Klarinet Archive - Posting 000332.txt from 1998/06

From: Roger Shilcock <roger.shilcock@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Serious music and entertainment
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:15:12 -0400

There are some highly contentious points in this.
1) The polyphonic style of Bach with which we are most familiar was
thought
extremely old-fashioned in his own day - and it was. Bach in this style
might well be thought of as the last *Renaissance* composer.
2) The Dvorak Lee knows is clearly quite a different person from the one
whose music I know. Culd we have some more details?
3) Mozart certainly did value Handel highly, but Handel here seems to
have
got confused with Haydn.
4) Mozart was around 3 years old when Handel died. (Haydn, of course,
outlived Mozart).
5) It would be interesting to know how many composers have really thought
of
their music as based on "chord progressions". Apart from jazz and various
crossover composers, I suspect the number is extremely small.
Roger Shilcock

On Tue, 9
Jun 1998, Lee Hickling wrote:

> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 09:57:17
> From: Lee Hickling <hickling@-----.Net>
> Reply-To: klarinet@-----.org
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: Re: [kl] Serious music and entertainment
>
> Rich and Tani Miller object to my calling Mozart baroque:
>
> >Mozart is the quintessential example of classical period music, not
> >baroque. Handel is baroque. Bach is baroque too(I agree, Bach belongs in a
> >category unto himself). Beethoven kind of led the way into the romantic
> >period. His early music, though is very classical.
> >
> >I think that the term "art music" works well to distinguish what we generally
> >refer to as classical music from popular music. Obviously all lines are not
> >distinctly drawn, especially in the 20th century. Using this term then
> allows
> >for the term "classical music" to refer to music during a specific period in
> >time (I'm sure that someone else remembers the dates from Music History).
> >
> >The classification of music into historical periods serves several
> purposes. It
> >allows us to identify trends in various societies that influenced the way
> that
> >music was composed. It also allows us to more easily see the changes.
> Finally,
> >for me anyway, learning about music history can make us better educated
> >listeners and performers.
>
> Well ... In my book, if Handel is baroque, Mozart is too. But while I don't
> disagree with what Rich and Tani say, or what a couple of off-list messages
> said, I don't fully agree either.
>
> The trouble with hard and fast definitions of artistic periods, genres or
> categories is that their principal use, almost their only use, is in
> teaching. Academics seldom agree, though, and even more to the point, what
> they do is define their criteria first, and then make reality agree with
> them. (I am about to do the same thing)
>
> Bach, for instance, wrote in the baroque period, but from the standpoint of
> his harmonic originality, and to a lesser extent his formal innovations, he
> towers so high above baroque that he cannot be pigeonholed on the basis of
> when he lived. Western European music did not catch up with some of the
> things Bach did for well over a hundred years.
>
> Another problem is that there is a seamless continuum in the musical art
> that makes drawing lines a very risky venture. Mozart and Handel can fairly
> be lumped with Beethoven, Brahms and their lesser contemporaries as
> classicists, if musical forms are a major criterion - but in terms of their
> harmonic practice and melodic traits they are still baroque. Their themes
> are normally balanced, in multiples of two measures, and their chord
> progressions are simple, predictable and almost invariably resolved to the
> tonic. Call them high baroque, perhaps, the culmination of baroque.
>
> Drawing lines is not really possible. It's an exercise in rationalization.
> What label you affix to a composer depends on the structure of your schema.
> Mozart idolized Papa Handel, and copied a lot of his best moves. He
> surpassed his idol in some ways, but they are more alike than they are
> different. Beethoven can equally well be called the first great romantic,
> although I would award that title to Borodin, and there are other
> contenders. The young Beethoven began as an assiduous Mozart and Handel
> imitator. His late quartets and piano concerti, and his last symphony -
> melodically and harmonically, and in some respects formally - foreshadow
> many of the traits of the high romantics. And take Dvorak. Is he a
> romantic, or an early modernist? Most of his work is clearly
> folky-romantic, but in his last years he wrote a mong other things a cello
> concerto that rivals anything by the young Prokoviev or Stravinsky in its
> modernity, complexity and harmonic daring - to say nothing of its
> difficulty for the soloist.
>
> The classification I used is unabashedly subjective, but so are all the
> others, unless one adheres to a strict dating of periods. That's useful in
> making lesson plans for Music Appreciation 101, but apart from that I think
> it's ridiculous. My categories are weighted toward an analysis of harmonic
> structure and thematic material, and put less importance on musical forms.
> They're as useful as anybody else's, more useful in some ways, and they are
> defensible,
>
> Lee Hickling <hickling@-----.net>
> Cobb Island, MD 20625
> 301-259-4483
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> For additional commands, e-mail: klarinet-help@-----.org
> For other problems, e-mail: klarinet-owner@-----.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional commands, e-mail: klarinet-help@-----.org
For other problems, e-mail: klarinet-owner@-----.org

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org