Atonality was a radical departure. Impressionism was quite radical, too. And minimalism. But although Rachmaninov was "up to date", he almost didn't leave the e

Atonality was a radical departure. Impressionism was quite radical, too. And minimalism. But although Rachmaninov was "up to date", he almost didn't leave the established path. He wrote great melodies and the harmony, orchestration and runs are wonderful, but it's not radical. That's not bad, IMO. Radicalism as such is overrated. It's throws out the baby with the bathwater. It may come with great ideas, but it often also is a power grab, an attempt to overthrow the elite and establish a new one, which may have a different "language" or style, but still has an old-fashioned power structure. There will be a top, there will be some good works, but the lesser artists don't magically improve: they were there before the new movement, and they will there there after. And (all this IMO, of course) they were what made chromaticism and atonality so boring. The other day, I listened to Christian Sinding's 3rd symphony. I thought it was a bit bland but ok for 1870, but it turned out to have been written 50 years later. Still, since it's tonal, it's accessible, and there will be people who enjoy it. But a composer of similar caliber in a later age, forcing him/herself to write in some serial technique, will sadly produce something we'd rather forget. TLDR: I like Rach, and I'm not fond of radicalism for its own sake.