What would music historians call this era?

Usually an era is defined by a group of similar composers who write roughly in a similar style or at least have some popular/well-known works within a particular framework.

I do not see that an era can be defined by a group of similar composers. At least, this doesn't apply to 20th century's music: It's an irrefutable fact that there are two completely different, incommensurable directions of composition

I think the issues with tonality were largely resolved by the 1980s -- both became acceptable. You might be in a 1950's mindset, which is legit -- it's a bit ridiculous to telescope eras down from centuries to decades (or less).

But I kind of agree with RequiemAeternam -- I think insofar as Western Art Music is concerned, I think we are in a lull since about 1890 (not to say that's a bad thing... hold your horses), and I'm not sure if it can recover to decently accepted cultural forms and things like that.

I think the issues with tonality were largely resolved by the 1980s -- both became acceptable. You might be in a 1950's mindset, which is legit -- it's a bit ridiculous to telescope eras down from centuries to decades (or less).

Not in a 1950's mindset, but in the process of getting a global (historical) view on the last 100 years of music development.

Possibly a later development in atonalism is what could be coined "sound- & noice-scapes" (SN composition, for short), starting with Ligeti's Atmosph

"The Singularity" is probably the best way to call this 'age'

What about the "What would music historians call this era?" era? Who's got me?!

hilarious.

I meant for that to kill the thread. Unsuccessful.

Yeah.

why kill the thread... I think we are all having quite intelligent conversation here. Are we not.

no, it's just basically another "oh, what's your opinion?" thread only to change to "I don't care, here's mine though" as soon as some replies come up.

But I kind of agree with RequiemAeternam -- I think insofar as Western Art Music is concerned, I think we are in a lull since about 1890 (not to say that's a bad thing... hold your horses), and I'm not sure if it can recover to decently accepted cultural forms and things like that.

Are you talking about the prominence of orchestral/concert music in western artistic culture? I think it will return but a lot of this has to do with music education. At my school we didn't learn about orchestral music till AS-level ( for 17 year olds) because quite frankly the syllabus was (imo) trying to be trendy. We studied every type of music under the sun apart from non-commercial western art music. I don't understand why anybody should think music lessons should just be 'cool'! They should be nothing but a repressive, backward, self-congratulatory, bore! Well you know what I mean anyway... Classical music should be on the syllabus in schools alongside popular, contemporary and ethnic musics..!

Oh and if you weren't talking about that I apologise for this tangent!

Are you talking about the prominence of orchestral/concert music in western artistic culture? I think it will return but a lot of this has to do with music education. At my school we didn't learn about orchestral music till AS-level ( for 17 year olds) because quite frankly the syllabus was (imo) trying to be trendy. We studied every type of music under the sun apart from non-commercial western art music. I don't understand why anybody should think music lessons should just be 'cool'! They should be nothing but a repressive, backward, self-congratulatory, bore! Well you know what I mean anyway... Classical music should be on the syllabus in schools alongside popular, contemporary and ethnic musics..!

Oh and if you weren't talking about that I apoligise for this tangent!

Well, not necessarily. My reference to forms was more about the fulfillment of compositional structures that are (allegedly) purely Western in origin. My point was that by the end of the Romantic period, the structures had been stretched to their breaking point and non-Western influences had crept in, "lowering" the art if you look at it from a strictly Western-centric view.

NB -- my favorite music is past this point, and this understanding of music is seriously flawed.

I think your point is interesting, but I take a different view. I was brought up with classical in my house -- I grew up on Peter and the Wolf like none other. But I'm sure your class time is shorter than a CD's length -- plus, mid-high school is about the time to pay attention to stuff with tangential historical significance to now. Until then, you're not really reading Shakespeare, you're not looking at physical art in a historic perspective, etc...

Given that periodization is a construct, and that classifying eras exactly into 'Classical', 'Romantic' etc. is a bit dodgy... is this really necessary?

Given that periodization is a construct, and that classifying eras exactly into 'Classical', 'Romantic' etc. is a bit dodgy... is this really necessary?

From musical histoirans to refrence prespective yes. Periodization helps historians and people intrested in the past to distinguish between, as well as aid their analysis and to describe what was happening in the past, the cultual and historical changes that were happening.

Era are never classifed into exact points in time, but however, broad points in time in where we begun to see change. At the stroke of midnight on January 1st, 1750 the musical world didnt do an complete turn around from Baroque to Classical, but historians that date and those two names to distinguish between the contrasting styles that had emerged in the years of 1600 - 1825.

And that is what I ask of you, my fellow peers. To play the role of an historian and to objectivly at our own recent past and to make either and judgement or and assumption, as well as discuss, what history books in the future will call this period music history and why.

I think it's more of a imperialistic and colonialistic attitude of the "civilised" west to history.

Native indian americans don't have written history. Do they not have history? They don't pu labels on their history. It certainly keeps them interested, though, because they sing and dance it - all we do is just read it and most of us will find it boring.

Aren't many American Indian groups having massive problems with loss of culture due in part to cultural limitations on history?

It's sort of like how there isn't any "pure" New Orleans jazz anymore. A non-history cannot be preserved. If it should is a whole different bad of tomatoes.

It seems like the exoticism characteristic of the colonial mindset might have captured you...

Ambiguous Era? O_O

i dont think it really matters, since names like "Classical Era" are not exactly that creative.

A Joke.

j/k

*jumps in time machine to ask future historians*

wow, thats an odd thought...

How about:

The Charlie's Angels Era.

You could divide the mid 20th to 21st century into 3 competing trends - serialism, minimalism (btw the way spectralism could fall into a very broad philosophy behind minimalism or even neo-X)and neo-X like the three women from Charlie Angels who work together to fight crime and at least one segment of the viewers has their favorite hottie. Yet they each jockey for the camera's attention. Then there is Bosley who is like the music theorists who are a little behind on the strategy but are lovable and accepted by the Angels. Finally there is Charlie the disembodied voice who is seen lounging about on a boat or nice hotel/restaurant resort and just gives assignments in a very pleasant authoritative tone which somehow beguiles the Angels to do his bidding despite Charlie never works a day in his life. Charlie represents the very heavy mantle of dead composers that continue to haunt us from their oceanside cabanas in heaven (or for those repelled by the whole Hell Heaven idea - lounging on an oceanside cabana with a big old cane to knock your subconsciousness over the head to be original or abide by the inherent natural rules of beauty or whatever else to get you all twisted out of shape)

How about:

The Charlie's Angels Era.

You could divide the mid 20th to 21st century into 3 competing trends - serialism, minimalism (btw the way spectralism could fall into a very broad philosophy behind minimalism or even neo-X)and neo-X like the three women from Charlie Angels who work together to fight crime and at least one segment of the viewers has their favorite hottie. Yet they each jockey for the camera's attention. Then there is Bosley who is like the music theorists who are a little behind on the strategy but are lovable and accepted by the Angels. Finally there is Charlie the disembodied voice who is seen lounging about on a boat or nice hotel/restaurant resort and just gives assignments in a very pleasant authoritative tone which somehow beguiles the Angels to do his bidding despite Charlie never works a day in his life. Charlie represents the very heavy mantle of dead composers that continue to haunt us from their oceanside cabanas in heaven (or for those repelled by the whole Hell Heaven idea - lounging on an oceanside cabana with a big old cane to knock your subconsciousness over the head to be original or abide by the inherent natural rules of beauty or whatever else to get you all twisted out of shape)

Pretty much non-understandable non-sense for me as a non-native English speaker

Well hansen it is not to be taken seriously. Do you know the TV series from the 1970's Charlie's Angels's?

If you know the show then have one member of the women who make up Charlie's Angles' investigative team represent minimalism, another serialism, and another the neo-X (that is neo-baroque/neo-classicism, etc) composition styles. maybe you will get the parody. If not sorry.

Still hilarious. I lol'd.

I think this era is almost like another renaissance era.'

Over the past few decades, we've seen the creation and development of incredible technologies (eg. internet, pretty much every piece of technology we use is AMAZING) and especially over the last decade, the whole world has come around to a new way of thinking- for once, humans are attempting to HELP the earth, there's been such a change in mindset to always be 'doing the right thing'- conserving, recycling, using minimal resources etc...

Although the music industry doesn't reflect that at all. It's grown and grown and grown, and now, for record companies at least, it's all coming crumbling down. I believe that there's a huge possibility we'll see the end of Sony.

But anyway back to the point-

Renaissance #2

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with naming eras. We are still a relatively young civilisation, but imagine 100,000 years from now. Numbers can be very confusing...

But anyway, I guess by then historians will have come up with more advanced methods of organisation of historic material. We might have also changed our calendars several times, starting from zero again, so who knows...

Alexandros

I think this era is almost like another renaissance era.'

Over the past few decades, we've seen the creation and development of incredible technologies (eg. internet, pretty much every piece of technology we use is AMAZING) and especially over the last decade, the whole world has come around to a new way of thinking- for once, humans are attempting to HELP the earth, there's been such a change in mindset to always be 'doing the right thing'- conserving, recycling, using minimal resources etc...

Although the music industry doesn't reflect that at all. It's grown and grown and grown, and now, for record companies at least, it's all coming crumbling down. I believe that there's a huge possibility we'll see the end of Sony.

But anyway back to the point-

Renaissance #2

"Renaissance II" would be a really prospective term if we would be able to burn atonalism at the stake of history and to overcome the "riveness", so to speak, of the ubiquitous "anything goes" of 20th century's music development