prokofieff sonata No. 1 is not contemporary?

[cucudas]

i need to choose one piece from contemporary or 20 century (or they are the same?)
i like the prokofieff's Sonata No. 1 ..but people are saying that it is late romantic..
is it??

how about sonata No. 3?
i need to choose a short piece..since i have big ones from classical and romantic era
pleaes help ..
if they both are not 20 century..then what else should i play?

[imbetter]

Debussy's L'isle Jeayeuse or somthing like that it means island of joy its about 5 minutes long and its contemperary

[nicco]

Contemporary means music written by composers currently alive, or music from the modern period. Debussys music is certainly not contemporary, although it represents the transition from late-romantic music to 20th century modernist music.

The 20th century is the timeframe 1901-2000

[maxy]

Prokofiev sonata 1 is considered romantic.

sonata 3 is not romantic.  it should be fine.   

[pies]

Do no. 6 or 7.

[maxy]

Do no. 6 or 7.

hahahhahahahahhahha great pieces for sure, but 6 is certainly not considered short! 

[counterpoint]

You could play 2 or 3 of Prokofieff"s Sarcasms (op.17)

[soliloquy]

Do no. 6 or 7.

Or Bartok 3 Etudes Op. 18



lol

[desordre]

 Dear Nicco:
 

Contemporary means music written by composers currently alive, or music from the modern period. (...)

Excuse me, but I have to correct what you wrote in this phrase.
 The term "contemporary" relates to music from the last years. There is no definitive time spam: some say 25 years, other 30 years, other music composed after the WWII. Furthermore, it's not an aesthetic or stylistic label: it's only chronological.
 Notice that the confusion you made is normal: it seems to be the music by composers that are alive, and in another eras it was true. However, as an example, one of the leading composers of today's music is Elliott Carter. He was born back in 1908, and his first compositional output is from the late twenties. So, would you say that his wonderful Tell me where is fancy bred?, written in 1938, is contemporary music?
 An example in the opposite direction: one of the greatest composer of late 20th century music is Luciano Berio. He unfortunately died in 2003. His Piano Sonata, from 2001, is a masterwork of contemporary music, despite the fact that its composer it's no longer alive.

 "Modern", in its turn, it's another somewhat controversial term. Generally, it defines music composed from the first cracks in the Common Practice until what you consider the begin of contemporary. As you should notice, it's not precise, but people seems to agree that it goes from circa 1890 to circa 1945, i.e., the musics of the first part of the twentieth century. I assume Griffiths as a good reference: from Debussy's Prelude a l'après-midi d'un faune until Webern's death.

 By no means modern and contemporary are the same thing.

 Best!
 

[desordre]

Debussy's L'isle Jeayeuse or somthing like that it means island of joy its about 5 minutes long and its contemperary

Debussy died in 1918, and L'isle joyeuse was composed in 1904. So, neither him nor his music are contemporary by no means.

You could play 2 or 3 of Prokofieff"s Sarcasms (op.17)

Prokofiev sonata 1 is considered romantic.
sonata 3 is not romantic. it should be fine.

Prokofiev died in 1953. The Sarcasms were written just before WWI, and the sonatas but the ninth, before the end of WWII. Thus, the former is not contemporary, and the late sonatas could barely be considered, but Prokofiev is a composer directly related to early twentieth century music, so it's probably not the best choice. In my modest opinion, his not a contemporary composer at all, but (as written in the previous post) someone should say that the label applies to post WWII works, so the 9th sonata would fit this way.

Or Bartok 3 Etudes Op. 18

Bartok died in 1945, and these Etudes are from 1918. Again, not contemporary.

 Best!

[desordre]

 Dear Cucudas:
 After this considered, when you need to choose a contemporary work, pick up something from the last 25 years or so. The fact that the composer is alive or not is irrelevant.
 I really love Debussy, Prokofiev and Bartok, and would never oppose to someone play their music, but they are really modern composers. Furthermore, they were fundamental composers in the shape of modern music, together with Schoenberg and Stravinsky, and other as Webern and Ives.
 Pay attention to another fact: some books about 20th century music were written sometime ago. So, they define contemporary in different ways. Example: a book from the early 80's certainly consider the music of the 60's contemporary, though today it's probably not true anymore. Taken for granted that the label is merely chronological, as we procedes forward, it changes.
 If you want some suggestions, please let me know.
 Best wishes!

[nicco]

Dear Nicco:
  Excuse me, but I have to correct what you wrote in this phrase.
 The term "contemporary" relates to music from the last years. There is no definitive time spam: some say 25 years, other 30 years, other music composed after the WWII. Furthermore, it's not an aesthetic or stylistic label: it's only chronological.
 Notice that the confusion you made is normal: it seems to be the music by composers that are alive, and in another eras it was true. However, as an example, one of the leading composers of today's music is Elliott Carter. He was born back in 1908, and his first compositional output is from the late twenties. So, would you say that his wonderful Tell me where is fancy bred?, written in 1938, is contemporary music?
 An example in the opposite direction: one of the greatest composer of late 20th century music is Luciano Berio. He unfortunately died in 2003. His Piano Sonata, from 2001, is a masterwork of contemporary music, despite the fact that its composer it's no longer alive.

 "Modern", in its turn, it's another somewhat controversial term. Generally, it defines music composed from the first cracks in the Common Practice until what you consider the begin of contemporary. As you should notice, it's not precise, but people seems to agree that it goes from circa 1890 to circa 1945, i.e., the musics of the first part of the twentieth century. I assume Griffiths as a good reference: from Debussy's Prelude a l'après-midi d'un faune until Webern's death.

 By no means modern and contemporary are the same thing.

 Best!
 

Sorry, I just quoted from here really:

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contemporary

And i should start paying attention in music history class

[pianowelsh]

Contemporary is a really looose term it means different things to different folk. Generally It means by someone living or in a style which is very uptodate even though the person may no longer be with us... eg although messiaens vingt regard are written in the 20thC and he is dead they are still strikingly contemporary in their styling.  So could be got away with. Prokofiev sonata no1 whilst written in the 20th C is very romantic in gesture and style and so is often described as late romantic...as is pretty much the complete output of Rachmaninov.  Stockhausen, Berio, Boulez would all be considered contemporary figures (just), Knussen is another well regarded for his piano works.

[soliloquy]

Bartok died in 1945, and these Etudes are from 1918. Again, not contemporary.

 Best!

please sweetheart.  Almost everything you've said in this thread is BS.  Also, the Bartok Etudes Op. 18 are ridiculously difficult; I was obviously making a joke in reference to the idiotic suggestion of the Prokofiev Sonata No. 6.  This, however, does not detract from the fact that the Bartok Etudes are INDEED contemporary.  By your "logic", the following pieces are not contemporary:

Anything by Bartok
Anything by Ravel
Anything by Debussy
Anything by Scriabin
Anything by Roslavets
Anything by Berg
Anything by Prokofiev
Anything by Schoenberg
Many works by George Crumb, Henry Cowell, Charles Ives, Krzysztof Penderecki, Vicent Persichetti, Witold Lutoslawski, John Cage, Igor Stravinsky, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Sylvano Bussotti, Pierre Boulez, Alfred Schnittke, Aaron Copland, Kaikhosru Sorabji, Leo Ornstein, Benjamin Britten and the list GOES ON.


A piece doesn't have to be Post-Darmstadt to be "contemporary" and I can get into a massive semantic debate with you over it also if it's realllllly necessary.  Use a SPECK of common sense and you'll figure out that he's looking for a piece of music that a jury would deem "modern".



Anyway, in answer to the original question, sorry sweetie, looks like you have to play Evryali.  Oh sorry, that's not contemporary.  What an out-dated piece.  Play History of Photography in Sound

[mephisto]

  By your "logic", the following pieces are not contemporary:

Anything by Bartok
Anything by Ravel
Anything by Debussy
Anything by Scriabin
Anything by Roslavets
Anything by Berg
Anything by Prokofiev
Anything by Schoenberg

Of course non of theire music is contemporary.

[soliloquy]

Of course non of theire music is contemporary.

So you would consider Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire what?  Late romantic?  And you forgot these guys I also mentioned:

George Crumb, Henry Cowell, Charles Ives, Krzysztof Penderecki, Vincent Persichetti, Witold Lutoslawski, John Cage, Igor Stravinsky, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Sylvano Bussotti, Pierre Boulez, Alfred Schnittke, Aaron Copland, Kaikhosru Sorabji, Leo Ornstein, Benjamin Britten


Baroque?

[mephisto]

So you would consider Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire what?  Late romantic?

George Crumb, Henry Cowell, Charles Ives, Krzysztof Penderecki, Vincent Persichetti, Witold Lutoslawski, John Cage, Igor Stravinsky, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Sylvano Bussotti, Pierre Boulez, Alfred Schnittke, Aaron Copland, Kaikhosru Sorabji, Leo Ornstein, Benjamin Britten


Baroque?

Schoenberg was a composer of the 2nd Vienesse school.

I am not familliar with all of the composers you list, but some have indeed written what should be considered contemporary music today(Penderecki for instance), others have not(Charles Ives).

[desordre]

please sweetheart.  Almost everything you've said in this thread is BS.  Also, the Bartok Etudes Op. 18 are ridiculously difficult; I was obviously making a joke in reference to the idiotic suggestion of the Prokofiev Sonata No. 6. 
(...)

I'm not sure: are you talking to me?

(...)
By your "logic", the following pieces are not contemporary:
Anything by Bartok
Anything by Ravel
Anything by Debussy
Anything by Scriabin
Anything by Roslavets
Anything by Berg
Anything by Prokofiev
Anything by Schoenberg
Many works by George Crumb, Henry Cowell, Charles Ives, Krzysztof Penderecki, Vicent Persichetti, Witold Lutoslawski, John Cage, Igor Stravinsky, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Sylvano Bussotti, Pierre Boulez, Alfred Schnittke, Aaron Copland, Kaikhosru Sorabji, Leo Ornstein, Benjamin Britten and the list GOES ON.
(...)

You made a brilliant list of modern music. Anyway, modern is not contemporary.

 

(...)
A piece doesn't have to be Post-Darmstadt to be "contemporary" and I can get into a massive semantic debate with you over it also if it's realllllly necessary.  Use a SPECK of common sense and you'll figure out that he's looking for a piece of music that a jury would deem "modern".
(...)

Have you read what I wrote? I never said that music have to be anything to be contemporary. Let me quote myself:
 

(...)
 The term "contemporary" relates to music from the last years. There is no definitive time spam: some say 25 years, other 30 years, other music composed after the WWII. Furthermore, it's not an aesthetic or stylistic label: it's only chronological.
(...)

By the way, it's not a matter of semantic or common sense: it's a matter of knowledge and scholarship (and in this case, of recent research and writings, because a book of the eighties would have nothing to help us in this topic). If you want to debate, let's talk about music and quote some major scholars, composers, performers. Of course, this topic is very close to other arts and phylosophy, so we can discuss the concept of "contemporary" in a broader sense. I understand what you propose, but "BS" - as you said - is to use wrong terminology and false historical background with the excuse: they don't need it now.
 

[soliloquy]

lots of stuff

The working definition of "contemporary music" has always been music that is similar or identical in compositional form/stylistically comparable to music that is being written at the time; for instance, Boulez' Troisieme Sonate or Bussotti's "Piece for David Tudor 3", while having been written over 50 years ago, would still be considered contemporary due to the fact that aleatoric, textual and visual music is still a current form of composition.  Would you say James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake" is not contemporary?  How bout Kandinsky's Composition II or Miro's Red Sun?

I never said that music have to be anything to be contemporary.

...some say 25 years, other 30 years, other music composed after the WWII.

Do you know what Post-Darmstadt means?  =/


In any field of art, "contemporary" has always meant "comparable to current output".  Obviously you have to make some discretion with that IE you couldn't say Chopin is contemporary because of the Neo-Romantics.  Much of the New Complexity composer Bernd Alois ZImmermann's music pre-dates WWII, and that is certainly contemporary.  Many works by Finnissy and Ferneyhough would also not fall into your definition of contemporary.

[desordre]

 Soliloquy:

The working definition of "contemporary music" has always been music that is similar or identical in compositional form/stylistically comparable to music that is being written at the time; for instance, Boulez' Troisieme Sonate or Bussotti's "Piece for David Tudor 3", while having been written over 50 years ago, would still be considered contemporary due to the fact that aleatoric, textual and visual music is still a current form of composition. Would you say James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake" is not contemporary? How bout Kandinsky's Composition II or Miro's Red Sun?


Do you know what Post-Darmstadt means? =/


In any field of art, "contemporary" has always meant "comparable to current output". Obviously you have to make some discretion with that IE you couldn't say Chopin is contemporary because of the Neo-Romantics. Much of the New Complexity composer Bernd Alois ZImmermann's music pre-dates WWII, and that is certainly contemporary. Many works by Finnissy and Ferneyhough would also not fall into your definition of contemporary.

 1) You relate Post-Darmstadt with three different time spans I presented, and ask if I know what it means. Sorry, but what are you talking about? Of course I know what the term means, although - again - I would not say it is precise or definitive.
 2) What do you think is "my" definition of contemporary, if I didn't explain it?
 3) The definition you present is, sorry to say, old-fashioned. Furthermore, it is absolutely controverse. First, it was a proper definition until the post-modernism trends, i.e., until mid sixties at best. Since then, it means nothing. Look at (or listen to) the musical panorama we have now-a-days. You have anything happening. You use your discretion to say that Chopin could not be related to neo or hyper romanticism; then, you use it again to say that Zimmermann is part of neo-complexity. According to your point of view, Chopin is not contemporary and Zimmermann is, despite the fact that both are linked in some way to contemporary music.
 Foremost, in the last decade or so, any new work presents an individual collection of "inspirations" and technique, and given the huge number of composer active, it spans from plainchant to neo-complexity, from Beethoven's late quartets to reggae music, and so on. According to your definition, anything is contemporary if you want it to be.
 Let me propose that Brahms is contemporary music then. His techniques of composition for sure are part of today craftmanship, as you can notice in both learned and popular music. Glanert made his UK premiere of a piece that uses Brahms's opus 121 as its basis, so his influence is state-of-the-art in music. Why not considering him as a contemporary composer? Ridiculous? Yes, I agree.
 4) Your questions about Joyce and Kandinsky confirms to me that you are misundersting the concept of both modern and contemporary music. The two mentioned artists are master examples of what contemporary art was sometime ago, and now is considered modern. They are no longer part of the contemporary world.
 5) Just for the sake of curiosity, why do you think that Finnissy or Ferneyhough would not fit in the concept I didn't explain?