Poulenc...WTF?!

ok, a continuation from a previous thread....

pliorius, why do you think Poulenc is a Neo-Classical composer?

I say that he's not, at least not completely, or mostly....he'll display neo-classical characteristics frequently (usually in terms of form/structure/instrumentation, I think), but he switches to more 20th century style music, romantic and impressionist kind of stuff, or he can have a more (kind of) popular style music (of the times, of course). A little jazz stuff, you know ;). Like I said, he uses a lot of different stuff, while being very French, to create his own unique style :happy:

I could be completely wrong, but this is my impression of his works, which I've heard quite a few of. I don't claim to be an expert, it's simplym y opinion that he is definitely not Neo-Classical, whatever he is :P

VL, I'm wondering if you know what exactly "neo-classical" means. I suspect you may have the wrong idea bout the real definition.

Much of Strawinski's music, for example, is "neo-classical".

It has more to do with the approach to the treatment of texture, density, accompaniment vs melody, and yes form, than to anything inherant in the harmony itself.

Poulenc was a French composer, and as part of Les Six his musical language reflects that. However, his music is anything but "impressionistic". He was a through-and-through neo-classicist.

I'll agree with Qccowboy. A "Neo-Classical" composer is not just a composer who lives in a more modern era but chooses to compose in the classical style. For example, you may call some of Schoenberg's pieces Neo-Baroque, because they approach baroque forms, treatments of themes/motifs etc in a completely new way, but I am fairly sure you wouldn't agree with that :P Also, some of Rihm's music has been characterised as Neo-Romantic, but it doesn't just "sound romantic", it's much more than that (so are most of Penderecki's later pieces).

*sigh*, I know what Neo-Classicalism is (I'm pretty sure)...and I would never call Poulenc impressionistic, he just borrows from there a bit (this you can't deny...). Not frequently, of course, but I was just giving an example of the kind of range of writing he could go through.

I tend to think of Neo-Classicalism as just that, a new form of the Classical period, focusing on clarity and form and with generally "smaller" sounds (including ensembles, dynamic ranges/contrast, and less general complexity/density). Less overt emotionalism, as well, I suppose. Poulenc certainly does do this, but also mixes in Romantic and modern aspects a lot too, don't you think? Perhaps his French guise is just too blinding for me, I dunno.

Obviously I know it's not just about harmony (Stravinksy has an even more modern harmony and I would certainly call him Neo-Classical, at least in many of his works). Poulenc, though, I think, brings in a lot of Romantic aspects in his works, as opposed to just Neo-Classical stuff. I suppose it could be argued that that is his primary style to build around. I can tell when he is being completely Neo-Classica (and sometimes just plain Classical), it's pretty obvious. Now that I think about it (and listen to his music :P) he is more often than not Neo-Classical...but I think he really shines when he is more than that :hmmm:

So I guess I would say he's Neo-Classical at heart, at his core, and throws a lot of characteristics from other styles on top of that *shrugs*...whatever he is, I love his music :P.