Talk:20th century classical music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject contemporary music, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary music subjects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
20th century classical music is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.


Contents

[edit] Snobbery?

No John Williams? No Bernard Hermann? No Ennio Morriconi? What snobbery is this? The BULK of classical music composed in the 20th Century was composed for film, and that will only become more true in the 21st century. I'm really tired of classical literature on the 20th Century completely ignoring the great classical tradition film composers. The next step in the great tradition of Opera and Theater music is film scores. Why don't more people acknowledge that? Why do we list all these pretentious no-name, never-played and never-heard composers but not list the film composers? Ehh?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.68.87 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 20th century vs Contemporary

For some of my rambling as to why this is here rather than at contemporary music, see Talk:Contemporary music --Camembert

In 100 years, "contemporary music" will refer to the music of 2055-2105, while 20th Century Classical Music will still refer to essentially the same period of time. Torc2 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romantic music section

I know the "Romantic style" section I've added is woefully inadequate: most well known 20th century composers developed Romantic style in some way, and the music that resulted is extraordinarily diverse, but I thought it needed something on slightly more "conventional" music, so I stuck it in as being better than nothing.

Incidentally, I don't think we should go into too much detail on anything here - just have it as a summary of everything (well, as close to everything as we can manage) that went on, with a paragraph or so on each strand, an attempt to tie it in with, or compare it to, other 20th century styles if possible, and then a link to a page specifically on that strand (twelve-tone technique, electronic music, neo-classicism, whatever) - I think I've probbaly written too much on electronic music here in this regard. Could become an interesting page as it grows. --Camembert

[edit] Vangelis

I would like to see some kind of citation in the literature on neoclassicism in which Vangelis is regarded as a `new wonder of neo-classicism'--or mentioned at all.

[edit] Film music

Perhaps I'm alone with this opinion, but didn't classical music (among other routes) branch out into film music as well? It seems worthwhile enough to mention. Especially since several high-profile composers have done a fair bit of film composing. --Steerpike 21:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glass romance

Stirling Newberry, the number of people who consider Philip Glass' music completely romantic is probably small. One example of a comparison: Susan McClary explains (in Conventional Wisdom and “Rap, Minimalism, and Structures of Time”) how Glass uses conventional Romantic tonality, harmonies, and melodic figures, but places them in harmonic successions and repetitions that frustrate conventional expectations. Hyacinth 18:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Glass doesn't use extended tonality or any of the other topoi of late 19th century harmony. Instead, he is, in his taste in figuration, a neoclassicist - getting down to the smallest units of triadic harmony. This isn't necessarily a criticism, Milhaud and Beethoven (and some would say Newberry) are the same way. Stirling Newberry 13:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Accessible

This is a loaded word, could we perhaps use another in relation to 20th century Romanticism? Also see my "Romanticism in the 20th century" section in [romantic music] Stirling Newberry 15:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We just need to de-mystify "accessible". Who says it, and what do they mean? Hyacinth 20:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] organization

In a subject such as this one, where time has not had a chance to really order everything, I'm going to start pushing things into some broad catagories, rather than having every individual get his own sub heading.

  • Late Romantic and Post-Romantic - covering the last decade of the "romantic" era in music, and those composers working in whole or in part in this tradition. Also here should be jazz influenced music, since jazz uses a primarily impressionist harmonic vocabulary.
  • Modernism - Neoclassicism and Atonality as the "main line" of musical modernism, with room for experimental music, including electronic music and microtonality as well as other attempts at a "new music".
  • Post-Modernism - Minimalism and its descendants, later modern works, electronic music "after building the synth is no longer the primary creative act" and the gradual break down of the modern consensus on progress in art.

Thoughts?

Stirling Newberry 22:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good additions. Just one flyspeck that I took out I think is worth mentioning: Stravinsky as a "twelve-tone" serialist. My understanding is that Stravinsky liked to use row-lengths other than 12 (Cantata uses a 14-note row in one section, In Memoriam Dylan Thomas uses either a 5- or 6- note row, can't remember which, and there are others). It might be worth writing up in detail in the Stravinsky article (adding to to-do list....) Antandrus 04:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Stravinsky's twelve tone technique was, viewed through Schoenberg's precise rules for twelve tone composition, eccentric. He began by using rows of less than 12 pitch classes. In Memoriam Dylan Thomas uses a five pitch row. He also sometimes used the diagonals of matrixes. Hyacinth 04:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Modernism template

I've added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Neoclassicism section with Neoclassicism (music)

It seems a bit strange to me to have a pile of information on 20th-century neoclassical music, and to also have much of the same information over at Neoclassicism (music). Any chance we could merge the two, and either cross-link, or embed that page here? (unsigned comment left by User:TimNelson

Normally an article like this would have a general description of its subtopics with a link or links to the more detailed treatments of those subtopics. In this case, it appears to me that Neoclassicism (music) is a bit underdeveloped and could use some more detail. Finding the exact amount of detail to put into the more general article can be tricky, but feel free to work on either one. Antandrus (talk) 9 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
Ok, I've merged the stuff from 20th century classical into the Neoclassical (music) page. It was mostly a matter of using all paragraphs, and arranging them in the right order. I also put the link at the top of Neoclassicism. TimNelson 14:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson

Removed this paragraph:

Composer and singer Michael Jackson used to be heavily engaged in creating unique timbres, most of which were conceived electronically in accordance to sound he imagined at the time when a new piece of music "came" to him in full details. He considers the task of implementing the sound that comes to his "head" in the record as very hard problem, including because of complexity of controlling the multiple parameters of electronic technique that would allow find exact timbre, satisfying truthfullness of his artistic self-expression.

This hardly strikes me as a key event of 20th-century music. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not the goal of Wikipedia to strike any person with anything. The excerpt that You removed belonged to "electronic music" part of the article, and Jackson is the biggest selling electronic music seller. Also, Jackson composes music for the grand symphonic orchestra, his works are influenced by many styles, including neoclassism, symbolism/impressionism, polystylism, and postmodern music. Believe me, Jackson has more relation to classic music than some other names, cited in "electronic music" section of this article. The event of Jackson is objectively an acme of influence of classical and electronic music on mass culture -- International Federation of Phonographic Industry through World Music Awards gave him Artist of Millennium award for being the biggest selling artist of all time. The excerpt will be added again. (talk) 20 December 2005\

17 January 2006 I have removed this paragraph since I don't believe it is the purpose of this page (20th Century Classical) to outline the influences of current well known pop musicians regardless of what other classical related endeavours they may have, unless these endeavours constitute a significant contribution to the field of "20th Century Classical" which so far as I am aware, MJ's contrubitions to "20th Century Classical" aren't significant within the Classical canon. I'm sure if we looked into the influences of most pop music writers, there would be some or even many classical influences. Listing these is, however, not the endeavour of this page and such examinations should be added to the page of the pop writer him/herself.

[edit] Question

Where can I find a list of nowday composers? Melbrooks

Here's a place to start looking: [1] —Wahoofive (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Also List of 20th century classical composers. Hyacinth 08:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about dates

In the box near the top right-hand corner of the article, entitled, "History of classical music", it is claimed that the "20th century classical" era spanned from 1900-2000. However, according to Wikipedia itself, "The twentieth century of the Anno Domini era began on January 1, 1901 and ended on December 31, 2000". It is a known fact that the first year of the 19th century was 1901, and the first of the 20th 2001, contrary to popular or widespread belief. Therefore in the box, the 1900 following "20th century classical" should be changed to 1901, as the year 1900 was in fact not part of the 20th century, and therefore not part of the 20th century clasical music era.

[edit] AfD bait

Can this article be saved? I have never seen so many [citation needed] tags in my life! I suggest that many of these sections must simply be deleted, as they read like essays, and often have no basis in fact. --S.dedalus 05:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in no way qualifies for deletion.
In what way do sections read like essays? What are some examples of claims which have "no basis in fact"?
Hyacinth 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The article does not site its sources. There are many instances of original research. For instance, what is the source for listing Colin McPhee, and Aaron Copland as being influenced by romanticism? What is the source for the statement: “Schoenberg's music and that of his followers was very controversial in its day, and remains so to some degree now.[citation needed] Many listeners found, and still find, his music hard to follow, lacking a sense of definite melody or aesthetic meaningfulness.[citation needed]” Sounds like weasel words to me. All in all this is written like an essay in that it presents many opinions and few verified facts. I belive this could use a rewrite, and I would do it myself if I had the time. --S.dedalus 05:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources needed

There are far to many template:fact tags in this article. One could have spent as much time verifying some of the claims as picking out near common knowledge, such as that Schoenberg was a fan of romanticism. Hyacinth 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the tags, but “near common knowledge” is not good enough on Wikipedia. --S.dedalus 05:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titling and splitting suggestions

Having a single article on 20th century music seems kind of overbroad to me. I mean, we know we're going to have to give high-level overviews of the many subgenres, which will each have their own detailed articles, but even as a whole, 20th century classical music fractures pretty easily into pre-WWII and post-WWII, with only a few straddlers. Most contemporary music classes I've seen specify Early 20th Century Music as one course, and Music Since 1945 as the second course. How do people feel about doing that? Including the transition between Late Romantic chromaticism into Twelve Tone, as well as discussions of Impressionism, Expressionism, Modernism, Jazz influence, Neo-Classical, etc. for that article, and picking up with total Serialism, electronic music, Cage, Xenakis, Minimalism, Spectralism, Pop influence, etc. for the second course, ending probably with John Adams or thereabouts (and later could make a 'Current trends in Classical Music' or some kind of article like that. I just feel like we're trying to take too big a bite with one article for the entire 20th century. Any opinions? Torc2 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Something along these lines is actually already underway, with the article Contemporary classical music, which at the moment postulates a sea-change at about the year 1975. Your suggestion of splitting the century down the middle is in effect an alternative proposal—or else, a proposal to divide the 20th century into three unequal parts, at about 1945 and 1975, if the present "Contemporary classical music" article is to be kept. It is true that earlier periods of music history are not treated on Wikipedia in quite such an arbitrary, calendar-based manner. For a long while the excuse for a blanket "20th century" category was that we were still living in that century, and so it was too early to discern stylistic boundaries. Perhaps this position is changing but, to judge from the textbook situation, it has not done so yet.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the 1945 date wasn't arbitrarily picked. I've seen several books that choose that year, not just because of WWII, but also due to the changes in recording technology and electronic synthesis that came within a few years of then. I really haven't seen anything published that picks 1975 as a watershed year. (In popular music, maybe, but not in art music.) What are the arguments in favor of for picking that year? Torc2 (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There is already a fairly long discussion about this at Talk:Contemporary_classical_music#1975_or_What_Is_Contemporary.3F, which I will not recapitulate here. Suffice to say that I personally find that year arbitrary, whereas a much better case could be made for 1968.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Having read that, I'm not really convinced 1968 is a better year. It saw some significant development, but not the kind of revolution in technology, aesthetic, and philosophy that accompanied the end of WWII. Torc2 (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we split music history into century sized chunks? Hyacinth (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because it's aesthetically and philosophically awkward. Culture doesn't pin itself to neat round numbers, so I don't really see a reason for us to force it into those evenly-divided chunks. I guess I could change the question around and ask: What about the music itself would make you want to put dividing lines at 1900 and 2000? The classical music (well, most of it) of 1925-1935 has far more in common with the classical music from 1860-80 than it does with classical music from 1955-75. Torc2 (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the older practice was to use the First World War as the dividing line. This makes sense in terms of the rise of twelve-tone technique, neo-classicism, and jazz influence. However, more recent revisionist music historians have pointed to deeper undercurrents present in the music of (for example) Skryabin, Reger, Mahler Debussy and Busoni that make an earlier watershed more plausible. Indeed, some would push the line back to the 1860s or even earlier. I don't think I can accept the assertion that art music of 1925–35 has more in common with the music of 1860–80 than it has with that of 1955–75, unless you are going to make very narrow selections, such as the music of Elgar and Richard Strauss as representatives of 1925–35, and Cage and Cornelius Cardew for 1955–75. If instead you choose Satie, Webern, and Milhaud for the former and Shostakovich, Babbitt, and Leonard Bernstein for the latter, you get quite a different result. One of the most interesting things about music from right through the 20th century is its extreme diversity. This is a considerable obstacle to categorizing all or parts of it into (a) stylistic pigeonhole(s).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
True, the abandonment of tonality is a watershed event, but that's where we get back to the practical aspect of this. There's not much use in creating an article for post-Romanticism through the rise of twelve tone music, since it's such a short period. Certainly no date is going to represent a total schism, prototypical and prescient works are going to be found decades earlier, and some important composers are going to work in an older style well after newer ones have come into fashion. There's a certain amount of haphazardness with any date, but at least 1945 is supported as a good divisional point by a few secondary sources, and is clearly an important date to history, society, and culture as a whole. What sources support 1968, or recent works support a 1900-1915 and 1915-2000 division?
Also, when I compared the periods in music, I meant to look at the major schools of thought that appear. Sure, the Twelve Tone, Impressionism, Expressionism, and Neoclassical schools of thought are distinct from Romanticism, but they're all still much closer to that than they are to later movements such as Musique Concrete and electronic music, Fluxism, (arguably) Minimalism, and so on. Torc2 (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I mentioned the (spurious) concept of "the abandonment of tonality". In fact, my reference to "extreme diversity" was intended to include such "tonal" developments as the jazz-influenced styles of Milhaud and Bernstein, and the "extended tonal" language of Shostakovich. It sounds to me like you are trying too hard to think in terms of a linear historical development called "progress", whereas the reality of the 20th century is pluralistic. I do tend to agree with you, though, that 1945 represents a major shift in European (at least) music. As to the fundamental societal upheavals (and associated musical changes in composers as diverse as John Cage, György Ligeti, and Karlheinz Stockhausen, not to mention the rise at about that same time of new movements such as the New Simplicity, Minimalism and, slightly later, Spectralism), this seems too obvious to require documentation in a discussion like this, though of course any Wikipedia article would demand it be done.
Mixing up techniques such as musique concrète and electronic music with stylistic concepts such as impressionism, neoclassicism, and minimalism, not to mention spurious concepts such as "fluxism" (I presume this is intended as a reference to the Fluxus group) is not going to help here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table format? (discuss)

Since 20 August 2007, this article has carried a tag stating that a suggestion had been made to convert the article into table format. I see no such suggestion or discussion here on the Talk page, and the proposal seems preposterous to me. The article has many faults—it is rambling, unreferenced, and unbalanced—but I fail to see how the substance could be addressed in a table. Before deleting the tag, however (which I assume was placed there in good faith), I would like to give other editors the chance to comment.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... but we over at WPCM should really start the rewriting process. One cleanup starts I'm hoping prose will be sufficient, just as it is over at classical period (music) and romantic music. SingCal 00:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calls for verification

Using this as an example, I guess I have a philosophical difference with you. Why do we need "fact" tags on things which are widely known? There's nothing whatsoever controversial about Schoenberg using a free atonal style prior to developing the 12-tone method; Stravinsky adopting a serial method after the death of Schoenberg; or the development of "total serialism" after the Second World War. When you cite everything the article becomes a clutter of dozens to hundreds of footnotes; I think it's best to cite only the things that might be challenged, or are less obvious. These three examples can be found in any competent general history of music. Any other opinions on this? Antandrus (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Widely known" is not an acceptable Wikipedia standard—certainly not for something like "Stravinsky adopting a serial method after the death of Schoenberg" which, if it can as you say "be found in any competent general history of music", should be no problem to cite from one. The call for verification of "the development of 'total serialism' after the Second World War" was meant to refer specifically to the derivation from twelve-tone technique, which is not as "widely known" as many textbooks would have it. As it happens, the "parametrization" of music (in Europe, as opposed to the USA) is more usually attributed to Messiaen's "Mode de valeurs et d'intensités", which is not a twelve-tone composition in any sense of the term.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know it shouldn't be hard to find cites for things like this, but how does it help? Do you think these widely-known facts are likely to be challenged? See WP:V on citing: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Seriously? Are you challenging these statements? I think we need to set a slightly higher standard for what gets an inline cite or else cites will start to appear two-per-sentence in everything we write! Maybe this needs to be on the Village Pump or somewhere more central, because I think it's a big issue. A while back we had another editor who was insisting on a cite that Beethoven's 5th Symphony was in C Minor, since the key is not in the title, and he claimed that looking at the score was prohibited Original Research. Does adding lots of "fact" tags to an article really help it? I can see adding "fact" tags if you are questioning statements about Stravinsky's exact use of row rotation in the Requiem Canticles, or the exact inspiration for Canticum Sacrum, or the sections within Agon in which he first experimented with his individual "rows" -- but basic facts? See Wikipedia:When to cite: When a source may not be needed: subject-specific common knowledge. As I said, this may be a philosophical difference between editors here, but I think fact tags need to be rationed just a bit more carefully. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you ask, yes, I do mean to challenge at least some of these statements. I have already given one example, which is the supposed derivation of serialism from twelve-tone technique. This is not so much an incorrect statement as a gross oversimplification but, without knowing who exactly I am meant to be answering, and without being able to verify that the editor who inserted it didn't inadvertently distort the meaning, I am floundering around in the dark. Things that "everybody knows" often turn out to be flat wrong, as well, which makes me skeptical about a lot of common knowledge.
The other factor here is that this article has (quite rightly, in my view) been tagged with three banners at the top, and two more on the "Post-modernist music" section for missing citations, need of cleanup, call for expert input, and possible violation of WP:NOR. I hope that I qualify as an expert on at least some portions of this vast subject, and have been trying to improve the article as best I can. It seems to me that the first thing needed is to identify specific statements that need references, and I inserted some of these flags as much for my own reference as for the benefit of other editors who may find citations before I can. That said, in many cases here it is probable that a single source can be found that will cover two or more challenged claims in a single paragraph. I am as wary as you are of the "two-cites-per-sentence" syndrome but, having recently gotten the Karlheinz Stockhausen article passed in a Good Article review, I have perhaps a heightened sensitivity to the current rigour of Wikipedia citation standards.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)