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

[some guy]

Pretty much what i've been saying all along.

Really? I have never seen you say anything even remotely like what's in that Frost quote. Quite the contrary, quite often.

[Brahmsian]

Coming soon at Wrestlemania XXXV, the main event in a 'cage' match  JAMES VS. SOME GUY, Part X   

[springrite]

Coming soon at Wrestlemania XXXV, the main event in a 'cage' match  JAMES VS. SOME GUY, Part X   

Can I be the refereee?




BTW, Cage was my second choice... 

[DavidRoss]

"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.

Emphasis added.  It's obvious that many here think they are "the right listener."  Most are mistaken.  Posterity will judge.

Edit: oops--forgot a bracket!

[not edward]

My own choice was Sibelius (surprise!), whose influence is almost as under-appreciated as the breadth and quality of his compositions.

No, I think this is a very shrewd choice, and certainly Sibelius would be in the any list of people I couldn't eliminate from contention. Apart from the quality of work, what strikes me very much is how much of the late 20th century and early 21st century music that I admire--both tonal and atonal--is hard to imagine without Sibelius as a forebear. When your devoted admirers include everyone from Adams to Ferneyhough, there's something near-universal in your music.

[Sid]

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

Well, we'll all be dead by then, it'll be too late!!!

This thread should really be about "Who was the greatest composer of the first half of the 20th century?" By the look of the lists proferred by most on this thread, you couldn't be blamed if this conversation was taking place in 1950 not 2011. Only a few have mentioned some major figures of the post-war era, eg. Messiaen, Cage & Carter. & the "dialogue" is mainly about what happened prior to 1950. No wonder that many younger people today see classical music as a dead artform, irrelevant, something that belongs in a museum and the academies rather than a part of our everyday lives today...

[Mirror Image]

No wonder that many younger people today see classical music as a dead artform, irrelevant, something that belongs in a museum and the academies rather than a part of our everyday lives today...

If a younger person believes this then they're misinformed. Classical music, in today's time, is about exposure. You would think that since this younger generation is so tech savvy that the eclectic tastes that run through so many of them would be enough for them to be interested in the music. For me, it was about exposure. Quite frankly, I don't hear a lot of music being composed today that can even stand against Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg, Janacek, etc. What I do hear are composers who aren't after public approval and that compose mainly for themselves, which is a noble thing within itself, but why can't a composer, of today's time, come up with a piece of music that is innovative yet accessible? Why do composers these days think they have to compromise melody, rhythm, harmony, and structure in order to make an artistic statement? The reason why the first half of the 20th Century remains so popular and is so influential is because these composers were breaking away from Romanticism, but they weren't entirely turning their backs on the tradition that came before them. It was the necessary step just like Schoenberg thought his 12-tone system was a necessary step in the evolution of classical music. The reality is many listeners still struggle with Schoenberg and the Second Viennese School. Many people have a hard time digesting Bartok's primitivism. Many people still have difficultly with Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. Anyway, once people get past whatever kinds of problems they have with the music of the early 20th Century is only when they can start approaching what came after ---- post-WWII.

For me as a listener, I have only started to grasp some of the music of the Second Viennese School, but it took me three years and I'm an avid classical listener and fan. Just imagine how long it will take the casual listener or concert goer to grasp this music? We'll all be dead by then.

[snyprrr]

3 Pages,... and you're ALL wrong!


Iannis Xenakis is the ONLY Composer to incorporate Mathematics the way he did, the ONLY Composer to link the Past and Future in Now,... the Most Original by FA,... well, he's certainly in the Winner's Circle.

Truly, a Space Age Composer,... making Science real in Music.

Truly, according to the Statistics & Probabilities, it has to be Xenakis, not Cage or Stockhausen (both of whom went kookoo ).

I know that when you think of Carl Sagan, and all of those bbbbillions and bbbbillions of stars, you'll have to agree it has to be Xenakis.

I thank you in advance.


oh, and btw- the 20th Century began in 1950. Yes, I know, you're shocked.

[jochanaan]

...why can't a composer, of today's time, come up with a piece of music that is innovative yet accessible? Why do composers these days think they have to compromise melody, rhythm, harmony, and structure in order to make an artistic statement? ...

It seems you're painting with a broad brush.  There are many composers from the 20th century's second half who, some very consciously, write in styles that are both appealing and challenging.  My own nominee, Olivier Messiaen, certainly did, and so do many others, like Alan Hovhaness, Henryk Gorecki, Arvo Part, Joan Tower, Osvaldo Golijov, and Michael Daugherty.  (Of those, only two, Hovhaness and Gorecki, are deceased, and the list is very incomplete. )

[Sid]

If a younger person believes this then they're misinformed. Classical music, in today's time, is about exposure. You would think that since this younger generation is so tech savvy that the eclectic tastes that run through so many of them would be enough for them to be interested in the music. For me, it was about exposure.

Yes, exposure is an issue. But I think that we are all exposed to classical music, or elements of it, through many different things not only recordings or live performances of symphonies, etc. (see below)

Quite frankly, I don't hear a lot of music being composed today that can even stand against Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg, Janacek, etc.

Well I personally continue to hear works by current composers which do speak to me on as many different levels as those earlier composers.

What I do hear are composers who aren't after public approval and that compose mainly for themselves, which is a noble thing within itself, but why can't a composer, of today's time, come up with a piece of music that is innovative yet accessible? Why do composers these days think they have to compromise melody, rhythm, harmony, and structure in order to make an artistic statement?

"Accessible" means different things to different people. It's also connected to what you like & don't like. For example, I have a friend who finds Mahler more accessible than Mozart (too many notes!!!). I personally find a lot of the chamber repertoire more accessible than the orchestral, and yet many people label chamber as highbrow. It's all based on personal preference. I don't think composers today - whether they are "serious" classical composers or composers for the movies - compromise anything compared to earlier composers. They're just different.

The reason why the first half of the 20th Century remains so popular and is so influential is because these composers were breaking away from Romanticism, but they weren't entirely turning their backs on the tradition that came before them.

True, Romanticism had a big pull, as did other eras. I don't think it's a matter of composers today turning their backs on the music of the past (which they have all studied and know better than most of us here). It's a matter of them finding different solutions to different problems. Problems that didn't exist in say 1900, 1920, or 1950.

It was the necessary step just like Schoenberg thought his 12-tone system was a necessary step in the evolution of classical music. The reality is many listeners still struggle with Schoenberg and the Second Viennese School. Many people have a hard time digesting Bartok's primitivism. Many people still have difficultly with Stravinsky's Rite of Spring.

True. By the same token, some fairly sophisticated listeners - like some here - who have more knowledge than people like me still struggle with Cage. I personally don't find his music harder to digest than Schoenberg, Bartok or Stravinsky. It's all a matter of taking each composer on his/her own terms, imo.

Anyway, once people get past whatever kinds of problems they have with the music of the early 20th Century is only when they can start approaching what came after ---- post-WWII.

But wouldn't you think that many people are already being exposed to post WW2 music everyday - it just might not be by listening to recordings or in the mainstream concert halls. I personally wouldn't underestimate the knowledge that the average person has of late c20th classical music which they have gained through a wide variety of sources - like film soundtracks & on television. There's also a lot of references to classical music in non classical music & it's been going on for decades. It's this type of knowledge that some of those people that are more heavily into classical music might sometimes too readily discount. I think that the gulf between so-call "low" and "high" art is constantly being bridged today in many ways.

For me as a listener, I have only started to grasp some of the music of the Second Viennese School, but it took me three years and I'm an avid classical listener and fan. Just imagine how long it will take the casual listener or concert goer to grasp this music? We'll all be dead by then.

Yes, everyone has a journey & learns things in the process. I just find it hard to deal with ideologues who are closed off to certain things. In my circle of friends & acquaintances who like classical music, I find that there's a lot of flexibility and eclecticism, which I think is healthier than some of the attitudes expressed on internet forums...

[some guy]

While I was typing a meticulous examination of Mirror's points, Sid's response came in, better in every way to mine.

So read Sid's post twice, once for him and once for me!

[Sid]

3 Pages,... and you're ALL wrong!


Iannis Xenakis is the ONLY Composer to incorporate Mathematics the way he did, the ONLY Composer to link the Past and Future in Now,... the Most Original by FA,... well, he's certainly in the Winner's Circle.

Yes, Xenakis was a great composer. I was just talking to a musician friend about him on the weekend. He said that some people, even musicians, have "problems" with the harmonies in his music. I personally don't, but I'm mainly familiar with his chamber & electronic pieces. I think that Xenakis just did his own thing, and did it well. I agree that he seemed more 'respectable' than Stockhausen or Cage in terms of mainly just writing music, rather than making various pronouncements about it. I also like how Xenakis' music has this sense of warmth and richness, even though at the same time it is full of the toughest of the tough dissonances...

oh, and btw- the 20th Century began in 1950. Yes, I know, you're shocked.

Well for me personally, it began in 1976!!!

[Sid]

While I was typing a meticulous examination of Mirror's points, Sid's response came in, better in every way to mine.

So read Sid's post twice, once for him and once for me!

I actually think that MI brought up many vaild points. I wasn't trying to refute everything he said, just get a "dialogue" going. A more useful type of "dialogue" than the OP, who seems to ignore or rubbish some people's suggestions that certain composers were "great" even though this is subjective. I'm glad not everyone thinks in his potentially restrictive "grand narrative" kind of interpretation of the history of c20th classical music...

[some guy]

I wasn't trying to refute everything he said, just get a "dialogue" going.

Exactly why I trashed mine after reading yours!

[Josquin des Prez]

Really? I have never seen you say anything even remotely like what's in that Frost quote. Quite the contrary, quite often.

Please. I couldn't possibly have been more adamant about the idea that genius is self-evident, quite contrary to the general opinion here, that genius can only be assessed by a consensus, generally after a certain amount of time. So now that we find a poet that actually agrees with what i've been saying all along, and all of a sudden you feint ignorance.

[jochanaan]

Please. I couldn't possibly have been more adamant about the idea that genius is self-evident...

Self-evident perhaps--but according to Mr. Frost and in my own experience, only to "the right reader" or listener.  And that's not always about general intelligence (which may not even exist, according to some theorists) or experience or sensitivity, but just about whether a listener and a composition "click."

Example: When I first heard Mahler's music at age 18 (it was the Eighth Symphony), I fell in love at once, completely and forever.  But for other musicians and listeners who are at least as intelligent, experienced and sensitive as I, it has indeed taken years to recognize his genius.  For yet others, there is no recognition of genius at all.  The music is the same--listeners are just different.

[karlhenning]

3 Pages,... and you're ALL wrong!

A very likeable post.

[karlhenning]

I actually think that MI brought up many vaild points. I wasn't trying to refute everything he said, just get a "dialogue" going.

Yes, hence its value.

[karlhenning]

Please. I couldn't possibly have been more adamant about the idea that genius is self-evident...

Self-evident perhaps--but according to Mr. Frost and in my own experience, only to "the right reader" or listener.  And that's not always about general intelligence (which may not even exist, according to some theorists) or experience or sensitivity, but just about whether a listener and a composition "click."

Example: When I first heard Mahler's music at age 18 (it was the Eighth Symphony), I fell in love at once, completely and forever.  But for other musicians and listeners who are at least as intelligent, experienced and sensitive as I, it has indeed taken years to recognize his genius.  For yet others, there is no recognition of genius at all.  The music is the same--listeners are just different.

Or, yes, it is self-evident.  What you have no business being adamant about, JdP, is claiming that if it is not "self-evident" to you, now, then it somehow "isn't genius."

[Brian]

Quite frankly, I don't hear a lot of music being composed today that can even stand against Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg, Janacek, etc. What I do hear are composers who aren't after public approval and that compose mainly for themselves, which is a noble thing within itself, but why can't a composer, of today's time, come up with a piece of music that is innovative yet accessible? Why do composers these days think they have to compromise melody, rhythm, harmony, and structure in order to make an artistic statement?

I agree with this. That said, it's hard to be as great an innovator as Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Sibelius or indeed Beethoven. That's why there are so few of them.

I wonder if you've heard any concertos by Leonardo Balada. My Balada explorations are not nearly finished but the album of three concertos with Serebrier and the Barcelona SO on Naxos might yield you a lot of pleasure.