Understanding 20th Century Music

Posted by: mikeeschman on 19 September 2009

Before the 20th century, musical style underwent numerous refinements. From the strict forms of dance music in the renaissance, to sonata form, to the evolution of the Coda, music expanded in terms of what was possible in organizing a piece of music.

Berlioz introduced a new idea to the mix, by organizing instrumental music around a literary plot line. This was always important in vocal music, and would be important to music for dance in the 20th century.

The first truly great dance music is the music of Stravinsky. He devised means of inter-relating themes in a way that would enhance the story line, in fact amplifying the emotion of that moment in the story, that was fresh, unique and instantly understandable. The fact that he did so while fabricating a new musical sensibility that is totally coherent is one of the miracles of the 20th century.

Geoff P, I know you have been absorbing Stravinsky for a while. Now it is time to say something :-)

George, I think I understand why I gravitated to Stravinsky at a young age, and why you have still not made that connection.

Stravinsky expresses himself in the winds to a far greater degree than any of the music you listen to.

I am urging you to walk on the wild side, and give a critical ear to what your brother musicians do with their wind instruments.

There is a lot here to enjoy :-)

And to anyone else reading this : what is your take on 20th century music?
Posted on: 19 September 2009 by paulr0414
In addition to Stravinsky:

  • Britten
  • Tippett
  • Shostakovich (memories of first concert performance will remain vivid forever)
  • Prokofiev
  • Messiaen
  • Takemitsu


and many, many more
Posted on: 19 September 2009 by mudwolf
Yeah Mike that's great, I know Berlioz in a few pieces, love his work, but I"m sure others were at that same precipice, seems all art suddenly goes over the waterfall once someone lets go. Opera is the only early storytelling venue I can think of. 19th C was the romantic period where stories became prominent. I had one friend 2 decades ago that hated anything romantic till Stravinsky, he kept playing the Classical period and saying isn't that violins passing it to wind section wonderful? It was too many notes for my R&R mind to comprehend, but I liked Beethoven, Stravinsky and Ravel.


I'm really hankering for my music again. I've redone my wood floors from carpet and a friend has my system to keep it safe. All I have is DVD and TV, ugh! where is that wonderful sound? Maybe monday or Tues I'll get it set up again.
Posted on: 19 September 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by paulr0414:
In addition to Stravinsky:

  • Britten
  • Tippett
  • Shostakovich (memories of first concert performance will remain vivid forever)
  • Prokofiev
  • Messiaen
  • Takemitsu


and many, many more


Now this is an unfair post. You didn't say anything about any of these composers. I think they deserve a few words :-)
Posted on: 19 September 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Mike,

I am inclined to agree that it is a little unfair to simply make a list of great 20th C. composers and say no more.

I will join in tomorrow!

I have been to more than one Stravinski concert, so though I reckon I don't understand the music, I can risk making a fool of myself can't I?

ATB from George
Posted on: 19 September 2009 by mikeeschman
What could have more entertainment value than being fools over music together?
Posted on: 19 September 2009 by paulr0414
Fair call - but with little time right now I will restrict myself to that first experience of Shostakovich.

It was in the mid-80s, the 8th symphony at St David's Hall, Cardiff, BBC WSO and I think conducted by Otaka. I doubt many present that night would have heard the piece before. It was my first experience with this composer and I had never heard such anguish and pain in a piece of music before.

At the conclusion there was stunned silence for what felt like minutes, but when the applause came, it was as if the hall was jam packed rather than probably less than a third full.

It took me a long time to find a recording of this piece and I still have that original LP (Barshai and Bournemouth) and the later Haitink recording.

More foolishness later Winker
Posted on: 19 September 2009 by mikeeschman
I have been spending time with Abbado / London doing Stravinsky's Petrouchka on DGG, a 2-for-1 set with a lot of great Stravinsky on it.

This piece has a special attachment for me. It is a common human failing that when in unfamiliar territory, the sight of something familiar can warm your heart. When I was a young trumpet player, I heard my teacher do this piece.

The trumpet in Petrouchka is a diverse instrument. It plays exciting punctuations in groups, it plays solo fanfares that romp and it makes beautiful melody in a duet with flute.

That's not like Bach or Beethoven is to play.

So that adds a dimension to listening for me :-)

This music is so joyful and full of dialog, every listen leaves me in a buoyant mood.

Try to remember the bits you might want to hum some day, and you will grasp the inner meaning of the work. Everything else flows from that.

This is music for the dance ...
Posted on: 20 September 2009 by Geoff P
quote:
Geoff P, I know you have been absorbing Stravinsky for a while. Now it is time to say something :-)

...As far as the term '20th Century music' is concerned that is for me more about Jazz based composition of which Ellington is of course the prime example.

You might think this would have lead naturally to Stravinsky for example. However, my proper entry into classical music after the occassional tryout with less than enthused result can be blamed on George, so I came at it from the Baroque 'up' rather than the dance 'down' and am no doubt tarred with the same brush as George Big Grin

BTW Mike....which thread do you want Stravinsky comments on?

regards
Geoff
Posted on: 20 September 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Geoff! That made me laugh out loud! Best wishes from George
Posted on: 20 September 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by Geoff P:

BTW Mike....which thread do you want Stravinsky comments on?

regards
Geoff


I consider the loves Stravinsky thread dead on arrival. The 20th century topic leaves us open to everything including Ellington and Stravinsky, and I think that allows more freedom of expression.

For example, Sibelius is fair game here, but not on the loves Stravinsky thread ...

So here is good :-)
Posted on: 20 September 2009 by mikeeschman
Sorry for the postscript, but I had to add this.

I would like to include Brahms in the 20th century mix. We can discuss why if this is an acceptable topic :-)
Posted on: 20 September 2009 by Geoff P
I have been working my way through quite a selection of Stravinsky. Starting with what I had already, Ansermet / Swiss Orch's rendition of
The Soldier's Tale and Symphony in three movements. Also a slection played by Dorati / LSO including Song of the Nightingale and Fireworks also Tango.

Add to this newly delivered pieces including more of the larger compositions such as The rites of Spring and The Firebird and more to follow.

I was not completely unaware of Stravinsky since segements of his compositions are frequently transmitted over the air waves, but listening to complete composition is interesting.

Lets take for example Symphony in three movements which has a bland title that conjures up the typical idea that you are about to listen to a large sweeping work with stated themes which are repeated and developed throughtout the movements in a steady progression. That is not at all what you get. You get surprise after surprise. There is continous invention and novelty to the combinations of instruments used as it all moves forward. It is not music you lie in and let wash over you. It has a lurking sense of fun as you are kept wondering what is coming next.

There is no way you fall asleep to Stravinsky...but at the same time it doesn't wear you out in anyway. It is very attractive to listen to.

regards
geoff
Posted on: 20 September 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by Geoff P:
Lets take for example Symphony in three movements

You get surprise after surprise. There is continuous invention and novelty to the combination of instruments used

It is not music you lie in and let wash over you. It has a lurking sense of fun as you are kept wondering what is coming next.

There is no way you fall asleep to Stravinsky...but at the same time it doesn't wear you out in anyway. It is very attractive to listen to.

regards
geoff


Very nicely put :-)

I am taken with the sense of completeness that Stravinsky's works possess. You go on a long journey and end with a nice sense of resolution, excepting Petrushka, which ends on a question.

Just as is true in literature, stories that end with a satisfying resolution get revisited time and again.

In this regard, I feel Stravinsky is on a par with Bach and Beethoven. All three marvelous story tellers.

More music to listen to again and again ...

On second thought maybe not always. Sometimes he just convinces you it's time to stop :-)

Stravinsky is perplexing, but there is no denying I love it.
Posted on: 20 September 2009 by paulr0414
By chance it was Petrushka (1947 version, Rattle & CBSO) that I reached for when this started.

I haven't listed to it for years. One can almost see the dance unfold before you. Mike have you ever played this piece at a full performance?
Regards,
Posted on: 21 September 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by paulr0414:
Mike have you ever played this piece at a full performance?
Regards,


No, but I spent a good bit of time working on the excerpts.
Posted on: 21 September 2009 by Geoff P
quote:
No, but I spent a good bit of time working on the excerpts.
...there is so much going on in any of the compositions it seems to me each excerpt must seem like a different piece of music.

One of things that is impressive to me is the way Stravinsky buids a set of widly varying orchestral tableaux together so that it all seems a natural progression. It would be very easy for it to turn into a disorganised thing of bits and pieces but it never does.

regards
geoff
Posted on: 21 September 2009 by mikeeschman
Geoff P, you are right about Stravinsky's use of instruments. I think he may be the greatest orchestrator that ever lived.

You are constantly presented with combinations never before heard. And the lines written for instruments fit so well, you wonder why no one did it that way before.
Posted on: 23 September 2009 by mudwolf
The best are the masters for what they do, he was a true master of complicated music of 20th C music. Lots of "new " things I hear turn to mush or seem to have lots of that color, but go nowhere. And I do listen to a lot of new pieces.

I just got my system up after a month packed up and it sounds wonderful, I"ll have to dig out some Stravinsky. But today is just to warm for complicated stuff. Computer says 98 downtown but there is a breeze. I've received my new rugs and getting them in place is hard work as the kit was this AM when it was cooler.

Maybe tomorrow morning I'll put on The Rakes Progress before I head south to my parents. Haven't heard that in over a year.
Posted on: 23 September 2009 by mikeeschman
I had hoped someone would expound on the virtues of Schoenberg, or George would discuss Sibelius.

Don't understand why this music is less appealing than Bach. It is the record of the first fifty years of my life, and that accounts for a lot of the attraction. But much of it is possessed with the genuine musical feeling that composers such as Bach and Beethoven bring to their music.

Stravinsky is a new voice; a voice straight from the theater with the gift of melody, a genius for orchestration, the organizational skills of a Bach, and an uncanny and unique sense of rhythm.

Pulcinella was heard tonight, highly recommended :-)
Posted on: 23 September 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Mike: in less than three hours I am on a flight to Polamd.

If the thread is is still active when I return, I do have a few thoughts on Sibelius in the context of the music of of Stravinsky and Schoenberg.

But I am away and away from the net for a week plus ...

ATB from George
Posted on: 24 September 2009 by Geoff P
quote:
he was a true master of complicated music of 20th C music. Lots of "new " things I hear turn to mush or seem to have lots of that color, but go nowhere
Wolf...Indeed so. I am struck by the clarity, no matter how complex the interplay,

Reading off the notes on an LP Erik satie was quoted as saying "one of the characteristics of Stravinsky's music is the transparency of its sound. He never orchestrates mushily...carefully skirting the fog that wrecks as many musicians as it does mariners." which I think puts it perfectly.

regards
Geoff
Posted on: 24 September 2009 by mikeeschman
I am turning 60 this December, so I am a creature of the 20th century. It is very important to me to make some sense of my life. Music has been a part of my life for 47 years. If I can make some sense of that, it's all to the good.

If you were 30, you might think Stravinsky wouldn't be a big deal in the 1960s. You would be wrong. Stravinsky accumulated the audience he has today in the 1950s and 60s, thanks to TV and the long playing record. When I was in high school, Stravinsky was fresh.

Does anyone else on this forum feel that way?

OK, so, how do you feel about it?
Posted on: 25 September 2009 by yeti42
Mike, this has been mentioned before in another thread but have you come across Alex Ross' book "the rest is noise" it even has it's own web site.

As for Stravinsky, I fell asleep during the Rite at the BBC proms the other year but I blame the heat in the Albert Hall, I enjoy it on record (Boulez) but "The Rakes Progress" left me unmoved when I saw it in Paris last year but with the prospect of Parsifal the day after that was no great surprise.

Among my recent purchases from the local charity shop was an LP of Peter Warlock's "The Curlew" (Ian partridge etal) Transfixingly beautiful in it's bleakness. In fact I've just put it on the Naim spotify playlist(4 tracks).
Posted on: 25 September 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by yeti42:
Mike, have you come across Alex Ross' book "the rest is noise"


That book discusses aspects of the 20th century I'd rather work out for myself. After all, I was there ...

In my 20s, I could have slept through Stravinsky, but not now :-)
Posted on: 25 September 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by munch:
Mike,
Why was music not part of your life until the age of 13 ?
Stu


We had no stereo till I bought one from money I made delivering newspapers, and I started playing trumpet that year too.

So the stereo and the trumpet entered my life at the same time.