b.1900-1971

[North Star]

In any case, how about that elephant in the room? I'm going to guess that the real bone of contention with Shostakovich is not any debate about whether he is or is not a skilled and accomplished composer. Even I think he is that. The real debate is whether or not Shostakovich gets to be representative of the twentieth century.

This sounds right.

For many people, Picasso represents the twentieth century in art and Stravinsky in music. Probably not so much for artists or musicians, of course, but now it seems that there's some dissatisfaction with Stravinsky's representativeness--and Shostakovich is being put forward (silently and surreptitiously) as a substitute for that role. Is that a fair assessment?

If it is, it probably strikes some musicians the same way that replacing Picasso with Mondriaan, say, would strike artists. Kandinsky would be a better choice. Or Pollock. (Hey! What about Rauschenberg??)

Best would be to try to combat the intellectually lazy notion of any single composer being representative, being "the sound" of the twentieth century. Shostakovich's music is one of the many sounds of the twentieth century. Perhaps we should just leave it at that. It makes a lot of listeners happy, very happy indeed.

Only if those happy people overstep their own happiness and attempt to make Shostakovich's music representative (or Stravinsky's or Cage's or Stockhausen's or Boulez's) of the entire century would there any problem.

I certainly haven't seen anyone do that, thank goodness.
I agree, there really isn't any one representative composer for the 20th century - not even for the early, mid or late 20th century. Or for any number of centuries before that.

[Brian]

In fact I'd argue that, since the "average" composer is in fact average, and since the "representative" composer should represent what most composers are doing at the time or what most music sounds like at the time, the "most representative artists" are in fact total mediocrities! For instance, Haydn can't be "most representative" of the 1700s because he did so much innovating, inventing, and pushing forward out of the century's molds. If there really are composers representative of their centuries, they are probably the likes of Dittersdorf, Joachim Raff, and (whomever).

[Mirror Image]

Just to make a clarification, when I wrote Shostakovich was the sound of the 20th Century, I didn't mean it to come out the way it probably sounded. What I meant is that Shostakovich's overall style is an amalgamation of all the composer's music he loved and from these influences he created his own style whose sound could only come from someone from the 20th Century. Like I said, he borrowed something from all the composers he loved and admired.

[Karl Henning]

But Karl, isn't it possible that he made his mind up after (or while) listening to "actual music"?

Hardly.  My point was not any matter of Shostakovich being representative of the 20^th century, but that is music can only be of the 20^th (and not the 19^th) century.  The joker who dismisses Shostakovich's music as from the 19^th century, Michael, either has not listened to the music (as I suggested) or is simply musically witless (as perhaps you are suggesting) . . . .

[some guy]

Well, you know that particular poster better than I do.

But I would say myself that the sounds of Shostakovich are quite markedly the sounds of the late nineteenth century. Not that he's not obviously a twentieth century composer, but that he favors the kinds of sounds one associates with the nineteenth century. Mahler, Strauss, even Dvorak.

Same for the musical logic. His music, even the most progressive, if I may be permitted, is firmly rooted in the century before. He did very little pushing beyond what one could have heard from the three composers I already mentioned. There is little or no sense in his music of anything else that was happening in the world musically. He's even more backwards looking than his elder, Prokofiev, who was also backwards looking, but more to the teens of the twentieth century than to the 80s and 90s of the previous century.

That's not saying much. And unfortunately, one could pretty convincingly argue that the dominant characteristic of twentieth century music is not innovation or experiment but nostalgia.

[Mirror Image]

But I would say myself that the sounds of Shostakovich are quite markedly the sounds of the late nineteenth century. Not that he's not obviously a twentieth century composer, but that he favors the kinds of sounds one associates with the nineteenth century. Mahler, Strauss, even Dvorak.

Same for the musical logic. His music, even the most progressive, if I may be permitted, is firmly rooted in the century before. He did very little pushing beyond what one could have heard from the three composers I already mentioned. There is little or no sense in his music of anything else that was happening in the world musically. He's even more backwards looking than his elder, Prokofiev, who was also backwards looking, but more to the teens of the twentieth century than to the 80s and 90s of the previous century.

I wouldn't call works like Lady Macbeth or Symphonies Nos. 4, 14, & 15 the music of somebody who's looking backwards. The harmonic language, the various effects he gets from the orchestra particularly brass and percussion, and his overall outlook in this music are pure 20th Century. Nothing more. This is the music of a man of his time and this is what makes Shostakovich one of the representatives of the 20th Century. His music is so wrapped up in Soviet history, but yet it can stand completely on its own. The most fascinating thing is that Shostakovich was still himself even though Stalin's corrupt policies were weighing him down. He still found a way to express himself musically and the debate of are there hidden messages in Shostakovich's music still rages on.

[San Antone]

Well, you know that particular poster better than I do.

But I would say myself that the sounds of Shostakovich are quite markedly the sounds of the late nineteenth century. Not that he's not obviously a twentieth century composer, but that he favors the kinds of sounds one associates with the nineteenth century. Mahler, Strauss, even Dvorak.

Same for the musical logic. His music, even the most progressive, if I may be permitted, is firmly rooted in the century before. He did very little pushing beyond what one could have heard from the three composers I already mentioned. There is little or no sense in his music of anything else that was happening in the world musically. He's even more backwards looking than his elder, Prokofiev, who was also backwards looking, but more to the teens of the twentieth century than to the 80s and 90s of the previous century.

That's not saying much. And unfortunately, one could pretty convincingly argue that the dominant characteristic of twentieth century music is not innovation or experiment but nostalgia.

Shostakovich was born and lived in the 20th century - he is a 20th century composer.  You seem to want to define "20th century" composer according to your own priorities.  Give it a rest.  There are all kinds of composers who lived and worked in the 20th century and they all created the body of music of that century - none are more representative than others.  To me, the 20th century is best thought of as presenting a wide variety of styles and compositional approaches and is one of the most interesting centuries because of this variety.

[Karl Henning]

Well, you know that particular poster better than I do.

But I would say myself that the sounds of Shostakovich are quite markedly the sounds of the late nineteenth century. Not that he's not obviously a twentieth century composer, but that he favors the kinds of sounds one associates with the nineteenth century. Mahler, Strauss, even Dvorak.

Same for the musical logic. His music, even the most progressive, if I may be permitted, is firmly rooted in the century before. He did very little pushing beyond what one could have heard from the three composers I already mentioned. There is little or no sense in his music of anything else that was happening in the world musically. He's even more backwards looking than his elder, Prokofiev, who was also backwards looking, but more to the teens of the twentieth century than to the 80s and 90s of the previous century.

That's not saying much. And unfortunately, one could pretty convincingly argue that the dominant characteristic of twentieth century music is not innovation or experiment but nostalgia.

By just that same reasoning, we could say that Brahms was "really" an 18^th-century composer. It's an idea that most of us would scoff at, but point by point I could employ your arguments and state the case.

Yet, exactly as it is obvious that the composer Brahms could not possibly have lived and done his work in the prior century, Shostakovich was a 20^th-century composer.

Incidentally, you didn't need to know the joker under advisement any better than do we.  Right in this thread we see:

I don't understand why Shostakovich is on this list.  I mean, I know he was technically born in the 20th century, but wasn't he really living in the 19th?

Please enlighten us as to how this is musical intelligence, rather than vulgar prejudice.

[Brian]

To me, the 20th century is best thought of as presenting a wide variety of styles and compositional approaches and is one of the most interesting centuries because of this variety.

Come to think of it, this might be the single best argument for Shostakovich as a product of the 20th century. The same man who produced Lady Macbeth produced the 24 Preludes & Fugues; the same man who wrote the Fourth Symphony wrote the Ninth; the same man who made the Jazz Suites made the Violin Sonata; the same man who made the Second Piano Concerto made the Second Cello Concerto. It's always rather mind-boggling to me, when I think about the span of Shostakovich's work.

And yes, one composer being able to pen such radically different music without contradiction, does strike me as being the definition of...20th century.

[Mirror Image]

Come to think of it, this might be the single best argument for Shostakovich as a product of the 20th century. The same man who produced Lady Macbeth produced the 24 Preludes & Fugues; the same man who wrote the Fourth Symphony wrote the Ninth; the same man who made the Jazz Suites made the Violin Sonata; the same man who made the Second Piano Concerto made the Second Cello Concerto. It's always rather mind-boggling to me, when I think about the span of Shostakovich's work.

And yes, one composer being able to pen such radically different music without contradiction, does strike me as being the definition of...20th century.

That's one thing I love about Shostakovich, his compositional range and the fact that the music, whatever genre he was working in, retained a high, consistent musical quality. An absolute genius IMHO.

[Karl Henning]

That's one thing I love about Shostakovich, his compositional range and the fact that the music, whatever genre he was working in, retained a high, consistent musical quality. An absolute genius IMHO.

Dude, like, Froot Loops is soooo laughing his tailfeathers off! ; )

[Mirror Image]

Dude, like, Froot Loops is soooo laughing his tailfeathers off! ; )

[DavidRoss]

That's one thing I love about Shostakovich, his compositional range and the fact that the music, whatever genre he was working in, retained a high, consistent musical quality. An absolute genius IMHO.

I've never cottoned to Shosty's symphonies -- a disappointment, since that is my favorite genre. OTOH I love his solo piano stuff, like most of his quartets very much, and am rather fond of many other compositions -- the Jazz Suites, for instance.

Obviously he is one of the greatest composers of the 20th Century and one sure to retain his standing in the future. Too much of his music is just too good for him ever to be relegated to footnote status (unlike many other darlings of an age of novelty-worshipping narcissism who are already rapidly descending into well-deserved obsurity).

My other picks were Copland, Rautavaara, Adams, and Pärt. These are the guys I listen to most often, though many others on the list are darned close!

[San Antone]

I've never cottoned to Shosty's symphonies -- a disappointment, since that is my favorite genre. OTOH I love his solo piano stuff, like most of his quartets very much, and am rather fond of many other compositions -- the Jazz Suites, for instance.

Obviously he is one of the greatest composers of the 20th Century and one sure to retain his standing in the future. Too much of his music is just too good for him ever to be relegated to footnote status (unlike many other darlings of an age of novelty-worshipping narcissism who are already rapidly descending into well-deserved obsurity).

Me too; the symphonies are the least of his music that I enjoy - but then, I am not much of a symphony appreciator beyond the Classical era. 

It is his chamber music that I love, starting with the 4tets, of course.  I also agree with you as to his stature (and judgement about others), but my vote goes to Stravinsky as "The" composer of the 20th century.  His music for me is more piquant, a quality that resonates with me much more than Shostokovich's somber and ominous (imo) qualities.  Especially with the symphonies I get the feeling I am being hit over the head with some point he is trying to make that I can't quite fathom. 

[DavidRoss]

Me too; the symphonies are the least of his music that I enjoy - but then, I am not much of a symphony appreciator beyond the Classical era. 

It is his chamber music that I love, starting with the 4tets, of course.  I also agree with you as to his stature (and judgement about others), but my vote goes to Stravinsky as "The" composer of the 20th century.  His music for me is more piquant, a quality that resonates with me much more than Shostokovich's somber and ominous (imo) qualities.  Especially with the symphonies I get the feeling I am being hit over the head with some point he is trying to make that I can't quite fathom. 

Igor, of course, was born before 1900, thus isn't included in this poll. I suspect it will take another century at least before posterity decides who "the" composer of the 20th Century was (is?) -- if the aggressively expansionist Islamic totalitarians and degenerate Westerners give us another century before plunging the world into another Dark Ages. The tipping point is much closer than most imagine.

My own candidate is Sibelius, for quality, consistency, breadth, and influence, but there are many others of nearly comparable merit: Stravinsky, Debussy, Prokofiev, Mahler, Strauss. Sad that the 20th Century's horrors (including the legacy of Schoenberg and his moronic disciples) derailed the explosion of creative genius with which the century began.

[Mirror Image]

I've never cottoned to Shosty's symphonies -- a disappointment, since that is my favorite genre. OTOH I love his solo piano stuff, like most of his quartets very much, and am rather fond of many other compositions -- the Jazz Suites, for instance.

Obviously he is one of the greatest composers of the 20th Century and one sure to retain his standing in the future. Too much of his music is just too good for him ever to be relegated to footnote status (unlike many other darlings of an age of novelty-worshipping narcissism who are already rapidly descending into well-deserved obsurity).

My other picks were Copland, Rautavaara, Adams, and Pärt. These are the guys I listen to most often, though many others on the list are darned close!

I knew you weren't big on Shostakovich's symphonies. They're not for everyone. I personally love them. Can't get enough of them and couldn't live without them, but that's just me. He wrote such good music in other genres too, so there's really a lot to explore. I can't get into his cello concerti at all. These still give me some problems. I don't know why exactly. One possibility could be I'm not a huge fan of the cello as a solo instrument. I prefer violin, piano, clarinet, oboe, flute, trumpet, viola, guitar, harp, among others. I also love his ballets: The Age Of Gold and The Bolt. Not to mention the SQs, Piano Trios, Piano Quintet, Jazz Suites Nos. 1 & 2, the film scores, Songs of the Forest, The Execution of Stepan Razin, among others.

I love Copland, Rautavaara, Adams, and Pärt. Great composers.

[Mirror Image]

Sad that the 20th Century's horrors (including the legacy of Schoenberg and his moronic disciples) derailed the explosion of creative genius with which the century began.

Sorry, but I disagree with you here. Berg and Webern were no morons and Schoenberg didn't derail anything. If anything he offered an alternative to what was happening in music at that time. You may not like him, Berg, or Webern, and that's your right, but don't be ignorant. History acknowledges Schoenberg as a major composer of the 20th Century. Whether you agree or not really isn't up for debate. The Second Viennese School have already craved out their niche in the 20th Century.

[Concord]

Shostakovich's relevance to the 20th Century sound? Shostakovich IS the 20th Century sound.

Sorry, but I still can't stand him. (See "Unpopular opinions.")

[Mirror Image]

Sorry, but I still can't stand him. (See "Unpopular opinions.")

Doesn't matter one bit to me that you don't like him. I love his music and that's what matters to me.

[Brian]

I suspect it will take another century at least before posterity decides who "the" composer of the 20th Century was (is?)

But then, we never decided who "the" composer of the 19th, 18th, or 17th centuries were, and we never had to.