My new piece - Symphonic Suite [WIP]

[Serial_Apologist]

You mean this then:

https://soundcloud.com/frederickstocken/lament

Doesn't sound like anything I know from the 19th century.

Sounds like a missing movement from "Peer Gynt" to me....

[Ian]

Oooh! Your Freudian slip is showing! A hundred years ago is the Twentieth Century!

Yes, but Lament was written in the last century.

[Ian]

Sounds like a missing movement from "Peer Gynt" to me....

That's not the same as sounding like Peer Gynt. I don't remember hearing any harmony like that in anything by Grieg. Perhaps you can cite an example.

[Serial_Apologist]

That's not the same as sounding like Peer Gynt. I don't remember hearing any harmony like that in anything by Grieg. Perhaps you can cite an example.

Rather than referencing detail I would cite Stocken's movement as within the same aesthetic as Grieg, though I could well imagine the Norwegian coming up with such harmonies, which would not be out of place for him, or early Sibelius for that matter.

[Flosshilde]

... and anyway all this does beg the rather obvious question ... 'expects to be taken seriously' by whom, exactly?.

By those who take art seriously, of course.

[Ian]

Rather than referencing detail I would cite Stocken's movement as within the same aesthetic as Grieg, though I could well imagine the Norwegian coming up with such harmonies, which would not be out of place for him, or early Sibelius for that matter.

To me, Stocken's harmony sounds more like a Tavener or Part thing. You might be able to imagine Grieg coming up with such harmonies, but the crucial point is - he didn't.

[Flosshilde]

This is rather similar to a Stalinist or fascist aesthetic is it not?

No, it's not.

in other words an aesthetic promulgated in order to control and restrict the imaginations of artists and audiences. ... But this kind of attitude, adopted as a deliberate "retro" pose

I doubt that it was adopted nor promulgated to restrict anyone's imagination (& neither did the artists impose the style on others); nor do I think that the artists concerned saw it as an 'attitude' or a 'pose', but a sincerely held belief that they were bringing art back to its roots. The paintings I've seen wouldn't, I think, be mistaken for paintings of the 19th century; they are of their time.

[Richard Barrett]

a sincerely held belief that they were bringing art back to its roots.

Which (together with the assumptions behind it) is exactly what makes it similar to the totalitarian aesthetics I mentioned.

[Ian]

Which (together with the assumptions behind it) is exactly what makes it similar to the totalitarian aesthetics I mentioned.

A bit like punk music then?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes, but Lament was written in the last century.

And I am writing in 2014 - and "one hundred years ago" refers to 1914, as I've emphasised: the period between 1905 - 1915; the era (and style) of Strauss, Mahler and their contemporaries, to which those composers so inclined working today make reference. Why this should be the "cut-off" point is something that interests me - why not Mendelssohn/Schumann ... or Haydn/Mozart ... or Bach/Handel ... or Byrd/Tallis ... ?

[ahinton]

And I am writing in 2014 - and "one hundred years ago" refers to 1914, as I've emphasised: the period between 1905 - 1915; the era (and style) of Strauss, Mahler and their contemporaries, to which those composers so inclined working today make reference. Why this should be the "cut-off" point is something that interests me - why not Mendelssohn/Schumann ... or Haydn/Mozart ... or Bach/Handel ... or Byrd/Tallis ... ?

...or indeed one much earlier than any of those and which could be cited by such authors as Jacques Chailley (author of 40,000 Years of Music) or John Purser (author of Scotland's Music)...but talk of "cut-off points" seems to me to miss the point, if I may say so; of course there can be no such things in any practical sense. That said, certain composers' legacies will inevitably be more widespread and long lasting than others' and, unless Boulez's vociferously expressed (though doubtless more often than not misunderstood) desire that post-WWII music turn its back on the past is to be taken universally at face value, the question of how and to what extent any composer's work can ever be meaningfully pigeon-holed as reflecting or responding to its time (and/or place) will remain open to debate, differences of viewpoint and the rest.

You mention the era 1905-1915 - a fascinatingly active one but, whilst it was, of course, "the era of Strauss, Mahler and their contemporaries", as you write, those contemporaries embraced quite a big and perhaps hitherto unprecedented stylistic range; one has only to think that Busoni, Elgar, Debussy, Rachmaninov, Magnard, Bartók, Delius, Koechlin, van Dieren, Albéniz, Ives, Granados, Godowsky, Medtner, Stravinsky and heaven knows who else were all well and truly active during that decade to recognise that rich variety of expression which characterised its music. What any of them might have thought about reflecting or responding to their respective times and places in their music could, I imagine, fill several volumes but I'm less than certain as to what if any overall conclusions might be formed from knowing those thoughts.

Perhaps the immense expansion of that very diversity that is evident in today's music might be seen by some as one aspect of the times in which composers now write and which some might choose to try to reflect or respond to in whatever ways...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes - I cited Mahler & Strauss because that is the general Late Romantic harmonic style that is most frequently referenced in such work (it's there, too, in some Rihm) often with a hint of Magnard and Koechlin; or Schreker. I haven't encountered, for example Nielsen or Ives from that period used as reference language.

[ahinton]

Yes - I cited Mahler & Strauss because that is the general Late Romantic harmonic style that is most frequently referenced in such work (it's there, too, in some Rihm) often with a hint of Magnard and Koechlin; or Schreker. I haven't encountered, for example Nielsen or Ives from that period used as reference language.

Sure - and my list carelessly omitted Nielsen and Sibelius; the fact that so many different ways of expression were concurrent during that decade does help to characterise it, however, even for those for whom the Mahler/Strauss legacy rises to the surface of those times...

[P. G. Tipps]

By those who take art seriously, of course.

But those who take art seriously tend to have different opinions on the value of certain artists' works.

We know that some currently well-established composers were dismissed in their lifetimes, and not 'taken seriously', and their works rubbished at the time by the 'experts' and even by some of their fellow-composers?

[Ian]

And I am writing in 2014 - and "one hundred years ago" refers to 1914, as I've emphasised: the period between 1905 - 1915; the era (and style) of Strauss, Mahler and their contemporaries, to which those composers so inclined working today make reference. Why this should be the "cut-off" point is something that interests me - why not Mendelssohn/Schumann ... or Haydn/Mozart ... or Bach/Handel ... or Byrd/Tallis ... ?

You were referring to composers writing in the style of A previous century (not THE previous century) therefore the previous century applicable to Lament is the 19th C. Not that it matters, Lament doesn't sound like anything I know from c. 1914 either. However, I don't know everything - so references would be appreciated.