Best representative pieces from all the ages

[Leon Willett]

Hi,

I just brushed up on the history of music with help from a tutor, and I feel the need to find the best/most representative pieces from each historical period, so I can give them a good listen and have a look at the scores. (I just discovered a huge music library nearby)

I wonder if anyone can recomend the best pieces from the following periods. From my classnotes (I hope I got everything right!) I have listed a rough cronology and the principal exponents:

- Gregorian Chant (6th-13th century), almost entirely anonymous authors, so what should I look for?
- Ars Antiqua (1200-1350ad). Principal exponents: Perotin and Leotinus.
- Ars Subtilior (1350-1400ad). I don't have any authors for this period, any ideas?
- Ars Nova (1400-1500ad). Principal exponents: Machaut and Vitry.
- 16th Century "the golden century of polifony". Principal exponents: Palestrina, Lasso and Victoria.
- Baroque (17th century). Principal exponents: Monteverdi and Bach. Rameau writes the first treatise on harmony as we know it: death of modal music, birth of tonality.
- "Galant" period (1720-1750). Principal exponents: Coperin...
- Classicism (18th Century): Haydn and Mozart, later Beethoven
- Romanticism (19th Century). Conservative Romantics: Brahms and Bruckner. Progressive Romantics: Lizst, Chopin, Wagner. Berlioz writes the first orchestration treatise, leading the way for the colourist thinking in...
- Post-Romanticism (nationalism). (1880-1910) Germany: Mahler + Richard Strauss. France: Debusy + Ravel. Spain: Manuel de Falla. England: Elgar. (missing anyone important?)
- Expressionism (between the 2 world wars). Egon Wallesz.
- Modernism: (first half of 20th century) Bartók, Stravinsky, and Ives
- Second Vienna School: Schoenberg + Berg + Webern (pre WWII free atonal, then Serial)
- Continuation of Modernism: Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Hindemith, Boulez
- Romantic Nationalism carried into the 20th century by Ralph Vaughan Williams and Aaron Copland

For now, I just want to listen/study one piece from each of these authors. With that in mind, what do you recommend?

Thanks,

Leon

[gugliel]

Quite a project! Here's a few off the top of my head ...

Perotin: Viderunt Omnes

Ars subtilior -- drop it.

Machaut: Missa de Notre Dame

Vitry: skip

Add JOSQUIN DE PRES!!!! Missa ave maris stella

Lasso: ??

Victoria:skip

Palestrina: Missa Papae Marcelli

Monteverdi ??

Bach: B Minor mass

Couperin: skip

Mozart: String quintet in C major k 596(or thereabouts)

Haydn: skip

Beethoven: Symphony #5

Add? Schubert: Die Winterreise

Brahms: ? Requiem

Bruckner: skip

Liszt: skip

Wagner: Die Meistersinger

Strauss: skip

Debussy: ?

Mahler: Symphony #6

Ravel: skip
de Falla: skip
Elgar: skip

Stravinsky: Rite of Spring

Wallesz: skip

Schoenberg: String Trio (?)

Webern: Cantata #2

Prokofiev: Symphony #5

Shostakovich: ??

Hindemith: skip

Vaughan Williams: ?

Copland: skip

Boulez: skip

Elliott Carter: String Quartet #1

[Martin Bayless]

To this list I would include Byrd and Tallis because of the effects of England’s geographical isolation from the European continent during the renaissance. If you agree with the idea that Henry, who had split with Rome, hired the "best" musicians away from the continent to bolster confidence and credibility to his new church, then their strikingly original efforts become important, especially following their assimilation into later music both on the continent and in England where Handel, also missing, might be included (with due respect to his German ancestry).

Obviously, patronage changed over the years, but it’s hard to overlook the influence of the church even into this century. Additionally, I’ve found it helpful to put some focus on educational meccas, especially Paris. If you consider that so many composers of diverse nationalities developed in this proximity, vital questions begin to surface, especially in understanding the shift from the late romantic into the twentieth century where it would be critical to add Messiaen to the list.

To explain it becomes tricky in an international forum, so please take my necessary generalities in the light of complete respect for the accomplishments of composers from all nations. First the dynamic in 19th century Paris. The church is basically nationalized and very influential in pre-Darwin lives. Following Mendelssohn, the predominant influence in organ composition shifted from Germany to France. So to understand the influences and harmonic language that developed in the early 20th century, one would need to take into account that Parisians attending church would be exposed to the improvisational work of composers like Franck, Tournemire, et al, on a regular basis, and in those pre-radio/recording days, perhaps more frequently than any other music. It is the continuation of this environment that welcomed Stravinsky and Debussy (and Nijinsky and Picasso) into what was certainly a golden age. Was Stravinsky Russian? Not without France. Was Debussy French? Not without Rome. A quick look at composers’ commonalities, especially in teaching, creates ties that transcend national boundaries. Many of those teachers also had Sunday jobs on the organ bench, where we eventually run into Messiaen, also the composition chair at the conservatory. It’s not enough to simply know his concert works because his focus was on the organ and its continuum. Now here’s where things might get interesting for film composers.

While attending Scott Smalley’s orchestration seminars, he was describing the structure of current film music and its movement by thirds. Well, this in many respects is synonymous with the culmination of the romantic period and the work of Wagner. The interesting thing is that Scott’s background as a guitarist (as well as his father’s influence from his time at the Paris conservatory) encourages him to think theoretically in terms of scales. Upon receiving (very sketchy) sketches to orchestrate, he developed a hybrid scale from which to analyze and work things out. Now Scott swears he came up with it on his own (and I believe him), but his hybrid scale is one of Messiaen’s modes of limited transposition. Considering that theorists frequently describe 20th century music as breaking with its past, it seems profound that a kid with a guitar comes along and, building on the work of Messiaen, demonstrates a continuing evolution rather than theoretical anarchy.

Putting all this together, it shatters absolutes, which is important in learning. There was certainly colorist thinking before Berlioz and modal music did not so much die as evolve in a continuum that builds on it. You’re defiantly on the right track, but be careful to try to get a full picture of the puzzle you’re putting together to save some time, aggravation and give yourself the best opportunity to realize your potential.

Lastly, the Harvard Anthology of Music might be a good place to start for sources on the really early music. Hope all this helps.

[gugliel]

Yes to Messaien, maybe to Byrd, but no to Tallis, imo a far over-rated composer. Interesting synthesis of ideas, Martin!

[Martin Bayless]

Yeah, there is quite a bit of room for debate in what i posted, and I know what you mean about Tallis. I'm not really sure what would have became of Byrd without him though. Same way it might be difficult to understand Beethoven without Haydn. Everything weaves together and maybe the "cliff notes" version of my post might simply suggest that the context in which all these pieces/composers occured might be as important to an understanding of music as the body of work itself.

Oh yeah - great call on Elliot Carter and metric modulation!

Just for fun (and diversion from the last couple of days I'd like to forget about), adding Byrd's take on Tallis' death:

Ye sacred Muses, race of Jove,
Whom Musicke’s love delighteth,
Come down from Christall heavens above,
To earth where sorrow dwelleth
In mourning weeds with teares in Eyes,
Tallis is dead, and Musick dyes.

[Leon Willett]

Guys: thanks for the great input!! I'm building my list as we speak with your help and a number of other sources. [:D]

[PaulR]

Sibelius - Karelia Suite.

[dpcon]

Gugliel,

Whats with all the skips?

How do you skip Haydn? Mozart and Beethoven certainly didn't skip the great composer. His music is completely unique and carries qualities of both the giants mentioned (so much did they draw from him.)

Also this survey is somewhat scientific in nature (most representitive) so one must include what isn't one's cup of tea always.

Don't Skip List:

Victoria, Unique voice and style of the period.

Haydn, Symphony "The Bear", Pno. Concerto #11, (acknowledged as one of greatest by any composer.)

Brahms, Symphony # 1, Witness further transition to Romanticsm

Bruckner, Symphony # 9 Highly, personal harmonic language, compositional technique and orchestration.

Liszt, Pno Sonata in B minor, One of the great thinkers of the period with huge strides in Harmonic development as well as defining the limits of piano technique - Major Figure who should not be overlooked.

Strauss, Also Sprach Zarathustra, Elektra, Huge orchestral forces orchestrated masterfully with unique composition, hamonic movement, modulation and rhythms. Most copied by early Hollywood composers

Elgar, Enigma Variations, Great composer with gifted insight into orchestral sound and color.

Stravinsky, Anything from Neo Classic period" Symph in C, The Rakes Progress: Mozartean approach with modern bent that is masterful.

Ravel, Daphne et Chloe Suite #2 Impressionism copied by Popular and Jazz arrangers in every way.

Berg, Violin Cto., Wozzeck, Gorgeous Romantic approach with both tonal and atonal elements.

Britten, Peter Grimes, Unique personal style with masterful use of the orchestra.

Shostakovitch, Symph's 1, 5, 10, 15 Most performed modern composer today.

Copeland, Symph #3, Billy the Kid, Unique American voice with same in harmony and orchestration.

Durefle, Requiem, Gregorian chants with modern harmonic backround orchestrated perfectly. Influenced by Faure who's requiem should also be studied.

Dave Connor

[mathis]

@Leon Willett said:

- Gregorian Chant (6th-13th century), almost entirely anonymous authors, so what should I look for?

That´s not exactly true. The composer of the gregorian chants is God and pope Gregor wrote them down. There is this famous picture with a bird sitting on his shoulder which sings all the tunes into his ear.
But maybe you´re right, since this book of songs was made because catholic church wanted to standardize church service and its music, to disallow movements independent from Rome which arised because every single church made up their own tunes.


Quite challenging project you face. I´m not sure if this scientific way is a good one. Maybe for you, but I wouldn´t know what I could expect from that. You´re a composer and you should go for what you feel attracted to. If some composer grabs your attention find out what made him compose the way he does, study his roots. Most likely you´ll find interesting other composers this way and you again get curious why they composed their particular way. Or you get curious how your favorite composer influenced his contemporaries and next generations and you will find amazing stuff.
Music history is by far not that linear as music historians always tried to make us believe. Go through it like a pig smelling truffles.

[gugliel]

All opinions, my skips, Dave! The question marks just meant couldn't decide on which work, not the same as a skip.

Skip Haydn? One of my favorite composers? Maybe not, on reflection; was just trying to keep the classical period represented by as few composers as possible, and couldn't imagine skipping Mozart or Beethoven.

Skip Couperin, one of my least favorite, yes!

Your additions are all good, just might put Liszt and Elgar and Berg and a few of the others in a secondary list in order to heighten the importance of the main representatives.

Gregorian Chant, put in the Dies Irae, perhaps, though I think it's much later than Gregor.

[dpcon]

Gugliel,

I understand. However the three composers you mentioned are completely unique. Certainly Liszt and Berg. Elgar may be considered as a Mahler clone perhaps but if you dig into his scores (which I have) you will marvel at what's going on there. He has an uncanny almost baffling orchestral technique that sounds far more straightforward than it actually is. My opinion of him changed when I saw his wizardry. A local radio guy (highly respected) thinks he's the greatest British composer ever. I don't say that but you get my point.

All very fun here.

Dave

[PaulR]

@dpcon said:

I understand. However the three composers you mentioned are completely unique. Certainly Liszt and Berg. Elgar All very fun here.

Dave

While offline for these past many weeks. I read a book I picked up at a castle on Elgar - knew absolutely nothing about him apart from the Enigma Variations and the Cello Concerto Jaqui Dupre played a lot. Actually, considering his place in the timescale, I found it quite fascinating and boy, did he do it the hard way re: his religion and social standing etc.

[William]

O.K., since this question is rather awesomely difficult I am wondering...

On Elgar - one little question - what was his problem with social standing and religion?

[dpcon]

Interesting that William has the exact question about Paul's Elgar reference as me. I almost asked but resolved to get a book on the fellow.

What do you guys think of Elgar by the way?

DC

[PaulR]

@William said:

O.K., since this question is rather awesomely difficult (ALL HISTORICAL PERIODS???? Anything else????? HOW ABOUT TRY STUDYING MUSIC HISTORY FOR A DECADE OR SO?) and we are supposed to provide cogent answers FOR FREE!!!! On Elgar - one little question - what was his problem with social standing and religion?

It's a crazy, loon question - I agree somewhat. Young musicians and their tutors today - what can you do? [:D] [:D] [:D]

Elgar - no formal training. Father and Mother from a poor village background in unfashionable Worcestshire (at the time). Limited education. Father was a piano tuner. Mother ,the daughter of a farm worker. Catholics -lots of prejudice against in those days - i.e 1857 England.
Uncertain temperament.

[PaulR]

@dpcon said:

What do you guys think of Elgar by the way?

DC

I only remember what I mentioned Dave. During music O level back in 1967, one of the set pieces was Enigma Variations, along with Brandenburg No 3 and Noyes Fludde I think was the other one.

Naturally, Brandenburg No 3 was a lot more interesting to me at the time and since then, I only hear Elgar by accident - like on the radio or at the Proms.

[William]

No, it's a very good question, just hard to answer. Though there are some good answers being given.

[hermitage59]

Just a few quick additions,
Bach......For building solid Orchestration technique.

Mozart....Like Bach and just as instructive in a different way. (Paticularly Qtets. Wonderful study material)

Glinka......for simple clever study (use of repetition, understanding of Baltic/Slav influence)

Haydn......Underrated and ignored by many students and composers today, Mozart and Beethoven weren't as stupid. If you want to learn structure of phrase, harmony and modulation, Haydn is the man. A huge influence on music, and in many ways set the foundations for the progression into the future.

BEETHOVEN.....So you have someone to worship and pray to, whenever life seems too hard!
A true master of the 'orchestra plays first in your head' school, and possessed of large quantities of genetic software know as 'Genius'!

Khachaturian.....For instinctive use of melody (see reference to Baltic/Slav although he was Armenian) Much of today's orchestral music can be bland and uninspiring (see Glass), without a semblance of melody, built instead on long block chords ponderously modulating, noodling, and precious little else. Aram Khachaturian wrote wonderful melodies, and wasn't driven by the need or desire to include 'cheap orchestral effects', and fill up the aural space with lots of notes unnecessarily.

Verdi.....Particularly the Requiem for orchestration, and much, although not always, elegant use of theme. A great study in dynamics as an 'instrument' in itself.

Rimsky Korsakov....Thematic development, modulation, and a great musical story teller, essential to know. Wrote THE book on orchestration.

Tchaikovsky......How to use repetition too much, and get away with it!

Wagner......For motive development, modulation, and a pile of other stuff. (Think Big) And with Verdi, using 'Dynamics' as an instrument.

Berlioz.....Symphonie fantastique, and the requiem. Cadential master.

Richard Strauss......Wonderful composer who raised the musical bar and gave us much of the building blocks for 'today's' music. How to create a large thick sound without going OTT. Use of Rhythm is excellent.

Holst....Who put more into one suite of music (Planets), than most composers could imagine or create in a lifetime. Great study material, and essential for a modern composer (particularly in film). Thematic use unique, and chord structure/modulation amazing. You'll hear much of this in the more musically intelligent film music today. (I stress the musically intelligent music) Essential to study every note, in conjunction with Dynamics, modulation, Harmony etc. I often considered Holst a composer who could write for two instruments and make them sound like an orchestra. Brilliant.

Shostakovich......Symphony 11 and 7 (The leningrad). And for light hearted entertainment.. The festive Overture!

Stravinsky, Prokofiev, for modern structure and orchestration.

Copeland....El Salon Mexico.

And a few late additions, Mahler, Sibelius, Saint-Saens, Dvorak, Liszt, to name a few more.....

As for Elgar, Tallis, and Hindemith?
Hmmm, I'll duck here, and confess i'm not the nationalistic type, so my objectivity is intact.
I find them........uninspiring.

There are plenty of familiar old masters in my list, and some, no doubt will disagree with my personal selections, preferring more esoteric choices to the 'familiar'.

I've also met students and composers during my lifetime that have been determined to 'do something different' and have ignored the lessons and knowledge accumalated over the last 3 to 4 hundred years, safe in the knowledge they will be genius in their 'own right' without the influence of 'standard' classical music.
It's been, and continues to be my experience that more often than not, those who choose to disregard this aspect of their musical education tend to struggle when they want to achieve the glorious heights of legend they feel they are 'destined for'!

No doubt some will disagree!


Regards to you all,

Alex.

(The more I learn, the more i realise how little I know. But the journey's fun!)

[dpcon]

I'll say a thing or two on Edward Elgar. He really never quite did anything for me (his symphonies) and I thougt his Enigma set "nice". However when I really sat down with those variations with score and gave equal attention to listening and his techinque I was really blown away. He has something that I've rarely seen: the type of insight into the orchestra one finds in Debussey. A highly personal command of every instrument to a final pupose. I really had to work at it to see how he was coming by his choices in orchestration. Compositionally it's a great set of variations and a model of the form.

So there you have it. I was won over by that experiance. If someone said of his symphonies there: long-winded, emotionally narrow and never really get to the point, I don't think I would argue. He does have many good works though.

Dave Connor

Alex,

I Should have included Shostakovich 7 and 11 as I'm currently studying the latter and love the former.