Is the composer obsolete?

[Philoctetes]

If we allow for self-referencing; I'd take the organ works of Messiaen over anything that Bach put down to paper. (restricted solely to organ works)

[ChamberNut]

If we allow for self-referencing; I'd take the organ works of Messiaen over anything that Bach put down to paper.

Yes, but you'd be in the minority.  I agree, for the most part, with Josquin.

[Philoctetes]

Yes, but you'd be in the minority.  I agree, for the most part, with Josquin.

Well being as I am referencing myself; I'm not in the minority at all, in fact I'm in the fullest most complete majority there is.

[Mark]

Any artist would hope that everyone likes what they create but it's not going to happen, they shouldn't be overly concerned with pleasing anyone, it would only restrict and interfere with their creativity, and then start 2nd guessing and compromising their art & vision in order to merely please everybody. Artists are not slaves like that. They can't be hampered with those kind of restrictions. They must compose with intent and touch a level of urgency to get what they need. They want something to move people of course, to give the audience their truth, but to try to give anything other than that and their music will sound contrived. An audience gaining pleasure is not validation of art. It may be good entertainment though.

Fifteen years ago, I'd have sworn this was poppycock. Today, I'm in unreserved agreement. Perhaps maturity can come with age, after all?

[mikkeljs]

Once you guys have finished feeling good and fuzzy about yourselves (take your time, by all means), i'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.

Andy Pape, Nørgård, Sibelius, Bent Sørensen, Petterson and many many others. I would say, they have written as great music as Beethoven and Bach ever did, but their productivity was lower of cause. If it comes to contemporary composers with the most natural musicality, I can say, that Andy Pape and Nørgård is extremely productive though. It´s no big deal to write perfect music, it just takes time for most people.

[karlhenning]

And by contemporary you're asking stuff from the last 10 years or so? Names have risen and are known but it's impossible to tell now if their music will have the sort of longevity that Bach or Beethoven has. Simply impossible.

The idea is false, though "Josquin" will take that as "proving" his point.  Part of Bach and Beethoven's "stature" derives from the fact that their work has been absorbed into the literature and culture for hundreds of years now.  In the first place, the environment of the composers of today is entirely different to that of the German masters;  in the second, there is no such neat comparison as "Josquin" fondly imagines.

[ChamberNut]

Andy Pape, Nørgård, Sibelius, Bent Sørensen, Petterson and many many others. I would say, they have written as great music as Beethoven and Bach ever did, but their productivity was lower of cause. If it comes to contemporary composers with the most natural musicality, I can say, that Andy Pape and Nørgård is extremely productive though. It´s no big deal to write perfect music, it just takes time for most people.

That's the same as saying Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson's music is as great as anything Lennon & McCartney ever wrote, isn't it?

[Joe Barron]

Once you guys have finished feeling good and fuzzy about yourselves (take your time, by all means), i'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.

Your judgment might be perfectly accurate here, but your reasoning is faulty. Even if one cannot name a living composer as great as Bach or Beethoven, it does not follow that composing is obsolete. I cannot name a living playwright as great as Shakespeare, for example, or an artist as great as Michelangelo, or a novelist as great as Tolstoy, but that doesn't mean they should just give up, and I doubt any of them will just because they can't hope to scale the same heights as the giants of the past. They may still feel they have something to say. As Varese noted, the present day composer refuses to die.

[Josquin des Prez]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. What has the overwhelming greatness of Beethoven and Bach got to do with this odd notion that contemporary composers are obsolete? Unless, of course, you also mean that all composers have been obsolete since 1827? After all, what's the point in continuing if you're never going to be as good as Beethoven?

The point is to dispel the notion modern audiences won't let go of the classics because they can't handle the new. I propose the latter claim is highly fallacious and a clear non-sequitur, as evidenced by the fact that: a) conservative composers are not particularly  successful, and b) modern audiences have no problem accepting "new" music such as jazz or rock.

Thus, i propose that modern composers simply aren't as good as the "classics". 

[mikkeljs]

That's the same as saying Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson's music is as great as anything Lennon & McCartney ever wrote, isn't it?

No! Because their music is not good.   I haven´t heard anything by Lennon and McCartney, so I can´t judge them.

[karlhenning]

I haven´t heard anything by Lennon and McCartney, so I can´t judge them.

I think you may be the only person in Europe or the Americas who has not!

[mikkeljs]

I think you may be the only person in Europe or the Americas who has not!

Perhabs I have accidentially heard something somewhere, but I have never been aware, if it was Lennon or McCartney or the Beatles...

[greg]

While many modern composers comfort themselves with the idea that they are artists who are unjustifiably ignored, the reality might be that they are just irrelevant and obsolete because they are incapable of writing music that can please audiences.

Audiences are lazy listeners. When people think "classical", the first thing that comes to mind is mainly soothing music by Mozart or Bach. Nobody is brought up listening to classical, they choose it on their own- maybe for a few exceptions somewhere.

I don't see how it would be such a big step to go from early jazz or heavy metal to a lot of the modern stuff out there. But people don't make that connection, and can't, because they just don't know that there's even any composers anymore, and if they expect something soothing by Beethoven, they'll just be turned off by Schoenberg. Nobody has even heard of Schoenberg, let alone his music, so what do you expect?

[lukeottevanger]

The point is to dispel the notion modern audiences won't let go of the classics because they can't handle the new. I propose the latter claim is highly fallacious and a clear non-sequitur, as evidenced by the fact that: a) conservative composers are not particularly  successful, and b) modern audiences have no problem accepting "new" music such as jazz or rock.

Thus, i propose that modern composers simply aren't as good as the "classics". 

No, you didn't, you proposed they aren't as good as Bach and Beethoven. If you meant 'the classics', then only using the names Bach and Beethoven was disingenuous, because we'd all agree that few composers have ever risen that high. Perhaps that's why you phrased your challenge in the way you did - so that you could then 'claim victory' when no one disagreed with you, as you did a few minutes later.

But, no, if you only meant 'that modern composers simply aren't as good as "the classics"' - then I'd say some certainly are. There may not be a Beethoven or a Bach out there (or maybe there is), but there rarely has been. But there are certainly composers as gifted and with as much to say as many of the old masters.

[karlhenning]

Audiences are lazy listeners.

By no means all.

[Josquin des Prez]

And Bach worked in complete obscurity, in a musical backwater known to virtually no one except to a small number of musicians and connessuirs, it wasn't until 100 years later he was widely appreciated....the same sort of things can be applied to composers active these days.

Not really. Bach situation was the exception, not the rule, and even in his case, it didn't take a "100" years for people to recognize his greatness. By 1799 already we see him being mentioned as the greatest of German composers from which all others sprung: 

http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/04/09/specials/wolff.html

Sorry, but i must find your argument inconclusive.

[greg]

By no means all.

Would you say anywhere from about 70-80% of the people who go to concerts have this attitude?:

1) they go just to say they went
2) they just want to get out and listen to some relaxing music, and don't want to make an "effort" to enjoy anything that might be challenging at all
3) they want to hear Mozart, Brahms, or Beethoven because that's just about all they know
4) they want to feel knowledgeable about the above composers

maybe it differs, and i could imagine it does in Boston, but I bet in most places this is pretty close to being how it is.

[ChamberNut]

Would you say anywhere from about 70-80% of the people who go to concerts have this attitude?:

1) they go just to say they went
2) they just want to get out and listen to some relaxing music, and don't want to make an "effort" to enjoy anything that might be challenging at all
3) they want to hear Mozart, Brahms, or Beethoven because that's just about all they know
4) they want to feel knowledgeable about the above composers

maybe it differs, and i could imagine it does in Boston, but I bet in most places this is pretty close to being how it is.

So Greg, you're equating people enjoying the music of Mozart, Brahms or Beethoven as being "lazy listeners"? 

[greg]

So Greg, you're equating people enjoying the music of Mozart, Brahms or Beethoven as being "lazy listeners"? 

It's possible, if they focus on them exclusively. Like a listener I read about in a book- an old lady who hated it when anything but Beethoven was on the program. You can still like them and be open, too, which is the best.

[karlhenning]

Would you say anywhere from about 70-80% of the people who go to concerts have this attitude?:

Much too large a percentage, to speak of people of my own acquaintance.

1) they go just to say they went

This has simply been outside of my experience, apart from when I was in school, and students had a quota of live performances to attend every semester/quarter.

2) they just want to get out and listen to some relaxing music, and don't want to make an "effort" to enjoy anything that might be challenging at all

Some portion of folks I know seek out The Relaxing Music, though there is generally some degree of overlap with some willingness to make some effort.

3) they want to hear Mozart, Brahms, or Beethoven because that's just about all they know

70-80% is far too high a proposed percentage, in my experience.

4) they want to feel knowledgeable about the above composers

Can't speak to this at all.