The GMG Top 100 of the 20th Century

[madaboutmahler]

How on earth did I miss Mahler off mine. I'd have to include at least Symphonies 6 and 9 and Das Lied von der Erde, which now means I have 23 composistions on my list.

Oh, don't worry, I'll add the Mahler onto your list anyway 

[North Star]

Thank you Ilaria!

I would have added all three of those.....

Well, after you come to appreciate the composer and his works even half as much as I do, you probably also have a better idea of when the pieces were written   
Come to think of it, this kind of ignorance should probably get you hammered...

[Tsaraslondon]

Actually if the final list is going to be of 100 works, I'm beginning to think that a measly 20 per person isn't fair. I may be writing another list tomorrow.

[TheGSMoeller]

I did stick with 2-piece maximum for a composer and I organized the pieces based on the year they were composed, there were a few dates I may have wrong.
Otherwise, this was fun, but headache inducing.


Ives: The Unanswered Question (1906)
Ives: Symphony No.4 (1912-18)
Berg: Wozzeck (1922)
Berg: Lyric Suite (1925)
Poulenc: Concert champetre for harpsichord and orchestra (1927)
Stravinsky: Symphony of Psalms (1930)
Rachmaninoff: Symphonic Dances (1940)
Poulenc: Figure Humaine (1943)
Martinu: Piano Quintet No. 2 (1944)
Strauss: Metamorphosen (1945)
Britten: Lachrymae (1950)
Shostakovich: 24 Preludes & Fugues (1950)
Prokofiev: Symphony No. 7 (1952)
Britten: War Requiem (1961)
Shostakovich: Symphony No. 14 (1969)
Part: Tabula Rasa (1977)
Adams: Grand Pianola Music (1982)
Glass: Koyaanisqatsi (1983)
Schoenfield: Vaudville (1988)
Nyman: MGV - Musique Grande Vitesse (1993)

[madaboutmahler]

Actually if the final list is going to be of 100 works, I'm beginning to think that a measly 20 per person isn't fair. I may be writing another list tomorrow.

Well, how many do you suggest? 20 seems quite a reasonable number to me.... Maybe, in a while, we could suggest that everyone can take 5 more votes? I can see it all becoming rather manic here though, and even more disorganized than it already is!

I did stick with 2-piece maximum for a composer and I organized the pieces based on the year they were composed, there were a few dates I may have wrong.
Otherwise, this was fun, but headache inducing.

Thanks for voting, Greg. I agree, these kind of lists are fun to do, although very hard to decide!

[Tsaraslondon]

Well, how many do you suggest? 20 seems quite a reasonable number to me.... Maybe, in a while, we could suggest that everyone can take 5 more votes? I can see it all becoming rather manic here though, and even more disorganized than it already is!

Said mainly in jest. i was stamping my foot like a petulant child. Never was very good at sticking to rules 

[madaboutmahler]

Said mainly in jest. i was stamping my foot like a petulant child. Never was very good at sticking to rules 

Ah, I see. I understand, it is so hard to stick to just 20! Well, I'll let you keep your 23 votes so that the Mahler can stay in, but don't tell anyone! 

[North Star]

Well, if there are, say 20 lists with 20 pieces, it is possible that there are 400 pieces with one vote (disregarding the fact that there are lists already posted), and there might be 20 pieces with twenty votes. And, if people obey the 1 piece per composer rule, it is that much more likely that the most significant composers are overrepresented, or present only with their most significant piece Then again, this means that less obvious composers and pieces are more likely to turn up in the final list, but only if these composers have a single piece that is voted.
I think that the number of votes per person should be closer to the number of pieces on the final list, since there are not going be so much voters that the total number of votes would be significantly higher than 100 (with 20 votes per person, 50 voters would perhaps give us a reasonable list, by doubling the votes/person number, less voters would do)

Then again, who cares if the list won't reach 100 pieces, it will still be a good list. It's just that compiling it with too little rules and order might be fun.

[Mirror Image]

Adams: Grand Pianola Music (1982)

Good to see another admirer of this work by Adams. Have you heard Adams' Naive And Sentimental Music, Greg? A fantastic work and one of favorites from him.

[TheGSMoeller]

Good to see another admirer of this work by Adams. Have you heard Adams' Naive And Sentimental Music, Greg? A fantastic work and one of favorites from him.

I have, John, it is a good piece. My choice was between Grand Pianola Music and Harmonielehre, but I've always appreciated Adam's instrumentation in Pianola so I had to go with it.

[Mirror Image]

I have, John, it is a good piece. My choice was between Grand Pianola Music and Harmonielehre, but I've always appreciated Adam's instrumentation in Pianola so I had to go with it.

The last movement of Grand Pianola Music is some of the most joyous music I've heard from any contemporary composer.

[TheGSMoeller]

The last movement of Grand Pianola Music is some of the most joyous music I've heard from any contemporary composer.

True, very uplifting.

[some guy]

Mirror Image: "The last movement of Grand Pianola Music is some of the most joyous music I've heard from any contemporary composer."

TheGSMoeller: "True, very uplifting."

Hmmmm. Practically all of the contemporary music I listen to is uplifting. Lifts me up, anyway. (Grand Pianola Music does not. )

Otomo Yoshihide, sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJw9az9vAf4

Ludger Brümmer, oh yeah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ob6nf8-JWo

Maryanne Amacher, no doubt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px2mz5ObenQ

Andrea Neumann, absolutely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EODoJckh5vY

I also wanted to ask why all this rage to include Mahler in a twentieth century list? Chronologically, some of his music makes it, sure. But so do some pieces by Dvorak and Saint-Saens. Does anyone consider them to be twentieth century music? Mahler's music is very enjoyable. I enjoy it, too. But I wouldn't put him in the twentieth century musically any more than I'd put Dvorak there (and his Rusalka is full of crashing dissonances, which is what some people consider the prime consideration for inclusion!! ).

Is it just so we can cram the century as full as possible with "beautiful" music? The century is already full of beautiful music, both the nineteenth century kind and the twentieth century kinds. (Bax and Busratch.)

[Lethevich]

2¢: don't agree - I found all of those pieces ranging from slightly to extremely nervous sounding. Joyous is not at the top of words I would use to describe them.

[Sergeant Rock]

Hmmmm. Practically all of the contemporary music I listen to is uplifting. Lifts me up, anyway. (Grand Pianola Music does not. )

Otomo Yoshihide, sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJw9az9vAf4

Uplifting??? 

Now I know for absolute certainty that you can't be taken seriously. I also know now that you are being utterly disingenuous when you profess to be puzzled why no one likes the music you like. You know why. So do we 

Mrs. Rock's response, from another room, when I began to play that? With an intensely worried tone she said, "What is that noise?" When I told her, she said, "It scared the crap out of me."

Sarge

[TheGSMoeller]

Mirror Image: "The last movement of Grand Pianola Music is some of the most joyous music I've heard from any contemporary composer."

TheGSMoeller: "True, very uplifting."

Hmmmm. Practically all of the contemporary music I listen to is uplifting. Lifts me up, anyway. (Grand Pianola Music does not. )

I'm fairly sure we were only referring to one piece of music, not an entire genre. 

[some guy]

I'm fairly sure we were only referring to one piece of music, not an entire genre.

And now I am fairly certain that you cannot have read the sentence you quoted very carefully. In it Mirror compares that one piece to all other pieces by all other contemporary composers. So yes, he was referencing an entire "genre" as you put it.

Uplifting??? 

Now I know for absolute certainty that you can't be taken seriously. I also know now that you are being utterly disingenuous when you profess to be puzzled why no one likes the music you like. You know why. So do we 

Ah, do you now? Well, this will take a little unpacking, but since it's a pretty common misconception, mayhaps it is worth doing.

Uplifting? Yes. I said it was, didn't I? I didn't say it would uplift you or Mrs. Rock, did I? It uplifts me. As does Monteverdi and Vivaldi and Bach and Gluck and Beethoven and Schubert and Berlioz and Schumann and Saint-Saens and Brahms and Bruckner and Mahler and Schoenberg and Ives and Berg and Varese and Schwitters and Webern and Stravinsky and Bartok and Cage and Boulez and Ferrari and Xenakis and Radigue and Bokanowski and Neumann, among others.

Can't be taken seriously? Well, I guess that's up to you to decide for yourself, but on what grounds? That some things that uplift me do not uplift you or Mrs. Rock or Pettersonova? I guess I should say that I cannot take anyone who enjoys John Coolidge Adams seriously, then, shouldn't I? Because I don't find Adams that important or listenable. Sorry if my uplift doesn't match yours, but there it is. Perhaps I cannot take you seriously anymore, either, because Otomo and the rest don't uplift you. They don't? What's the matter with you? Are you crazy or something?

Profess to be puzzled? Not sure I've ever done this. Except for what I just did, above, just now. As a joke. When else have you ever seen me profess to be puzzled that some people don't like the music I do like? I would be puzzled if everyone did report as liking the same music. No type of music anywhere is liked by everyone. It's easy to make straw men. And even easier to utterly destroy them. I would never have put you down for one who would take the easy way out, though. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention to you. (Or maybe I should just make something up to accuse you of. Oh, it's fun! )

You know why. You have access to my thoughts, do you? Good thing I don't think you do. That would creep me out, dude!

Mrs. Rock's response, from another room, when I began to play that? With an intensely worried tone she said, "What is that noise?" When I told her, she said, "It scared the crap out of me."

Try this. Play the opening to the Dies Irae of Verdi's Requiem, full volume, without any preparation. Just do it. I'll bet it would scare the crap out of just about anyone in the room. What have you proved? That you can scare the crap out of people. Have you proved anything about Verdi or about late romantic music? Naw.

[Bulldog]

I also wanted to ask why all this rage to include Mahler in a twentieth century list? Chronologically, some of his music makes it, sure. But so do some pieces by Dvorak and Saint-Saens.

Well, I would not call it "rage".  Mahler is a very popular composer and much of his music was written in the 20th century.  So I'd expect that a list of top 20th century works would have Mahler works high on the list.  That's the way it goes.

[some guy]

Mahler was a very good composer, one whom I enjoy very much, as I have said before.

His oeuvre spans the end of one century and the beginning of another, an oeuvre that does not magically change, somehow, at the beginning of 1900 (or 1901 if you prefer). It's still Mahler doing Mahler things. And what about Des Knaben Wunderhorn? Does that get in because he was working on it until 1901?

If you're going to include everything from Rückert-Lieder on, then why not include everything before that as well?

My point was that eras are defined by ideas not dates. The "twentieth century" as an era (or two) began maybe as early as 1906, though the defining piece of that year probably wasn't all that well known. Schoenberg and Stravinsky, however, yeah. Their defining pieces, from 1909 and 1910, respectively, were pretty well known.

Y'all can do whatever you want, of course. I was just curious about this particular choice. It's neither musicologically valid nor even consistent with other choices people have made. Just some things that made me go "hmmmm," that's all!

[TheGSMoeller]

And now I am fairly certain that you cannot have read the sentence you quoted very carefully. In it Mirror compares that one piece to all other pieces by all other contemporary composers. So yes, he was referencing an entire "genre" as you put it.

Fair enough, I see your point. But I never took what I wrote or even what John wrote as necessarily labeling other contemporary composers pieces as non-uplifting, and I don't think anyone else should read it that way.