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

[(poco) Sforzando]

Everything except the fact he hasn't written one single work of genius.

Stop saying foolish things. (Not that you ever will.) Schoenberg wrote his share of lesser works, but surely Pierrot, Erwartung, the Five Orchestral Pieces, Herzgewächse, and some others qualify as works of genius.

Just a footnote to Mr. Ross: when correcting JdP's usage, please don't forget to remind him that the personal pronoun is always capitalized in English. No exceptions, whether at the start of a sentence or the middle.

[karlhenning]

Everything except the fact he hasn't written one single work of genius.

But you are funny today!

[karlhenning]

. . . Howard Aiken in his oft-quoted bon mot, "Don't worry about others stealing your ideas; if your ideas are any good, you'll have to cram them down peoples' throats" . . . .

That's great!  And (rightly or wrongly) I now feel much better about my own continued musical obscurity ; )

[Scarpia]

Stop saying foolish things. (Not that you ever will.) Schoenberg wrote his share of lesser works, but surely Pierrot, Erwartung, the Five Orchestral Pieces, Herzgewächse, and some others qualify as works of genius.

I was following you until you listed all only Schoenberg pieces that bore or mystify me and omitted all of his best stuff.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I was following you until you listed all only Schoenberg pieces that bore or mystify me and omitted all of his best stuff.

But which do you have in mind? I hope not the Gurrelieder! (crossing fingers)

[Grazioso]

You're overthinking everything here. As a general component of 'greatness', as history has shown as well (a great teacher that) .. connecting with a wider audience is what I was talking about. Schoenberg has everything else in place pretty much (incl. performers who 'get it') but that music has struggled in garnering wider appeal whereas others who were just as inventive & creative have succeeded (i.e. Stravinsky, Bartok), that's all I was pointing out.

I'm not sure how thinking equals overthinking  My point is that one should be careful about positing widespread audience appeal or acceptance as a requisite for artistic greatness precisely because external factors come into play. Let's say you have a media-darling conductor who heads a major orchestra, and that conductor goes on to push a new piece hard, and that conductor happens to have a contract with a big record label and helps get that piece recorded. New York Times: "epoch making premiere!" David Hurwitz: "10/10!" Voila, it's before an audience. Success! But what if none of that happens? Is the artist somehow less great?

What if, over the course of decades, a guy like Schoenberg doesn't have ticket and CD sales as brisk as Mahler? Is it the fault of the music, or are people unjustly fixated on the whole idea of Schoenberg as the dodecaphonic devil and therefore don't bother to give the music a fair shake?

[Grazioso]

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.

That's an interesting and unusual way of approaching the question: is the greatest 20th-century composer the one who best embodies the Zeitgeist? And if so, what the heck would that sound like?

[karlhenning]

What if, over the course of decades, a guy like Schoenberg doesn't have ticket and CD sales as brisk as Mahler?

Which is apt to be The Case.  Certainly, orchestras program a great deal more Mahler than Schoenberg, minute for minute.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

What if, over the course of decades, a guy like Schoenberg doesn't have ticket and CD sales as brisk as Mahler? Is it the fault of the music, or are people unjustly fixated on the whole idea of Schoenberg as the dodecaphonic devil and therefore don't bother to give the music a fair shake?

Back around 2000 when the Philadelphia Orchestra programmed Gurrelieder, they actually stated in the publicity material that it was "totally unlike" the atonal music that Schoenberg was known for. In the event, they sold out, but it's telling that they felt they had to embark on this little propaganda campaign to sell seats.

Schoenberg may have had his own good reasons to go 12-tone. But he paid the price in terms of marketing.

[Scarpia]

But which do you have in mind? I hope not the Gurrelieder! (crossing fingers)

Haven't heard the Gurrelieder, but generally like Schoenberg's expressive early works.  But I was thinking of the two Chamber Symphonies, the Suite Op 29, the Jacobsleiter.  I just listened to the Piano concerto for the first time and was very impressed.

[Grazioso]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w#t=1m37s

[Grazioso]

We're talking about major composers that are already established & it is a component  ..

Chicken or egg? If you already know who is "major" and "established," what's the point of the thread? And if we're going to include criteria that don't necessarily reflect on the music itself but rather the vicissitudes of its reception, then we should be able to include other criteria...

like baldness. You can clearly see that Sibelius is better than Schoenberg:

[Lethevich]

Such a monster.

[DavidRoss]

Just a footnote to Mr. Ross: when correcting JdP's usage, please don't forget to remind him that the personal pronoun is always capitalized in English. No exceptions, whether at the start of a sentence or the middle.

I presumed the lower case "i" was either a typo or a trivial affectation, whereas the mistakes in diction suggest thought too muddled to make meaningful judgments about the nature of genius ... not that I expected him to grasp such subtlety.

[ibanezmonster]

Probably we are both about equally crazy about Prokofiev . . . but I don't think I could really make the case for his being the greatest composer of the century.

Really? Who would you suggest, then? Stravinsky?

[DavidRoss]

Really? Who would you suggest, then? Stravinsky?

Henning! 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Really? Who would you suggest, then? Stravinsky?

Saul.

[not edward]

Saul.

You win the Internet. Congratulations.

[Sid]

I agree with the gist of what DavidRoss has had to say. It seems that the "dialogue" of this thread is restricted by what the OP sees as the "greatest" c20th music - basically pre-WW2. This is a view that talks to the "grand narrative" view of art, which I thought went out 40 years ago, not only in scholarly circles, but probably with the wider public as well. I respect James knowledge of music, it far surpasses mine, & I have learnt from info he has provided in other threads, but that's not the issue. This "grand narrative" view dismisses composers other than guys like Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Debussy, etc. Composers like Satie, Cage or Piazzolla who didn't specialise in the larger forms. It's almost like as if to say that their contributions are valued less than the "biggies" because they didn't predominantly write ballets, symphonies, concertos, operas, etc. Although they dabbled in these forms, that was not the full sum of their contribution. I mean James, who has more specialised knowledge than me, knows things like Satie influenced Cage who in turn influenced guys like Lutoslawski. & this kind of influence continues to this day.

Most importantly, I don't discount the knowledge that non-classical listeners have of classical music, which is gained through the popular culture. Countless movie composers since the 1950's have used the innovative techniques of many c20th composers, old and new. The music of guys like Piazzolla, Nyman, Arvo Part to name three have featured prominently in some fairly successful movies. I am more interested in this "hidden" history of classical music which engages with the popular culture rather than dismissing it. Indeed, sometimes I think that mainstream popular culture is more relevant in the way it exposes people to classical composers, rather than the traditional avenues of the concert halls, opera houses and ballet performances, which tend to favour this "grand narrative" view and most of their audiences are probably the over 50's...

[Mirror Image]

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.

Brian, I have not heard a note by Balada, but I have ran across his name multiple times doing Naxos searches. How would you describe the music since you have first-hand experience? Thanks.