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

[Sergeant Rock]

Thank heavens her name is not Tiffany or Amber or something else "inappropriate" for a composer!  

Bambi Higdon....yes, a name like that would have doomed her to a far different career path 

Thanks for the link, Cato.

Sarge

[Haffner]

Of course not; every great composer's oeuvre is sui generis, partly because no two composers work in quite the same "field."

There have been many great composers since Beethoven; but no, no one has 'matched his achievement'.

I often think that when listening to the Late String Quartets.

[snyprrr]

my 2 cents, IMHO (finally figured THAT out!)

Boulez and Carter MAY get front page obituaries...however...

I believe we live in an age where the PERFORMER has become the new star. Consider how, in a backwards way, the Arditti Quartet IS the composer of the how many hundreds of pieces written for them. Apparently there WAS NO INSPIRATION (to write str. qrts. in the 70s)before they came along (don't take me literally), but look at how just about every major composer has TRIED to write something reallly good for them. The same goes for EnsembleIntercontemporain and all the other superstar groups out there.  Where would Terry Riley be without Kronos? Maybe I'm not using the best words right now, but does anyone know what I'm saying? It's the age of the performer.

And no one has mentioned just the modern world we live in. Beethoven didn't have cds, or marketing firms, or Warner Bros Inc.  Things are different now.

For me, the "composer age" ends with Stravinsky '71- DSCH '75....then we have a "dark age", and when we wake up in the late 80s, pow!, the world is starting to get a lot different. I think in the late 80s and 90s we have a final flowering of the "classic modernists" (Ligeti, Cage, Xenakis, Berio, et al), but they are all gone but Boulez and Carter (and a few others)....and "the world at large" NEVER liked their stuff the way "normal" people like Beethoven, Mozart, etc.

Call it the "granny test."

Sometimes I get the feeling that labels that want to make complete editions of modern composers (like Timpani w/Xenakis) must be CRAZY. How many people outside of an avant-garde forum are going to buy these cds? I get embarassed thinking they did it all for just little ole me. How do they make money???  How many people are going to buy a Kagel box, or a Nono box set, or wot not? 

Think about recent "crossover" blockbusters: Gorecki's 3rd, The Red Violin/ The Piano....everything I can think of comes on elektra-nonsuch!! This is the kind of classical that "the world" waits with baited breath for.

Me, personally...I thought at some point that NO new piece of music should be written until ALL the old music has been recorded. Can you think of a particular piece of music that you scratch your head saying, "WHY haven't they done this yet?" All you young music composer wanna be's.....why can't more of you want to be conductors?

Admittedly, BIS and such labels boggle the mind with the amount of music they've unearthed.

Look, I "like" most of the composers mentioned on this thread already.  That's not the issue.  We all (well, most of us,haha) seem to like a LOT of currently active composers.  But forgive me, but I never seem to hear about "crap music" on this forum, and I for one have heard oodles of it. 

I was surfing the net and saw someone say, "The Killers (a current pop band) are killing music." HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER SAID SOMETHING LIKE THIS? I know someone here seems to think that Wagner killed music. But seriously, does crap only happen in the pop field? Yanni? Kenny G?  It's sad, but it seems if I want to know who I'm not going to like, I simply have to look at the last ten years of the Kronos Qrt. borrrring.  I finally got Tan Dun "Ghost Opera" from the library, really expecting something cool, and boy was I let down. Golijov?- enough with the klezmer as classical thing already. ONE CD of Piazzolla's tangos was enough for me. IT'S POP MUSIC. POP. POP. Tavener? Part?

I'D like to be a composer, but I'm like what's the point? How many "serenly beautiful" adagios does the world need? as in "the adagio has something of the Barber in it."

Maybe that's why "high moderism" was so...mmm...complex? nobody could TELL if it were crap or manna, but I've heard first works (from the 60s) by today's major composers, and I tell you not even they could resist the hippie stuff. But I like to think I have a high alert "crap factor" button in me, and when someone tries to foist the "emperor has no clothes" on me, I get really offended.  I'm thinking of the endless minimalism, though I remember when "The Thin Blue Line" movie came out, I thought that this Philip Glass guy was cool.  That was then.

back to the performers. I start thinking that technique has gotten so far that "composers" are there just to "organize" the plethora? of options,...Sciarrino, for instance (whom I really dig).  Where would he be if he couldn't just sit there and listen to someone playing the tuba in every conceivable fashion, and then just write down his "observations"?  But yes, it DOES take a really creative mind to put all these sounds together so that someone might take pleasure in them (as opposed to a dry academic exercise). Glokobar?

whew....I'm ranting, I know.

I am not waiting with baited breath for ANY new music, from Carter to The Killers to the next blues guitar sensation to the Blue Man Group to the reunion of Pink Floyd, the Who, or the Stones.

I never NEEDED Paul McCartney to write classical....arrrgh.

Here's something.....Wuorinen, or Glass, or one of you fellows....you want to impress me? Write a kick ass POP song that goes straight to number one. THAT would be something.

And The Killers...you want to impress me?  Write a kick ass old school symphony.

But you won't.

Hey, and Arditti...how about finishing up the old school guys before you give all your recording time to students. Sorry if I sound harsh.

But yea, it's basically 2010 and the music biz seems just like this economic quagmire...instead of going back and fixing old mistakes (like completing surveys by dead composers) you just throw more and more money (new composers) at the problem.

I TOTALLY agree with the guy who runs at "challenging but accessable".  I used to call that King Crimson or Pink Floyd or led Zeppelin.

IMHO there are no more masterpieces to be written...or needed.

I'm thinking of the term "sadly neglected composer."

I hope I haven't offended anyone. Please forgive me if I have.  Thank you!

[Cato]

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.

(My emphasis)

Snyprr:

Catison wrote that back in November, so s/he would possibly agree with your statement that performers are dominant over composers right now.

Some of your comments remind me of Hermann Hesse's novel Das Glasperlenspiel (translated either as Magister Ludi or more literally The Glass Bead Game).

In this novel he postulates a future society that resembles a strange Middle Ages: no new art is being produced, because of an attitude that everything valuable in Art has already been produced.  With everything frozen, creativity has few outlets.  One is critical interpretation of the past.

The other is The Glass Bead Game, which allows creative types to find mystical connections among every aspect of creation, i.e how the motto of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony might connect to a Chinese epigram, as well as Polynesian battle cries or other such esoterica.

That the major/minor system is "worn out" and, nothing new is possible therefore, is an idea which led Schoenberg to the 12-tone method.  (He later relented on the absolute impossibility of doing something new with the key system.)  Obviously it led to all the other experiments in xenharmony, musique concrete, etc.

Whenever old Elliot Carter decides it is time to shake hands with Jesus, we will see if the CBS Evening News carries a retrospective.

[karlhenning]

. . . I believe we live in an age where the PERFORMER has become the new star.

Not sure I can agree;  however, that does seem to be the driver for the big recording distributors.

[DavidRoss]

Revisiting this recently resurrected thread this morning, I discovered a couple of surprising comments by our beloved schoolmaster, Cato.

[re. Jennifer Higdon]: Thank heavens her name is not Tiffany or Amber or something else "inappropriate" for a composer!

Eh?  Surely you're old enough to remember that damn near every bimbo who came of age in the '80s was named Jennifer?

In the later 19th century of course Wagner was #1, even the anti-Wagnerians had to admit that.

Have you forgotten Brahms and the great divide?

[Herman]

Have you forgotten Brahms and the great divide?

My guess is that Cato wasn't there when it happened. If he had, chances are he would have been aware that there were quite a number of composers who are virtual unknowns today who at the time were considered better than Mozart or Beethoven or Wagner  -  not by a small circle of cognoscenti, but a larger audience. Some reputations take a couple of knocks downward over time, and some grow over time. Carter and Boulez are pretty big right now. There's no telling what happens when they're gone.

[Cato]

Revisiting this recently resurrected thread this morning, I discovered a couple of surprising comments by our beloved schoolmaster, Cato.Eh?  Surely you're old enough to remember that damn near every bimbo who came of age in the '80s was named Jennifer?
Have you forgotten Brahms and the great divide?

I.  I am almost too old to remember that!  

II. No, I am not so old that I have forgotten this,     but I believe the point was that Wagner was #1, and the Brahmsians, led in Vienna by Eduard Hanslick, among others, knew that the cult of Wagner was dominant.

[Cato]

I.  I am almost too old to remember that!  

II. No, I am not so old that I have forgotten this,     but I believe the point was that Wagner was #1, and the Brahmsians, led in Vienna by Eduard Hanslick, among others, knew that the cult of Wagner was dominant.

P.S.  The Symphony of Hans Rott has been called an attempt to bridge the Wagner-Brahms divide!

[jlaurson]

Ligeti. Unsung.

[karlhenning]

Ligeti. Unsung.

Well, folks have left flowers there.

[snyprrr]

Someone here, I believe, recently said that Bruno Walter, who wanted to be a composer, heard Mahler and decided "what's the point?", and decided it was better to just to conduct.  I suppose I just wish more conservatory students would have that epiphany.

I DO subscribe to the "Glass Bead Game."

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be: and there is no new thing under the sun."

I find myself quoting Ecclesiates a LOT lately!!! "All is vanity!"

Didn't B.A. Zimmerman have this problem?

[snyprrr]

btw- GREAT thread!!!

[Cato]

I DO subscribe to the "Glass Bead Game."

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be: and there is no new thing under the sun."

I find myself quoting Ecclesiastes a LOT lately!!! "All is vanity!"

There are few things better to quote than Ecclesiastes!   0:)

But there are new things still possible!  17-tone or 19-tone scales based on adding 1/3-tones or 1/4-tones have really not been exploited in any systematic way.  Many have tried with some success (e.g.  Haba and Partch ).  Haba switched around to other divisions, and also had a "system" of "non-thematic music" which I found wanting.  Partch was and is limited by what is most appealing about his music: the invention of new instruments to play microtonal music.

Beware: As a former microtonalist (quarter-tone scales), I always found the reception from bourgeois ears less than ecstatic!  But 1/3 tones might be the way to go: the xenharmony involved is possibly easier on the unexpecting ears.

On the other hand, quarter-tone music was being pushed 70 years ago by people like Leopold Stokowski: e.g. he premiered a Concerto for Quarter-Tone Piano and String Orchestra by Hans Barth.  Apparently it never caught on, along with many other Barth works in quarter-tones.

Are they of no interest, or were they not given a chance?

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lib/Barth-Hans.htm

Ivan Wyschnegradsky has some of the most compelling works in quarter-tones: melodically and contrapuntally expressive.

I had hoped in the 1970's that Penderecki who used quarter-tones in his pre-neo-Romantic works, sometimes as part of a melody, at other times just to create white noise or slow glissandos, might have been tempted to become the Bach of a microtonal system.

My hope was that a Microtonal-Bach would have such compelling works that the resistance to the tuning would fade away.  In which case, such a composer could be The One!   0:)

On the other hand, it may be that we ask too much of the human psychology of hearing to accept microtonal music of any kind.   

[snyprrr]

I have a prob with the word "microtonal."

You're talking "systematic," like, better than Bach?  I believe I understand you.

But then I think of "blues" notes, and the kind of micro-modern where the composer just comes up, comes up, comes up to a base tone, or goes down, down, down, a la Xenakis, Ligeti, Pendercki...the last especially, since he is not really known for using math to make his fun sounds.  I believe Xenakis once said when asked about his rivals, that he liked Lutoslawski and Penderecki, but he wished they used mathematic principles...anyhow...you know what I mean by this kind of "microtonal"? I guess I'd call it the "easy" kind, whereas you're talking more in an extended, spectral, systematic relationships and matix type big forehead stuff? Why can't computers realize this?

Are there any other sub headings ?(remember: Bartok turned "pizzicato" into five different types, and so on) Scelsi seems to fit more in the "easy" category?

What of Georg Freidrich Haas?

I read a review of an orchestral Wyschnegradsky cd, and they said it sounded like sort of typical dark broody Germanic 1930s music with the pianos? (don't remember) chiming in with the "microtonal" flourishes, or something like that.

But in a way, doesn't the polyphonic web of Ligeti and Xenakis SATISfy the need for a "microtonal" music? Many of Xenakis' "melodies" DO have that extended, out of tune-ish quality (like how an ambulance siren seems to rise as it's coming, and fall when it's going).  It seems to me there is a "natural" microtonal world already out there, and then there would be the more man made types of systems like Haba. new wine into old casks?

I've been chomping to get the Arditti/Wyschnegradsky disc (I even learned to spell the guy's name!)-of course, whether I like it or not!

Sometimes, and only sometimes, I have felt that "microtonalism" was just another complexity forced down my throat....so daunting...so many choices....notes...the ultimate musical fear factor...

when ultimately...and I think Donatoni said it...either the melody's going up, or it's going down, or it's in the same place!

what are you looking for in microtonal music? a hitherto unnamed mystery chord? I'm not being cheeky.

Are you saying that you were an avowed microtonalist who, as they studied what's been done before, has seen mostly failures and "limitations"?  I feel like I can hear what this Super Bach would sound like, but I'm thinking I must have heard this before.

Why is Norgard's 3rd sym. popping in my head? Never heard it.

For me, the hallmark of "classical" microtonalism is that "stinging" piano sweep, a very distinctive sound...but is it just an effect?  How many more emotions could composers pull out of their hat with more notes? I'm rambling.....

It's just that I'm interested. So we have Haba and Wyschnegradsky and Barth...and over here Partch.  Is this the extent of the "systematic" approach? As far as I know. Since I've been on the trail of the string quartet holy grail, I've been tempted by Haba's 16!!! qrts., but have no idea how they sound. Is it "funny" sounding "regular" music, or something completely diff? Judging by your research I would say no?  If there's not a masterpiece in the bunch I can always stand to save the $$$.  The Arditti/Wysch. disc seems like it COULD be...missed it on ebay @a month ago.

I guess I just get Pavlovian when I see the term "19 note scale", haha...now if there were a computer program...

So what of Ligeti and Xenakis and the like? even spectral? ISN'T it all right here, right now?

I TEND to be more of an absolutist than a relativist, that's all.

I still see this Super Bach of yours making a deal with satan!

[Cato]

Snyprr: I think the two composers who came closest to showing the expressive, emotional possibilities of microtonal and specifically quarter-tone music were Julian Carrillo and Ivan Wyschnegradsky (Vishnegradsky would be the English transliteration, but for some reason the German version seems dominant).

Haba and Carrillo got caught up in the experimentation, rather than focusing on one scale: e.g. Haba has a quartet for a scale using "fifth-tones": would that percentage make a difference?  As mentioned, Partch went for experimentation with new instruments, and his scale with well more than 24-tones becomes impossible without new instruments.

You might want to explore microtonal music by Americans Easley Blackwood and Ben Johnston

Computer synthesizers have opened up all sorts of possibilities, and Blackwood has some interesting and fun things for them, but as I wrote, we await the Bach of the quarter-tone synthesizer.

Are you saying that you were an avowed microtonalist who, as they studied what's been done before, has seen mostly failures and "limitations"?  I feel like I can hear what this Super Bach would sound like, but I'm thinking I must have heard this before.

Yes, agreed, except for the part after the last comma.  I probably have not heard this before, but I know it is not the 21st-century Bach to make a definitive statement about a particular 19-tone or 24-tone scale.

Perhaps then we would have our #1 Leading Contemporary Composer: but I am not hopeful.

[snyprrr]

but I am not hopeful.

great...so agreed? that music is dead and there's no hope...I have gardening to attend to.

[drogulus]

    Living composers can't be great because they haven't been dead long enough. You could be great while still living as recently as the '70s, so something has changed. I think what has changed the most is the relative decline in importance of concert music, as well as the fragmentation that leaves no central artistic perspective. So no one is taken seriously enough to be great, and no critical consensus will ever line up behind anyone the way they did for Stravinsky. All that's left is retrospective greatness, and maybe not even that.

[some guy]

Living composers can't be great because they haven't been dead long enough.

Well, living composers aren't dead at all.

You could be great while still living as recently as the '70s, so something has changed.

That seems to have become the new mantra, that something happened in the '70s. I started listening to modern music in 1972, and it took a decade or so to get to where I was current in my listening. That is, I was listening to pieces in 1982 that had been written in 1982. Anyway, I certainly had the impression that there were "greats," though I think the idea of "the great composer" has indeed gradually been fading out. Though few people I hang out with are in any doubt about the greatness of Cage or Ferrari or Chopin (Henry), to take them in order of decease. Nor of Dhomont or Henry or Radigue or Oliveros, all of whom are still alive.

I think what has changed the most is the relative decline in importance of concert music, as well as the fragmentation that leaves no central artistic perspective. So no one is taken seriously enough to be great, and no critical consensus will ever line up behind anyone the way they did for Stravinsky. All that's left is retrospective greatness, and maybe not even that.

Well, you're more and more likely to see contemporary composers in other places besides symphony halls, but that doesn't mean that there aren't concerts. The ones I go to are in smaller venues, and don't catch the eye of big newspapers or mainstream music magazines. Maybe all you're seeing is just that. Less and less coverage by the big news media. And while no one fashes themselves much about the lack of a central artistic perspective (if there ever was such a thing), many people are taken quite seriously, quite enough to be great (if that's how one gets to be great!).

I don't know that there's ever been any such thing as critical consensus, either. Were people really lined up behind Stravinsky? All of them? I recall in 1972--at least in my then small and then not very hip circle--that Stravinsky and Bartok were almost universally excoriated. Cage and Boulez and Stockhausen were unknown. Now the former are almost universally accepted everywhere (as is usual) and the latter are often excoriated. And while all three of the latter are very highly esteemed by some, there's nothing universal about it. But hasn't that always been true?

(In Europe, among the musicians I hang out with, Luc Ferrari is almost universally honored. And there have been many concerts of his music all over the EU in these few years after his death.)

[Cato]

great...so agreed? that music is dead and there's no hope...I have gardening to attend to.

Ha!  No, of course I meant that I was not hopeful to find The One among microtonal composers.   0:)

Some Guy: the comment on Luc Ferrari is most intriguing.

And certainly in the earlier part of the 20th century the classical musical world was divided between Stravinsky and Schoenberg, although not cleanly, since fragmentation was already occurring.

That the 21st century has no Stravinsky or Schoenberg as far as fame is concerned, let alone a Beethoven, is obvious. 

Perhaps we have reached some point where such a leader is not possible or not necessary.