What is Neoclassicism?

What is Neoclassicism?

I get the impression that many of us have the wrong idea about what Neoclassicism is.

I often come across comments in posts such as: ‘Ah, this is in a Neoclassical style’, or even the composer themselves might say that their work is Neoclassical.

But writing a piece that is reminiscent of Mozart, to take him as an example, is not the same as creating something Neoclassical. It is simply imitating, with varying degrees of success, the Classical style.

Neoclassicism has a specific origin, a particular period (roughly 1920–1950) with its own historical background. And most importantly: it has its own defining characteristics.

Without that, we are not creating Neoclassicism, but merely imitating the style of the 18th century.

There are a great many composers who, at some stage in their lives, composed neoclassical works.

To name a few off the top of my head: Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Poulenc, Bartók, Hindemith, Falla, Copland, Milhaud, Honegger, Chávez.

And there are marvellous works by all of them – symphonies, operas, piano pieces, and so on...

If you’re interested, we can discuss these characteristics and works.

Best regards.

Perhaps my favorite "Neoclassical" work is Prokofiev's 1st Symphony - labeled as "Classical". With it's Gavotte instead of a Minuet, it clearly derives it's stylistic and formal ideas from the Baroque period but in a way that is more tongue-in-cheek. A characteristic of this symphony is its unusual harmonic progressions that don't appear anywhere in the Classical period - namely, what has been dubbed as "shifted tonality" with liberal use of planing which introduces forbidden parallelism into the harmony. This kind of approach to harmony would usually not be allowed in the Classical period, but in Neoclassicism is more copious. The inclusion of the Gavotte instead of a Minuet, opens up a whole world of possibility in including all kinds of different Baroque dances in the Symphony and harkens back to the Baroque Dance Suite itself as being one of the originators of the development of the Symphony.

@PeterthePapercomPoser

That’s true, you’ve highlighted some of the interesting aspects of the style.

This symphony is marvellous and very subtle. We could give other, much more ‘intense’ examples.

If we don’t pay close attention, this sounds like ‘Mozart’, doesn’t it?

But, for example, coming from D major, in bar 11, there’s a sudden (unprepared) modulation to C major. That wouldn’t happen in the Classical period.

Another example is those tremendous leaps in the first violins a little further on.

Edited 7 hours ago7 hr by Luis Hernández

Like the classical style (period).

Neo-classicalism returns the stylistics methods of the 18th century. We can use Stavinsky as great example. His earlier works were not composed in modern idioms, but reflective of how Beethoven wrote. Symphony of the Psalms is much like chorale symphony by Beethoven. I would include his ballet "the firebird" in the same way Russian ballets are written in the 19th century. It is his "Rite of spring" that is more dissonant and not "classical".

When it comes to form, think sonata form and pieces that Bach wrote.

Hello @Luis Hernández,

I’m glad this topic was brought up for discussion! It may be useful to distinguish a few senses in which the term can be understood.

First, neoclassicism can be understood in an inclusive sense—as the employment of stylistic traits of classicism within a new or later context. In this sense, works composed before the 1920s could be considered "neoclassical", such as Saint-Saëns’s wonderful Septet in E-flat major (1880) or Grieg’s Holberg Suite (1884), as well as works being written today. In this context, "neoclassicism" is used in a similar way to descriptors like "neo-romanticism" or "post-impressionism" (both of which, arguably, can be understood in a more limited way as well).

There is, of course, a difference between this broad assimilation of classical elements and the seeming "distortion" of them that we often observe in Stravinsky or Hindemith. Perhaps it’s in this latter sense that you speak of "Neoclassicism" as a specific historical style and era. Yet Stravinsky and Hindemith didn’t view what they were doing as "distorting" classicism, but rather as continuing it—perhaps as a reaction against the saturation and monumentality of much German Romanticism.

Stravinsky himself, the composer most closely associated with this movement, famously stated: "Neoclassicism? A label that means nothing whatever." In fact, almost all of the composers tied to Neoclassicism wanted nothing to do with the term.

So while I think it’s a bit pointless to fret over the "correct" use of labels in art, I feel justified in using the term in its more inclusive sense. For me, it’s a helpful tool to describe music that is influenced by the Western art music of the 16th–18th centuries, approached from a modern perspective with varying levels of reverence for classical norms. I don’t think those who use the term in a narrower sense are necessarily more "correct" (though I do take issue with using the descriptor for mainstream 'peaceful piano' music—but that’s another story best left for another time!).

Some works I love that I could be considered neoclassical, albeit in different ways:

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by CrystalCanon

4 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

And most importantly: it has its own defining characteristics.

Without that, we are not creating Neoclassicism, but merely imitating the style of the 18th century.

@Luis Hernández I’m curious as to what you consider to be the defining features of Neoclassicism! Do you think there are common traits that go beyond “classical” appropriations?