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

[Grazioso]

one thing that Schoenberg never has quite achieved (and let's be honest) is reaching/communicating that wider audience. I think that is apart of the equation.

I think one has to tread lightly there since if/how a piece reaches or clicks with a wider audience is potentially thorny. There's obviously no fair and simple system where every time a new piece is created it's performed for the same audience to be judged by the same criteria. Pieces get their premieres delayed or canceled, a newspaper critic might have an axe to grind, the first recording might be a poorly rehearsed rush job, etc. In other words, lots of external factors can come into play.

And back to the point I was making earlier, common narratives of classical music in the 20th century, which often paint it a series of extreme stylistic reactions, privileging anyone who invents a new theory or makes a novel noise, can predispose listeners against pieces/composers. "Oh, Schoenberg? They say he's the guy who turned music ugly with all that atonal noise."

Such a tale can also lead people to fixate on avant-garde composers of the early 20th century, as another poster noted, as if that somehow embodied or encompassed the huge range of what's happened/happening. Heck, Bantock was still writing his lush Edwardian-style pieces in the 1940's.

[karlhenning]

I think the circumstances of "reaching/communicating [to] a wider audience" are orthogonal to the res.

[Josquin des Prez]

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.

I'm afraid you are interpreting Mr. Frost erroneously. If what you are saying was the case, then there would be no reason to even talk of a great poem, or a great composition. Why even remember Mahler above some of his lesser contemporaries, if in the end its all a matter of individual perception? Mr. Frost is specifically speaking of permanence, meaning that the focus is on the poem or work of art in question, and that the "right" reader is not just any reader. Sorry, but that's the way it is. If there was a genius today, some of us would know. Instantly. There wouldn't be any question of time, or acceptance, which is usually the response i get around here when i speak of the fact we have no recognized genius today.

[Josquin des Prez]

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."

A preferred position to those who argue it is impossible to know, namely, all of you. At the very least, I am not afraid to discriminate, and whether i am mistaken or correct in my judgment is of no real consequence.

[Christo]

To return to the main question: Havergal Brian - given the sudden revival of interest in his lesser known output - could still prove to be an answer.

[karlhenning]

A preferred position to those who argue it is impossible to know, namely, all of you.

Thank you for yet another amusing error on your part. Which, in addition, amusingly undercuts your claim to be the one capable of discriminating.

ROFL

[karlhenning]

To return to the main question: Havergal Brian - given the sudden revival of interest in his lesser known output - could still prove to be an answer.

Could it, really? I mean, we don't somehow know who the greatest composer of the 20^th century is, until we "discover" that composer in the 21^st century?  How is such a scenario possible?  Draw me a diagram . . . .

[mc ukrneal]

Could it, really? I mean, we don't somehow know who the greatest composer of the 20^th century is, until we "discover" that composer in the 21^st century?  How is such a scenario possible?  Draw me a diagram . . . .

Bach was not recognized until later. And Mahler wasn't always popular earlier in the 20th century, so I think we do 'wake up' sometimes and 'discover' someone (or their works). Beethoven's late sonatas are works that were not understood for decades after his death (or perhaps misunderstood is more accurate). So I think such a scenario is more than possible.

[karlhenning]

Bach was not recognized until later.

False. As such a curt statement, absolutely false.  From Bach's own day, there were always musicians of distinction who knew of his talent. (Are we saying that there were musicians who knew of Havergal Brian, and who considered him the greatest composer of the century?)

And, of course, communications and publication in Bach's day were nothing like what they are now.  If they were, you and I would likely still not know of Havergal Brian, right? Whereas, from Bach's own day, there were always &c. &c.

If by recognized, you mean generally known in society (as opposed to recognition by peers) . . . well, I just don't ever see that happening with Brian, do you?  Unless someone makes a movie Coco & Havergal . . . .

[snyprrr]

We ARE the Elites who decide what Greatness is!! Commence the Orations!!

[karlhenning]

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

Yes! It is astonishing how many posts are written positing "a listener" whose ears — mirabile dictu! — match our very own in all detail and capacity . . . .

[ibanezmonster]

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.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! XENAKIS!!! 

Well, regarding 20th century composers, although I did say Prokofiev, it really depends on what is meant by "20th century". If what is meant was anyone who composed anything in the 20th century, that'd be Mahler. But if what is meant was anyone who was born in the 20th century, it couldn't be Prokofiev- it would have to be someone else because he was born slightly before 1900.

[karlhenning]

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.

Well done, gentlemen both!

[karlhenning]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! XENAKIS!!! 

Well, regarding 20th century composers, although I did say Prokofiev, it really depends on what is meant by "20th century". If what is meant was anyone who composed anything in the 20th century, that'd be Mahler. But if what is meant was anyone who was born in the 20th century, it couldn't be Prokofiev- it would have to be someone else because he was born slightly before 1900.

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.

[mc ukrneal]

False. As such a curt statement, absolutely false.  From Bach's own day, there were always musicians of distinction who knew of his talent. (Are we saying that there were musicians who knew of Havergal Brian, and who considered him the greatest composer of the century?)

And, of course, communications and publication in Bach's day were nothing like what they are now.  If they were, you and I would likely still not know of Havergal Brian, right? Whereas, from Bach's own day, there were always &c. &c.

If by recognized, you mean generally known in society (as opposed to recognition by peers) . . . well, I just don't ever see that happening with Brian, do you?  Unless someone makes a movie Coco & Havergal . . . .

My point is not that Bach was unknown. Of course, he was known. My point is that he was not regarded as the universal genius most seem to revere him as today. I suppose I should have said 'unversally recognized' or some such thing in my original post. Perhaps Mahler is a better example.

I think today's speed of communication works against geniuses. They get their '15 minutes' too quickly and under too much pressure. Also, recognition has deteriorated to much more focused areas of excellence. I cannot think of many people I would label geniuses today, though I suspect as a portion of society, they still occupy the same percentages.

[DavidRoss]

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 who actually agrees with what i've been saying all along, and all of a sudden you feint feign ignorance.

"Genius" may be "self-evident" to other "geniuses" who by training, experience, and personal inclination are able to recognize it immediately.  Thus, for instance, Albert Barnes was able to recognize the virtues of post-impressionist masters whom the intelligentsia of the day disparaged.  (Note: the self-professed "intelligentsia" almost always gets it wrong.  Like you, they are so self-impressed by their modest gifts that it's nearly impossible for them to see anew, thus cannot learn and thereby condemn themselves to pompous mediocrity.)

The great majority, however, are unable to recognize real genius until after the revolution it sparks has birthed a new status quo.  Real genius persists and only becomes more apparent with time, whereas the innovative trendiness mistaken for genius by the mediocre eventually gets revealed as a shallow impostor.

Because genius by definition is relatively uncommon, and because of the tendency noted by 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," time is essential for it to be properly recognized.  It takes time for the new way of "seeing" to alter people's capacity to see, and it takes time to gauge the extent of its influence.

[karlhenning]

My point is not that Bach was unknown. Of course, he was known. My point is that he was not regarded as the universal genius most seem to revere him as today.

That's fine, Neal, though I think it is worth unpacking the idea, even among cultivated musicians contemporary to Bach, that he was a composer of an unusually high order, from what Wuorinen has wrily called the deification of Bach (the sort of tendency which leads some enthusiasts to "conclude" that, say, no living composers are producing any work of merit, since "none of it can touch JS Bach").  Truly, it takes a discriminating mind to admire Bach's work as it deserves, without making a totemistic idol of him.

[Josquin des Prez]

Schoenberg has everything else in place pretty much

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

[some guy]

I think one has to tread lightly there since if/how a piece reaches or clicks with a wider audience is potentially thorny. There's obviously no fair and simple system where every time a new piece is created it's performed for the same audience to be judged by the same criteria. Pieces get their premieres delayed or canceled, a newspaper critic might have an axe to grind, the first recording might be a poorly rehearsed rush job, etc. In other words, lots of external factors can come into play.

And back to the point I was making earlier, common narratives of classical music in the 20th century, which often paint it a series of extreme stylistic reactions, privileging anyone who invents a new theory or makes a novel noise, can predispose listeners against pieces/composers. "Oh, Schoenberg? They say he's the guy who turned music ugly with all that atonal noise."

Such a tale can also lead people to fixate on avant-garde composers of the early 20th century, as another poster noted, as if that somehow embodied or encompassed the huge range of what's happened/happening. Heck, Bantock was still writing his lush Edwardian-style pieces in the 1940's.

Beauty!!

(Can we vote now for the greatest post to this thread??)

[some guy]

I think the circumstances of "reaching/communicating [to] a wider audience" are orthogonal to the res.

Beauty!!!

(Now I don't want to vote any more. Too many good posts to this thread. "Greatness" is over-rated. Let's just enjoy what we enjoy. Yeah.)