If There Isn't At Least One, Why Not?

[some guy]

The idea of a leading composer in the 20th Century is just too old fashioned.

It's true!

There is a huge vacuum left by Ligeti in Western Europe

Say WHAT???

Boulez, Henry, Dhomont (now that he's back in France), Bruemmer, Eckert, Huber, Marchetti (Walter and Lionel--not related), Radigue, Ferreyra, Bokanowski, and Lachenmann and Nørgård, already mentioned. These folks might um have a bit trouble accepting that there's a huge vacuum.

Of course everyone misses György, but it seems to me that Ferrari is even more missed over there, perhaps because here was a huge presence who was finally, just at the end of his life, getting furtive little mentions in the books. All the people active in new music knew and loved him, as did some of us lucky listeners in the U.S. who found those precious and much coveted LPs in the seventies and eighties, but the book writers and the press (at least in the U.S.) just didn't catch on.

[Greta]

I don't think there is one. I listen to a lot of contemporary/modern music, and there are just so many styles, it would be foolish to say there was ONE composer really leading the way. There are several "groups" that come to mind though.

The Brits: Ades and Turnage
I'm just getting into them, but both seem to write sophisticated music that is challenging yet attractive (which seems to be a defining phrase these days). Ades is talked about already as a "wonder boy", I don't know about that yet, but I think they're going to be a big presence in the future.

The Finns: Saariaho, Aho, Lindberg, Salonen, Hakola, etc
Something was in the water over there the decade these were born...it's impressive, what a crop of classical musicians Finland has produced from that age group. All really interesting composers that share some similarities stylistically (due to their shared Sibelian heritage?) but have unique voices and aims. Well-crafted, colorfully orchestrated, easily likeable music. Definitely a force.

The Americans Minimalists: Reich, Glass, Adams
Extremely popular and performed a whole lot. I think they are, already, big leaders in the scene, especially here in America. All have reached "maturity" as composers and their premieres are met with much interest and high expectations.

Carter, Wuorinen: Both write challenging, but very interesting and provocative music. Carter has long been a force in the scene, and Wuorinen is already establishing himself as an important name.

John Corigliano, Christopher Rouse: Corigliano has enjoyed a lot of success, also a leader, his students (Eric Whitacre, Elliot Goldenthal, John Mackey) are also doing very well. Same with Rouse, who also has notable students.

Michael Daugherty, Richard Danielpour, Michael Torke: Well, these kind of come after the above, and are maybe not as strong compositionally, but are pretty well-known. The thing here is audiences like their music. Daugherty, opinions diverge, but he writes fun music and is getting performed a lot. Orchestras seem more than happy to premiere his new works, he is quite popular. Part of his name is helped by the wind band works he's composed, which are favorites for college bands to play at high profile perfomances.

Osvaldo Golijov, Jennifer Higdon, Michael Gandolfi ("The Atlanta School"): Very accessible but strong compositions, they've been lucky to have the backing of Robert Spano, who has made sure their works are getting good recordings and being performed, not only in Atlanta, but when he conducts other places. Golijov is hot right now, and will probably continue to be. Like his operas and vocal music a lot.

Aaron Jay Kernis, Steven Stucky: I like what I've heard from both of these over broadcasts, they're both composers-in-residence which is certainly helpful to them for premieres and commissions.

And there are so many more. I don't know the European scene that well, besides Rihm, and then we have the talented composers from Asia, like Tan Dun, all ones to watch out for.

[bwv 1080]

There has not been a greatest living composer since Beethoven died.

[12tone.]

Cato,

Funny how most of these composers of today are either minimalists or avant-gardists.  I mean, where's the heavy-hitting Romantic composers of today?  There's Atterberg but he doesn't have the depth.  He's good though. 

There really isn't another great Heavy hitter after Shostakovich.  We don't need 'concept' experiments anymore.  That was done already throughout the 1900's and hit the climax at 4"33''.  What's next after absolute silence?  Back to music, that's what!

Quit making noise and actually do something 



Is this what we have to look forward to?? :

Penderecki, Stockhausen, Glass, Adams, Henze, Valentin Silvestrov, Lowell Liebermann, Aho, Saariaho, Pärt, Rutter

Come on... 

[techniquest]

Frankly I think there is more anticipation in new works by people such as Andrew Lloyd Webber than any of the contemporary composers cited previously. The way in which new works tend to be ripped to shreds by critics during the annual Proms season in London would suggest that new 'serious' music will continue to fail to reach a wider audience and thus fail to be appreciated by anyone but a decreasing minority.
To answer the question 'why not?'. IMHO new music may well be technically brilliant but it rarely hits anything in terms of human emotional response - I may enjoy watching and listening to a new piece, but does it give me a buzz outside of appreciating the sequences and instrumentations? No - not really, so unless someone is tuned in (oh dear) to appreciating music as a collection of notes that create organised sound on a level aside from the emotional, then it doesn't work.
But then, what do I know?

[Cato]

Cato,

Funny how most of these composers of today are either minimalists or avant-gardists.  I mean, where's the heavy-hitting Romantic composers of today?  There's Atterberg but he doesn't have the depth.  He's good though. 

There really isn't another great Heavy hitter after Shostakovich.  We don't need 'concept' experiments anymore.  That was done already throughout the 1900's and hit the climax at 4"33''.  What's next after absolute silence?  Back to music, that's what!

Quit making noise and actually do something 



Is this what we have to look forward to?? :

Penderecki, Stockhausen, Glass, Adams, Henze, Valentin Silvestrov, Lowell Liebermann, Aho, Saariaho, Pärt, Rutter

Come on... 

Many thanks for all the responses!

Yes, there was an interregnum of sorts - perhaps - between Beethoven and Wagner - when is ours due to end?

Certainly the comment on fragmentation, with the Internet increasing it - seems to be on target.

Techniquest's comment also seems accurate: do we need or await a new Wunderkind (Jay Greenberg?) to remedy this situation?

[marvinbrown]

There has not been a greatest living composer since Beethoven died.

  Perhaps this can be argued for instrumental music.  But opera peeked after Beethoven with two of the greatest giants in the operetic world:  VERDI  0:) and WAGNER  0:).  I would like to argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss the history of opera without mentioning the works of these two composers- in addition, I like to think of Wagner as the rightful  heir to Beethoven's throne  .

  PS: in terms of late 19th early to mid 20th Century composers I am surprised that no one here has mentioned Richard Strauss and Puccini.
  marvin   

[bwv 1080]

  Perhaps this can be argued for instrumental music.  But opera peeked after Beethoven with two of the greatest giants in the operetic world:  VERDI  0:) and WAGNER  0:).  I would like to argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss the history of opera without mentioning the works of these two composers- in addition, I like to think of Wagner as the rightful  heir to Beethoven's throne  .

  PS: in terms of late 19th early to mid 20th Century composers I am surprised that no one here has mentioned Richard Strauss and Puccini.
  marvin   

The point was a single greatest composer - given that Verdi and Wagner were contemporaries along with Brahms and a host of other great composers one cannot claim supremacy for a single one.    No one has occupied the position Beethoven held in his career, nor will anyone likely do so in the future

[longears]

  Perhaps this can be argued for instrumental music.  But opera peeked after Beethoven with two of the greatest giants in the operetic world:  VERDI  0:) and WAGNER  0:).  I would like to argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss the history of opera without mentioning the works of these two composers- in addition, I like to think of Wagner as the rightful  heir to Beethoven's throne  .

  PS: in terms of late 19th early to mid 20th Century composers I am surprised that no one here has mentioned Richard Strauss and Puccini.
  marvin   

I would have mentioned them.  When you said "opera peaked after Beethoven with two of the greatest giants," I thought of Verdi and Puccini, with Strauss springing to mind immediately after. 

As for major living composer, my choice writes operas, too, as well as symphonies, concertos, oratorios, chamber music, and so on:  John Adams.  I don't know any other contemporaries whose work in a variety of forms holds up so well with the masters of old.  (Note:  I'm not saying they don't exist, only that I don't know them).

[Brian]

I would have mentioned them.  When you said "opera peaked after Beethoven with two of the greatest giants," I thought of Verdi and Puccini, with Strauss springing to mind immediately after.

I'm glad I wasn't the only person who thought of Puccini. 

[some guy]

sophisticated music that is challenging yet attractive (which seems to be a defining phrase these days).

These days and the these days for the past fifty or sixty years, maybe more. Indeed, I learned back in the seventies, when I first started listening to "twentieth century music," that these words meant either "Well, it's difficult and ugly, but you might like it anyway; it's not that bad" or "While most modern music is really awful, this composer has bravely gone his (or her) own way and written music that you will find to be pretty."

"Challenging yet attractive" I came to find was a clear warning: avoid this music! Why not attractive because challenging? Attractive because noisy, because harsh, because chaotic? Not that all good music is noisy, harsh and chaotic; of course it's not. But neither is it true that the only music worth listening to is "pretty in a nineteenth century sort of way." Or, as Greta describes the Finns she mentions, "Well-crafted, colorfully orchestrated, easily likeable music."

Warning! Danger!!

Or as she describes Carter and Wuorinen: "Both write challenging, but very interesting and provocative music." But. Always with the "buts." (Interesting because challenging and provocative in their case.) Or this, about Golijov, Higdon, and Gandolfi: "Very accessible but strong." [Emphasis mine.]

Ades, Saariaho, Aho, Lindberg, Salonen, Hakola, Reich, Glass, Adams, Corigliano, Rouse, Daugherty, Danielpour, Torke, Golijov, Higdon, Gandolfi, Kernis, Stucky, Rihm, Dun,  these are "all ones to watch out for" according to Greta, after being at some pains to explain how well-known they all already are.

Sophisticated but not too sophisticated. Challenging but not too challenging. Strong but not too strong. That's what we really want, it seems--the classic description of "mediocre." And many people--by no means all!!--on Greta's list are happy to oblige.

Seriously, do we really think that the mediocre are the leaders? But of course, we don't think they're mediocre--they just strike a balance between adventurous and safe, that's all. A middle ground, as it were...!

[longears]

Yes, there was an interregnum of sorts - perhaps - between Beethoven and Wagner - when is ours due to end?

Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Rossini--some interregnum!  ...and I'll take any of them before Wagner.

[btpaul674]

I can't believe no one has mentioned


EINOJUHANI RAUTAVAARA


I'd place him WAYYYY above Lindberg or Bergman or Saariaho or Aho or any of the other Finns.

[Catison]

These days and the these days for the past fifty or sixty years, maybe more. Indeed, I learned back in the seventies, when I first started listening to "twentieth century music," that these words meant either "Well, it's difficult and ugly, but you might like it anyway; it's not that bad" or "While most modern music is really awful, this composer has bravely gone his (or her) own way and written music that you will find to be pretty."

"Challenging yet attractive" I came to find was a clear warning: avoid this music! Why not attractive because challenging? Attractive because noisy, because harsh, because chaotic? Not that all good music is noisy, harsh and chaotic; of course it's not. But neither is it true that the only music worth listening to is "pretty in a nineteenth century sort of way." Or, as Greta describes the Finns she mentions, "Well-crafted, colorfully orchestrated, easily likeable music."

Warning! Danger!!

Or as she describes Carter and Wuorinen: "Both write challenging, but very interesting and provocative music." But. Always with the "buts." (Interesting because challenging and provocative in their case.) Or this, about Golijov, Higdon, and Gandolfi: "Very accessible but strong." [Emphasis mine.]

Ades, Saariaho, Aho, Lindberg, Salonen, Hakola, Reich, Glass, Adams, Corigliano, Rouse, Daugherty, Danielpour, Torke, Golijov, Higdon, Gandolfi, Kernis, Stucky, Rihm, Dun,  these are "all ones to watch out for" according to Greta, after being at some pains to explain how well-known they all already are.

Sophisticated but not too sophisticated. Challenging but not too challenging. Strong but not too strong. That's what we really want, it seems--the classic description of "mediocre." And many people--by no means all!!--on Greta's list are happy to oblige.

Seriously, do we really think that the mediocre are the leaders? But of course, we don't think they're mediocre--they just strike a balance between adventurous and safe, that's all. A middle ground, as it were...!

I'm gonna have to disagree with this rant.  It isn't as if there is a challenging side and an accessible side, so if you have a little of both you can only be in the middle.  Every single composer's music is both challenging and accessible, but these attributes form a different balance depending on who you are talking to.  Most really good compositions take a little bit of work to understand.  Stylistic differences can often clash between composer and audience.  Yet there is always a first layer that the audience can pick up on.  In traditional music, this is the usually the melody or big tune.  In experimental and modern music, it is something different.  What characterizes a good composer is that his music has something else lying beneath this first layer.  (Really great composers seem to have an infinite amount of layers to explore.)  These other layers can be more challenging than the first.  And this is how you get accessible yet challenging music.

Recently there has been a huge push to make that first layer more accessible.  But that isn't to say that the composers are coping out.  They honestly want their music to be understood and heard.  John Adams, is a great example of this.  On the surface his music is just pulsating chords, but there is always a weath of detail hiding under it.  Wuorinen, a composer from the opposite side of everything from Adams, is similar.  His music, although atonal, has an immediately understandable logic on its surface.  But underneath is hiding so much energy and color, that it can be jarring how much you miss if you don't take the time to really listen to his music.

[Kullervo]

I'm gonna have to disagree with this rant.  It isn't as if there is a challenging side and an accessible side, so if you have a little of both you can only be in the middle.  Every single composer's music is both challenging and accessible, but these attributes form a different balance depending on who you are talking to.  Most really good compositions take a little bit of work to understand.  Stylistic differences can often clash between composer and audience.  Yet there is always a first layer that the audience can pick up on.  In traditional music, this is the usually the melody or big tune.  In experimental and modern music, it is something different.  What characterizes a good composer is that his music has something else lying beneath this first layer.  (Really great composers seem to have an infinite amount of layers to explore.)  These other layers can be more challenging than the first.  And this is how you get accessible yet challenging music.

Eloquently stated.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I'm gonna have to disagree with this rant.  It isn't as if there is a challenging side and an accessible side, so if you have a little of both you can only be in the middle.  Every single composer's music is both challenging and accessible, but these attributes form a different balance depending on who you are talking to.  Most really good compositions take a little bit of work to understand.  Stylistic differences can often clash between composer and audience.  Yet there is always a first layer that the audience can pick up on.  In traditional music, this is the usually the melody or big tune.  In experimental and modern music, it is something different.  What characterizes a good composer is that his music has something else lying beneath this first layer.  (Really great composers seem to have an infinite amount of layers to explore.)  These other layers can be more challenging than the first.  And this is how you get accessible yet challenging music.

Recently there has been a huge push to make that first layer more accessible.  But that isn't to say that the composers are coping out.  They honestly want their music to be understood and heard.  John Adams, is a great example of this.  On the surface his music is just pulsating chords, but there is always a weath of detail hiding under it.  Wuorinen, a composer from the opposite side of everything from Adams, is similar.  His music, although atonal, has an immediately understandable logic on its surface.  But underneath is hiding so much energy and color, that it can be jarring how much you miss if you don't take the time to really listen to his music.

Very well put, Catison!

[some guy]

Eloquent to be sure, but at the expense of almost completely misunderstanding the rant he disagrees with. Hmmm. Maybe that's why it looked to me like Catison was not disagreeing with me.

Anyhow, if the two members of the Catison fan club, and perhaps Catison as well, will do me the favor of rereading my little rant, carefully, I'd be much obliged!! (If only so you don't miss the subtle pun at the end that cost me so much in mental power. I'm not as young as I used to be.)

Seriously, if you reread the rant, you'll see I'm not really so much talking about composers (as Catison does in his eloquent disagreement) as I am about people who write about music. So I'm not attacking the composers that Catison so ably defends--a sly dig at three or four of them is all. And so I have no particular quarrel with his assertion about layers of meaning being how you get accessible yet challenging music aside from pointing out that it just doesn't address my point.

And Catison's remark that composers "honestly want their music to be understood and heard" is as true a statement as anyone will ever make on this or any forum. But it's not just true for the composers that I implied were copping out. All composers, however "thorny" or "difficult" or "avant garde" or "noisy" or whatever, all of them want their music to be understood and heard.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Anyhow, if the two members of the Catison fan club...

"Fan club"?

Try again...

[Cato]

Longears: I agree with you on that post-Beethoven interregnum, but it seems neverheless that none of them shook the world to the same degree as Beethoven or, later, Wagner.

It is interesting that Richard Strauss, who certainly was no conservative in his earlier years at least, and was for a time the/a leading light in music, faded so quickly in influence after Rosenkavalier.  Perhaps if he had followed the path of Elektra he might have been able to match the new wave coming. 

But that is another topic.

What is perhaps more interesting is the wealth of Scandinavians (should we include Miss Bjork?) as candidates for Leading Composer of the 21st Century!

What might be the cause of this?  Perhaps the same new energy that has brought eco-techno-fame to e.g. Finland (Linux, Nokia)?

What would one need as additional proof, besides concert programming?  A group of acolytes attempting similar stylistic feats?  Number of available CD's?

Critical consensus?       (Now that sounds scary!)

And on Catison's comment: to be sure, there is a thin line between being the leading composer of your day, and pleasing the audiences so your work will be heard.

Check out the comment above on Richard Strauss for the dangers involved!

[Greta]

I'm not one to usually incite rants here but anyway...  0:) I was just naming some names off the top of my head that seem to get performed and recorded frequently these days.

And I actually forgot Rautavaara. The older generation...Aulis Sallinen, also Paavo Heininen...great, great music. I wish they were played more here in the States. Rautavaara is I think long acknowledged as a leader in the Finnish contemporary area.

"Well-crafted, colorfully orchestrated, easily likeable music."

Warning! Danger!!

Really? I'm sorry, I don't like ugly, forbidding music. No matter how sophisticated, strong, or challenging it is.

The above in quotes describes Rautavaara perfectly to me. And definitely Adams. Reich, Glass.

Seriously, if you reread the rant, you'll see I'm not really so much talking about composers (as Catison does in his eloquent disagreement) as I am about people who write about music.

Like me, right?  I'm certainly not as eloquent as Brett, but what he said is the idea I had in mind, and I think is a reason why some of these composers are successful right now.

These other layers can be more challenging than the first. And this is how you get accessible yet challenging music.

Recently there has been a huge push to make that first layer more accessible.  But that isn't to say that the composers are coping out.  They honestly want their music to be understood and heard.

This is stated very well. I maintain there is nothing inherently wrong with music not being a wall for the audience to climb. And hopefully they find something of interest on the other side. With many I mentioned there (not all!), I personally do.

Audiences sitting in the concert hall hearing contemporary music often don't have the luxury of looking up a recording of the piece, or may not have ever heard of the composer, with new music there is a completely blank canvas that the composer has the length of the piece to paint a coherent picture on. Composers today show a "consciousness" of the audience that is translating to music that is easier to penetrate, though it can still have a lot going on underneath. There is still a lot of inaccessible music being written of course, but a lot of it I have heard lately is just not of good quality - as opposed to the mid-century music of Boulez or Webern, which can be difficult, but the quality of writing is very high. Of the high quality music being written currently, there is a larger proportion that tends toward more accessibility. We even have a section in the new edition of our Music History textbook, titled "The New Accessibility".

"Challenging yet attractive" I came to find was a clear warning: avoid this music! Why not attractive because challenging? Attractive because noisy, because harsh, because chaotic?

There is a lot of music I find attractive for all these reasons, though many other people do not...Berio, Ives, Varese, Messiaen fit the above descriptors. But unfortunately they are all dead!