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

[Cato]

In the hope of distracting certain people from creeping Pink-Harpism on another topic, allow me to ask the following question:

Who is the THE leading contemporary composer today?

(The answer is NOT Elgar!)

In the later 19th century of course Wagner was #1, even the anti-Wagnerians had to admit that.  Before him no doubt it was Beethoven.

In the last century, there were 2 who held sway for several decades: Schoenberg and Stravinsky.  Perhaps Shostakovich nudged them aside in the 1950's.

Do they have counterparts today?  If not, why not?

I recall when the classical music world waited with excitement for the latest musical statement from Stravinsky and Shostakovich.

For whose work do we wait with excitement today?

In no particular order I offer these nominees: feel free to add your own!

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

(Fill in your nominee!)

And if not one of these qualifies, why not?  Is the classical musical world too fragmented to have one reigning light showing the way?  Too many "-isms" (Minimalism, Neo-Medievalism, Neo-Romanticism) or too many hyper-individualized styles (Stockhausen)?

[Bonehelm]

Where the hell is Elliot Carter?

[Scriptavolant]

I know very little about living composers, so I go for the recently departed: Berio and Ligeti. Cage. For what concerns the Second Half of the XXth Century sui generis I have great consideration for Malipiero and Maderna.
My opinion is that Paert, despite the fact that the multitude worships his music, is no way a great composer. No comparison with names such as Messiaen and Ligeti.

[Lethevich]

Penderecki is difficult, as it could well be him, basing the balance on musical quality as well as everybody knowing his name. The problem with calling him a leading composer of today is that he would be named that for music he composed over 30 years ago. Boulez is too part-time, Stockhausen is too niche/weird as hell, the minimalists/"I'm so holy"s = ...

Carter comes across as the most consistently inspired AND reasonably "middle ground".

[Mark]

Does anyone eagerly await new works by Ades and Turnage?

[Lethevich]

A big problem with the 2nd half of the 20th century is all the stylistic chameleons, and composers who would probably give Vaughan Williams a heart attack (considering that he called STRAVINSKY a composer who relied on "elaborate tricks"). Should they be discounted for their often uneven and strange output compared to Carter's rock-solid progression? It's a pain in the arse to judge

Does anyone eagerly await new works by Ades and Turnage?

No, hehe. Although I think that Ades has potential. With some coverage of him, it is as if he is being set up as the poster boy for acceptable modernism by some sources (such as Gramophone), but he seems to have continued to produce interesting things, and the incoming violin concerto could be a good listen.

[Mark]

... the incoming violin concerto could be a good listen.

I've heard a large chunk of it. I liked what I heard.

[hornteacher]

Steve Reich?

[Lethevich]

Oh, I forgot something. It's not just the diffuse styles that make composers of the second half of the 20th century much harder to "rank" than previous ones, it's also widespread availability of recordings - a lot of it of niche music. The internet is going to irreversably advance this, too. As a result, people can't plead ignorance to other composers anymore, and generally have very broad tastes. If the leading composers of today were born in the late 19th century, the legacy of some would live and many more would die. IMO the usual "sorting the wheat from the chaff" of previous eras will be impossible due to the internet, and other developments in distribution.

I've heard a large chunk of it. I liked what I heard.

Coolie, I like it when modern composers use (reasonably) traditional forms - does it compare to any other pieces/composers you've heard?

[71 dB]

Whose work do we I wait with excitement today?

Autechre 

[gmstudio]

Tan Dun?

[Mark]

... does it compare to any other pieces/composers you've heard?

Tricky for me to answer that, as I'm not generally too well up on modern composers.

[Kullervo]

Per Nørgård

[not edward]

A good question. I think that since Ligeti's death I'd have to go with Carter.

Some other names I'd put into consideration would be Dutilleux (despite his extremely slow rate of production), Birtwistle, Kurtag and Rihm.

If I'm to nominate the composer I look forward most to hearing new stuff from, however, it might just be Helmut Lachenmann: however his style is somewhat extreme and unlikely to appeal to a great number of listeners.

[Mystery]

How about Robin Holloway?

[Brian]

In the later 19th century of course Wagner was #1, even the anti-Wagnerians had to admit that.  Before him no doubt it was Beethoven.

Given that Wagner didn't really become #1 until, say, the 1860s (Tristan and the Ring), you have a gap of thirty-plus years wherein Beethoven was not the great contemporary composer. That complaint aside, I would cast my vote for Philip Glass.

[Guido]

You really think that Holloway is the world's greatest living composer? Better than Kurtag, Dutilleux, Carter?

Perhaps you have a vested interest in saying that - maybe he reads these forums!

[some guy]

Well, I must say that in these circumstances, I often think of Helmut Lachenmann, too.

He's very good indeed. I heard Arditti play his third string quartet in Wroclaw. That was quite a thrill. I look forward to the next recording of Lachenmann with a great deal of anticipation, though I suppose that for sheer batedness (in the breath, you know), no one in my life has equalled Luc Ferrari. My sons and my friends and I would elbow each other out of the way in record stores for the next Luc Ferrari album. Even with such giants as Kagel or Cage, we were relatively polite in our shoving and pushing.

I'd say all the pluralism is a good thing, though. I look forward to the next piece or next album of dozens of people, from Francis Dhomont to Diana Simpson. At least one? At least one hundred, may be. To pick only one nowadays would be to pick only one style, too. As there is no one preeminent style, so there is no one preeminent composer. (Probably never was, really. Look at all the giants clustered around the century changes of a hundred years ago, or two.)

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Generally speaking, the most anticipated releases these days come from this crowd.

[Catison]

The idea of a leading composer in the 20th Century is just too old fashioned.  There are many leading composers.  In America, we have Carter, Wuorinen, Reich, and Adams.  These are composers who demand a huge following and whose premiers are events.  I am not so familiar with other countries, but I know Finland has Lindberg and Denmark has Norgard.  There is a huge vacuum left by Ligeti in Western Europe, but I would have to venture Rihm.