Talk:Neoclassicism (music)

Table

Stravinsky and Craft (1968) give the following table of thirteen differences [TABLE INCOMPLETE]:

Stravinsky	Schoenberg
Reaction against "German music" or "German romanticism." No "Sehnsucht," no "ausdrucksvoll."	"Today I have discovered something which will assure the supremacy of German music for the hundred years." Schoenberg, July 1921.
Fox (eclectic and abundant variety). (Aron)	Hedgehog. (Moses)
"Music is powerless to express anything at all."	"Music expresses all that dwells in us..."
Chief production is of ballets	"Ballet is not a musical form"
Learns from others, a lifelong need for constant outside nourishment and a constant confluence with new influences. Never a teacher. No writing about musical theory.	An autodidact. After the early works, no influence from other composers. Also a teacher. Large amount of writing on musical theory. His philosophy of teaching is "Genius learns only from itself; talent from others. Genius learns from its own nature; talent from art."

[TABLE INCOMPLETE]

Which they then describe as, "A parlour game, no more, and in any case the parallelisms are more intersting. For example:

1. The common belief in Divine Authority, the Hebrew God and Biblical mythology, Catholic culture.
2. The success obstacle of the first pieces, Verklärte Nacht and The Firebird, which remained the most popular of all our works, all our lives and after.
3. The common exile to the same alien culture, in which we wrote some of our best works (his Fourth Quartet, my Abraham and Isaac) and in which we are still played far less than in the Europe that exiled us.
4. Both family men and fathers of several children, both hypochondriac, both deeply superstitious.
5. For both of us, numbers are things.
6. Both of us were devoted to The Word, and each wrote some of his own librettos (Moses und Aron, Die glückliche Hand, Jacobsleiter, Les Noces, Renard).
7. Each of us composed for concrete sounds, unlike the later Webern, in which choice of sound is a final stage.
8. For both of us, the row is thematic and we are ultimately less interested in the construction of the row, per se, than is Webern.

Is there an appropriate space for this (neoclassicism, expressionism, modern music, 20th century music, Stravinsky, or Schoenberg article)? Hyacinth 04:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

more recent use

This article describes a particular genre known as "neoclassical", mostly in the early 20th century and situated within the concert-music tradition. There's another, more recent genre also known as "neoclassical", starting mainly since the 1990s and situated in a non-academic tradition, related in some ways to neofolk, post-industrial, martial, and dark ambient music. This newer genre is neoclassical in that it uses might be called classical orchestration—cellos, violins, pianos, etc., rather than electric guitars or synthesizers—has an orchestral rather than a song sort of feel, and also has a strong sense of neoclassicism in subject matter and aesthetic. Examples include HERR, A Challenge of Honour, Arditi, Triarii, Dernière Volonté, etc. How should this be resolved? Should we have a separate article, and if so what should be the disambiguator? I must confess I have no good ?? to make a new Neoclassicism (??) with. --Delirium 08:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a new article should be made for this other musical genre, since they clearly are different. How about using Neoclassical_(music) for that one? Then there can be crosslinks on top of both the articles in the same was as on Neoclassicism. What do you think about this? /Goblim 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a move, but there is a softer solution that would have pretty much the same result: just edit the crosslink template Template:Classicism to do [[Neoclassicism (music)|Neoclassical music]] instead. - Rainwarrior 19:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Neoclassicist composers?

Since when are Copland, Harris, Shostakovich, Britten, Holst and Rachmaninov neoclassical? Also, the case for Busoni is tenuous at best- just because they harkened back to music of the past doesn't mean its classical; Busoni used baroque and romantic themes in direct opposition to classical ideas. I advocate highly trimming the list because not every non-serialist composer was a neoclassicist.Anderfreude 03:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed this article lacks proper citations for many of the "weasel word" claims that are made. I believe that one of the first times that the term "Neo-classical" was used by a music critic in a non-derogatory context in order to describe musical style was a review of the Paris premiere of Stravinsky's Symphonies of Psalms. A proper citation can probably be found in one of Taruskin's books - possibly the Weiss/Taruskin compliation of source texts "Music in the Western World". Can't remember the critic's name offhand and don't have those books with me. Someone should look that up.

Nonetheless, there had been some experimentation with neo-classical ideas in the decade before Stravinsky's Symphonies and Pulcinella. A very good early example would be the Charles Koechlin 5 Sonatines (for piano) from 1915, although this is one that tends to get overlooked.

Nonetheless, some cleanup of this article is probably in order..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.166.115.28 (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Many of the composers on the list aren't even called neoclassicists on their own Wiki pages, and I've never seen Copland or Holst ever called neoclassicists. I'm going to take those off of the list that clearly aren't; neoclassical isn't a catch-all for all non-serialist composers of the 20th century. 198.178.132.253 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm. It is hard to call any composer Neoclassical, IMO. Stravinsky and Prokoviev were only "Neoclassical" for a relatively short time (and are probably the only composers to whom the term can be applied with impunity); Hindemith, Poulenc and Milhaud used Classical Period elements in many works but then also used Jazz, Folk, etc and these often in the same works; Bartok dabbled in Classical Period form and style at times as did Shostakovich and many others but calling them or works of theirs "Neoclassical" is not always correct nor even verifiable. Reliable Sources are the only way to resolve this, hence I support the above removal, i.e. this, though I am not so sure about adding Norman Dello Joio since his article makes no mention of the term, either, and he would perhaps be better described as a Polystylist or Eclecticist. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 21:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that composers are not neoclassicists—only their works may be judged, one by one, to be neoclassical. I don't think it should be difficult to find a source that classes some works by (for example) Copland, under this rubric. However, it should also be kept in mind that the term is frequently regarded as a misnomer for "neobaroque"—a contradiction that is easily resolved by considering that the term was in origin French, and the French use the word "classique" to refer to music of the eras that in English sources are usually divided into Baroque and Classical periods. In any case, I, too, support the deletion of these names, until and unless proper sources can be found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would add that at least one of Holst's works that I can think of off-hand could be called neoclassical in the sense Jerome Kohl has given above: the Fugal Concerto of 1923, which is certainly neo-Baroque in style - almost pastiche except for some characteristic games with metre, and a very 20th-century (Holstian) bleakness in the central slow movement. But then Holst enjoyed writing 'in the style of' from time to time - witness his stylistic homage to English Renaissance style in his Nunc dimittis - and he never really made it a trend, let alone something that could be called a 'period', in his compositional style.

On a slightly different point, I think more could be said about how Diaghilev (rather than Stravinsky) was responsible for starting the fashion for neoclassicism in music by getting not only Stravinsky, but also Respighi and others, to cannibalise works of past masters; and it *was* a fashion - witness Poulenc, who adored Stravinsky, following in his mentor's footsteps in Concert champetre and the Organ Concerto; or the works of contemporary though lesser-known composers such as Rieti. Alfietucker (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly agree more, save only perhaps for giving Diaghilev credit for starting the fashion. Many composers within the Parisian milieu had developed a taste for le style ancien long before Diaghilev arrived there. For example, George Enescu composed his first Piano Suite in 1897. The present lede does refer to a number of earlier examples (as far back as Liszt), but the particularly French emphasis might be developed further (and by all means let us give Diaghilev more credit than he presently has!). As usual, the problem is not the truth of all this, but the verifiability. Can sources be all that difficult to find, though? Alfietucker has been doing a yeoman's job in this department lately, in the article on Stravinsky. Perhaps we can all emulate him and make some real progress here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Strauss has several "neoclassical" moments of the Baroque variety. As a minimum we need to add his "Le bourgeois gentilhomme, Op. 60, is an orchestral suite written by Richard Strauss between 1911 and 1917" from Le bourgeois gentilhomme. I have therefore added it to the text (following the other page I have used the French title - maybe the German is better?Byronmercury (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly a good point (one thinks also of Rosenkavalier, naturally), but I have tagged the new text with a request for a source. The time frame makes the tag "neoclassical" nearly plausible (though not if Stravinsky initiated the style in about 1919–21) but, since a distinction can be made between "historicism" in the Romantic tradition (Bruckner's modal "church" style, or the work of many composers in the Cecilian movement, for example) and "neoclassicism" in the 20th-century anti-Romantic sense, a reliable source identifying Strauss's work as specifically "neoclassical" is needed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I shall check out a few reliable for this and get back in due course.Byronmercury (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged. This should set the cat amongst the pigeons, since Stravinsky was especially keen on avoiding anything that Strauss stood for, and was not shy about saying so. I shall see if I cannot find a Stravinsky quotation explaining how he came to neoclassicism as a way of repudiating Strauss.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

After some searching, the best I could come up with from the academic literature was Ross's chapter which I put in the sources section, where on page 207 he talks about Strauss's "putative neoclassicism". However, poeple are making a direct comparison of Pulcinella with the Strauss piece(see for example allmusic review]. Of course, Stravinsky had few good things to say about Strauss and so tended to exaggerate their differences. However, as Ross explains, "In a roundabout fashion, Strauss helped guide Stravinsky towards his neo-baroque and neo-classical writing of the 1920s and after". However, my search in the literature is not over: it is not helped by the fact that music books only have name indexes,so you cannot just look up "neoclassical"! However, if you read what I wrote, I did not describe Srauss as "neoclassical", but just made the point that he had started integrating classical and baroque elements at about the same time as Stravinsky developed the neoclassical style. Differences still remained: for example, most of Strauss remains programmatic (being opera related) whereas neoclassicism became more absolute. The only non-programmatic exceptions for Strauss are his three instrumental concerti which he wrote over 20 years later. Byronmercury (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand me: I applaud this direction of inquiry. Stravinsky indeed was very defensive on the issue of originality, as many other 20th-century composers have been. However, issues of style and periodization are usually debated by critics and musicologists, rather than composers, and while it is always interesting to have the composers' own views ("I do not write atonal music"—Schoenberg; "I am not a minimalist"—Steve Reich; "I am not a minimalist"—Philip Glass; "I am not a minimalist"—John Adams), they are hardly the last word on the subject. Personally, I am suspicious of pigeon-holing, even while recognizing that there is often value in attempting such categorizing, but it is always interesting to watch the combatants sparring in the ring and evaluate the skills of both winners and losers (when there are any). For the time being, I have moved Ross's article to "Further reading", but of course it should go back into "Sources" as soon as you are ready to cite him in the text. Do carry on.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes: do you really consider Strauss's Second Horn Concerto and Oboe Concerto (I cannot think at the moment what that third concerto might be) to be neoclassical? Personally, I have always regarded both as solidly neoromantic, and detect no pseudo-Bach elements in either one. However, I am a mere editor and, as always, will bow to the opinions expressed in reliable sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

apologies: you are of course the expert authority here. I am merely putting in my opinion. If you think that what I have said is not accurate notwithstanding Ross, I would be happy to have had this worthwhile discussion with you and withdraw the sentence on Strauss. The third concerto was for Bassoon and Clarinet. No Bach for sure, but Mozart perhaps? Anyway, I never at any time had the intention of mentioning late Strauss in the context of the neoclassicism article. I will leave the final decision to you and would be happy for you to make the final edit.Byronmercury (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No apologies are called for, so I decline to accept yours ;-) What you put into the article is, as far as I can tell without actually looking up the passage in Ross's essay, perfectly defensable. What we say on talk pages is not subject to the requirement of reliable sources, which is a good thing since productive lines of inquiry need to be facilitated somewhere. From such speculations and suggestions, we can start looking for those sources that are needed for the article itself.

I had forgotten about the Double Concerto, and indeed I think I have only ever heard it once (a little embarrassing for an ex-clarinetist and ex-bassoonist to admit). That was so many years ago, that I cannot now recall a single thing about it. I shall have to make its acquaintance again, now that you have reminded me of it. Keep in mind, though, that influence from a composer or composers of the Baroque or Classical eras is not the same thing as neoclassicism. The Second Horn Concerto, for example (and to choose a work that I actually know), does not employ either unequivocal thematic/textural elements or the ritornello form of the Baroque concerto (or formal traits of the Mozartean concerto, apart from a very general employment of modified sonata-allegro and rondo forms). If this were enough to label it "neoclassic", then the Tchaikovsky and Brahms Violin Concertos are, too. Contrast this, for example, with the Viola Concerto from Hindemith's Kammermusiken, which instantly evokes Bach's Sixth Brandenburg before even getting past the first bar.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

as an ex-violin/viola player I am of course a great fan of Hindemith. Your point is well taken. There is a definite intention by Strauss in include explicit Baroque elements in the BGH suite because of its setting (ditto Ariadne auf Naxos). The late concertos: well, I think that the oboe and double concerto are "classical" in style and phrasing, although the chromaticism is as you say romantic. But, it is very different from his "real time" romantic period in the early/mid 1880s: the two symphonies, the violin and first horn concerto. I think that the influence of Mozart was much stronger on the elder Strauss: he had spent his professional life as a conductor with Mozart and it had a profound effect on the way he wrote music later on in life. See how you find his double concertoByronmercury (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to re-emphasize that "influence of Mozart" is quite a different thing from "neoclassicism". One of the problems with such stylistic pigeonholes is establishing where are the limits on the one hand, and the necessary elements on the other. Just last night I was listening (for the the first time in many years) to Falla's neoclassical Harpsichord Concerto, and a leading feature of it struck me as being a frequent component of neoclassical style: the use of major/minor triads and their extensions. A reliable source for this association would have to be found, of course, but it occurred to me in that moment of recognition that Strauss famously used this harmonic device at the end of Also sprach Zarathustra (certainly not a neoclassical work!). So, even if major/minor sonorities were to be regarded as a necessary component of neoclassicism, their presence would not be sufficient for defining the style (or aesthetic position, or whatever).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick check. Another noeclassical possible from Dr Strauss. His 1923 Tanzsuite aus Klavierstücken von François Couperin, TrV 245. This was written for a ballet based quite closely on the keyboard pieces of Couperin. There is also the 1943 Divertimento also based on Couperin Byronmercury (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC).

I guess the suggested revision would be "Richard Strauss also introduced neoclassical elements into his music, most notably in his orchestral suite Le bourgeois gentilhomme Op. 60, written in an early version in 1911 and its final version in 1917 (Ross 2010, 207) and his 1923 Tanzsuite aus Klavierstücken von François Couperin, TrV 245."Byronmercury (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

These are two works of which I was unaware. (I have to confess to paying not an awful lot of attention to Strauss, especially his minor works, which I presume these to be.) The most interesting thing has to do with the dates: 1923 and 1943. Unlike Le bourgeois gentilhomme, they are not "early forerunners", but are smack in the middle of the time period with which neoclassicism is identified. The titles alone might be sufficient, but they do sound like they might be arrangements, rather than actual neoclassical compositions. Can you come up with a reliable source that discusses them in sufficient detail to verify their nature?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware too until recently. There is a book "The Ballet Collaborations of Richard Strauss by Wayne Heisler (Rochester Uni Press). If I can get hold of a copy and come up with something will get back. You are probably right about the dates, so probably not something for this page.Byronmercury (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? I think you have misunderstood me. What I meant to say is that, unlike Le bourgeois gentilhomme, these (interrelated) Couperin suites are exactly in the time frame of the main current of neoclassicism. In the meantime, I have found a source that indeed groups these Strauss works with other similar compositions by Casella, Poulenc, and Respighi, regarding them all as offspring of Pulcinella (even though the first set of Respighi's Antiche danze ed arie per liuto predates Pulcinella, and thus would more plausibly be considered a model for Stravinsky's work than the other way around). The question in my mind was whether writers regard such works as neoclassical, in the same sense as the Stravinsky and Martinů concerti grossi, which do not intentionally quote actual 18th-century material. Quite evidently, the sources do so regard the Bearbeitungen—some even going so far as to describe Pulcinella as the founding work of the genre—so I see no reason these others, including Strauss's, should not be included here. There is still the question of Webern's arrangment of the six-part ricercar from Bach's Musical Offering but, never fear, that is in hand also.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

quote from Norman Del Mar in volume 3 of his Strauss epic. He is actually discussing the use of 17th and 18th century music in the opera Die Schweigsame Frau (written in the early 30s): on page 35 "..such passages are clearly descended from Strauss's experimentation in neo-classicism - as well as from his arrangements of Lully and Couperin in the Bourgeois Gentilhomme and the Tanzsuite respectively". In volume 2 page 279 he includes an explicit comparison of Pulcinella with the Tanzsuite. Heisler's 2009 book (page 112): Heisler summarizes his discussion with the observation that "Strauss seems to have made a purposeful attempt to integrate the past and the 1923 present, whereby his Tanzesuite has a special relationship to canonized neoclassicism".Byronmercury (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems perfectly consistent with everything we have developed so far, apart from the connection with Die Schweigsame Frau. If you wish to bolster the facts already presented, by all means go ahead and add these references.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact I have just submitted a Wikipedia page for "Tanzsuite aus Klavierstücken von François Couperin, TrV 245" you might like to have a look at.Byronmercury (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this. I shall give it a glance.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Drafts can be found at Draft:Tanzsuite aus Klavierstücken von François Couperin, TrV 245 and Draft:Divertimento for chamber orchestra after keyboard pieces by Couperin, Opus 86 (Strauss). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Michael. This makes them a lot easier to find!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Schoenberg as a neoclassical composer

The case for including Schoenberg in the list is, in my opinion, very weak. Firstly, yes, he continued adhering to some classical movement forms even while writing serialist works, but this is an incredibly loose definition that would allow the inclusion of countless modernistic composers that shouldn't be on the list. Secondly, Schoenberg himself loathed neoclassicism, as witnessed by the poem Der neue Klassizismus. If he even is to be described as a neo-anything, "neo-romantic" would be a better term, since he viewed his music as a logical extension of German romanticism. Virgil Thomson, who is also found on the list, would be equally better suited for the neo-romantic label, especially since he gave himself this description, as well as clearly separating himself from neo-classical ideas. EdwardTattsyrup 23:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sloppy Definition of Neoclassicism

I have never liked this term at all. Neoclassicism refers to a desired or imagined return to ancient Greece and Rome. It implies harmony, balance, and an ideal of perfection. Check out David: Oath of the Horatii. In 20th Century music, people use it to describe anything old-fashioned, however sentimental or romantic it be. I supposed it is used by those who want atonality, and want to say that this music is not modern, or those who reject atonality. Some, like Hindemith, just wanted to attenuate it. And his return was not to classicism, but to the baroque. His return to tonality didn't really change him that much.

Modern music is classical in its essence. It rejects the sentimental. It strives to abstract concepts of beauty, such 12-tone music. It is very reserved in expression. I could go on here, but won't. Neoclassicism can't be a rejection of modernism because that's what modernism is. Including composers like de Falla shows the sloppiness I am talking about. The list also has "early Stravinsky." This is cute. He was more responsible for the invention modernism than any other composer. Apparently he returned to classicism before he really started modernism. He reacted to himself before he had anything to react to. It reminds me of a play based on the Upanishads I saw on TV once. Someone was having a conversation with his own reincarnation. Nice trick.

Another problem with the list is that it includes all the important composers of the 20th Cent: Prokofiev, Bartók, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Hindemith, Ravel, Britten, Copland. I guess that was just a classical century.

Neoclassicacicm (music) is just a spurious term after all.

Cellorando (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on the article about the term? Hyacinth (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

How about some years?

I'm trying to put together a list of musical periods by year, and there is NO useful information in this article about the years involved. I'm guessing that it started with the first piece mentioned in 1917 and either died away quickly (after the 1920s), slowly (by the end of the 1900s), or is still ongoing. There is no way to really tell in the current version of the article. Since I don't know anything about this type of music, I can't add it myself. The best place would be in the lead paragraph (like most of the better written music articles do) or in the infobox (or both!). Please leave me a note on my talk page once this is updated. Thanks! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 08:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The present lede includes the statement "a 20th century development, particularly popular in the period between the two World Wars".Is this not specific enough for you? Although this could easily be translated to "1918 to 1938", as the article itself makes fairly clear, there were some scattered examples from before the First World War that could plausibly fall under the rubric, and certainly many composers continued to compose neoclassical works after the war as well. I suppose one could say that this continues even today, though it ceased being fashionable after about 1950.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

See also section

The link to neobaroque is obsolete, it leads to an article on architecture. It should be replaced with a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Baroque_music (but I have no idea how to do this :P)

Also, is a link to neoclassical metal really appropriate for this article? The two don't have much in common apart from the name. Mosi10 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That was probably intended as a kind of makeshift "Did you mean ...?" pointer, which I have now replaced by a proper disambiguation hatnote. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

music

what is neoclassicism 2001:4454:19D:6700:3E:6671:EFC5:FCE3 (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

اغاني

اكتب لي اغنية عن الحب 94.109.157.68 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)