GMG Consensus: Who was the greatest composer of the 20th century?

[karlhenning]

This thread has not been without a certain degree of interest. But this:

Its all about pretense in this forum. Have you been living under a rock? Most of the answers in this thread have little to do with the actual music and everything to do with ideology. Its about showing how eclectic and open minded ones own tastes are, especially towards modern trends, which are still not readily accepted and therefore require further support. Orwell got it wrong. The most efficient system of social engineering is not one which has the best brainwashing tools, but the one which convinces people to do their own brainwashing. Is not the government agent you have to look out for, but the conscientious citizen who's actually motivated by the best of intentions.

. . . is unsurpassed in its amusement value. I know, it is not witty in form or design (just a petulant rant, really).  But in its pure, conspiracy-theory-like disconnect from everything around it . . . it's as if Lear had suddenly stepped onto the stage of The Cocoanuts.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

This thread has not been without a certain degree of interest. But this:

. . . is unsurpassed in its amusement value. I know, it is not witty in form or design (just a petulant rant, really).  But in its pure, conspiracy-theory-like disconnect from everything around it . . . it's as if Lear had suddenly stepped onto the stage of The Cocoanuts.

Yes indeed. I was starting to miss Sean, because of his entertainment value. But it appears that "Josquin" is picking up the slack.

That said, his post prior to that one was sensible.

[not edward]

Obviously the answer is Banana. You can close the thread now.

[karlhenning]

Kumquat!

[karlhenning]

It strikes me as funny that mention of John Cage will cause some people to cry "Foul!"  Seems to me these are people who live in a state of denial that John Cage has had a fairly large influence on not just music but the arts in general.  To allow a personal distaste for his contribution to color the objective appraisal of his career is not very impressive nor persuasive.

And, considering how unforcedly attractive I find most of his work (that I know), the ruckus strikes me as all the stranger.

[MishaK]

"Consensus" On GMG??? What a naive idea... 

[karlhenning]

"Consensus" On GMG??? What a naive idea... 

A hit! A palpable hit!

[Brahmsian]

Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Shostakovich, Prokofiev & Bartok

After, Ligeti, Penderecki, Kancheli, Adams, Barber and so many others.

Yes, Mahler, Sibelius, Strauss, Ravel and Debussy composed in the 20th Century, but for some reason I always consider them more to be late 19th Century.

[Lethevich]

How much might popularity matter in this decision? As much as I tend to immediately think "Schoenberg" for these questions, he has very few hits that listeners recognise and love. Stravinsky, however, has more. If popularity is essential, then Shostakovich potentially has even more cache, in a further more accessable idiom. Perhaps Bartók is a suitable compromise.

I still think Schoenberg, though, popularity or not

[MDL]

In terms of their influence over other composers and their impact on the course of 20th-century music, surely Mahler, Debussy, Stravinsky and Schoenberg share top honours. And I'd argue that Sibelius had a more lasting impact than Shostakovich or Prokofiev.

[Todd]

Obviously the answer is Banana.

Agreed.

[some guy]

You know, when I opened this thread up this morning, I was getting all worked up to say, "What it really depends on is who of us knows the most about the twentieth century."

But reading through the posts since my last, I really think that there's something else going on, and that it also depends to a large extent on who of us knows how to think. Even people who know very little about all the things that went on in a century that eventually will seem as calm and placid as we now see the extremely turbulent 19th century, will see farther and truer, if they can think, than a whole congeries of "experts" who cannot.

Rejecting the premises of this thread, all of them, is a good thing. (Just think if all of us wiped the dust of this thread from our feet and went out and listened to a lot of music, including, of course, a lot of music that does not have the GMG seal of approval! Just think how much better off we'd all be.)

[Grazioso]

Kumquat!

I don't like the aleatory bit in the middle. Now persimmon, that's a different matter.

will see farther and truer, if they can think, than a whole congeries of "experts" who cannot.

A little learning is a dangerous thing. Which, in part, is why I'm leery of making undue recourse to writers on the subject: history is narrative, and like fiction, an author has to make choices about what to focus on, downplay, or outright ignore. The typical narrative of 20th-century classical music is one of privilege-the-stylistic-experiments.

As to the question at hand, I couldn't say. I've heard and enjoyed a whole lot of 20th century music, but there's an equal amount I haven't heard. And hearing doesn't equal understanding, anyway. So, the answer is obviously Elgar 

[some guy]

Burma!!

[DavidRoss]

Just some mild entertainment here .. You know how for certain eras of the western art music legacy there are usually a few that really stand out well ahead of the rest .. for instance, for the Baroque era Bach .. the classical era Beethoven .. the romantic era Wagner .. just as quick one name examples off the top of my head; but what about the last century. Out the major 20th century composers, if you had to pick one as being overall the greatest, who would it be?

Major 20th Century Composers:
Debussy, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Mahler, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Elgar, RVW, Ravel, Bartók, Janáček, Strauss, Puccini, Nielsen, Rachmaninoff, Ives, Britten, Villa-Lobos, Gershwin, Copland

Significant for influence on 20th Century music but but doubtful will be remembered for much else 100 years hence:
Schoenberg

The jury's still out on latter half of 20th Century--give it 100 years.

My family went through this exercise at dinner one night seven or eight years ago.  Debussy, Mahler, Stravinsky, Sibelius, and Strauss were the main candidates.  Consensus choices were Debussy & Stravinsky, for their influence as well as their substantial bodies of lasting works.  We gave the nod to Stravinsky.  My own choice was Sibelius (surprise!), whose influence is almost as under-appreciated as the breadth and quality of his compositions.  Give it another 100 years for the hub-bub of 20th Century license to fade away and then we'll see who remains.

[Florestan]

"Consensus" On GMG??? What a naive idea... 

+ 1. 

[some guy]

"It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."--Robert Frost

Same with contemporary music, I would say.

[Sid]

But without an agreed upon meaning for 'greatest', this boils down to who you like most and whatever criteria you want to use to justify your choice. In this, I rather like Sid's response. Agree or disagree, he gives a good rationale for his choice, some of which I had not considered myself when thinking about the question. Thanks Sid!

Thanks for your comments ukrneal. I'm quite a fan of those composers who reached out and embraced so-called "low art." Piazzolla, Schnittke (& I forgot before) Ives & especially Satie were great at this. Satie actually influenced Cage, so there is a connection there. Cage's work for piano, percussion, radio and turntables "Credo in Us" from the 1940's incorporates a lot of these kinds of things, from radio broadcasts to recordings of classical "high art" concert hall music and even a bit of ragtime. I think it is these kinds of composers that have a lot of relevance today in 2011 as the barriers between "high" and "low" art are constantly being broken down. Let's face it, classical music is no longer really mainstream, so maybe the only way it will survive outside of the rather rarified atmosphere of the concert halls and opera houses (populated predominantly by the over 50's) will be in the popular culture (love it or loathe it)...

[Josquin des Prez]

"It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."--Robert Frost

Pretty much what i've been saying all along.

[springrite]

Composer who composed in the 20th century: Mahler

Composer both born and died in the 20th century (which makes him a 20th century composer by any definition): Feldman

Composer born in the 20th century and lived into the 21st century: Carter

That is just my opinion.