Composers That Cross Eras

[phil13]

...that is, composers whose works follow that of the crossover, rather than sticking in one era or another.

Off the top of my head (it's a bit early here, so I'm not thinking completely clearly) I can think of 2 composers that fit this description: Beethoven and Scriabin. But I'm positive there are more.

Let us discuss these remarkable composers and their works. 

Phil


EDIT: This could also include debating whether a particular piece belongs in one era or another. (I was inspired by a recent question of whether Beethoven's 'Appassionata' is a Romantic or a Classical piece.)

[retrouvailles]

Szymanowski is another composer that seemed to go the way that Scriabin went, only with more of a Bartók influence in his later works, in addition to an influence from late Scriabin. Another, one could argue, is Messiaen. His early works are much like Debussy. His later works are in his own unique style, which combines influences from Hindu rhythms, modal and serialist ideas, and ornithological influences. Those are just two more off the top of my head.

[soliloquy]

Stravinsky wrote music in nearly every style that was present during his lifetime.

[franzliszt2]

wow really soliliquy??? I didn't know stravinsky composed in Zapin style 

[mephisto]

I feel that Messiaen had three periods. Although this is not something I would have written in a book or something.

1. Post-Debussy style(The Preludes)
2. Middle period(Vingt-regards, The quartet Turangalila)
3: All insanity style, with the birds and even a few pieces with serial style.

[phil13]

I feel that Messiaen had three periods. Although this is not something I would have written in a book or something.

1. Post-Debussy style(The Preludes)
2. Middle period(Vingt-regards, The quartet Turangalila)
3: All insanity style, with the birds and even a few pieces with serial style.

Well, yeah, Scriabin and Beethoven were the same way. I think Szymanowski was, also.

Beethoven's works can be divided as such:

1. Early period, Classicalesque (up to about Op.27)
2. Middle period, incorporating Classic and Romantic ideas (the 'Tempest' and 'Appassionata sonatas are examples of this) (up to about Op.90)
3. Late period (lots of Romantic ideas, more chromaticism, and incorporation of Baroque ideas like the theme and variations or the fugue into the new ideas)

And Scriabin:

1. Chopinesque early period (up to Op.20)
2. Middle period (I believe that Scriabin had developed his unique voice by the time he had finished the Piano Concerto. This is shown through some of the 'early' middle-period pieces like the Op.25 mazurkas. Obviously, the 'later' middle-period pieces, like the Op.42 Etudes, are unique in their own way also. In addition, Scriabin started toying with the ideas which would later take over his musical style entirely, while staying in tonality) (up to about Op.53)
3. Late period ('mystic chord', quartal harmony, etc.)

Actually, this gets my brain thinking. Do all crossover composers have (at least) three 'periods' into which their compositions can be divided?

Phil

[soliloquy]

wow really soliliquy??? I didn't know stravinsky composed in Zapin style 

Me either :O

[rallestar]

Actually, this gets my brain thinking. Do all crossover composers have (at least) three 'periods' into which their compositions can be divided?

Phil

Defining whether or not a composer has different 'periods' is a matter of our judgement of that composer anyway. Even if we ignore the fact that the dividing of composers into periods is a very subjective, it should be clear that the crossover composers must have made an evolution in that they write in two different styles, and as such, must necessarily have at a very least 2 periods. For all of those composers, it's obviously the case that there must be a middle period, since one doesn't go from writing in one style to another in a short timeframe or without showing evolution within works. So essentially, every crossover composer must necessarily be divided in, at least:

1. Early period, pre-crossover.
2. Middle period, works showing signs of crossing over.
3. Late period, writing in new style.

It seems somewhat obvious, that every crossover composer can be divided in to those - Especially having in mind, that we're making up those definitions ourselves, trying to rationalize on matters so complex, that they're hard to divide with any amount of accuracy.

[ganymed]

If i remember correctly, Scarlatti is also a composer which crossed two periods.
Late baroque and early classic. This question came to mind and I remember discussing this aspect with the other members in the chatroom.
Furthermore,  I was told that you cannot really  relate D. Scarlatti to either Baroque or Classic, because he crosses two periods.You have to admit that for example the Scarlatti sonatas recorded by Horowitz you sent me ( which im still very grateful to you)  do not sound like baroque at all, more like classic or even romantic .

ganymed

[hodi]

scriabin ofcourse

[richard black]

Depending how tightly you define eras, almost all composers! But Scarlatti.... no, he was baroque through and through. Born 1685, died 1757 but his real contribution was his employment of folk idiom - world music 250 years before its time! His exact contemporaries JS Bach and Handel are interesting cases: they existed through eras but while Bach was stuck in the era of his youth (not that anyone's complaining about that) Handel was arguably a major force in driving eras forwards.

CPE Bach and Weber are two obvious cross-era composers that come to mind. R. Strauss practically crossed eras backwards (from 1900 avant-garde to 1950 old brigade). Busoni certainly consciously crossed eras and made a point of taking part in all of them. Haydn pretty much saw galant, classical and romantic eras in his long life. Clementi too. And what about Shostakovich? I think you could make a very good case for him bridging various 20th-century musical 'eras'.

[retrouvailles]

We must also not forget Penderecki, a more recent one who is still alive. His earlier compositions are a bit more radical and percussive, such as the Threnody for the the Victims of Hiroshima (1960). His more recent compositions, starting after about 1970, are a bit more conventional and approachable, such as the Piano Concerto "Ressurection" (2001-2002) and the Concerto Grosso for Three Cellos and Orchestra (2000-2001). For a more popular example of his later music, listen to the music of the movie The Shining, which contains bits of his Cello Concerto No. 1 (1972).

[mikey6]

Couldn't this be applied to virtually everyone?
Any composer of renowned stature has done something to change the direction of music.

[retrouvailles]

They haven't necessarily changed the direction of music. Here, we are looking for composers that have crossed the eras or have had significant changes in composition style of some sort.

[burstroman]

Liszt, Clementi, and Rochberg

[phil13]

Liszt, Clementi, and Rochberg

Wasn't Liszt a Romantic through and through?

Phil

[retrouvailles]

Also, I don't know if Rochberg "crossed eras". He just experimented with many different ideas, and alternated between them during his life, like, for example, his fascination with serialism in his early years and his notoriety for his tonal passages later on.

[dnephi]

Beethoven, Schubert, Liszt (20th century/impressionism, anyone?)

[retrouvailles]

I would have to agree with Liszt. One could argue that he started to go the direction if Impressionism in his later years and he did write that Bagatelle sans Tonalité.

[dnephi]

A look at the Mazeppa shows some Stravinsky-esque primitivism harmonies.  For instance, at the place where the double note arpeggios in the RH in D Minor, 2nd measure, we have a harmony which makes perfect sense in voice leading, but which is extremely dissonant (for its time).  This is perhaps a place where Stravinsky got his ideas.

The Mazeppa (and a lot of Liszt's music) is full of sound for its own sake.  Once again, omnibus-like patterns which build tension and tension only with waves of sound and the use of all 6 ways for a fully diminished seventh to a triad shows a mastery of the harmony of his time and looking forward to the music of Debussy, Stravinsky and Bartok.

Then we have extended use of augmented triads, which were considered too dissonant for use prior to his time.  His Fantasia and Fugue on Ad Nos Salutarem Undam uses both augmented triads and fully dim7ths, which are either compatible with or derived from the whole tone scale.  They have no implied tonal center and their use is different.  They aren't so much "functional harmony" and it progresses toward both atonal expressionism and the impressionism of Debussy and Ravel.  He also writes passages of whole tone scales, like Sursum Corda, from the last of the Years of Pilgrimage.

Beyond that, there is Jeux D'Eau a la Ville D'este, very much impressionist sounding.   

The Bagatelle sans Tonalite(accent aigu) is not so much a piece about atonality as it is a mephisto waltz which never quite fully established a key.  A better word would be the hyperchromaticism of early Schoenberg.

I hope you all like Liszt better now that you know at least some of Liszt's progressive tendencies.

"Liszt was the quintessential modernist of his times." - Hinson

[maxreger]

Dont forget the non piano music...

Via Cruxis being a huge work in regards to looking ahead of its time. Like you said, the extensive use of the whole tone scale, not only as a linear tool, but also as one where he would draw out harmonic motion from.

Even something like the faust symphony (not nearly as forward looking as Via Cruxis)... still begins with a 12 tone row (which of course isnt treated serially)... but its all 4 aug chords possible, all 12 notes without repeating any.

[retrouvailles]

One could say that many composers that are still alive cross the eras. For example, one could argue that Michael Torke's color piece "Ash" (I think its this one) sounds a LOT like Beethoven.

[franzliszt2]

A look at the Mazeppa shows some Stravinsky-esque primitivism harmonies.  For instance, at the place where the double note arpeggios in the RH in D Minor, 2nd measure, we have a harmony which makes perfect sense in voice leading, but which is extremely dissonant (for its time).  This is perhaps a place where Stravinsky got his ideas.

The Mazeppa (and a lot of Liszt's music) is full of sound for its own sake.  Once again, omnibus-like patterns which build tension and tension only with waves of sound and the use of all 6 ways for a fully diminished seventh to a triad shows a mastery of the harmony of his time and looking forward to the music of Debussy, Stravinsky and Bartok.

Please if you are going to use Liszt as an example do not use mazeppa. It's toltally seeped in romaticism. Ebem the very poem it's based on is. At least look at his late works. I do stringly agree with liszt though

[soliloquy]

Ginastera switched around a lot also.

[mephisto]

Yes I agree.
1. Objective nationalism. Danzas Argentinas.
2. Subjective nationalism. 1st Piano Sonata.
3. Neo-expressionism. 1st and 2nd Piano Concerto.

To use only piano pieces are as examples. I would guess that the 2nd and 3rd piano sonata are also  part of his neo-expressionism. Meaning that he uses serialism etc.

[apion]

Schubert
Weber

[nanabush]

Grieg?

[slobone]

Schoenberg is the obvious example who went from lush late Romanticism to the most advanced modernism.

Schubert you could also say went from relatively routine classicism to passionate Romanticism.

Monteverdi bridged the era from the Renaissance to the early Baroque (which he more or less invented).

But yes, Stravinsky probably takes the cake going from post-Rimsky to post-Webern.