Common Practice Era: Did it peak with Brahms, or Rachmaninov?

  1. #91
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by janxharris View Post

    I referred specifically to their (we are talking about Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven) harmony, which for me is akin to pastiche. I don't believe it is disputed that harmony in the 18th century was relatively simple and that composers were using progressions in common usage. I recognise this obviously isn't an issue for many listeners but there comes a point the closer you get to derivative when it does.
    Quote Originally Posted by consuono View Post

    Only you demonstrate absolutely nothing about "derivative".
    It is scientifically proven that Beethoven, Mozart, etc. used more derivative harmonies, melodies, and chord progressions than their successors.

    The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology designed a computer program in order to identify "similar" chord progressions and melodies.

    When analyzing the music of 19 major composers of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras, Rachmaninov, Bach, and Brahms were found to be the least derivative with their predecessors, while the classical composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn) were found to be the most derivative with their predecessors.

    This result doesn't surprise me. As far as Beethoven goes, a lot of his originality stemmed from his use of structure, rhythm, sonority, and texture—none of which were considered in the study.

    Furthermore, only a select few of his late works are decidedly exceptional in terms of harmonic invention, and he has hundreds of early works that are not so original.

    And of course, we don't judge music with computer programs. Novelty doesn't necessarily correlate with enjoyability.

    But for those of you who like "objectivity" in music, this is as objective as it gets.

    https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/...-rtm012820.php
    Last edited by chu42; Apr-19-2021 at 20:29.

  2. Likes arpeggio, janxharris liked this post
  3. #92
    Senior Member arpeggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Burke, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,601
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I think it would kill some of our members if they came up with objective criteria to judge music and then discover Boulez is a great composer.
    It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. And I am a very ingenious fellow

  4. Likes janxharris, Art Rock, chu42 and 3 others liked this post
  5. #93
    Senior Member Fabulin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chu42 View Post
    It is scientifically proven that Beethoven, Mozart, etc. used more derivative harmonies, melodies, and chord progressions than their successors.

    A computer program created by the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology was designed in order to identify "similar" chord progressions and melodies.

    When analyzing the music of 19 major composers of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras, Rachmaninov, Bach, and Brahms were found to be the least derivative with their predecessors, while the classical composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn) were found to be the most derivative with their predecessors.

    This result doesn't surprise me. As far as Beethoven goes, a lot of his originality stemmed from his use of structure, rhythm, sonority, and texture—none of which were considered in the study.

    Furthermore, only a select few of his late works are decidedly exceptional in terms of harmonic invention, and he has hundreds of early works that are not so original.

    And of course, we don't judge music with computer programs. Novelty doesn't necessarily correlate with enjoyability.

    But for those of you who like "objectivity" in music, this is as objective as it gets.

    https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/...-rtm012820.php
    Wait a minute... it's only about piano music, not ensemble music!

  6. #94
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabulin View Post
    Wait a minute... it's only about piano music, not ensemble music!
    Right. But surely the same aspects hold up in terms of harmony and melody.

    Furthermore, Romantic era composers had a larger variety of instruments, ensemble varieties, structures, etc. Compare the orchestration of Rimsky-Korsakov vs. Haydn and I think you will find that one was much less constrained than the other.

    Again, nothing to do with enjoyability or "greatness". Just objectively speaking.
    Last edited by chu42; Apr-19-2021 at 20:28.

  7. #95
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    4,154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chu42 View Post
    It is scientifically proven that Beethoven, Mozart, etc. used more derivative harmonies, melodies, and chord progressions than their successors.
    A computer program created by the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology was designed in order to identify "similar" chord progressions and melodies.
    When analyzing the music of 19 major composers of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras, Rachmaninov, Bach, and Brahms were found to be the least derivative with their predecessors, while the classical composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn) were found to be the most derivative with their predecessors.
    I know that article. But as far as I remember, the research was conducted by a statistical physicist who doesn't understand much classical music. You grossly misinterpret their findings. They use the term 화음 (chords) instead of 화성 (harmony) and so they don't take into account the composers' use of nonharmonic tones. So Bach (whose predecessors used modality) and the Romantics would score high, whereas the Classicists with their surface I-V structure would score low.

  8. Likes Bwv 1080 liked this post
  9. #96
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    4,154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by janxharris View Post
    I could do but, as I said, it isn't an issue for all listeners; in any case, you made the initial assertion and I asked you to show the derivation regarding Sibelius. Sibelius is often cited as someone with a totally unique voice...but Mozart not so much.
    Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy some of WAM's work and certainly would cite him as the best from his era.
    Mozart actually does have a unique voice.*** You and consuono both have good points, but I think, when it comes to matters of "greatness", people in general are too fixated on the earlier composers. It's unfair to judge the later composers by the same yardsticks as the earlier composers. Mozart wrote fast, and in many genres, but this was what all great professional composers in the 18th century were required to do. I don't think you can judge, for example, Wagner, by the same standards. Considering the context in which they achieved artistry, I'm actually inclined to think they're both equally "great" in their own individual ways.

    ***
    Bernstein (in his lecture on Mozart's symphony in G minor K.550): [ 8:07 ]
    "Do you realize that, that wild, atonal-sounding passage contains every one of the twelve chromatic tones except the tonic note G? ... Take my word for it, that out-burst of chromatic rage is Classically-contained, and so is the climax of this development section, which finds itself in the unlikely key of C-sharp minor, which is as far away as you can get from the home key of G minor."
    missa sancti trinitatis K.167 [ 3:52 ]

    Bernstein: [ 2:03 ] "But notice that Mozart's theme is already chromatically formed. And even more so when it repeats."
    missa brevis K.275 [ 3:07 , 3:18 ] , [ 10:33 , 10:58 ] , [ 14:00 , 14:37 ]
    missa brevis K.257 [ 3:57 , 4:10 ] , [ 8:22 , 9:50 ]

    Bernstein: [ 2:59 ] "There's that Classical balance we were talking about —chromatic wandering on the top, firmly supported by tonic-and-dominant structure underneath."
    missa brevis K.258 [ 2:53 ~ 3:31 ]

    Bernstein: [ 6:02 ] "Even this lead-in to the home key, is chromatically written, firmly held in place by a dominant pedal."
    missa brevis K.275 [ 7:12 ~ 7:21 ]

    Look at the introduction to the K.465 "dissonance" quartet,
    and then this contrapuntal passage of chromatic fourths in
    missa sancti Trinitatis K.167 [ 10:47 ]

    Also compare K.551/iv with K.192/iii

    Luchesi or Salieri, for example, ([E.M.], [H.M.], [R]) don't orchestrate like this:
    spatzenmesse K.220 [ 2:30 ~ 4:00 ]
    "On the other hand, for the French, Mozart was certainly not ‘one of us’ from a national point of view. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz’s time, some influential critics – for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy – rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music ‘scholastic’, stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas – all these were considered negative features of ‘Germanic’ music."
    <Attachment 130858>
    Last edited by hammeredklavier; Apr-20-2021 at 05:17.

  10. Likes fluteman liked this post
  11. #97
    Senior Member fluteman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    2,506
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arpeggio View Post
    I think it would kill some of our members if they came up with objective criteria to judge music and then discover Boulez is a great composer.
    And it might be easier to do that with Boulez than nearly anyone else. I made a similar point, maybe in not quite as skilled and diplomatic a way, in another thread, a very long one now closed. No problem, arpeggio. You are always welcome to be the smarter, more articulate version of me.

  12. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chu42 View Post
    It is scientifically proven that Beethoven, Mozart, etc. used more derivative harmonies, melodies, and chord progressions than their successors.

    The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology designed a computer program in order to identify "similar" chord progressions and melodies.

    When analyzing the music of 19 major composers of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras, Rachmaninov, Bach, and Brahms were found to be the least derivative with their predecessors, while the classical composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn) were found to be the most derivative with their predecessors.

    This result doesn't surprise me. As far as Beethoven goes, a lot of his originality stemmed from his use of structure, rhythm, sonority, and texture—none of which were considered in the study.

    Furthermore, only a select few of his late works are decidedly exceptional in terms of harmonic invention, and he has hundreds of early works that are not so original.

    And of course, we don't judge music with computer programs. Novelty doesn't necessarily correlate with enjoyability.

    But for those of you who like "objectivity" in music, this is as objective as it gets.

    https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/...-rtm012820.php
    Derived from what? Doing a word search of that page, the word "derivative" doesn't come up once. And Rachmaninov derived much from Tchaikovsky.
    The authors found that compositions from the Classical period (1750 to 1820) tended to have the lowest novelty scores. During this period Haydn and Mozart were highly influential but were later overtaken by Beethoven during the Classical-to-Romantic transitional period.
    If Beethoven was "derivative", he could hardly have been "transitional".
    Quote Originally Posted by arpeggio View Post
    I think it would kill some of our members if they came up with objective criteria to judge music and then discover Boulez is a great composer.
    I still wouldn't be a Boulez fan, nor would very many others. Not much would change.
    Last edited by consuono; Apr-19-2021 at 22:17.

  13. #99
    Senior Member SanAntone's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,728
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consuono View Post
    I still wouldn't be a Boulez fan, nor would very many others. Not much would change.
    So what good is objective greatness if it won't influence listening habits?
    Last edited by SanAntone; Apr-19-2021 at 22:25.

  14. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SanAntone View Post
    So what good is objective greatness if it won't influence listening habits?
    Useful for analysis, but my giving you the objective measurements of the Parthenon won't in itself make you think it's a beautiful building. Greatness *does* influence listening habits, btw.
    Last edited by consuono; Apr-19-2021 at 22:33.

  15. #101
    Senior Member fluteman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    2,506
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SanAntone View Post
    So what good is objective greatness if it won't influence listening habits?
    Historically, the idea has been, 'great' music is permitted, promoted and funded by the government or those in power. Bad or degenerate music is censored or banned, or at minimum, not funded. ArtMusic reflected his support of this approach when he said it would be a waste of taxpayer's money to support the music you like. As greatness is objective, your subjective preferences need not be considered, rather, standards are imposed by those in power.
    Sometimes, the idea is, society as a whole can be strong-armed into accepting these aesthetic judgments, as part of a program of social control over all aspects of society, as with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Some here at TC simply see themselves as privileged elitists who have succeeded in appreciating this greatness, whereas those poor, tone-deaf souls like you who can't, or at least not to the same extent, are excluded from the club. Some at TC even want what they think is "avant garde" music excluded from the definition of classical music and moved to separate forums. If you insist on discussing this music, they want to kick you out of the TC club, or at least their part of it.

    I am reminded of Groucho Marx's famous comment, "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."

  16. Likes fbjim, ORigel liked this post
  17. #102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fluteman View Post
    Historically, the idea has been, 'great' music is permitted, promoted and funded by the government or those in power. Bad or degenerate music is censored or banned, or at minimum, not funded. ArtMusic reflected his support of this approach when he said it would be a waste of taxpayer's money to support the music you like. As greatness is objective, your subjective preferences need not be considered, rather, standards are imposed by those in power.
    Sometimes, the idea is, society as a whole can be strong-armed into accepting these aesthetic judgments, as part of a program of social control over all aspects of society, as with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Some here at TC simply see themselves as privileged elitists who have succeeded in appreciating this greatness, whereas those poor, tone-deaf souls like you who can't, or at least not to the same extent, are excluded from the club. Some at TC even want what they think is "avant garde" music excluded from the definition of classical music and moved to separate forums. If you insist on discussing this music, they want to kick you out of the TC club, or at least their part of it.

    I am reminded of Groucho Marx's famous comment, "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."
    A straw man, ad hominem and Godwin all rolled into one. Impressive.

  18. Likes Fabulin liked this post
  19. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    505
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It's not out of line, given the attitudes hardline right wingers have toward modern art and their idealized vision of the past, though. Aesthetics are political.

  20. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fbjim View Post
    It's not out of line, given the attitudes hardline right wingers have toward modern art and their idealized vision of the past, though. Aesthetics are political.
    Which means they're objective in some way, right? I mean if there's a hardline right-wing and a hardline left-wing...(where does that leave the libertarian-ish types or the apolitical, btw?)

  21. #105
    Senior Member Bwv 1080's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Mahler and Reger - Sibelius and Rachmaninoff were approaching pastiche

Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •