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 1 of 18 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 269

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Did common practice peak with Brahms, or did Rachmaninov extend the life of it into the 20th century?

    Note: Common practice era =/= tonal music. I would consider Wagner and late-Liszt to already being stepping foot outside common practice, even though their music is completely tonal.

    For me (even though I consider Brahms a superior composer), 20th century composers like Sibelius and Rachmaninov had enough interesting things to say that I wouldn't say Brahms was necessarily the peak.
    Last edited by chu42; Apr-17-2021 at 23:33.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Phil loves classical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Ford Nation
    Posts
    5,746
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I'd say neither and no composer represented the peak. A whole spectrum, with different contributors.
    "Forgive me, Majesty. I'm a vulgar man. But I assure you, my music is not.“ Mozart

  3. Likes hammeredklavier, arpeggio, Conrad2 and 1 others liked this post
  4. #3
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I'd say neither and no composer represented the peak. A whole spectrum, with different contributors.

    Do you think there are important common practice era composers after Rachmaninov; i.e., those who heavily shaped what we consider to be common practice music?

    I personally believe that Sibelius was the peak and it ended with Rachmaninov.
    Last edited by chu42; Apr-17-2021 at 23:50.

  5. #4
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    3,882
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    One thing I do know; your assertion that "Stockhausen, Ferneyhough, Xenakis mastered the common practice" is absurd.
    (I would categorize them as non-classical music composers, btw)

  6. Likes Aries liked this post
  7. #5
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hammeredklavier View Post
    One thing I do know; your assertion that "Stockhausen, Ferneyhough, Xenakis mastered the common practice" is absurd.
    (I would categorize them as non-classical music composers, btw)
    Why is it absurd?

  8. Likes fluteman, Simon Moon liked this post
  9. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chu42 View Post
    Did common practice peak with Brahms, or did Rachmaninov extend the life of it into the 20th century?

    Note: Common practice era =/= tonal music. I would consider Wagner and late-Liszt to already being stepping foot outside common practice, even though their music is completely tonal.
    I don't know what you mean exactly, but classical music overall peaked in the 1890s imo. Everything built up until then and then the first degeneration tendencies set in. But I don't think "common practice" ever ended. The styles just divided.

    Quote Originally Posted by hammeredklavier
    One thing I do know; your assertion that "Stockhausen, Ferneyhough, Xenakis mastered the common practice" is absurd.
    (I would categorize them as non-classical music composers, btw)
    Not sure if it was music what they composed.

  10. #7
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aries View Post
    Not sure if it was music what they composed.
    Quote Originally Posted by hammeredklavier View Post
    One thing I do know; your assertion that "Stockhausen, Ferneyhough, Xenakis mastered the common practice" is absurd.
    We can either discuss this from a completely subjective point of view—your definition of "mastered" and "music" is different from mine, so we can agree to disagree.

    Or we can put our personal biases aside and draw upon the viewpoints of accredited organisations and academics—where you will find that they rule vastly in the favor of my point of view.

  11. Likes Portamento liked this post
  12. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chu42 View Post
    Or we can put our personal biases aside and draw upon the viewpoints of accredited organisations and academics—where you will find that they rule vastly in the favor of my point of view.
    Accredited organisations and academics rule for Stockhausen? Hm, I knew that they were stupid before.

    Styles split at around 1895. And they split over and over again afterwards. And they stopped to address a common taste at some point. If Stockhausen is common practice everything is common practice. So I don't know what you are talking about. I would rather associate common practice with someone like John Williams today. Its not that different to 19th century music, and it is kinda mainstream like 19th century music was in the 19th century.

  13. #9
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    3,882
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chu42 View Post
    Or we can put our personal biases aside and draw upon the viewpoints of accredited organisations and academics—where you will find that they rule vastly in the favor of my point of view.
    "It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics, who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc&t=4m19s

  14. Likes Aries, Plague liked this post
  15. #10
    Senior Member consuono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,520
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Neither. It peaked with Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.

  16. Likes ORigel liked this post
  17. #11
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aries View Post
    Accredited organisations and academics rule for Stockhausen? Hm, I knew that they were stupid before.
    Yes they do, and you are free to believe that they are stupid. Artistic preferences is based on taste.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aries View Post
    Styles split at around 1895. And they split over and over again afterwards. And they stopped to address a common taste at some point. If Stockhausen is common practice everything is common practice. So I don't know what you are talking about.
    The argument was never that Stockhausen's music is common practice era music. You do realize what the topic of the thread is, and you also do realize that Brahms and Rachmaninov both died before Stockhausen, correct?

    What we are discussing here is whether or not Stockhausen mastered the common practice era before diverging from it. Based on his compositions alone (many of which are tonal), I would say yes. Based on his institutional accreditations and resume before starting his experimental works, I would also say yes.

    The fact is, there are plenty of experimental composers who have published their early common practice works. Ligeti, Messiaen, Schoenberg, and many others do indeed have early works that signify their expertise in the common practice era, but Stockhausen to my knowledge is not among those composers.

    Even so, it is silly to think that Stockhausen jumped straight into experimental music before learning tonal composition. One cannot make it out of conservatory without showing that you are adept in common practice era composition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aries View Post
    I would rather associate common practice with someone like John Williams today. Its not that different to 19th century music, and it is kinda mainstream like 19th century music was in the 19th century.
    Yes, John Williams composes largely within the common practice conventions.
    Last edited by chu42; Apr-18-2021 at 01:21.

  18. Likes Portamento liked this post
  19. #12
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hammeredklavier View Post
    "It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics, who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc&t=4m19s
    So I happen find Stockhausen meaningful. I listened to the entirety of Licht last week (20+ hours), and I am bound to listen to it some time again this month.

    What does this say about me? Are my thoughts more or less legitimate that those at the far-right think tank known as PragerU?

    They are free to have their opinion, and I have mine.
    Last edited by chu42; Apr-18-2021 at 01:27.

  20. Likes Portamento liked this post
  21. #13
    Senior Member consuono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,520
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chu42 View Post
    So I happen find Stockhausen meaningful. I listened to the entirety of Licht last week (20+ hours), and I am bound to listen to it some time again this month.

    What does this say about me?...
    That you have too much time on your hands.

  22. #14
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consuono View Post
    Neither. It peaked with Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.
    Do you believe that common practice music started to decline after Beethoven's death? I am of the opposite opinion—I think it was just beginning to blossom while Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven provided the foundation.

  23. #15
    Senior Member chu42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consuono View Post
    That you have too much time on your hands.
    I don't know about you, but it's pretty common for people to listen to 20+ hours of music in a week...
    Last edited by chu42; Apr-18-2021 at 01:37.

Page 1 of 18 1234511 ... 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
  •