Begin at the Beginning...

[karlhenning]

Well, reckoning him as major is perhaps something of a stretch . . . .

[Bogey]

Now the pre-WWII list is inordinately large in comparison with the post-WWII list. Any suggestions?

Should not worry you.  Only 63 years here....umm, did you consider Copland?

[Kullervo]

Should not worry you.  Only 63 years here....umm, did you consider Copland?

You're right, added.

[Kullervo]

exhaustive...myself id rather focus on the best found in the legacy which eliminates quite a lot.. in the 20th category, BARTOK is one of the great vital pilars who can't be overlooked, and later also; messiaen and stockhausen are crucial figures who churned some great & vital works ...

Heard all the Messiaen I need to hear, will consider Stockhausen, though his work is not easy to come by.

[Kullervo]

I should also mention that composers of primarily tape/electronic music are missing for the simple fact that I don't like "serious" electronic music at all. I don't think many will crucify me for that on this forum, though...

[bhodges]

I should also mention that composers of primarily tape/electronic music are missing for the simple fact that I don't like "serious" electronic music at all. I don't think many will crucify me for that on this forum, though...

             



--Bruce

[71 dB]

You're probably right.

Yes, I am! 

Arguably marginal, but I think you knew that.

Not really. Music history just gives most of the weight to Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Yeah, these guys were the kings but Dittersdorf and Vanhal were the next in line of talent. It's up to you where you draw the line...

I didn't add Elgar because I feel I've heard most of his major works (with a notable exception being the symphonies). Nielsen, Fauré and Saint-Saëns probably do belong there. I left Puccini off because my list is biased towards the "Germanic" composers. However, I do have another list of Opera and he is on it. I like Villa-Lobos, but he was more-or-less an "outsider" composer.

Then add Elgar's symphonies!

I think it's unfair to call Villa-Lobos an "outsider". He has even Germanic influences in his music (Bach).

[(poco) Sforzando]

I should also mention that composers of primarily tape/electronic music are missing for the simple fact that I don't like "serious" electronic music at all. I don't think many will crucify me for that on this forum, though...

You never know. I would at least include Stockhausen's Gesange der Juenglinde, the most wonderful electronic piece I know.

[Kullervo]

I think it's unfair to call Villa-Lobos an "outsider". He has even Germanic influences in his music (Bach).

Doesn't diminish his music. I love Honegger, Langgaard, Dutilleux and other "outsiders".

[71 dB]

I should also mention that composers of primarily tape/electronic music are missing for the simple fact that I don't like "serious" electronic music at all. I don't think many will crucify me for that on this forum, though...

I don't crucify but I wonder why you don't like. You mean you like non-serious (crazy) electronic music?

[71 dB]

Doesn't diminish his music. I love Honegger, Langgaard, Dutilleux and other "outsiders".

Ok. I don't divide composers to insiders and outsiders, just good and bad. 

Being inside or outside is relative and depends on where you are yourself.

[Kullervo]

I don't crucify but I wonder why you don't like. You mean you like non-serious (crazy) electronic music?

Ah, I wish you hadn't asked me. In my opinion, timbre shouldn't be a musical "aim", especially when created with electronics, as the composer is limited to the technology of the time when he/she makes the piece. Technology progresses at such a fast rate that once a piece is finished the sounds are basically already dated. The sound of a violin has changed relatively little in the past 500 years as compared with the sound of a synthesizer in the past 20 years. This is just my (admittedly conservative) opinion.

I'm sure the people over at IRCAM would disagree with me.

[71 dB]

Ah, I wish you hadn't asked me. In my opinion, timbre shouldn't be a musical "aim", especially when created with electronics, as the composer is limited to the technology of the time when he/she makes the piece. Technology progresses at such a fast rate that once a piece is finished the sounds are basically already dated. The sound of a violin has changed relatively little in the past 500 years as compared with the sound of a synthesizer in the past 20 years. This is just my (admittedly conservative) opinion.

I'm sure the people over at IRCAM would disagree with me.

"Electronic music" is not only about timbre. It's about new possibilities. Yes, composers are limited by technology but technology tries to push the limits away and give more creative freedom. The only real problem is that more freedom means more difficult playground. Today electronic music is not only "synthesizers" but all possible means to manipulate and tinker digitally and analogically with sound. Composers have been freed "timbrally" but that's not different from say harmonic freedom (12-tone music etc.).

I'm listening to "Force Majeur" (1979) by Tangerine Dream as I write this. The sounds are dated (even if they were futuristic 30 years ago) but the musical ideas are still working.

[Shrunk]

I'm in the midst of a similar project, though on a somewhat smaller scale: Starting with the Baroque, and going thru just the "first string" composers, then going back to cover the earlier periods and more "minor" composers.  You can read about it here.

To give you a sense of the time involved, I'm just now up to Mozart (the operas at the moment) six months later.  Mind you, I may not have as much time to listen durring the week as others here.  I'm enjoying the process.  You get a different perspective listening to a composer's oeuvre in concentrated doses.  I've also found my musical "memory" has improved.  For instance, I recently attended a performance of Walton's violin concerto, a work I had not heard before.  I listened to a recording (Kyung-Wha Chung with Previn) a few days before to prepare myself for the show, and found that I was able to remember the piece.  Not to the degree that I could sing it from memory, but at the concert I was able to recall where the piece was going and what was coming next.
 
Enjoy! 

[BachQ]

I would strongly recommend moving Weber to the Romantic (as you define it). There is no doubt that he was among the very first Romanticists.

If Schubert is "Romantic," then so too is Beethoven ...........

I dissent.

[Kullervo]

If Schubert is "Romantic," then so too is Beethoven ...........

I dissent.

You dare defy the Wikipedia gods?

[karlhenning]

You dare defy the Wikipedia gods?

They've got some twilight a-comin' . . . .

[Brian]

I can understand Feldman, but Piazzolla? Explique.

Funny, I could understand Piazzolla, but ... 

[some guy]

Ah, I wish you hadn't asked me. In my opinion, timbre shouldn't be a musical "aim", especially when created with electronics, as the composer is limited to the technology of the time when he/she makes the piece. Technology progresses at such a fast rate that once a piece is finished the sounds are basically already dated. The sound of a violin has changed relatively little in the past 500 years as compared with the sound of a synthesizer in the past 20 years. This is just my (admittedly conservative) opinion.

I'm sure the people over at IRCAM would disagree with me.

Corey, there also seems a wee bit logic problem here, too. Electronic sounds are dated because technology changes, but violins don't sound dated because they always sound the same? Not sure I'm following that line.

To say that electronic composers are limited by electronic technology doesn't ring true, either. I mean, it's true, but then so would saying that composers using violins are limited by that technology.

Besides, while the sound a violin makes when you draw the bow at a ninety degree angle across the strings within a fairly small area right above the bridge may sound much as it has for 500 years, that's not the only thing you can do with a violin. And I don't mean pizzacato, either, though that's nice, too.

Plus, the solution any composer could make to the situation mentioned by 71 db about more freedom being more difficult is to set arbitrary limits.

Anyway, here's a short list of electroacoustic and electronic pieces which I think you'll find sound completely different from each other. Maybe some will sound "dated," I don't know. But certainly you'll get a sense of the range of possibilities.

Gerhard, Symphony no. 3 (Collages) 1960
Cage, Cartridge Music                    1960
Stockhausen, Mikrophonie I             1964
                   Hymnen                    1966-67
Mumma, Hornpipe                          1967
Subotnick, Wild Bull                        1968

And that's only a few tidbits from the sixties! That world, so little listened to or even known about by most classical listeners, has only grown from that time. Dhomont, Ferrari, Bokanowski, Marclay, Busratch, Marchetti (Walter and Lionel (no relation)), Crawling With Tarts, Yoshihide, Rowe, Dumitrescu, Uchihashi. All wildly different from each other. All wildly good. (And that's only the tiniest of tiny slivers of the huge sequoia that is electronic music.)

((Electronic music as a tree?))

[Kullervo]

Corey, there also seems a wee bit logic problem here, too. Electronic sounds are dated because technology changes, but violins don't sound dated because they always sound the same? Not sure I'm following that line.

To say that electronic composers are limited by electronic technology doesn't ring true, either. I mean, it's true, but then so would saying that composers using violins are limited by that technology.

Besides, while the sound a violin makes when you draw the bow at a ninety degree angle across the strings within a fairly small area right above the bridge may sound much as it has for 500 years, that's not the only thing you can do with a violin. And I don't mean pizzacato, either, though that's nice, too.

Well, compared with how much electronic sound generators (to use a very general term) have changed in 40 years, the basic sound of a violin has changed very little. Of course, this is just speculation. I have no idea how, say, Giuseppe Tartini's violin could have really sounded. All in all, it really just boils down to whether one enjoys that sort of music or not. (Gosh, doesn't everything boil down to "taste"?  ) Though, I appreciate your recommendations, and I won't ignore them.