Late 20th Century, Contemporary: Major Composers

[Guido]

Penderecki is hugely overrated I think. His best stuff for me is the interim period where he mixes avant guard with neo-romanticism - that behemoth the Second cello concerto for instance - maybe the best example. Either side I find the music rather bland, but in the middle, the frisson created by these two extremely contrasting styles, and Penderecki's manifold ways of integrating the very new, with the almost kitschy old is quite exciting and sometimes beautiful.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

A glimpse I have had at him after a concert + a couple of documentaries suggest he is in life, his personality type, as he is in his latter music: a pompous a**, with a "look-at-me-the-great-composer" kind of attitude.

I've heard similar impressions from other sources; maybe he just got mesmerized by an image of what a "great composer" should be like. Still, it's beside the point. What matters is the music.

To my list of later works that I like, I want to put in a goodish word for Lieder der Vergänglichkeit, the so-called 8th Symphony. Some critics have claimed this sounds too much like late Mahler or Berg. Personally I think that's a good thing.

[Josquin des Prez]

I haven't heard absolutely everything, and have heard many good things about some of the later chamber works (re-affirmed up by comments a few posts back)

Seems like we are coming from different angles, since most of my experience with his late works revolves around the chamber music, which is far superior to most of the juvenile stuff from the 60s everybody seems to be rolling over for.

A glimpse I have had at him after a concert + a couple of documentaries suggest he is in life, his personality type, as he is in his latter music: a pompous a**, with a "look-at-me-the-great-composer" kind of attitude.

At least he isn't a conformist. 

[Josquin des Prez]

Shostakovitch sounds like Mahler too. Maybe we ought to ditch his music altogether.

[Franco]

As a matter of fact Shostakovich is the most overrated composer ever. In his youth he sounded like Prokofiev (occasionally Satie). In his maturity he sounded like Mahler. In his old age he sounded like everybody - still Mahler, some return of Prokofiev, Bartok, even glimpses of Webern - the whole thing adding up to complete artificiality - and sometimes near plagiarism, as with that silly simple-minded theme in the Leningrad symphony, basically stolen from Mussorgsky, with slight modifications to hide the shop-lifting

Duly noted: toucan, has deemed Dmitri Shostakovich is the the most overrated composer ever, a plagarist and composer of silly simple-minded themes- all adding up to complete artificiality.

I am sure your words will rock the classical music world and forever change how musicians view Shostakovich's legacy.

Btw, who do you think wrote the works attributed to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?

[some guy]

Well, this has been a most gratifying subthread for me. I started out listening to twentieth century music just because I liked how it sounded, so I never had any of the struggles that a lot of people report, never felt like the music on the whole was difficult or needed time to get used to.

Penderecki's early works were exciting, visceral, beautiful music, strong and fresh. His second symphony was a real shock (in a bad way). It was like a slap in the face. We all felt betrayed, though one of my friends did say at one point that maybe Penderecki only had the one thing going and just ran out of things to do with that one thing.

I've listened to some of the early stuff again recently, and I'm not so sure. I think toucan may be right, that some of Penderecki's early stuff is even better than some of Xenakis' early stuff. In fact, it's been uncanny reading toucan's posts to this subtopic, as everything he's said about the music itself has been exactly aligned with my experience of that music, including his observations about Shostakovich, whose music I enjoy but whose reputation has got to be way beyond what the music can bear!

And everything he's (yes, she could be a she, we don't know these things) said philosophically has been right along the lines of what I've thought for the thirty eight years since I "discovered" twentieth century music, especially that point about redoing older composers, which has been rather a hobby horse of mine.

Good times!

[Brahmsian]

As a matter of fact Shostakovich is the most overrated composer ever.

Absolute nonsense 

[Franco]

especially that point about redoing older composers, which has been rather a hobby horse of mine.

Sure, Beethoven redid Haydn, Debussy redid Wagner, etc. etc. etc. - no news there.  But, it is part of the process of any artist to regurgitate previous composers they were influenced by, and then go on to refine their own style that, while still retaining some of the reisdue of the earlier influence, transcends the previous composer and comes into its own.

I find it absurd to claim that Shostakovich is "overrated" (compared to who?) since he is one of the major voices of the 20th century and composed a large body of work - all of a high quality - he natually will figure large in any appraisal of 20th century music.  His symphonies and string quartets alone are some of the best executed contemporary statements of classic compositional forms, and far from being overrated, I find it hard to exaggerate their importance.

To expect that Shostakovich (or any composer) would show no influences is a bizarre point of view, and I think it reflects on some other agenda to totally undervalue the work, and blandly list previous composers Shostakovich supposedly mimicked.

[some guy]

Since the quote at the top of Franco's post is from me, I suppose it's up to me to address the points he makes, even though none of them are about anything I said.

t is part of the process of any artist to regurgitate previous composers they were influenced by....

Part of the process, yes.

I find it absurd to claim that Shostakovich is "overrated" (compared to who?) since he is one of the major voices of the 20th century....

I suppose it would be possible to say that this claim is absurd as well, though I'm not going to do it. I'm just going to point out that it's a claim, just like the other one.

His symphonies and string quartets alone are some of the best executed contemporary statements of classic compositional forms....

Indeed. Question is, is executing classic compositional forms a good thing in and of itself?

To expect that Shostakovich (or any composer) would show no influences is a bizarre point of view, and I think it reflects on some other agenda to totally undervalue the work, and blandly list previous composers Shostakovich supposedly mimicked.

I agree that expecting any composer to show no influence is a bizarre point of view. But no one has expressed that point of view. So to bring it up is, um, well, bizarre. Or maybe just reflecting on some agenda.

I can't speak for toucan (though I found it refreshingly uncanny that he seems able to speak for me so accurately), but I have no agenda to undervalue Shostakovich's work. I'm always surprised that I continue to enjoy his music so much. It always amazes me that he did what he did so well. Even though I don't see him as the towering giant some people do, I'm not surprised that he should have the reputation he does. I don't think it's deserved, but I'm not surprised. (He's clearly in a different league from the other backwards looking composers of the twentieth century. Makes you wonder how he would have developed in a different political climate.)

[Franco]

Question is, is executing classic compositional forms a good thing in and of itself?

What makes the achievement worthwhile is the greatness in manner in which a new statement can be made using an old form.

I agree that expecting any composer to show no influence is a bizarre point of view. But no one has expressed that point of view. So to bring it up is, um, well, bizarre. Or maybe just reflecting on some agenda.

I would direct you to this post:

As a matter of fact Shostakovich is the most overrated composer ever. In his youth he sounded like Prokofiev (occasionally Satie). In his maturity he sounded like Mahler. In his old age he sounded like everybody - still Mahler, some return of Prokofiev, Bartok, even glimpses of Webern - the whole thing adding up to complete artificiality - and sometimes near plagiarism, as with that silly simple-minded theme in the Leningrad symphony, basically stolen from Mussorgsky, with slight modifications to hide the shop-lifting

Which appears to be a superficial dismissial of Shostakovich's career as nothing but a parrot.  It is mean-spirited to a degree that I sensed another agenda other than a clear-eyed appraisal of his work.

I can't speak for toucan (though I found it refreshingly uncanny that he seems able to speak for me so accurately), but I have no agenda to undervalue Shostakovich's work. I'm always surprised that I continue to enjoy his music so much. It always amazes me that he did what he did so well. Even though I don't see him as the towering giant some people do, I'm not surprised that he should have the reputation he does. I don't think it's deserved, but I'm not surprised. (He's clearly in a different league from the other backwards looking composers of the twentieth century. Makes you wonder how he would have developed in a different political climate.)

I suppose if damning with faint praise is all you can muster for Shostakovich, so be it.  But my sense is that it takes a certain courage, and is the greater accomplishment to purposely work in well trodden territory and still manage to carve out a unique and important body of work as opposed to going off to a undeveloped land simply because it has not been done before, and letting the work stand like a flag pole in a desert - a magnificent dead-end.

[jochanaan]

Well, since Shostakovich's name keeps coming up, here's my $.02 worth:

Whether his music is great or not--and I tend to think it is--to claim that it is entirely derivative shows only superficial acquaintance with it.  Shostakovich has his own voice, and had it from the very beginning, e.g. Symphony #1, and he has great skill and heart--all the necessary attributes of a "great composer."

[Henk]

Ligeti
Boulez
Shostakovich
Xenakis
Carter
Lutoslawski
Kurtag
Messiaen
Maderna
Takemitsu
Andriessen
Birtwistle
Murail
Mantovani
Manoury
Donatoni
Fedele
Harvey
Parra
Furrer
De Raaff

[petrarch]

Ligeti
Boulez
Shostakovich
Xenakis
Carter
Lutoslawski
Kurtag
Messiaen
Maderna
Takemitsu
Andriessen
Birtwistle
Murail
Mantovani
Manoury
Donatoni
Fedele
Harvey
Parra
Furrer
De Raaff

Where are Stockhausen, Berio, Nono, Rihm, Lachenmann, Ferneyhough, Sciarrino (just to name a handful)?

[not edward]

Seems like this was an old thread reactivated that had its peak during my time away. I thought I'd try to make out such a list, but failed: too many contenders for 10 spaces.

The only name I could be 100% sure I wanted to include was Ligeti. I don't know if that means I think he's the greatest composer of his era, whatever that means, but I'm certain he belongs on such a list.

[Franco]

Where are Stockhausen, Berio, Nono, Rihm, Lachenmann, Ferneyhough, Sciarrino (just to name a handful)?

Probably mentioned earlier on the list, or failing that, then you just listed them.  I think I listed Stockhausen when I made my contribution.

[knight66]

Coping or mimicking other artists is something that young fledglings do ... and it is one approach to learning the basic rudiments but can be a dangerous area for pupils who end up blinded mimicking their own heroes and end-up sounding dangerously derivative, let alone taking a stage and regurgitating others (embarassing). The focus should be being influenced by their heroes work ethic as opposed to the actual work itself. The ideal situation is for an artist to take in & learn but have enough sense to distill traces of those things that aren't their own out of their own playing & composing so that they can achieve their own musical voice or identity in the purist sense.

Picasso gifted some of his work to the city of Barcelona. If you go there do spend time in their Picasso museum. You won't find any of the most famous pieces; but you can journey through rooms and observe how he developed. He absorbed the style of every major artist he was in contact with and he produced near forgeries of their work.

Then he synthesised it. What he grew into was not recognisable in terms of the work he had 'tried out'. You would find it hard to discover these early pieces even on the Net. For some of this formative work, there is only one accessable copy of it and you go to Barcelona to see it.

But for a musician, the music they experimented with, once published, is out there. Everyone can access it as soon as it is recorded. James is right. And we ought not to get hung up on the notion of which of our best composers was influenced by other composers. It is usually how creative processes work; observe, experiment, develop.

Mike

[knight66]

I have brought the following together from old posts of mine....

This good ear thing is OK for Handel and Bach, but we did Penderecki in that first year and I had to go to a musical friend and be trained like a dog. We did his Stabat Mater and he conducted us. I was pretty scared, as the music was unaccompanied and he was about three feet from me. At one point all the singers had to produce a different semitone through about three octaves. He knew exactly what notes were missing and was very impatient about it. I managed not draw attention to myself, but was never sure whether I was on the right note or had stolen someone else's. There was only about a third of the choir used for the piece and I think John, the Chorus Master took a flyer on me to study the music at home.

He was demanding and impatient. I got the impression this was his default setting rather than an issue he had with us. He was very intent on getting us to promounce the Latin in a non-English way. Matrem Christie was blurred into an approximation of Mathrem Chrithie with the tongue out of the mouth for the middle of each word. It took us a while to understand he wanted this effect, as he never simply said....prounounce it like this....he just kept repeating the words and we were confused as to whether it was the intonation, the volume, the phrasing etc. Eventually we twigged.

In another piece of his, there were some extemporised bars. The noises he asked for were so random that in the performance someone's nerves got the better of her and there was some hysterical laughing. I am sure the audience remained unaware of the nature of the randomness.

He was seemingly pleased by the end results.

Mike

[mjwal]

Whatever happened to Bernd Alois Zimmermann and Peter Maxwell Davies on everybody's lists? Of course, one can't pack all the goodies into a list of ten (the ten great 20th C writers, anyone?) But my personal list, omitting those whose major career began before 1950 (thus excluding Messiaen, Britten or Tippett) is:
B.A.Zimmermann
P.M. Davies
K.H.Stockhausen
G. Ligeti
G. Kurtag
W.Lutoslawski
I. Xenakis
L. Nono
M. Feldman
P. Norgard
(What?!! No Scelsi, Carter, Nancarrow, Boulez, etc etc?!!)

[Henk]

Where are Stockhausen, Berio, Nono, Rihm, Lachenmann, Ferneyhough, Sciarrino (just to name a handful)?

I forgot Berio. ;-)

[vandermolen]

Vasks, Vagn Holmboe, Arnell.