Modernism and Postmodernism in music

[@charlesneuzilmusic7236]

Thanks so much for putting this together, I found it most interesting and enlightening. You have provided me a number of things to investigate further. I'll be watching this again for sure. There is a lot here to digest. Thank you again. 🙏🙏🙏

[@MicheleZaccagnini]

So glad to hear this!

[@ChainsawCoffee]

Every person who has played a Make Noise Strega or a Soma Labs Lyra 8 is, by these definitions, a postmodernist musician. There is no noise, there is only music we haven't quantified.

[@cyberprimate]

Most composers seem to have abandonned the notion of 'progress' in music. I remember Michael Levinas saying that Boulez was the very last 'believer'. But was he really? Here's a quote from an interview of Boulez by Beffa (a very vocal post-modernist himself) in 2000: "Since 'Répons' you're reintroducing thematism, your aggregates are less heavy, your polarities more emphasized. With 'Sur incises' you've reintroduced pulsation. All this takes you back to the tonal world… Boulez: "Yes, that's correct. Why is tonal music, until Debussy, easier to grasp? Because although harmonic language is quite complex the unusual features like chords of fourths are repeated and therefore identifiable. Why is 'Octandre' so accessible? Because Varèse repeats his chords a certain number of time." He also expressed a certain bitterness at the end. "The era of avant-​gardes and exploration being definitively over, what follows is the era of perpetual return, consolidation, citation. An ideal or imaginary library provides us with a plethora of models, endless choices and means of exploitation." I see post-modernism as a general consideration for the 'ecology' of human listening, and also a recognition of the expressivity limits of any musical form, including atonality. I know that Beffa goes as far as saying that there's no real discursive possibility in atonality, not because of the atonality itself which happens anyway but because of its foundational rejection of tonal gravity. Escaich goes in a similar direction when he says that being atonal wasn't the problem, the problem was it being anti-tonal. If the notion of 'progress' isn't advocated by anyone, the idea of it is still prevalent in many places. The history of 20th century music as taught at IRCAM by Hugues Dufourt and others is a good example. Ravel wasn't even mentioned since "he had not contributed to the evolution of musical language", and therefore didn't fit in their eschatological perspective on "the music of the future".

[@MicheleZaccagnini]

Progess and technique are sometimes confused and considered together in this sort of discussion, if I am working to develop a technique the eschatological implications are there. I think a composer's approach to technique is an important divider to understand his/her motivations. I think that musical discourse can exist well beyond tonality, so I disagree with Beffa there. I will be posting a video about Aldo Clementi who had interesting things to say about this problem. Thank you for this really insightful comment! Great quotes. I have not covered the issue but just highlighted some aspects that I find important looking forward to future videos. So I am happy for you to take the time to fill some of the gaps

[@cyberprimate]

@@MicheleZaccagnini The eschatological view I'm referring to is first the teleological idea that musical evolution could only lead to the establishment of atonalism, and also the idea that atonalism was the end of history, its final destination. That remaining tonal forms would be relics of an obsolete past. I've listened back to Beffa's speech and I misrepresented it, put it out of its context (thematism in opera).

[@edwardgivenscomposer]

@@cyberprimate disproven by Jazz, which to the chagrin of the atonalists, DID extend the vocabulary of tonality.

[@jano3289]

Thanks for a good video. Can I repeat back to you and see if I got it. Both are conceptual movements rather than a style. Modernism questions things like traditional western harmony and rythm. Therefore the tension and sometimes "weird" time signatures. Postmodernism takes this one step further and asks what is music to begin with, almost a completely chaotic state where a fundamental ground such as pulse or key center can be hard to define. Would we say Stravinsky and Prokofiev are loosely part of the modernist movement whereas Penderecki and Lutosławski are post-modernists? That said each and everyone of these would be part of other movements/styles as well?

[@jano3289]

Could we then make an argument for bop style music being modernism. While free jazz and noise music and even early black metal could be viewed as a post modernist expression?

[@MicheleZaccagnini]

I wouldn't say Penderecki and Lutoslawaski are post modernists since their work is easily classifiable as music and there's definitely a technical aspect to it . No direct challenge of the medium but definitely some sense of progress from tradition. Interestingly the former went back to tonal writing later in life. As far as Stravinskij and prokofiev are concerned modernists in a sense but mainly Russians ;) . Keep in mind that one of the main differences is the importance of technique that is only present in modernist thought while it's dismissed or even derided in postmodernism

[@keyibreand3840]

the postmodern view is definitely deeper

[@MicheleZaccagnini]

Sure. Much more to say, I focused on one of many aspects

[@keyibreand3840]

@@MicheleZaccagnini good channel content though and keep up the interesting work!