(western) classical music discussion

[I_am_not_mafia]

You're missing out Min. There are many masters and master works in the 20th century.

Just gotta stretch those ears!

Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartok, Copland, Scriabin for starters. Prokofiev's 2nd and 3rd piano concertos are awesome, especially if you are pianist. The 3rd is quite romantic even. I can't imagine a musical world without what 20th century composers have brought to the table. Of course, much of it is angry and dissonant. I like it as it befits my bitter atheist soul and atheist rage! The symphonies and string quarters of Shostakovitch! The piano works of Ives, Benjamin Lees! All of the Bartok piano concerti, the solo piano music, the string quartets, the orchestral works. So much...

I like my pre-1900 music as much as any one, but there are many gems after that date as well.

This is a fun piece from Rachmaninoff. Aggressive, but not dissonant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFMNhx2-VDE

Most of the classical I listen to is from the 20th century. I find stuff beforehand is either too simplistic, or created by rich people who don't particularly have much to say musically. I'm desperately in need of new composers to listen to. I'll have to check out Bartok, Copland and Scriabin.

I'm completely stuck on the Russian composers who certainly did have a need to express themselves, but I also like a lot of  composers from the British isles, such as Vaughan Williams, Bax etc

I look for either complexity with the orchestration to create interesting soundscapes, or the melody. But like CGI special effects, they should be used as a means to express something rather than an attraction in itself. I don't like discordance for the sake of discordance.

You can really see with contemporary pop and rock music for example, that novelty is of utmost importance and I think it's because of how it relates to the brain, the way it functions in relation to imagination and processing. This is why music for young kids can seem more simplistic and boring the older you get. Because you've heard it all before.

Over the centuries classical music has become increasingly complex and sophisticated. I think that a lot of the classical music of the future is being created for film and TV now at the moment because this is how people consume music now rather than go off to watch an orchestra. Consequently this is where all the funding is. John Williams, Ennio Morricone, Bear McCreary, Murray Gold etc.

Take this for example.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Just checked out Scriabin and Copland on youtube, they do nothing for me but Bartok looks interesting. He's a name that has popped up before because of his string quartets.

[Alex K]

Most of the classical I listen to is from the 20th century. I find stuff beforehand is either too simplistic, or created by rich people who don't particularly have much to say musically. I'm desperately in need of new composers to listen to. I'll have to check out Bartok, Copland and Scriabin.

If you had said "for rich people" I would almost agree at least partially. That it was mostly created by rich people seems very inaccurate. Would you say that the Mozart Requiem was written by a rich guy with nothing to say? The St. Matthew Passion? Beethoven's 9th? Schütz' Madrigals?

Over the centuries classical music has become increasingly complex and sophisticated.

This view is too simplistic for my taste. During the late 1500s all the way through the 1700s, championed by people like Palestrina, counterpoint techniques and figured bass have become extremely sophisticated, culminating in J.S. Bach's work. Then there was a rather harsh break in musical tradition and the galant style of the mid 1700s and the following classical period were in many ways marked by a reduction in complexity, and this is when, in my opinion, a lot of ear candy for rich people was produced. The late classical and romantic era composers again slowly built up both the complexity and the range of expression until music became interesting again (to me). Late romantic can become a bit overwrought and burdened by their sheer monumental scope. To me, after Beethoven, the most interesting things were written by Schönberg and Berg. The late russian composers are interesting to me because they are kind of tonal holdovers into the 20th century exploring the new means of expression from a different, more conservative perspective than the viennese radicals.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Most of the classical I listen to is from the 20th century. I find stuff beforehand is either too simplistic, or created by rich people who don't particularly have much to say musically. I'm desperately in need of new composers to listen to. I'll have to check out Bartok, Copland and Scriabin.

If you had said "for rich people" I would almost agree at least partially. That it was mostly created by rich people seems very inaccurate.

You're probably right. But that's what it sounds like to me, probably because it was created for rich people because that's what sold.

Over the centuries classical music has become increasingly complex and sophisticated.

This view is too simplistic for my taste. During the late 1500s all the way through the 1700s, championed by people like Palestrina, counterpoint techniques and figured bass have become extremely sophisticated, culminating in J.S. Bach's work. Then there was a rather harsh break in musical tradition and the galant style of the 1700s and the following classical period were in many ways marked by a reduction in complexity, and this is when, in my opinion, a lot of ear candy for rich people was produced. The late classical and romantic era composers again slowly built up both the complexity and the range of expression until music became interesting again (to me). Late romantic can become a bit overwrought and burdened by their sheer monumental scope.

But forgetting about the rich ear candy, in a way you are demonstrating my point. You're arguing that counterpoint techniques and figured bass became extremely sophisticated over time. It's probably because of technological progress that complexity of melodies came before tonal complexity because there were fewer instruments to work with.

I suspect the rich ear candy music is also a product of technological progress. Like pop music, this could well have come about due to a new audience who were wanting easy background music rather than music to listen to in its own right.

Maybe I'm talking shite here, I don't really know. I'm not a musicologist. I'm just putting forwards a theory.

[Alex K]

If you had said "for rich people" I would almost agree at least partially. That it was mostly created by rich people seems very inaccurate.

You're probably right. But that's what it sounds like to me, probably because it was created for rich people because that's what sold.

This view is too simplistic for my taste. During the late 1500s all the way through the 1700s, championed by people like Palestrina, counterpoint techniques and figured bass have become extremely sophisticated, culminating in J.S. Bach's work. Then there was a rather harsh break in musical tradition and the galant style of the 1700s and the following classical period were in many ways marked by a reduction in complexity, and this is when, in my opinion, a lot of ear candy for rich people was produced. The late classical and romantic era composers again slowly built up both the complexity and the range of expression until music became interesting again (to me). Late romantic can become a bit overwrought and burdened by their sheer monumental scope.

But forgetting about the rich ear candy, in a way you are demonstrating my point. You're arguing that counterpoint techniques and figured base became extremely sophisticated over time. It's probably because of technological progress that complexity of melodies came before tonal complexity because there were fewer instruments to work with.

I'm not sure what you mean by tonal complexity vs. complexity of melodies, can you explain. Initially it was already a revolution when Palestrina took Gregorian chant and constructed artful vocal counterpoints out of the themes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8-IrXDAm8I

Monteverdi and his predecessors had the Cathedral of Venice to work with and made use of that by using several independent interacting choirs positioned throughout the church - something one could call a technological issue (architecture).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKz5Zbl_9r8

Bach, with an almost mathematical obsession as well as an ear for melodies, took all that to 11 just for the heck of it. Most of the time he was paid for churning out weekly Cantatas. All that technical stuff was his hobby. This was his take on using several choirs, as the guys from venice did in the old days, the beginning some of the most complex stuff ever written - not because of technology (it's a couple of traditional instruments and voices), but because he could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm1os4VzTgA

The most obvious technological influence on style was maybe the progress in piano technology which enabled people like Liszt and Chopin to do what they did.

I suspect the rich ear candy music is also a product of technological progress. Like pop music, this could well have come about due to a new audience who were wanting easy background music rather than music to listen to in its own right.

I believe that that's the case

[I_am_not_mafia]

Not sure what the best way to describe tonal complexity. I meant in the way that a modern composer will create whole new sounds using a wider variety of instruments in different ways. I wasn't referring to tones as in the choice of notes.

Unfortunately I can't really easily listen to the clips you've posted because I work in an open plan office with people walking behind me all the time.

And to be fair I did say:

"I find stuff beforehand is either too simplistic, or created by rich people who don't particularly have much to say musically"

Sorry but yes I do personally find most of Mozart's and Bach's output to be too simplistic for my taste. This doesn't mean to say that they didn't have much to say musically. But I am also saying that as an avid listener of modern classical music rather than someone contemporaneous of those two composers. I've been spoiled by far more interesting music. Not that I always listened to complex music. I used to be an avid fan of Shostakovitch and Romantic era symphonies but I eventually grew bored of them.

But hey, at least I don't listen to Jazz.

[Alex K]

This piece came out of a challenge between Bach and the King of Prussia, who bet that Bach wouldn't be able to write a 6 voice fugue on the impossible theme he had invented. Again a theoretical tour de force which requires not much more than a harpsichord to perform it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPDtJOlRNnM

[I_am_not_mafia]

I look forward to listening to it.

On thinking about it further, I think I can describe a further less quantifiable form of complexity that appeals to me. Emotional complexity. I saw a post earlier by Minimalist who said that Rachmaninov leaves him cold. How anyone can be left cold by the second piano concerto, or Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini I don't know but I accept that different people respond differently to different forms of music. It makes sense that as music theory has developed, it has become more nuanced and has developed a wider vocabulary for expressing certain emotional states that listeners can respond to in certain ways. So it might possibly be because of this that I respond more to modern classical music.

This is probably why I have never enjoyed listening to Berg for example.

[Alex K]

Sorry but yes I do personally find most of Mozart's

I agree to a large extent

and Bach's

You're crazy!

output to be too simplistic for my taste. This doesn't mean to say that they didn't have much to say musically. But I am also saying that as an avid listener of modern classical music rather than someone contemporaneous of those two composers. I've been spoiled by far more interesting music. Not that I always listened to complex music. I used to be an avid fan of Shostakovitch and Romantic era symphonies but I eventually grew bored of them.

But hey, at least I don't listen to Jazz.

Can you give me an example of something modern that you would think is much more complex than Beethoven's Missa Solemnis or the last parts of the art of fugue?

[Alex K]

I look forward to listening to it.

On thinking about it further, I think I can describe a further less quantifiable form of complexity that appeals to me. Emotional complexity.

I understand, that's a somewhat different thing than technical complexity. If you have time listen to that rendition of the St. Matthew's passion and tell me what you think of the emotional range, though.

I saw a post earlier by Minimalist who said that Rachmaninov leaves him cold. How anyone can be left cold by the second piano concerto, or Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini

I am physically absolutely unable to stop the toe-tapping during the Rhapsody, but I don't perceive it as emotionally super deep

I don't know but I accept that different people respond differently to different forms of music. It makes sense that as music theory has developed, it has become more nuanced and has developed a wider vocabulary for expressing certain emotional states that listeners can respond to in certain ways. So it might possibly be because of this that I respond more to modern classical music.

This is probably why I have never enjoyed listening to Berg for example.

You know his Violin Concerto which he wrote when the young daughter of a friend had died? This is some of the most emotionally impactful music I know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSUdZ0-7rWE