Just some mild entertainment here .. You know how for certain eras of the western art music legacy there are usually a few that really stand out well ahead of the rest .. for instance, for the Baroque era Bach .. the classical era Beethoven .. the romantic era Wagner .. just as quick one name examples off the top of my head; but what about the last century. Out the 'major' 20th century composers, if you had to pick 'one' as being overall the greatest, who would it be?
Carter
Part
'Greatest' is of course meaningless. Most history books would probably say Stravinsky in terms of influence/impact, or Schoenberg possibly, but few would argue that the latter produced anything close to the best 20th century music. My favorite 20c composer to listen to is easily Shostakovich.
For me, Prokofiev.
What kind of question is this?
I can only tell you who I personally feel is the greatest - and even with that I need at least 20 to suffice:
Tier 1 - Schoenberg, Messiaen, Bartok, Prokofiev, Stravinsky
Tier 2 - Ligeti, Shostakovich, Varese, Webern
Tier 3 - Berg, Scriabin, Janacek
Tier 4 - Ives, Villa-Lobos, Stockhausen, Cage
Tier 5 - Vaughan Williams, Britten, Xenakis, Penderecki, Carter
Of course, Debussy and Ravel too, as composers that bridged the two centuries.
This is just impossible for me to answer. I can only give you 16 favorites of mine:
Stravinsky
Bartok
Ravel
Vaughan Williams
Janacek
Villa-Lobos
Debussy
Schoenberg
Berg
Sibelius
Shostakovich
Nielsen
Part
Prokofiev
Szymanowski
Dutilleux
I don't see how we will ever reach consensus! But my nominees are:
Arnold Schoenberg
Edgard Varèse
Olivier Messiaen
Piazzolla, his music has a bit of everything...Baroque counterpoint, jazz, avant-garde plus the great Argentinian tango! What more could you want? 8)
Quote from: Sid on March 21, 2011, 09:45:43 PM
Piazzolla, his music has a bit of everything...Baroque counterpoint, jazz, avant-garde plus the great Argentinian tango! What more could you want? 8)
I'm surprised you didn't pick Varese since he's your favorite composer.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 21, 2011, 09:51:47 PM
I'm surprised you didn't pick Varese since he's your favorite composer.
Well I was kind of thinking more of a composer who kind of defines the great plurality and diversity of the c20th. & also one who kind of marries so-called "high" and "low" art, the serious & not so serious. Schnittke was another one like this. Some people have already mentioned Varese, so I thought I'd give Piazzolla a guernsey (I also think that as a chamber musician and composer, Piazzolla was second to none)...
But yes, as you said earlier this is an "impossible" question. The serious writers on music would probably opt for those kinds of names mentioned above...
Hahaha, good one.
Since it's James who started this thread, no one will dare say one particular name, even if they think he really is the greatest.
No one but me.
And even though I agree that "greatest" is a stupid word, putting the real, tangible value of composers on the level of sports figures or pop stars, I would say that the most influencial composer of the twentieth century, the one who clearly changed the whole rule book, as it were, was John Cage.
James will do his usual Tourette's routine that the word "Cage" triggers, but "Oh well." I think of James, now, as a little bug. That I will crush. Under my foot. On the sidewalk. Without compunction. (Well, maybe a little compunction. Eugh. If I actually did do that, I'd have to buy a new pair of shoes.)
Ha, consensus!
I choose Shostakovich. No, wait: Karl Jenkins
Between Debussy, Stravinsky, Schönberg and Bartok, the choice will depend on personal taste. Each of them would deserve the distinction.
To me, Debussy was the greatest piano composer. Stravinsky composed the absolute masterpiece of the century: Rite of Spring. Bartok composed the best Concertos and string Quartets of the Century. Schönberg composed Moses und Aron snd several supreme works in almost all kinds of music, from choral music and Lieder to symphonic and chamber music.
So, between Debussy's piano Images, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, Bartok's 5th Quartet or Schönberg Moses und Aron, a choice seems irrelevant.
Stravinsky.
I can't believe someone said John Cage either. How fantastically ill informed. This is about music , not pretense.
In terms of importance and influence, Schoenberg and Stravinsky share the honor.
In terms of personal taste, Rachmaninoff and Shostakovich. ;D
Cage would not be my choice, but as the question says 'greatest' without any guidance, Cage is a resonable choice. He was/is a very influential composer, regardless of what you think of his music. That his name creates such extreme reactions is evidence of that. His influence on other composers is clear and that extends to genres outside of classical, which few classicial composers have done. In this sense, Cage is great.
So if we talk about 'great' to mean influential, historically important, etc., Cage would be a reasonable choice though I think Shoenberg and Stravinksy would be one of the two I picked in this category.
If by 'great' we mean 'good music', well I'd look elsewhere personally. It would be composers more in the vein of Puccini, Rachmaninov, Gershwin, Grainger, Elgar, etc. that would make such a list. And if we extend this further to film music, there are dozens more we could potentially add.
But without an agreed upon meaning for 'greatest', this boils down to who you like most and whatever criteria you want to use to justify your choice. In this, I rather like Sid's response. Agree or disagree, he gives a good rationale for his choice, some of which I had not considered myself when thinking about the question. Thanks Sid!
Quote from: James on March 22, 2011, 02:46:46 AM
Only a truly delusional person would pick Cage.
Well, I guess that would explain why your beloved Stockhausen thought enough of Cage to invite him to lecture at Darmstadt in 1958, and was influenced enough by indeterminacy to become estranged from Boulez etc about it all. Mind you, that was back when Stockhausen
wasn't quite so delusional, wasn't it? ;) ;)
The 20th century is too broad a category, and too front loaded. With people like Mahler, Debussy, Bartok or Stravinsky in the first quarter alone makes this a very tough competition for composers working after the war.
Quote from: John of Glasgow on March 22, 2011, 02:53:16 AM
This is about music , not pretense.
Its all about pretense in this forum. Have you been living under a rock? Most of the answers in this thread have little to do with the actual music and everything to do with ideology. Its about showing how eclectic and open minded ones own tastes are, especially towards modern trends, which are still not readily accepted and therefore require further support. Orwell got it wrong. The most efficient system of social engineering is not one which has the best brainwashing tools, but the one which convinces people to do their own brainwashing. Is not the government agent you have to look out for, but the conscientious citizen who's actually motivated by the best of intentions.
This thread has not been without a certain degree of interest. But this:Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 22, 2011, 05:08:55 AM
Its all about pretense in this forum. Have you been living under a rock? Most of the answers in this thread have little to do with the actual music and everything to do with ideology. Its about showing how eclectic and open minded ones own tastes are, especially towards modern trends, which are still not readily accepted and therefore require further support. Orwell got it wrong. The most efficient system of social engineering is not one which has the best brainwashing tools, but the one which convinces people to do their own brainwashing. Is not the government agent you have to look out for, but the conscientious citizen who's actually motivated by the best of intentions.
. . . is unsurpassed in its amusement value. I know, it is not witty in form or design (just a petulant rant, really). But in its pure, conspiracy-theory-like disconnect from everything around it . . . it's as if Lear had suddenly stepped onto the stage of The Cocoanuts.
Quote from: Apollon on March 22, 2011, 05:38:00 AM
This thread has not been without a certain degree of interest. But this:
. . . is unsurpassed in its amusement value. I know, it is not witty in form or design (just a petulant rant, really). But in its pure, conspiracy-theory-like disconnect from everything around it . . . it's as if Lear had suddenly stepped onto the stage of The Cocoanuts.
Yes indeed. I was starting to miss Sean, because of his entertainment value. But it appears that "Josquin" is picking up the slack.
That said, his post prior to that one was sensible.
Obviously the answer is Banana. You can close the thread now.
Kumquat!
Quote from: Leon on March 22, 2011, 07:17:43 AM
It strikes me as funny that mention of John Cage will cause some people to cry "Foul!" Seems to me these are people who live in a state of denial that John Cage has had a fairly large influence on not just music but the arts in general. To allow a personal distaste for his contribution to color the objective appraisal of his career is not very impressive nor persuasive.
And, considering how unforcedly attractive I find most of his work (that I know), the ruckus strikes me as all the stranger.
"Consensus"??? On GMG??? What a naive idea... ;)
Quote from: MishaK on March 22, 2011, 07:40:29 AM
"Consensus"??? On GMG??? What a naive idea... ;)
A hit! A palpable hit!
Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Shostakovich, Prokofiev & Bartok
After, Ligeti, Penderecki, Kancheli, Adams, Barber and so many others.
Yes, Mahler, Sibelius, Strauss, Ravel and Debussy composed in the 20th Century, but for some reason I always consider them more to be late 19th Century.
How much might popularity matter in this decision? As much as I tend to immediately think "Schoenberg" for these questions, he has very few hits that listeners recognise and love. Stravinsky, however, has more. If popularity is essential, then Shostakovich potentially has even more cache, in a further more accessable idiom. Perhaps Bartók is a suitable compromise.
I still think Schoenberg, though, popularity or not :)
In terms of their influence over other composers and their impact on the course of 20th-century music, surely Mahler, Debussy, Stravinsky and Schoenberg share top honours. And I'd argue that Sibelius had a more lasting impact than Shostakovich or Prokofiev.
You know, when I opened this thread up this morning, I was getting all worked up to say, "What it really depends on is who of us knows the most about the twentieth century."
But reading through the posts since my last, I really think that there's something else going on, and that it also depends to a large extent on who of us knows how to think. Even people who know very little about all the things that went on in a century that eventually will seem as calm and placid as we now see the extremely turbulent 19th century, will see farther and truer, if they can think, than a whole congeries of "experts" who cannot.
Rejecting the premises of this thread, all of them, is a good thing. (Just think if all of us wiped the dust of this thread from our feet and went out and listened to a lot of music, including, of course, a lot of music that does not have the GMG seal of approval! Just think how much better off we'd all be.)
Quote from: Apollon on March 22, 2011, 07:08:22 AM
Kumquat!
I don't like the aleatory bit in the middle. Now persimmon, that's a different matter.
Quote from: some guy on March 22, 2011, 10:06:05 AM
will see farther and truer, if they can think, than a whole congeries of "experts" who cannot.
A little learning is a dangerous thing. Which, in part, is why I'm leery of making undue recourse to writers on the subject: history is narrative, and like fiction, an author has to make choices about what to focus on, downplay, or outright ignore. The typical narrative of 20th-century classical music is one of privilege-the-stylistic-experiments.
As to the question at hand, I couldn't say. I've heard and enjoyed a whole lot of 20th century music, but there's an equal amount I haven't heard. And hearing doesn't equal understanding, anyway. So, the answer is obviously Elgar :P
Burma!!
Quote from: James on March 21, 2011, 06:52:59 PM
Just some mild entertainment here .. You know how for certain eras of the western art music legacy there are usually a few that really stand out well ahead of the rest .. for instance, for the Baroque era Bach .. the classical era Beethoven .. the romantic era Wagner .. just as quick one name examples off the top of my head; but what about the last century. Out the major 20th century composers, if you had to pick one as being overall the greatest, who would it be?
Major 20th Century Composers:
Debussy, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Mahler, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Elgar, RVW, Ravel, Bartók, Janáček, Strauss, Puccini, Nielsen, Rachmaninoff, Ives, Britten, Villa-Lobos, Gershwin, Copland
Significant for influence on 20th Century music but but doubtful will be remembered for much else 100 years hence:
Schoenberg
The jury's still out on latter half of 20th Century--give it 100 years.
My family went through this exercise at dinner one night seven or eight years ago. Debussy, Mahler, Stravinsky, Sibelius, and Strauss were the main candidates. Consensus choices were Debussy & Stravinsky, for their influence as well as their substantial bodies of lasting works. We gave the nod to Stravinsky. My own choice was Sibelius (surprise!), whose influence is almost as under-appreciated as the breadth and quality of his compositions. Give it another 100 years for the hub-bub of 20th Century license to fade away and then we'll see who remains.
Quote from: MishaK on March 22, 2011, 07:40:29 AM
"Consensus"??? On GMG??? What a naive idea... ;)
+ 1. ;D
"It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."--Robert Frost
Same with contemporary music, I would say.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 22, 2011, 03:42:22 AM
But without an agreed upon meaning for 'greatest', this boils down to who you like most and whatever criteria you want to use to justify your choice. In this, I rather like Sid's response. Agree or disagree, he gives a good rationale for his choice, some of which I had not considered myself when thinking about the question. Thanks Sid!
Thanks for your comments ukrneal. I'm quite a fan of those composers who reached out and embraced so-called "low art." Piazzolla, Schnittke (& I forgot before) Ives & especially Satie were great at this. Satie actually influenced Cage, so there is a connection there. Cage's work for piano, percussion, radio and turntables "Credo in Us" from the 1940's incorporates a lot of these kinds of things, from radio broadcasts to recordings of classical "high art" concert hall music and even a bit of ragtime. I think it is these kinds of composers that have a lot of relevance today in 2011 as the barriers between "high" and "low" art are constantly being broken down. Let's face it, classical music is no longer really mainstream, so maybe the only way it will survive outside of the rather rarified atmosphere of the concert halls and opera houses (populated predominantly by the over 50's) will be in the popular culture (love it or loathe it)...
Quote from: some guy on March 22, 2011, 01:43:55 PM
"It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."--Robert Frost
Pretty much what i've been saying all along.
Composer who composed in the 20th century: Mahler
Composer both born and died in the 20th century (which makes him a 20th century composer by any definition): Feldman
Composer born in the 20th century and lived into the 21st century: Carter
That is just my opinion.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 22, 2011, 04:45:54 PM
Pretty much what i've been saying all along.
Really? I have never seen you say anything even remotely like what's in that Frost quote. Quite the contrary, quite often.
Coming soon at Wrestlemania XXXV, the main event in a 'cage' match JAMES VS. SOME GUY, Part X ;D
Quote from: ChamberNut on March 22, 2011, 06:29:35 PM
Coming soon at Wrestlemania XXXV, the main event in a 'cage' match JAMES VS. SOME GUY, Part X ;D
Can I be the refereee?
BTW, Cage was my second choice... ;D
Quote from: some guy on March 22, 2011, 01:43:55 PM
"It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."--Robert Frost
Same with contemporary music, I would say.
Emphasis added. It's obvious that many here think they are "the right listener." Most are mistaken. Posterity will judge.
Edit: oops--forgot a bracket!
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 22, 2011, 12:13:45 PM
My own choice was Sibelius (surprise!), whose influence is almost as under-appreciated as the breadth and quality of his compositions.
No, I think this is a very shrewd choice, and certainly Sibelius would be in the any list of people I couldn't eliminate from contention. Apart from the quality of work, what strikes me very much is how much of the late 20th century and early 21st century music that I admire--both tonal and atonal--is hard to imagine without Sibelius as a forebear. When your devoted admirers include everyone from Adams to Ferneyhough, there's something near-universal in your music.
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 22, 2011, 12:13:45 PM
...The jury's still out on latter half of 20th Century--give it 100 years...
Well, we'll all be dead by then, it'll be too late!!! :o
This thread should really be about "Who was the greatest composer of the
first half of the 20th century?" By the look of the lists proferred by most on this thread, you couldn't be blamed if this conversation was taking place in 1950 not 2011. Only a few have mentioned some major figures of the post-war era, eg. Messiaen, Cage & Carter. & the "dialogue" is mainly about what happened prior to 1950. No wonder that many younger people today see classical music as a dead artform, irrelevant, something that belongs in a museum and the academies rather than a part of our everyday lives today...
Quote from: Sid on March 22, 2011, 08:25:42 PMNo wonder that many younger people today see classical music as a dead artform, irrelevant, something that belongs in a museum and the academies rather than a part of our everyday lives today...
If a younger person believes this then they're misinformed. Classical music, in today's time, is about exposure. You would think that since this younger generation is so tech savvy that the eclectic tastes that run through so many of them would be enough for them to be interested in the music. For me, it was about exposure. Quite frankly, I don't hear a lot of music being composed today that can even stand against Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg, Janacek, etc. What I do hear are composers who aren't after public approval and that compose mainly for themselves, which is a noble thing within itself, but why can't a composer, of today's time, come up with a piece of music that is innovative yet accessible? Why do composers these days think they have to compromise melody, rhythm, harmony, and structure in order to make an artistic statement? The reason why the first half of the 20th Century remains so popular and is so influential is because these composers were breaking away from Romanticism, but they weren't entirely turning their backs on the tradition that came before them. It was the necessary step just like Schoenberg thought his 12-tone system was a necessary step in the evolution of classical music. The reality is many listeners still struggle with Schoenberg and the
Second Viennese School. Many people have a hard time digesting Bartok's primitivism. Many people still have difficultly with Stravinsky's
Rite of Spring. Anyway, once people get past whatever kinds of problems they have with the music of the early 20th Century is only when they can start approaching what came after ---- post-WWII.
For me as a listener, I have only started to grasp some of the music of the
Second Viennese School, but it took me three years and I'm an avid classical listener and fan. Just imagine how long it will take the casual listener or concert goer to grasp this music? We'll all be dead by then.
3 Pages,... and you're ALL wrong!
Iannis Xenakis is the ONLY Composer to incorporate Mathematics the way he did, the ONLY Composer to link the Past and Future in Now,... the Most Original by FA,... well, he's certainly in the Winner's Circle.
Truly, a Space Age Composer,... making Science real in Music.
Truly, according to the Statistics & Probabilities, it has to be Xenakis, not Cage or Stockhausen (both of whom went kookoo ;D).
I know that when you think of Carl Sagan, and all of those bbbbillions and bbbbillions of stars, you'll have to agree it has to be Xenakis.
I thank you in advance.
oh, and btw- the 20th Century began in 1950. :o Yes, I know, you're shocked. ::)
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 22, 2011, 08:40:20 PM
...why can't a composer, of today's time, come up with a piece of music that is innovative yet accessible? Why do composers these days think they have to compromise melody, rhythm, harmony, and structure in order to make an artistic statement? ...
It seems you're painting with a broad brush. There are many composers from the 20th century's second half who, some very consciously, write in styles that are both appealing and challenging. My own nominee, Olivier Messiaen, certainly did, and so do many others, like Alan Hovhaness, Henryk Gorecki, Arvo Part, Joan Tower, Osvaldo Golijov, and Michael Daugherty. (Of those, only two, Hovhaness and Gorecki, are deceased, and the list is very incomplete. :))
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 22, 2011, 08:40:20 PM
If a younger person believes this then they're misinformed. Classical music, in today's time, is about exposure. You would think that since this younger generation is so tech savvy that the eclectic tastes that run through so many of them would be enough for them to be interested in the music. For me, it was about exposure.
Yes, exposure is an issue. But I think that we are all exposed to classical music, or elements of it, through many different things not only recordings or live performances of symphonies, etc. (see below)
QuoteQuite frankly, I don't hear a lot of music being composed today that can even stand against Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg, Janacek, etc.
Well I personally continue to hear works by current composers which do speak to me on as many different levels as those earlier composers.
QuoteWhat I do hear are composers who aren't after public approval and that compose mainly for themselves, which is a noble thing within itself, but why can't a composer, of today's time, come up with a piece of music that is innovative yet accessible? Why do composers these days think they have to compromise melody, rhythm, harmony, and structure in order to make an artistic statement?
"Accessible" means different things to different people. It's also connected to what you like & don't like. For example, I have a friend who finds Mahler more accessible than Mozart (too many notes!!!). I personally find a lot of the chamber repertoire more accessible than the orchestral, and yet many people label chamber as highbrow. It's all based on personal preference. I don't think composers today - whether they are "serious" classical composers or composers for the movies - compromise anything compared to earlier composers. They're just different.
QuoteThe reason why the first half of the 20th Century remains so popular and is so influential is because these composers were breaking away from Romanticism, but they weren't entirely turning their backs on the tradition that came before them.
True, Romanticism had a big pull, as did other eras. I don't think it's a matter of composers today turning their backs on the music of the past (which they have all studied and know better than most of us here). It's a matter of them finding different solutions to different problems. Problems that didn't exist in say 1900, 1920, or 1950.
QuoteIt was the necessary step just like Schoenberg thought his 12-tone system was a necessary step in the evolution of classical music. The reality is many listeners still struggle with Schoenberg and the Second Viennese School. Many people have a hard time digesting Bartok's primitivism. Many people still have difficultly with Stravinsky's Rite of Spring.
True. By the same token, some fairly sophisticated listeners - like some here - who have more knowledge than people like me still struggle with Cage. I personally don't find his music harder to digest than Schoenberg, Bartok or Stravinsky. It's all a matter of taking each composer on his/her own terms, imo.
QuoteAnyway, once people get past whatever kinds of problems they have with the music of the early 20th Century is only when they can start approaching what came after ---- post-WWII.
But wouldn't you think that many people are already being exposed to post WW2 music everyday - it just might not be by listening to recordings or in the mainstream concert halls. I personally wouldn't underestimate the knowledge that the average person has of late c20th classical music which they have gained through a wide variety of sources - like film soundtracks & on television. There's also a lot of references to classical music in non classical music & it's been going on for decades. It's this type of knowledge that some of those people that are more heavily into classical music might sometimes too readily discount. I think that the gulf between so-call "low" and "high" art is constantly being bridged today in many ways.
QuoteFor me as a listener, I have only started to grasp some of the music of the Second Viennese School, but it took me three years and I'm an avid classical listener and fan. Just imagine how long it will take the casual listener or concert goer to grasp this music? We'll all be dead by then.
Yes, everyone has a journey & learns things in the process. I just find it hard to deal with ideologues who are closed off to certain things. In my circle of friends & acquaintances who like classical music, I find that there's a lot of flexibility and eclecticism, which I think is healthier than some of the attitudes expressed on internet forums...
While I was typing a meticulous examination of Mirror's points, Sid's response came in, better in every way to mine.
So read Sid's post twice, once for him and once for me!
Quote from: snyprrr on March 22, 2011, 08:54:36 PM
3 Pages,... and you're ALL wrong!
Iannis Xenakis is the ONLY Composer to incorporate Mathematics the way he did, the ONLY Composer to link the Past and Future in Now,... the Most Original by FA,... well, he's certainly in the Winner's Circle.
Yes, Xenakis was a great composer. I was just talking to a musician friend about him on the weekend. He said that some people, even musicians, have "problems" with the harmonies in his music. I personally don't, but I'm mainly familiar with his chamber & electronic pieces. I think that Xenakis just did his own thing, and did it well. I agree that he seemed more 'respectable' than Stockhausen or Cage in terms of mainly just writing music, rather than making various pronouncements about it. I also like how Xenakis' music has this sense of warmth and richness, even though at the same time it is full of the toughest of the tough dissonances...
Quote
oh, and btw- the 20th Century began in 1950. :o Yes, I know, you're shocked. ::)
Well for me personally, it began in 1976!!! :P
Quote from: some guy on March 22, 2011, 10:34:14 PM
While I was typing a meticulous examination of Mirror's points, Sid's response came in, better in every way to mine.
So read Sid's post twice, once for him and once for me!
I actually think that MI brought up many vaild points. I wasn't trying to refute everything he said, just get a "dialogue" going. A more useful type of "dialogue" than the OP, who seems to ignore or rubbish some people's suggestions that certain composers were "great" even though this is subjective. I'm glad not everyone thinks in his potentially restrictive "grand narrative" kind of interpretation of the history of c20th classical music...
Quote from: Sid on March 22, 2011, 10:38:16 PMI wasn't trying to refute everything he said, just get a "dialogue" going.
Exactly why I trashed mine after reading yours!
Quote from: some guy on March 22, 2011, 05:23:21 PM
Really? I have never seen you say anything even remotely like what's in that Frost quote. Quite the contrary, quite often.
Please. I couldn't possibly have been more adamant about the idea that genius is self-evident, quite contrary to the general opinion here, that genius can only be assessed by a consensus, generally after a certain amount of time. So now that we find a poet that actually agrees with what i've been saying all along, and all of a sudden you feint ignorance.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 23, 2011, 01:33:26 AM
Please. I couldn't possibly have been more adamant about the idea that genius is self-evident...
Self-evident perhaps--but according to Mr. Frost and in my own experience, only to "the right reader" or listener. And that's not always about general intelligence (which may not even exist, according to some theorists) or experience or sensitivity, but just about whether a listener and a composition "click."
Example: When I first heard Mahler's music at age 18 (it was the Eighth Symphony), I fell in love at once, completely and forever. But for other musicians and listeners who are at least as intelligent, experienced and sensitive as I, it has indeed taken years to recognize his genius. For yet others, there is no recognition of genius at all. The music is the same--listeners are just different.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 22, 2011, 08:54:36 PM
3 Pages,... and you're ALL wrong!
A very likeable post.
Quote from: Sid on March 22, 2011, 10:38:16 PM
I actually think that MI brought up many vaild points. I wasn't trying to refute everything he said, just get a "dialogue" going.
Yes, hence its value.
Quote from: jochanaan on March 23, 2011, 02:20:55 AM
Quote from: JosquinPlease. I couldn't possibly have been more adamant about the idea that genius is self-evident...
Self-evident perhaps--but according to Mr. Frost and in my own experience, only to "the right reader" or listener. And that's not always about general intelligence (which may not even exist, according to some theorists) or experience or sensitivity, but just about whether a listener and a composition "click."
Example: When I first heard Mahler's music at age 18 (it was the Eighth Symphony), I fell in love at once, completely and forever. But for other musicians and listeners who are at least as intelligent, experienced and sensitive as I, it has indeed taken years to recognize his genius. For yet others, there is no recognition of genius at all. The music is the same--listeners are just different.
Or, yes, it is self-evident. What you have no business being adamant about, JdP, is claiming that if it is not "self-evident" to you, now, then it somehow "isn't genius."
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 22, 2011, 08:40:20 PMQuite frankly, I don't hear a lot of music being composed today that can even stand against Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg, Janacek, etc. What I do hear are composers who aren't after public approval and that compose mainly for themselves, which is a noble thing within itself, but why can't a composer, of today's time, come up with a piece of music that is innovative yet accessible? Why do composers these days think they have to compromise melody, rhythm, harmony, and structure in order to make an artistic statement?
I agree with this. That said, it's hard to be as great an innovator as Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Sibelius or indeed Beethoven. That's why there are so few of them.
I wonder if you've heard any concertos by Leonardo Balada. My Balada explorations are not nearly finished but the album of three concertos with Serebrier and the Barcelona SO on Naxos might yield you a lot of pleasure.
Quote from: James on March 22, 2011, 07:59:52 PM
one thing that Schoenberg never has quite achieved (and let's be honest) is reaching/communicating that wider audience. I think that is apart of the equation.
I think one has to tread lightly there since if/how a piece reaches or clicks with a wider audience is potentially thorny. There's obviously no fair and simple system where every time a new piece is created it's performed for the same audience to be judged by the same criteria. Pieces get their premieres delayed or canceled, a newspaper critic might have an axe to grind, the first recording might be a poorly rehearsed rush job, etc. In other words, lots of external factors can come into play.
And back to the point I was making earlier, common narratives of classical music in the 20th century, which often paint it a series of extreme stylistic reactions, privileging anyone who invents a new theory or makes a novel noise, can predispose listeners against pieces/composers. "Oh, Schoenberg? They say he's the guy who turned music ugly with all that atonal noise."
Such a tale can also lead people to fixate on avant-garde composers of the early 20th century, as another poster noted, as if that somehow embodied or encompassed the huge range of what's happened/happening. Heck, Bantock was still writing his lush Edwardian-style pieces in the 1940's.
I think the circumstances of "reaching/communicating [to] a wider audience" are orthogonal to the res.
Quote from: jochanaan on March 23, 2011, 02:20:55 AM
Self-evident perhaps--but according to Mr. Frost and in my own experience, only to "the right reader" or listener. And that's not always about general intelligence (which may not even exist, according to some theorists) or experience or sensitivity, but just about whether a listener and a composition "click."
Example: When I first heard Mahler's music at age 18 (it was the Eighth Symphony), I fell in love at once, completely and forever. But for other musicians and listeners who are at least as intelligent, experienced and sensitive as I, it has indeed taken years to recognize his genius. For yet others, there is no recognition of genius at all. The music is the same--listeners are just different.
I'm afraid you are interpreting Mr. Frost erroneously. If what you are saying was the case, then there would be no reason to even talk of a great poem, or a great composition. Why even remember Mahler above some of his lesser contemporaries, if in the end its all a matter of individual perception? Mr. Frost is specifically speaking of
permanence, meaning that the focus is on the poem or work of art in question, and that the "right" reader is not just any reader. Sorry, but that's the way it is. If there was a genius today, some of us would know. Instantly. There wouldn't be any question of time, or acceptance, which is usually the response i get around here when i speak of the fact we have no recognized genius today.
Quote from: Apollon on March 23, 2011, 03:40:04 AM
Or, yes, it is self-evident. What you have no business being adamant about, JdP, is claiming that if it is not "self-evident" to you, now, then it somehow "isn't genius."
A preferred position to those who argue it is impossible to know, namely, all of you. At the very least, I am not afraid to discriminate, and whether i am mistaken or correct in my judgment is of no real consequence.
To return to the main question: Havergal Brian - given the sudden revival of interest in his lesser known output - could still prove to be an answer.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 23, 2011, 05:39:26 AM
A preferred position to those who argue it is impossible to know, namely, all of you.
Thank you for yet another amusing error on your part. Which, in addition, amusingly undercuts your claim to be the one capable of discriminating.
ROFL
Quote from: Christo on March 23, 2011, 06:04:15 AM
To return to the main question: Havergal Brian - given the sudden revival of interest in his lesser known output - could still prove to be an answer.
Could it, really? I mean, we don't somehow know who the greatest composer of the 20th century is, until we "discover" that composer in the 21st century? How is such a scenario possible? Draw me a diagram . . . .
Quote from: Apollon on March 23, 2011, 06:26:21 AM
Could it, really? I mean, we don't somehow know who the greatest composer of the 20th century is, until we "discover" that composer in the 21st century? How is such a scenario possible? Draw me a diagram . . . .
Bach was not recognized until later. And Mahler wasn't always popular earlier in the 20th century, so I think we do 'wake up' sometimes and 'discover' someone (or their works). Beethoven's late sonatas are works that were not understood for decades after his death (or perhaps misunderstood is more accurate). So I think such a scenario is more than possible.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 23, 2011, 06:42:02 AM
Bach was not recognized until later.
False. As such a curt statement, absolutely false. From Bach's own day, there were always musicians of distinction who knew of his talent. (Are we saying that there were musicians who knew of Havergal Brian, and who considered him the greatest composer of the century?)
And, of course, communications and publication in Bach's day were nothing like what they are now. If they were, you and I would likely still not know of Havergal Brian, right? Whereas, from Bach's own day, there were always &c. &c. If by recognized, you mean generally known in society (as opposed to recognition by peers) . . . well, I just don't ever see that happening with Brian, do you? Unless someone makes a movie Coco & Havergal . . . .
We ARE the Elites who decide what Greatness is!! :-* Commence the Orations!!
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 22, 2011, 06:38:53 PM
Emphasis added. It's obvious that many here think they are "the right listener." Most are mistaken. Posterity will judge.
Yes! It is astonishing how many posts are written positing "a listener" whose ears — mirabile dictu! — match our very own in all detail and capacity . . . .
Quote from: snyprrr on March 22, 2011, 08:54:36 PM
3 Pages,... and you're ALL wrong!
Iannis Xenakis is the ONLY Composer to incorporate Mathematics the way he did, the ONLY Composer to link the Past and Future in Now,... the Most Original by FA,... well, he's certainly in the Winner's Circle.
Truly, a Space Age Composer,... making Science real in Music.
Truly, according to the Statistics & Probabilities, it has to be Xenakis, not Cage or Stockhausen (both of whom went kookoo ;D).
I know that when you think of Carl Sagan, and all of those bbbbillions and bbbbillions of stars, you'll have to agree it has to be Xenakis.
I thank you in advance.
oh, and btw- the 20th Century began in 1950. :o Yes, I know, you're shocked. ::)
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! XENAKIS!!! 8)
Well, regarding 20th century composers, although I did say Prokofiev, it really depends on what is meant by "20th century". If what is meant was anyone who composed anything in the 20th century, that'd be Mahler. But if what is meant was anyone who was born in the 20th century, it couldn't be Prokofiev- it would have to be someone else because he was born slightly before 1900.
Quote from: edward on March 22, 2011, 07:07:23 PM
Quote from: DavidRossMy own choice was Sibelius (surprise!), whose influence is almost as under-appreciated as the breadth and quality of his compositions.
No, I think this is a very shrewd choice, and certainly Sibelius would be in the any list of people I couldn't eliminate from contention. Apart from the quality of work, what strikes me very much is how much of the late 20th century and early 21st century music that I admire--both tonal and atonal--is hard to imagine without Sibelius as a forebear. When your devoted admirers include everyone from Adams to Ferneyhough, there's something near-universal in your music.
Well done, gentlemen both!
Quote from: Greg on March 23, 2011, 07:26:06 AM
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! XENAKIS!!! 8)
Well, regarding 20th century composers, although I did say Prokofiev, it really depends on what is meant by "20th century". If what is meant was anyone who composed anything in the 20th century, that'd be Mahler. But if what is meant was anyone who was born in the 20th century, it couldn't be Prokofiev- it would have to be someone else because he was born slightly before 1900.
Probably we are both about equally crazy about Prokofiev . . . but I don't think I could really make the case for his being the greatest composer of the century.
Quote from: Apollon on March 23, 2011, 07:18:30 AM
False. As such a curt statement, absolutely false. From Bach's own day, there were always musicians of distinction who knew of his talent. (Are we saying that there were musicians who knew of Havergal Brian, and who considered him the greatest composer of the century?)
And, of course, communications and publication in Bach's day were nothing like what they are now. If they were, you and I would likely still not know of Havergal Brian, right? Whereas, from Bach's own day, there were always &c. &c.
If by recognized, you mean generally known in society (as opposed to recognition by peers) . . . well, I just don't ever see that happening with Brian, do you? Unless someone makes a movie Coco & Havergal . . . .
My point is not that Bach was unknown. Of course, he was known. My point is that he was not regarded as the universal genius most seem to revere him as today. I suppose I should have said 'unversally recognized' or some such thing in my original post. Perhaps Mahler is a better example.
I think today's speed of communication works against geniuses. They get their '15 minutes' too quickly and under too much pressure. Also, recognition has deteriorated to much more focused areas of excellence. I cannot think of many people I would label geniuses today, though I suspect as a portion of society, they still occupy the same percentages.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 23, 2011, 01:33:26 AM
Please. I couldn't possibly have been more adamant about the idea that genius is self-evident, quite contrary to the general opinion here, that genius can only be assessed by a consensus, generally after a certain amount of time. So now that we find a poet that who actually agrees with what i've been saying all along, and all of a sudden you feint feign ignorance.
"Genius" may be "self-evident" to other "geniuses" who by training, experience, and personal inclination are able to recognize it immediately. Thus, for instance, Albert Barnes was able to recognize the virtues of post-impressionist masters whom the intelligentsia of the day disparaged. (Note: the self-professed "intelligentsia" almost always gets it wrong. Like you, they are so self-impressed by their modest gifts that it's nearly impossible for them to see anew, thus cannot learn and thereby condemn themselves to pompous mediocrity.)
The great majority, however, are unable to recognize real genius until after the revolution it sparks has birthed a new status quo. Real genius persists and only becomes more apparent with time, whereas the innovative trendiness mistaken for genius by the mediocre eventually gets revealed as a shallow impostor.
Because genius by definition is relatively uncommon, and because of the tendency noted by Howard Aiken in his oft-quoted bon mot, "Don't worry about others stealing your ideas; if your ideas are any good, you'll have to cram them down peoples' throats," time is essential for it to be properly recognized. It takes time for the new way of "seeing" to alter people's capacity to see, and it takes time to gauge the extent of its influence.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 23, 2011, 07:49:51 AM
My point is not that Bach was unknown. Of course, he was known. My point is that he was not regarded as the universal genius most seem to revere him as today.
That's fine, Neal, though I think it is worth unpacking the idea, even among cultivated musicians contemporary to Bach, that he was a composer of an unusually high order, from what Wuorinen has wrily called the deification of Bach (the sort of tendency which leads some enthusiasts to "conclude" that, say, no living composers are producing any work of merit, since "none of it can touch JS Bach"). Truly, it takes a discriminating mind to admire Bach's work as it deserves, without making a totemistic idol of him.
Quote from: James on March 23, 2011, 06:27:48 AM
Schoenberg has everything else in place pretty much
Everything except the fact he hasn't written one single work of genius.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 23, 2011, 05:01:00 AM
I think one has to tread lightly there since if/how a piece reaches or clicks with a wider audience is potentially thorny. There's obviously no fair and simple system where every time a new piece is created it's performed for the same audience to be judged by the same criteria. Pieces get their premieres delayed or canceled, a newspaper critic might have an axe to grind, the first recording might be a poorly rehearsed rush job, etc. In other words, lots of external factors can come into play.
And back to the point I was making earlier, common narratives of classical music in the 20th century, which often paint it a series of extreme stylistic reactions, privileging anyone who invents a new theory or makes a novel noise, can predispose listeners against pieces/composers. "Oh, Schoenberg? They say he's the guy who turned music ugly with all that atonal noise."
Such a tale can also lead people to fixate on avant-garde composers of the early 20th century, as another poster noted, as if that somehow embodied or encompassed the huge range of what's happened/happening. Heck, Bantock was still writing his lush Edwardian-style pieces in the 1940's.
Beauty!!
(Can we vote now for the greatest post to this thread??)
Quote from: Apollon on March 23, 2011, 05:16:25 AM
I think the circumstances of "reaching/communicating [to] a wider audience" are orthogonal to the res.
Beauty!!!
(Now I don't want to vote any more. Too many good posts to this thread. "Greatness" is over-rated. Let's just enjoy what we enjoy. Yeah.)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 23, 2011, 09:30:39 AM
Everything except the fact he hasn't written one single work of genius.
Stop saying foolish things. (Not that you ever will.) Schoenberg wrote his share of lesser works, but surely Pierrot, Erwartung, the Five Orchestral Pieces, Herzgewächse, and some others qualify as works of genius.
Just a footnote to Mr. Ross: when correcting JdP's usage, please don't forget to remind him that the personal pronoun is always capitalized in English. No exceptions, whether at the start of a sentence or the middle.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 23, 2011, 09:30:39 AM
Everything except the fact he hasn't written one single work of genius.
But you are funny today!
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 23, 2011, 08:03:31 AM
. . . Howard Aiken in his oft-quoted bon mot, "Don't worry about others stealing your ideas; if your ideas are any good, you'll have to cram them down peoples' throats" . . . .
That's great! And (rightly or wrongly) I now feel much better about my own continued musical obscurity ; )
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 23, 2011, 09:39:05 AM
Stop saying foolish things. (Not that you ever will.) Schoenberg wrote his share of lesser works, but surely Pierrot, Erwartung, the Five Orchestral Pieces, Herzgewächse, and some others qualify as works of genius.
I was following you until you listed all only Schoenberg pieces that bore or mystify me and omitted all of his best stuff.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 23, 2011, 09:50:17 AM
I was following you until you listed all only Schoenberg pieces that bore or mystify me and omitted all of his best stuff.
But which do you have in mind? I hope not the Gurrelieder! (crossing fingers)
Quote from: James on March 23, 2011, 06:27:48 AM
You're overthinking everything here. As a general component of 'greatness', as history has shown as well (a great teacher that) .. connecting with a wider audience is what I was talking about. Schoenberg has everything else in place pretty much (incl. performers who 'get it') but that music has struggled in garnering wider appeal whereas others who were just as inventive & creative have succeeded (i.e. Stravinsky, Bartok), that's all I was pointing out.
I'm not sure how thinking equals overthinking :D My point is that one should be careful about positing widespread audience appeal or acceptance as a requisite for artistic greatness precisely because external factors come into play. Let's say you have a media-darling conductor who heads a major orchestra, and that conductor goes on to push a new piece hard, and that conductor happens to have a contract with a big record label and helps get that piece recorded. New York Times: "epoch making premiere!" David Hurwitz: "10/10!" Voila, it's before an audience. Success! But what if none of that happens? Is the artist somehow less great?
What if, over the course of decades, a guy like Schoenberg doesn't have ticket and CD sales as brisk as Mahler? Is it the fault of the music, or are people unjustly fixated on the whole idea of Schoenberg as the dodecaphonic devil and therefore don't bother to give the music a fair shake?
Quote from: snyprrr on March 22, 2011, 08:54:36 PM
Iannis Xenakis is the ONLY Composer to incorporate Mathematics the way he did, the ONLY Composer to link the Past and Future in Now,... the Most Original by FA,... well, he's certainly in the Winner's Circle.
Truly, a Space Age Composer,... making Science real in Music.
Truly, according to the Statistics & Probabilities, it has to be Xenakis, not Cage or Stockhausen (both of whom went kookoo ;D).
I know that when you think of Carl Sagan, and all of those bbbbillions and bbbbillions of stars, you'll have to agree it has to be Xenakis.
That's an interesting and unusual way of approaching the question: is the greatest 20th-century composer the one who best embodies the Zeitgeist? And if so, what the heck would that sound like?
Quote from: Grazioso on March 23, 2011, 10:07:04 AM
What if, over the course of decades, a guy like Schoenberg doesn't have ticket and CD sales as brisk as Mahler?
Which is apt to be The Case. Certainly, orchestras program a great deal more Mahler than Schoenberg, minute for minute.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 23, 2011, 10:07:04 AM
What if, over the course of decades, a guy like Schoenberg doesn't have ticket and CD sales as brisk as Mahler? Is it the fault of the music, or are people unjustly fixated on the whole idea of Schoenberg as the dodecaphonic devil and therefore don't bother to give the music a fair shake?
Back around 2000 when the Philadelphia Orchestra programmed
Gurrelieder, they actually stated in the publicity material that it was "totally unlike" the atonal music that Schoenberg was known for. In the event, they sold out, but it's telling that they felt they had to embark on this little propaganda campaign to sell seats.
Schoenberg may have had his own good reasons to go 12-tone. But he paid the price in terms of marketing.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 23, 2011, 09:59:14 AM
But which do you have in mind? I hope not the Gurrelieder! (crossing fingers)
Haven't heard the Gurrelieder, but generally like Schoenberg's expressive early works. But I was thinking of the two Chamber Symphonies, the Suite Op 29, the Jacobsleiter. I just listened to the Piano concerto for the first time and was very impressed.
Quote from: edward on March 22, 2011, 07:06:43 AM
Obviously the answer is Banana. You can close the thread now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w#t=1m37s
Quote from: James on March 23, 2011, 10:31:04 AM
We're talking about major composers that are already established & it is a component ..
Chicken or egg? If you already know who is "major" and "established," what's the point of the thread? And if we're going to include criteria that don't necessarily reflect on the music itself but rather the vicissitudes of its reception, then we should be able to include other criteria...
like baldness. You can clearly see that Sibelius is better than Schoenberg:
(http://library.buffalo.edu/music/exhibits/perry/img/sibelius.jpg)(http://www.scena.org/lsm/sm5-7/images/Arnold-Schoenberg.jpg)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 23, 2011, 09:39:05 AM
Just a footnote to Mr. Ross: when correcting JdP's usage, please don't forget to remind him that the personal pronoun is always capitalized in English. No exceptions, whether at the start of a sentence or the middle.
I presumed the lower case "i" was either a typo or a trivial affectation, whereas the mistakes in diction suggest thought too muddled to make meaningful judgments about the nature of genius ... not that I expected him to grasp such subtlety.
Quote from: Apollon on March 23, 2011, 07:31:13 AM
Probably we are both about equally crazy about Prokofiev . . . but I don't think I could really make the case for his being the greatest composer of the century.
Really? Who would you suggest, then? Stravinsky?
Quote from: Greg on March 23, 2011, 12:43:57 PM
Really? Who would you suggest, then? Stravinsky?
Henning! :P
Quote from: Greg on March 23, 2011, 12:43:57 PM
Really? Who would you suggest, then? Stravinsky?
Saul.
I agree with the gist of what DavidRoss has had to say. It seems that the "dialogue" of this thread is restricted by what the OP sees as the "greatest" c20th music - basically pre-WW2. This is a view that talks to the "grand narrative" view of art, which I thought went out 40 years ago, not only in scholarly circles, but probably with the wider public as well. I respect James knowledge of music, it far surpasses mine, & I have learnt from info he has provided in other threads, but that's not the issue. This "grand narrative" view dismisses composers other than guys like Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Debussy, etc. Composers like Satie, Cage or Piazzolla who didn't specialise in the larger forms. It's almost like as if to say that their contributions are valued less than the "biggies" because they didn't predominantly write ballets, symphonies, concertos, operas, etc. Although they dabbled in these forms, that was not the full sum of their contribution. I mean James, who has more specialised knowledge than me, knows things like Satie influenced Cage who in turn influenced guys like Lutoslawski. & this kind of influence continues to this day.
Most importantly, I don't discount the knowledge that non-classical listeners have of classical music, which is gained through the popular culture. Countless movie composers since the 1950's have used the innovative techniques of many c20th composers, old and new. The music of guys like Piazzolla, Nyman, Arvo Part to name three have featured prominently in some fairly successful movies. I am more interested in this "hidden" history of classical music which engages with the popular culture rather than dismissing it. Indeed, sometimes I think that mainstream popular culture is more relevant in the way it exposes people to classical composers, rather than the traditional avenues of the concert halls, opera houses and ballet performances, which tend to favour this "grand narrative" view and most of their audiences are probably the over 50's...
Quote from: Brian on March 23, 2011, 03:50:02 AM
I agree with this. That said, it's hard to be as great an innovator as Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Sibelius or indeed Beethoven. That's why there are so few of them.
I wonder if you've heard any concertos by Leonardo Balada. My Balada explorations are not nearly finished but the album of three concertos with Serebrier and the Barcelona SO on Naxos might yield you a lot of pleasure.
Brian, I have not heard a note by Balada, but I have ran across his name multiple times doing Naxos searches. How would you describe the music since you have first-hand experience? Thanks.
Quote from: jochanaan on March 22, 2011, 09:36:48 PM
It seems you're painting with a broad brush. There are many composers from the 20th century's second half who, some very consciously, write in styles that are both appealing and challenging. My own nominee, Olivier Messiaen, certainly did, and so do many others, like Alan Hovhaness, Henryk Gorecki, Arvo Part, Joan Tower, Osvaldo Golijov, and Michael Daugherty. (Of those, only two, Hovhaness and Gorecki, are deceased, and the list is very incomplete. :))
Very good point, Jochanaan. Yes, I guess I was painting with too broad of a brush. I do like a lot of music from post-WWII like Ligeti, Part, Gorecki, etc. I haven't gotten into Messiaen yet. He's a little all-over-the-map sonically for me, but, in time, I'm sure if I keep an open-mind, I'll come to enjoy many of his works.
Quote from: toucan on March 23, 2011, 04:23:50 PM
For his reward he gets to argue with Saul. On the longest thread ever.
Sounds like the internet griefer's equivelent of Valhalla ;D
Quote from: Sid on March 22, 2011, 10:27:11 PMYes, everyone has a journey & learns things in the process. I just find it hard to deal with ideologues who are closed off to certain things. In my circle of friends & acquaintances who like classical music, I find that there's a lot of flexibility and eclecticism, which I think is healthier than some of the attitudes expressed on internet forums...
My ideology is quite simple: if it moves me emotionally, then I'll engage it intellectually. Who knows what will move me? I will say I'm not closed off to the second half of the 20th Century, because there was still a lot of music coming from composers who lived in the first half, but as far as those born after WWII, I'm finding it hard to find any composers who can bring their very creative ideas onto a more human level. Some people have described Ligeti's music, for example, as otherworldly, but I find a lot of it to be earthy in tone and character. His music, regardless of its high level of creativity and invention, still finds a way to connect with people. It does come down to exposure, but even exposure to a composer doesn't automatically mean acceptance from the listener. That's why I think so much of the second half of the 20th Century is still up in the air.
Quote from: toucan on March 23, 2011, 04:23:50 PM
For his reward he gets to argue with Saul. On the longest thread ever.
Been there, done that.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 23, 2011, 06:16:45 PM
My ideology is quite simple: if it moves me emotionally, then I'll engage it intellectually. Who knows what will move me?
Interesting ideology. I immediately thought, mine is that if it engages me intellectually, it will move me emotionally. But of course, a moment's reflection tells me that that's wrong. My ideology is that my emotions and my intellect are inextricably intertwined.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 23, 2011, 06:16:45 PM[As] far as those born after WWII, I'm finding it hard to find any composers who can bring their very creative ideas onto a more human level. Some people have described Ligeti's music, for example, as otherworldly, but I find a lot of it to be earthy in tone and character. His music, regardless of its high level of creativity and invention, still finds a way to connect with people. It does come down to exposure, but even exposure to a composer doesn't automatically mean acceptance from the listener.
This puts you and your needs and knowledge as being roughly equivalent of "human level." And if you don't believe me, then look at this: "from the listener." Not "from me, Mirror Image," but from "the" listener.
Surely you know that there are many listeners, some of them who post on these forums, who find music of the second half of the century to be "human." (I'm only guessing here, by the way. I have no idea what "human level" means. When I try to make it mean something, all that happens is that Bach, for example, ends up very far from being on a "human level"!!) In any case, I certainly have "accepted" the musics of the latter half of the century, at the very least, which means that they are acceptable. (I put accepted into quotes because that's not how I would phrase it. I
enjoy the musics of the latter half of the century. They engage me. Lachenmann. Cage. Fluxus. LaMonte Young. Francis Dhomont. eRikm. Yasanao Tone. Lyn Goeringer.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 23, 2011, 06:16:45 PMThat's why I think so much of the second half of the 20th Century is still up in the air.
You already know what's coming, don't you? NOT FOR ME.
Quote from: some guy on March 23, 2011, 07:10:02 PM
Interesting ideology. I immediately thought, mine is that if it engages me intellectually, it will move me emotionally. But of course, a moment's reflection tells me that that's wrong. My ideology is that my emotions and my intellect are inextricably intertwined.
This puts you and your needs and knowledge as being roughly equivalent of "human level." And if you don't believe me, then look at this: "from the listener." Not "from me, Mirror Image," but from "the" listener.
Surely you know that there are many listeners, some of them who post on these forums, who find music of the second half of the century to be "human." (I'm only guessing here, by the way. I have no idea what "human level" means. When I try to make it mean something, all that happens is that Bach, for example, ends up very far from being on a "human level"!!) In any case, I certainly have "accepted" the musics of the latter half of the century, at the very least, which means that they are acceptable. (I put accepted into quotes because that's not how I would phrase it. I enjoy the musics of the latter half of the century. They engage me. Lachenmann. Cage. Fluxus. LaMonte Young. Francis Dhomont. eRikm. Yasanao Tone. Lyn Goeringer.
You already know what's coming, don't you? NOT FOR ME.
You seem to generally like throwing composers names out with no rhyme or reason. Who in the hell is Fluxus? I mean who calls themselves this name and is to be taken seriously? Is this a serious composer or someone who thinks triggering a sound on a keyboard is art? Who is eRikm? Again, you throw out these names as if they're a Stravinsky or a Debussy.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 23, 2011, 08:23:53 PM
You seem to generally like throwing composers names out with no rhyme or reason. Who in the hell is Fluxus? I mean who calls themselves this name and is to be taken seriously? Is this a serious composer or someone who thinks triggering a sound on a keyboard is art? Who is eRikm? Again, you throw out these names as if they're a Stravinsky or a Debussy.
I'm only allowed to name names that you already know? I "throw out" these names because they're people I know and enjoy. (You give yourself way to much credit if you think I pay attention to who you know and purposely mention people you don't know. Really. I don't know who you know.)
And not knowing about Fluxus, well, that just means there's a lot of post-WWII music for you to discover.
Enjoy!
Quote from: some guy on March 23, 2011, 08:36:40 PMI'm only allowed to name names that you already know? I "throw out" these names because they're people I know and enjoy.
I mean don't take my comment as insulting but I was just wondering, since I didn't make my point clear the first time around, how exactly do the composers you mention stack up against composers like Bartok or Stravinsky who are obviously highly regarded and influential masters of the 20th Century?
By the way, I looked up eRikm and he's apparently a musician who plays turntables. ??? Do you seriously think he could stand against Janacek? I mean seriously, some guy, your musical knowledge of today's music is impressive (I have followed your posts for quite some time now), but come on turntables? Next thing we know you'll be talking about a composer who burps and snorts crack as apart of the music. >:D
Quote from: some guy on March 23, 2011, 08:36:40 PM
I'm only allowed to name names that you already know? I "throw out" these names because they're people I know and enjoy. (You give yourself way to much credit if you think I pay attention to who you know and purposely mention people you don't know. Really. I don't know who you know.)
And not knowing about Fluxus, well, that just means there's a lot of post-WWII music for you to discover.
Enjoy!
This is exactly the kind of point I was trying to make earlier with regards to some of the restrictive & reductionist ideology behind this thread. As I was saying earlier, it should've been about the so-called greatest composer/s of the first half of the c20th. That's the mindset with which many people have come to this party. I personally am not as knowledgeable about some post WW2 composers as some guy, but I am open to hearing new works by current composers - particuarly in chamber and electroacoustic recitals I go to at Sydney Conservatorium. Sometimes I go with a friend, and we NEVER talk about the works afterwards comparing them in quality or whatever to something from say 1911. That just doesn't make sense. Music from 1911 is different to music from 2011 in so many ways. It's silly to come to music of 2011 with a 1911 mindset - and restrictive, because one holds oneself back from enjoying and appreciating the music of today.
I have a friend who studied compostion at the con, and she likes some c20th composers, and not others. She doesn't like Schoenberg or Carter that much, but advised me to get some of the music of Harry Partch. She said "You think Carter is complex - he's not that complex - Partch is more complex!" & when I saw a cd of Partch's music in the cd store, I got it immediately & I connected with it straight away (without any prior knowledge, and much less knowledge of the earlier c20th repertoire than she or even most others here). Likewise, some of the composers which some guy has talked about like Lachenmann and Luc Ferrari have also interested me, I'll have to look into those later. I am gearing up to see the music of Partch live here in Sydney later on in the year, where they will play his music as well as others influenced by him.
I actually respect some guy a great deal because he knows c20th as well as the latest (c21st) music inside out. He tends not to talk about music unless he's heard it. Everyone has an ideology about music, but it's good and healthy to question and expose these ideologies, some of which prove to be outdated and way past their use-by date...
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 23, 2011, 08:23:53 PM
You seem to generally like throwing composers names out with no rhyme or reason. Who in the hell is Fluxus? I mean who calls themselves this name and is to be taken seriously? Is this a serious composer or someone who thinks triggering a sound on a keyboard is art? Who is eRikm?
I'm confused. I thought "Fluxus" was a collective name for a whole group of artists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxus
As for "eRikm," I find it hard to take seriously someone with a name that looks like a typo.
Quote from: Velimir on March 24, 2011, 12:41:41 AM
As for "eRikm," I find it hard to take seriously someone with a name that looks like a typo.
Ditto. :D
As for Fluxus, I find it hard to take seriously any person or goup of persons who susbcribe to the following tenets.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/07/Gmaciunas-manifesto.jpg/364px-Gmaciunas-manifesto.jpg)
Quote from: edward on March 23, 2011, 03:35:32 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 23, 2011, 01:51:36 PM
Saul.
You win the Internet. Congratulations.
Absolutely! This set me chuckling for near a solid minute. Fit to bust a gut.
Quote from: Apollon on March 23, 2011, 06:26:21 AM
Could it, really? I mean, we don't somehow know who the greatest composer of the 20th century is, until we "discover" that composer in the 21st century? How is such a scenario possible? Draw me a diagram . . . .
:) 8) The obvious answer being: Bach. (Greatest composer of the 18th, only recognized as such during the following two centuries).
Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on March 24, 2011, 01:18:03 AM
As for Fluxus, I find it hard to take seriously any person or goup of persons who susbcribe to the following tenets.
Then, too, as with the Dadaists, an appearance of unworthy-to-be-taken-seriously is part of the point.
Quote from: Christo on March 24, 2011, 03:36:31 AM
:) 8) The obvious answer being: Bach. (Greatest composer of the 18th, only recognized as such during the following two centuries).
Dude, we've covered that ground (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18192.msg499707.html#msg499707) ; ) Separately: not to put too fine a point on it, but, friends, I've earned a PhD in music. Really, I have heard of JS Bach, and of Mendelssohn. That story is not news to me.
Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 03:41:28 AM
Dude, we've covered that ground (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18192.msg499707.html#msg499707) ; )
Separately: not to put too fine a point on it, but, friends, I've earned a PhD in music. Really, I have heard of JS Bach, and of Mendelssohn. That story is not news to me.
:) Thnx for reminding us (living another daily life sometimes without the GMG forum). :)
(http://www.combinatorics.org/Surveys/ds5/gifs/VicRed10.gif)
Life! I've heard of it : )
Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 03:50:14 AM
Life! : )
...is what happens while you're busy buying new CDs.
Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 03:38:10 AM
Then, too, as with the Dadaists, an appearance of unworthy-to-be-taken-seriously is part of the point.
Might be, but then again why should I take seriously someone who doesn't take himself seriously ? :)
Part of the trouble thus opposed is, so many people are ready to take seriously those who quite obviously take themselves seriously. (Why do I suddenly think of A Certain Blogger?) ; )
Quote from: James on March 24, 2011, 03:23:38 AM
Cage is inconsequential if you look at the output. A complete non factor. . 'to free sounds from the bullying effects of human intention & rules so that they could be themselves' .. repudiating tradition with such nonsense, as if what he puts forth even compares. Again, just look at the 200 or so diddles to his name, 99% of that is pure garbage. Believe me, I patiently went through a lot of it.
So you don't like Cage's music; duly noted.
Quote from: James on March 24, 2011, 03:23:38 AM
And there aren't any in the 2nd half that really come close to those indispensable masters like a Debussy, a Stravinsky or a Bartók ... the 2nd half is patchy in it's triumphs .. there is an issue of consistency; but again .. Ligeti - Requiem, Atmospheres, Lux Auterna, Le Grand Macabre, Lontano, San Francisco Polyphony, Melodien, Violin Concerto, Piano Concerto, Chamber Concerto, Piano Etudes, String Quartets, Trio ..
Who cares which composers are indispensable or not?
Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 04:07:11 AM
Part of the trouble thus opposed is, so many people are ready to take seriously those who quite obviously take themselves seriously. (Why do I suddenly think of A Certain Blogger?) ; )
ACD, by any chance? ;D
Romantic Era: Bruckner
20th Century: Sibelius (although my favourites are Vaughan Williams, Miaskovsky, Bax, Brian, Copland, Diamond, Tubin, Rosenberg, Holmboe, Shostakovich, Arnold, Bate, Arnell, Braga Santos (symphs 1-4), Lilburn (symphs 1 and 2) etcetcetc).
Quote from: vandermolen on March 24, 2011, 04:32:49 AM
Romantic Era: Bruckner
You know, I'm still apt to say Schoenberg . . . for, his daring adventures with pitch organization notwithstanding, his soundworld always remained richly late-Romantic. Perhaps a bit more sinewy than was the norm late in the Romantic day, but still . . . .
Quote from: James on March 23, 2011, 11:05:29 AM
Odd, others here seem to understand the gist of the thread .. and that criteria is a reflection of the music.
Ok, if popular appeal is a criterion of musical greatness--because you've said it is, logic be damned--then clearly Mozart is superior to any 20th-century composer, and Michael Jackson is better than any classical composer. Oops.
The real question is: should you ask questions to learn something or ask them to receive a gratifyingly pat answer that reaffirms your pet theories?
When someone asks "Who was the greatest composer of the 20th century?", is your first reaction to generate a little list of your favorite composers, or are you going to ask the harder questions like
* How do we define greatness? Is there an existing definition we can use? Is it sound, or do we need to posit a new one?
* Who counts as a 20th-century composer? Someone born earlier but writing in that time span, someone born in that century, someone who reflects that century in music?
* What shapes the existing narratives of 20th-century musical greatness? Who generated the histories--and what are the biases behind them--the privilege certain composers as important?
* How much exposure to 20th-century music do you need to judge its best composers? No one has heard it all, so where do you draw the line? Do you merely need to have heard the ones that have already been assumed to be great--a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Quote from: James on March 24, 2011, 03:23:38 AM
Cage is inconsequential if you look at the output. A complete non factor. . 'to free sounds from the bullying effects of human intention & rules so that they could be themselves' .. repudiating tradition with such nonsense, as if what he puts forth even compares. Again, just look at the 200 or so diddles to his name, 99% of that is pure garbage. Believe me, I patiently went through a lot of it.
One man's nonsense is another's profundity. For some,
any repudiation of traditional forms and tonality might be deemed unnecessary and self-indulgent. You apparently esteem Ligeti, but listening to a work like
Aventures, it would be easy to dismiss him as a masturbatory avant-garde hack. "Hey, Michael Winslow from
Police Academy made a song!"
Quote
And there aren't any in the 2nd half that really come close to those indispensable masters like a Debussy, a Stravinsky or a Bartók ... the 2nd half is patchy in it's triumphs .. there is an issue of consistency; but again .. Ligeti - Requiem, Atmospheres, Lux Auterna, Le Grand Macabre, Lontano, San Francisco Polyphony, Melodien, Violin Concerto, Piano Concerto, Chamber Concerto, Piano Etudes, String Quartets, Trio ..
Which specific composers fail to come close "those indispensable masters like a Debussy, a Stravinsky or a Bartók"?
Quote from: Grazioso on March 24, 2011, 04:49:09 AM
When someone asks "Who was the greatest composer of the 20th century?", is your first reaction to generate a little list of your favorite composers, or are you going to ask the harder questions like
* How do we define greatness? Is there an existing definition we can use? Is it sound, or do we need to posit a new one?
* Who counts as a 20th-century composer? Someone born earlier but writing in that time span, someone born in that century, someone who reflects that century in music?
* What shapes the existing narratives of 20th-century musical greatness? Who generated the histories--and what are the biases behind them--the privilege certain composers as important?
* How much exposure to 20th-century music do you need to judge its best composers? No one has heard it all, so where do you draw the line? Do you merely need to have heard the ones that have already been assumed to be great--a self-fulfilling prophecy?
You've really summed up what interests me most here. I have enjoyed those responses that yielded some interesting insights that addressed these (and other) questions and added some unexpected names (that I subsequently have looked into).
Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on March 24, 2011, 03:59:34 AM
Might be, but then again why should I take seriously someone who doesn't take himself seriously ? :)
Perhaps because not taking oneself (too) seriously is a sign of mental health?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 24, 2011, 05:02:00 AM
You've really summed up...
...the issues that must be settled before we could hope to make a
serious attempt to answer the question. ;)
Of course, the point is that some of us understand instead that Cage is of great consequence if you look at the output. Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 24, 2011, 05:02:00 AM
You've really summed up what interests me most here. I have enjoyed those responses that yielded some interesting insights that addressed these (and other) questions and added some unexpected names (that I subsequently have looked into).
Grazioso's post is notably insightful.
My quick back-of-the-envelope input (none of it especially 'new news' — all points I or we have raised repeatedly in the past):
1. Given the slipperiness of defining greatness, the theatre of this discussion is not so much a theatre as a swamp.
2. Trying to settle on a core characteristic of 20th-c. music is another exercise in nailing Jell-o to the wall; the temptation to try to do so is part anachronism, part laziness . . . fact is that from the High Baroque (at least) Western music is too rich, interesting and (to use an adjective which will give some here the fantods) diverse, for it to be of much value to settle on iconic musical characteristics for an entire century.
3. That point above is related to Grazioso's query about narrative: the rich diversity of Western music exploded exponentially in the 20th century; so much (and so many different muchnesses) went on, that a list of genuinely important, influential composers cannot be told on one hand. Even to insist on keeping it to two hands, seems rather Procrustean.
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 24, 2011, 05:16:43 AM
Perhaps because not taking oneself (too) seriously is a sign of mental health?
Oneself, might be. But one's art? Hardly. The only place where I like clowns is in the circus. :)
Taking one's art too seriously has been seen in some cases to be quite the aberration.
Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 05:40:32 AM
Taking one's art too seriously has been seen in some cases to be quite the aberration.
Name three, please. :)
Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 05:24:20 AM
Of course, the point is that some of us understand instead that Cage is of great consequence if you look at the output.
Grazioso's post is notably insightful.
My quick back-of-the-envelope input (none of it especially 'new news' — all points I or we have raised repeatedly in the past):
1. Given the slipperiness of defining greatness, the theatre of this discussion is not so much a theatre as a swamp.
2. Trying to settle on a core characteristic of 20th-c. music is another exercise in nailing Jell-o to the wall; the temptation to try to do so is part anachronism, part laziness . . . fact is that from the High Baroque (at least) Western music is too rich, interesting and (to use an adjective which will give some here the fantods) diverse, for it to be of much value to settle on iconic musical characteristics for an entire century.
3. That point above is related to Grazioso's query about narrative: the rich diversity of Western music exploded exponentially in the 20th century; so much (and so many different muchnesses) went on, that a list of genuinely important, influential composers cannot be told on one hand. Even to insist on keeping it to two hands, seems rather Procrustean.
Bravo!
Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on March 24, 2011, 05:29:58 AM
Oneself, might be. But one's art? Hardly. The only place where I like clowns is in the circus. :)
Duchamp.
Art is fundamentally a form of play. Taking it too seriously kills the joyful spirit essential to its vitality. See Wagner.
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 24, 2011, 05:50:52 AM
Duchamp.
In spring 2000, Yuan Chai and Jian Jun Xi, two performance artists, who in 1999 had jumped on Tracey Emin's installation-sculpture My Bed in the Turner Prize exhibition at Tate Britain, went to the newly opened Tate Modern and urinated on the Fountain which was on display. However, they were prevented from soiling the sculpture directly by its Perspex case. The Tate, which denied that the duo had succeeded in urinating into the sculpture itself,[16] banned them from the premises stating that they were threatening "works of art and our staff." When asked why they felt they had to add to Duchamp's work, Chai said, "The urinal is there – it's an invitation. As Duchamp said himself, it's the artist's choice. He chooses what is art. We just added to it."Only too logical. I would do the same, if I had the opportunity. ;D
Quote
Art is fundamentally a form of play.
As if "greatness" wasn't enough, now we have to define "art". :D
Quote from: James on March 24, 2011, 06:23:30 AM
That's a tall order, but the floor is open for ideas & discussion .. name ones that do.
James invites discussion to which he can simply reply pffff, blah-blah-blah, &c.
ROFL
Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 06:27:26 AM
James invites discussion to which he can simply reply pffff, blah-blah-blah, &c.
ROFL
+1.
Quote from: James on March 24, 2011, 06:37:16 AMI'm not sure what you're adding with posts like these.
He is reminding you how inutile your dismissive posts are.
And just an aside. Since I'm on the west coast (at least until I leave for Europe next week), many of you are posting merrily away while I'm quietly sleeping. (Who says that I snore? I deny that!) When I get around to firing up the old computer, I have a lot to read. Sometimes it's depressing. Sometimes it's exhilarating.
This morning was the latter. Thanks Grazioso and Apollon (hi Karl) and Leon and DavidRoss and mc ukrneal and petrarch and sid. (Who says I need validation? I deny that!!)
Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on March 24, 2011, 06:01:09 AM
In spring 2000, Yuan Chai and Jian Jun Xi, two performance artists, who in 1999 had jumped on Tracey Emin's installation-sculpture My Bed in the Turner Prize exhibition at Tate Britain, went to the newly opened Tate Modern and urinated on the Fountain which was on display. However, they were prevented from soiling the sculpture directly by its Perspex case. The Tate, which denied that the duo had succeeded in urinating into the sculpture itself,[16] banned them from the premises stating that they were threatening "works of art and our staff." When asked why they felt they had to add to Duchamp's work, Chai said, "The urinal is there – it's an invitation. As Duchamp said himself, it's the artist's choice. He chooses what is art. We just added to it."
Reminds me of
History of the World Part 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkz83VFEk1A#t=41s
Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 05:24:20 AM
Of course, the point is that some of us understand instead that Cage is of great consequence if you look at the output.
Grazioso's post is notably insightful.
My quick back-of-the-envelope input (none of it especially 'new news' — all points I or we have raised repeatedly in the past):
1. Given the slipperiness of defining greatness, the theatre of this discussion is not so much a theatre as a swamp.
2. Trying to settle on a core characteristic of 20th-c. music is another exercise in nailing Jell-o to the wall; the temptation to try to do so is part anachronism, part laziness . . . fact is that from the High Baroque (at least) Western music is too rich, interesting and (to use an adjective which will give some here the fantods) diverse, for it to be of much value to settle on iconic musical characteristics for an entire century.
3. That point above is related to Grazioso's query about narrative: the rich diversity of Western music exploded exponentially in the 20th century; so much (and so many different muchnesses) went on, that a list of genuinely important, influential composers cannot be told on one hand. Even to insist on keeping it to two hands, seems rather Procrustean.
Now I see how you earned that Ph. D.!
James, you say you read all our posts, but you give little evidence of having taken thought about them. That's why some of us are losing patience.
Quote from: James on March 24, 2011, 11:03:45 AM
Instead of focusing & commenting on me and what i do and think here, just perhaps offer something of your own.
Like I said--little evidence. ::)
Quote from: James on March 24, 2011, 11:03:45 AM
something of your own.
Here is something of my own:
1. "GMG consensus" is a nonsense, as
Mensch stated. Put together two random GMG-ers: you'll get a probable agreement here and there, but a general consensus is impossible.
2. Unless you --- and I mean
you, James --- provide an undisputed and generally agreed upon definition of "greatness" and "20th century composer"(which according to (1) is in itself impossible), all discussion is an exercise in futility.
3. You already have your own list --- and each and every post that is not in line with it gets from you only blah-blah-ish scorn. You have
never answered
any specifical question that's been addressed to you.
4.
You are a troll.
Quote from: some guy on March 24, 2011, 09:17:06 AM
. . . (at least until I leave for Europe next week) . . . .
When? Not especially nearby, but a duo is playing a piece of mine twice in Washington next week . . . on the 30th and 31st.
In midst of this raging tempest, I am still struggling whether to pick Yanni or John Tesh. Can we pick two greatest composers?
Heck, some days I feel as if Monk were the greatest composer of the 20th century.
Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 11:47:43 AM
When? Not especially nearby, but a duo is playing a piece of mine twice in Washington next week . . . on the 30th and 31st.
Damn! And I am going to New York first, too, but I don't get in until the morning of 1 April (6:06--GROSS!!).
Maybe next time.... (I gotta stop saying that. I really do.)
Well, in fairness, I've got to get more people performing my music, in more places, and oftener ; )
Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 12:05:11 PM
Well, in fairness, I've got to get more people performing my music, in more places, and oftener ; )
Now,
Karl! You're getting yourself --- and your art --- too seriously... ;D :P
Well, I only mean it for a courtesy to others, Andrei! ; )
Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 12:09:27 PM
Well, I only mean it for a courtesy to others, Andrei! ; )
:)
Quote from: James on March 24, 2011, 12:13:02 PM
I've already given some loose criteria on that .. go back a few pgs.
Based on those loose criteria, here are three composers I would like to know your assessment about:
1. Rachmaninoff
2. Shostakovich
3. Henning
TIA.
Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on March 24, 2011, 11:44:20 AM
4. You are a troll.
Clearly; is there any other way to interpret the bait that is the first post in this thread? (hint: keyword is
entertainment, not serious discussion. And
mild entertainment at that).
I've made a list of composer/s members named "the greatest of the c20th" on this thread, for what it's worth. I'm not sure there is "consensus" but there sure is a healthy diversity of opinion here...
Paul SC – Carter
Philocletes – Part
Westknife – Shostakovich
Greg – Prokofiev
RexRichter, Mirror Image – Didn't single out one or a few composers, named many
Jachanann – Schoenberg, Varese, Messiaen
Sid – Piazzolla
Some guy – Cage
Brian – Shostakovich
Val – Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok
John of Glasgow – Stravinsky
Il Conte Rodolfo – Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Rachmaninov, Shostakovich
Mc ukrneal – Cage, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, but also named others
JDP – Mahler, Debussy, Bartok, Stravinsky
Leon – Cage, Schoenberg
James – Stravinsky, Bartok, Debussy, Schoenberg
Chambernut – Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Prokofiev, Bartok, but also named others later
Lethe – Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Bartok
MDL – Mahler, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Prokofiev
DavidRoss – named quite a few composers, his "choice" – Sibelius
Springrite – Mahler, Feldman, Carter
Toucan – Debussy, Schoenberg
Edward – Sibelius
Snyprrr – Xenakis
Christo – Havergal Brian
Late, but back on topic:
I'd say no successor has topped the orchestral achievements of
Mahler.
My own favourite of the last century is probably
Prokofiev.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 22, 2011, 08:40:20 PM
Quite frankly, I don't hear a lot of music being composed today that can even stand against Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg, Janacek, etc. What I do hear are composers who aren't after public approval and that compose mainly for themselves, which is a noble thing within itself, but why can't a composer, of today's time, come up with a piece of music that is innovative yet accessible?
I agree with this bit, except for what I call the innovation fallacy. It's not the innovation that makes us want to hear these pieces - how can we hear them as innovative a century after the fact? In a related tangent, why do many of us call Dvorak a great composer, when hardly anyone would attempt to describe him as an innovator? He was not in any sense a revolutionary, but, unlike his mostly forgotten contemporaries, he had (1) a strongly individual personality, (2) a gift for memorable material, and (3) the capacity to conceive and execute sophisticated forms that were not mere intellectual fabrications but emotional entities. (Don't worry, I'm not going to start on about cosmic vibrations.) If modern composers are failing us, I'd say it is because they lack these vital qualities.
Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on March 24, 2011, 06:01:09 AM
As if "greatness" wasn't enough, now we have to define "art". :D
Art is a beautiful made thing. Problem solved!
I'd give Prokofiev the nod, too, but the sentimental side of me just LOVED this thought:
Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 11:51:43 AM
Heck, some days I feel as if Monk were the greatest composer of the 20th century.
Is this Fluxus?
http://www.youtube.com/v/UT5lgaE-qZY
::)
I like this:
QuoteBut Maciunas also chose [the name Fluxus] for another reason: the medical term 'fluxus' refers to a "sudden evacuation of the bowels". In this way Maciunas connected the movement with Dada, because the Dadaist Hans Arp had demanded that art should come "directly from the intestines or other organs".
http://www.museenkoeln.de/museum-ludwig/default.asp?s=1838 (http://www.museenkoeln.de/museum-ludwig/default.asp?s=1838)
Quote from: Greg on March 24, 2011, 08:14:02 PMIs this Fluxus?
One piece by one of the Fluxus composers, yes. My favorite.
I've performed this piece myself a few years ago, in the Fluxversion 1, which has the person drip water into a French horn or tuba. And I went to the top of the ladder, too. And some of the water splashed onto the performer holding the euphonium (an unauthorized substitution, yes).
As he said afterwards, you must suffer for your art. ;D
Quote from: James on March 21, 2011, 06:52:59 PM
You know how for certain eras of the western art music legacy there are usually a few that really stand out well ahead of the rest .. for instance, for the Baroque era Bach .. the classical era Beethoven .. the romantic era Wagner .. just as quick one name examples off the top of my head
Yes but that doesn't mean that that has to be the case for the 20th century as well. Music in so many styles, from so many places and so many composers.
Also, if you claim that (e.g.) Beethoven "stands out" so exemplarily among the Classics (wherein, of course, your blindspot upon Mozart is cast into sharp relief), or — more amusingly still — Wagner among the Romantics, you are simply providing yet another illustration of your cookie-cutter approach to "music appreciation." You are not, in other words, making any great case for musical sophistication on your own part.
Quote from: James on March 25, 2011, 06:47:01 AM
Referring to the western art music legacy; as stated in the first line of the opening post.
Which "western art music legacy"? There are many legacies, each different from every other, all valid and containing great music...
Quote from: JamesReferring to the western art music legacy; as stated in the first line of the opening post.
Quote from: jochanaan on March 24, 2011, 10:57:00 AM
James, you say you read all our posts, but you give little evidence of having taken thought about them.
Case in point:Quote from: Apollon on March 24, 2011, 05:24:20 AM
. . . 2. Trying to settle on a core characteristic of 20th-c. music is another exercise in nailing Jell-o to the wall; the temptation to try to do so is part anachronism, part laziness . . . fact is that from the High Baroque (at least) Western music is too rich, interesting and (to use an adjective which will give some here the fantods) diverse, for it to be of much value to settle on iconic musical characteristics for an entire century.
3. That point above is related to Grazioso's query about narrative: the rich diversity of Western music exploded exponentially in the 20th century; so much (and so many different muchnesses) went on, that a list of genuinely important, influential composers cannot be told on one hand. Even to insist on keeping it to two hands, seems rather Procrustean.
And; a big hello, jo!
Quote from: James on March 25, 2011, 09:04:41 AM
Odd. We have 2 so-called musicians here that seem to have no clue as to what major composers of the 'western art/classical music legacy' refers to. Go back to school boys, or visit your local library.
Are you referring to the 'western art/classical music legacy' that includes great composers you apparently despise like Mozart and Beethoven, or some other 'western art/classical music legacy'? Inquiring minds want to know.
Quote from: James on March 25, 2011, 09:09:04 AM
If you read the opening post .. YES! that long line ..
Good to know, James! I ask merely in the spirit of (the semi-fictional) Mark Zuckerberg in "The Social Network":
QuoteGRETCHEN $18,000.
EDUARDO Yes.
GRETCHEN In addition to the $1000 you'd already put up.
EDUARDO Yes.
GRETCHEN A total of $19,000 now.
EDUARDO Yes.
MARK Hang on.
MARK's scratching something out on a pad...
MARK (CONT'D) I'm just checking your math on that. Yes, I got the same thing.
Music history isn't a train track, though.
Nope; not even Western music history. Yer thinking's muddled, James.
Quote from: James on March 25, 2011, 09:31:45 AM
:)
off topic but how is that movie btw, worth checking out .. ? I hate facebook and have no interest in it.
The movie is brilliant, on all levels.
Quote from: Philoctetes on March 25, 2011, 09:39:39 AM
The movie is brilliant, on all levels.
Including the score, according to the Oscar Academy. :)
Quote from: jochanaan on March 25, 2011, 09:48:52 AM
Including the score, according to the Oscar Academy. :)
Including some help from Edvard Grieg. Agree with Philo, too, though there are some interesting negative reviews that I'll have to dig out. But then again, I'm 6'5", 220, and there are two of me.
Quote from: Philoctetes on March 25, 2011, 09:39:39 AM
The movie is brilliant, on all levels.
I appreciate your opinion but I think I'll wait to see if JdP declares it a work of genius before I invest time watching. That man
knows genius ;D
Sarge
(* chortle *)
Quote from: Sid on March 24, 2011, 04:46:27 PM
I've made a list of composer/s members named "the greatest of the c20th" on this thread, for what it's worth. I'm not sure there is "consensus" but there sure is a healthy diversity of opinion here...
I think you forgot my vote of Elgar. Now, he's not my actual choice, but he illustrates a point I and Karl have made: there's a staggering plethora from which to choose, many of whom fall outside the traditional thumbnail stories of 20th-century music that like to focus on stylistic innovations/novelties/reactions, the first half of the century, Central and Western Europe, etc. What about Victorian holdovers such as Elgar or Bantock? What about Scandinavian arch-Romantics such as Atterberg and Rangstrom, writing well into the century? What about Latin America? What about the rich American tradition outside Copland and Ives? Spain and Italy? Women composers? Composers who never felt that traditional tonality and forms were irrevocably broken or spent? Etc.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 25, 2011, 11:13:24 AM
I appreciate your opinion but I think I'll wait to see if JdP declares it a work of genius before I invest time watching. That man knows genius ;D
Sarge
Just to clarify, I simply said brilliant... not genius. I'm far from qualified to attest to that loftiness. Although, I'll add further that the Academys were a travesty this year. How The King's Speech won those awards, is a question that is best left unanswered.
Quote from: Leon on March 25, 2011, 06:13:45 AM
Looks like the consensus is Schoenberg, Stravinsky (tie/9) and Shostokovich (6).
Bartok 5
Brian 1
Cage 2
Carter 2
Debussy 3
Feldman 2
Mahler 3
Messiaen 1
Part 1
Piazzolla 1
Prokoviev 3
Rachmoninov 1
Schoenberg 9
Shotakovich 6
Sibelius 3
Stravinsky 9
Varese 1
Xanakis 1
I removed the vote you attributed to me for Cage since I clearly said that I would not put his name forward. I was only acknowledging that his contribution is considerable in response to the Cage-dismissers.
Well, I think there'd have to be a more "formal" nomination/voting system for it to be properly recognised as consensus. But we may well get similar results. Sorry for my mistake, I did my "tally" on the fly.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 25, 2011, 11:31:23 AM
I think you forgot my vote of Elgar. Now, he's not my actual choice, but he illustrates a point I and Karl have made: there's a staggering plethora from which to choose, many of whom fall outside the traditional thumbnail stories of 20th-century music that like to focus on stylistic innovations/novelties/reactions, the first half of the century, Central and Western Europe, etc. What about Victorian holdovers such as Elgar or Bantock? What about Scandinavian arch-Romantics such as Atterberg and Rangstrom, writing well into the century? What about Latin America? What about the rich American tradition outside Copland and Ives? Spain and Italy? Women composers? Composers who never felt that traditional tonality and forms were irrevocably broken or spent? Etc.
I agree that the word "greatest" is a term loaded with many ideologies, depending largely on what things one values. I was trying to talk to this issue as well, but it seems that people like James don't want to come to the party on this. Despite the fact that we are now in the post-modern era in terms of scholarship and writing on music and the other arts, some people still retain the old modernist cliches and dogmas. I'm not saying that post-modernism is not without it's limitations, I'm just saying that the old ways of thinking tend to exclude all of those issues you have raised above...
Quote from: Grazioso on March 25, 2011, 11:31:23 AMWhat about Latin America?
Well I've been singing the Latin American praises since I've joined this forum. I've gushed over Villa-Lobos, Revueltas, Chavez, and Ginastera and I will continue to do so because their music is especially fine and drives right into my heart.
Quote from: Sid on March 25, 2011, 03:35:55 PM
I agree that the word "greatest" is a term loaded with many ideologies, depending largely on what things one values. I was
When someone gets picked according to those (usually unspoken) ideologies, someone else doesn't. No great harm, perhaps, on a Web forum, but what about when that praised/ignored dynamic works its way into books, articles, recordings, the concert hall?
Quote
trying to talk to this issue as well, but it seems that people like James don't want to come to the party on this. Despite the fact that we are now in the post-modern era in terms of scholarship and writing on music and the other arts, some people still retain the old modernist cliches and dogmas. I'm not saying that post-modernism is not without it's limitations, I'm just saying that the old ways of thinking tend to exclude all of those issues you have raised above...
At this point, it does seems rather odd--but for how deeply it's ingrained in Western culture--to be thinking of history in terms of a neat linear narrative of progress, innovation, amelioration, filled with its pantheon of heroes.
History is political, a tool of power, and it should remain an active discourse, a contested ground.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 25, 2011, 10:27:15 AM
Including some help from Edvard Grieg. Agree with Philo, too, though there are some interesting negative reviews that I'll have to dig out. But then again, I'm 6'5", 220, and there are two of me.
My favorite line from the film, except possibly the reaction line when the Winklevii break a doorknob.
Quote from: Philoctetes on March 25, 2011, 11:58:53 AMHow The King's Speech won those awards, is a question that is best left unanswered.
Easy. The King's Speech is gloriously old-fashioned, a style of film-making which was long ago relegated to BBC2 productions. It was so old that, in our age of irony and self-referentialism, it actually went full circle and became new again. I wouldn't have voted for it, but I think that's what they were responding to.
Quote from: toucan on March 26, 2011, 05:06:47 AM
Because you are moving away from consideration of the best composer(s) of the XXth century, into a comprehensive - and indiscriminate - survey of that era, designed it would appear to put second fiddles and even marginal figures, in the place of the great ones.
On the contrary: it's asking who deemed certain composers second fiddles or marginal figures (or conversely, great ones), why they did so, and how they managed to propagate those ideas.
As for best, I couldn't say because I haven't heard and studied them all.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 25, 2011, 06:00:58 PM
Well I've been singing the Latin American praises since I've joined this forum. I've gushed over Villa-Lobos, Revueltas, Chavez, and Ginastera and I will continue to do so because their music is especially fine and drives right into my heart.
One can't help but wonder why they're a subsidiary or marginalized group in the first place. Is it because some panel of experts sat down and listened objectively to all their work and decided, "Hey, we need a special category for all these lesser composers from that part of the world"? Is it because they're not white Europeans and they or their music doesn't fit neatly into our existing idea of what classical music is and who creates it/listens to it?
Same thing with women composers. Why is there a separate category in the discourse for them? Do their vaginas have some special bearing on their music? "Oh, I like Baroque music, early Romantic, and Female." Is it because they're all poor composers, or is it because they don't fit into what's traditionally been a patriarchal boys club?
Quote from: Grazioso on March 26, 2011, 05:32:07 AMOne can't help but wonder why they're a subsidiary or marginalized group in the first place. Is it because some panel of experts sat down and listened objectively to all their work and decided, "Hey, we need a special category for all these lesser composers from that part of the world"? Is it because they're not white Europeans and they or their music doesn't fit neatly into our existing idea of what classical music is and who creates it/listens to it?
Same thing with women composers. Why is there a separate category in the discourse for them? Do their vaginas have some special bearing on their music? "Oh, I like Baroque music, early Romantic, and Female." Is it because they're all poor composers, or is it because they don't fit into what's traditionally been a patriarchal boys club?
All valid points, Grazioso. The same could be said for Canadian, African, Australian, Chinese, Japanese, etc. The United States has only in the past 50 years started to get recognition as a country of great composers. I mean we have Ives, Barber, Copland, etc., but we'll see how long it takes for Latin America to get the recognition it deserves. I think if people start really exploring Latin America, they will find that the truly great composers to come out of it were those like Revueltas and Villa-Lobos, for example, who borrowed from the European tradition while injecting the music of their native land into the music much the same way Europe has done.
My love for these Latin composers came from finally breaking down and listening to some Ginastera one day. I think I listened to his dances from his ballet
Estancia. I was completely blown away by the music. It was as if Stravinsky had spent a year hanging out with gauchos on a ranch in Argentina while absorbing all of their folk music there. The thing that attracts me to these composers is rhythm and, like Stravinsky's and Bartok's music, the constant need to drive the rhythm forward while continuously changing the harmony and melody but always observing the structure of a work.
I hope to see more of these composers featured in concert halls outside of the Latin American countries. Some progress has been made but not enough to make a substantial impact internationally. Hopefully, conductors like John Neschling, Enrique Batiz (don't know what has happened to him lately), Giselle Ben-Dor, Gustavo Dudamel, among others will continue to promote this music.
Sibelius or Rachmaninoff
Ralph Vaughan Williams. Of course. Even if he's really timeless, and therefore not associated that often with just the 20th Century.
I don't think there is an answer. Stravinsky keeps coming up, but something makes me reluctant to completely agree (the emotional aridity mainly), although I do acknowledge his supreme achievement...
I remember Robin Holloway in a lecture saying that if the greatest felicities of Carter and Messiaen were combined we would have a composer as great as Bach, which struck me as an interesting thought! i.e. Each is clearly very great, and where each has their failings, the other has their greatest strength. Interesting to see these as an antagonistic late 20th century pairing (appropriately born a day apart) - they're very rarely discussed as such.
Just a note that I protest the "emotional aridity." I don't find Stravinsky any more "emotionally arid" than I do Bach.
But look at my av. I would say that, wouldn't I?
Quote from: Guido on April 07, 2011, 04:23:17 AM
I don't there is an answer. Stravinsky keeps coming up, but something makes me reluctant to completely agree (the emotional aridity mainly),
This definitely doesn't apply to the great ballets. If
Rite is not a
tsunami of extreme emotions, I don't know what it is. Add the more melancholy intimate
Petrushka, or the magically fairytale-ish
Firebird and there you are --- as emotionally as it gets. 8)
Besides, I have never ever heard any emotionally arid
Russian music. :P
The classical reserve of Stravinsky is the most extreme of all composers after Beethoven (historically after, not with Beethoven at the top of the reserve tree!). I'm not denying that his music is superbly powerful, extreme, at times wondrously beautiful, but I would say that it's really almost never truly emotional - he's not revealing his heart, and is never trying to stir up emotion in you (compare to say his antithesis Strauss), and the music doesn't work by appeal to the emotions - he appeals principally to the senses and the intellect, and is one of the greatest of all composers at this. Even a beautiful cantilena like we might find in the cello and piano or violin and piano suites, is held in such reserve, at such a distance, like a beautiful classical object regarded and admired from all sides, but it's not in itself an obect of emotion.
It's not a slight on him at all - it's just how he operates.
See the famous quotations:
QuoteFor I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention – in short, an aspect which, unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being
and clarification of this:
QuoteThe over-publicized bit about expression (or non-expression) was simply a way of saying that music is supra-personal and super-real and as such beyond verbal meanings and verbal descriptions. It was aimed against the notion that a piece of music is in reality a transcendental idea "expressed in terms of" music, with the reductio ad absurdum implication that exact sets of correlatives must exist between a composer's feelings and his notation. It was offhand and annoyingly incomplete, but even the stupider critics could have seen that it did not deny musical expressivity, but only the validity of a type of verbal statement about musical expressivity. I stand by the remark, incidentally, though today I would put it the other way around: music expresses itself
Clearly it's a more nuanced view than is often thought. But what's significant is that he denies this link, where other composers (of the Strauss variety) certainly wouldn't, and would argue against him vehemently.
And Bach, while only rarely a sensualist, is a valid comparison in terms of intellectual appeal, but is clearly an extremely emotional composer (Erbarme Dich the most obvious, but almost literally countless other examples) - the strength of his music surely being the sublime allying of emotion with intellect.
Quote from: Guido on April 07, 2011, 06:27:46 AM
It's not a slight on him at all -
All right. Though emotional aridity is a phrase with apparently limited upside . . . .
Quote from: Apollon on April 07, 2011, 06:38:26 AM
All right. Though emotional aridity is a phrase with apparently limited upside . . . .
Ok, fair enough! I don't think it's innacurate, but it isn't nice to see traditionally negative language applied to your favourites I know! My model is Wilfrid Mellers though.
See also here:
QuoteFor I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention – in short, an aspect which, unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being.
Quote from: Leon on April 07, 2011, 06:49:43 AMListening to Apollon, Symphony of Psalms, and many other works will easily demonstrate the disconnect between what he claims in an interview and what he produces in his music.
The disconnect is between what he claims in his music and what you experience in his music. when he experiences the music, he may well judge that the music expresses itself.
I find myself closer to agreeing with Stravinsky than disagreeing. Music is patterns of sound. The emotions we may experience when listening are induced, rather than "contained" in the music and in large part are culturally conditioned.
Appollon is incredibly beautiful, but it's also very reserved emotionally - I can't really explain my position any clearer than already stated. For me, the intricate working of his ideas aren't that interesting (beyond how we might better understand his music), more telling is that he was trying to justify this mode of thought (and therefore his music). It is significant that this man is saying these things, rather than another man - as I say Strauss would never agree.
Appollo is, as its name suggests, like Stravinsky himself, extremely Apollonian. Is this music of fiery passion, or refined, sculpted, "objective", classical, beauty. Interesting that the greeks were such a fascination for both Stravinsky and Strauss, and just compare their treatment of them!!! Elektra and Apollo - two more different works it would be difficult to imagine!
I'm just struggling to imagine that the experience of listening to Apollo is a deeply emotional one, compared to say yet another very different composer, Tchaikovsky. Is Stravinsky ever moving in the same way as the finale of Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony or say the ending of Eugene Onegin? The Rake's Progress is an absolute case in point. Has there ever been a more emotionally restrained opera?
There's a big difference between "restrained" emotion and lack of emotion. Much of Stravinsky's music, especially from the Neoclassical period, is all the more moving precisely because its emotional content is kept on a tight rein.
There's also a difference between genuine emotion and "emotionalism." I would characterize the latter as art (music, literature, visual art or whatever other arts there are) which uses certain techniques or devices specifically and deliberately to evoke emotion. Now, many genuinely emotional composers such as Mahler will also practice emotionalism of this type, but we can probably all name composers whose music is more characterized by this kind of emotional manipulation than by real emotion. Much as I enjoy Richard Strauss' music, I find that some of it is more emotionalist in this sense than truly emotional. (Others may differ on this, and that's perfectly valid.)
And then there's the easily-observed phenomenon that the same great music will raise different emotions in different people :o , suggesting that either the emotion isn't truly inherent in the original music, or it is a thing that grows between the composer, the players and singers, and the listeners. I favor the latter interpretation, but other valid ones may also be found.
I'm with Guido on this one - and on the Mellers reference, too, of course (his descriptions of Tchaikovsky are probably in your mind, Guido, as they are in mine). Though my thoughts aren't defined enough about it all to enter the discussion fully.
But just a warning - if you start talking about the Apollonian the ghost of Sean begins to rise...
Quote from: Leon on April 07, 2011, 08:21:48 AM
...concerning the claim that none of Stravinsky's music expresses any emotional content.
Who claimed that? I did say
almost never. My point is just that it's basically never a concern of his, and that the music is not of itself particularly emotional. Sensual - absolutely - as has been pointed out, there is hardly another experience in music like The Rite of Spring. Intellectual too - there's something profoundly satisfying in so much of Stravinsky's music, but simultanously, moment to moment, he never gives it to you fully, never completely sates your desires; he's always moving on, new ideas, new gestures, new beauties. I'm in awe of his compositional facility and the generosity of ideas - the only other composer I can think of who is as fecund and throws beautiful ideas around with such generous abandon is Janacek in his mature operas.
Quote from: Leon on April 07, 2011, 07:13:58 AM
While it is true that I experience something of an emotional content in music, not just Stravinsky's, but also not equally for all works. Some works leave me cold while others connect strongly on an emotional level. I tend to doubt it is purely subjective or accidental.
In any event, I also lean towards a absolute music orientation, i.e. music expresses itself, but I am not doctrinaire about it.
I don't see any contradiction. I do not claim that the emotional reaction to music is accidental or incidental, but it is culturally conditioned. Composers learn to evoke those associations, even if they are a property of the people listening to the music rather than the music itself.
Quote from: Guido on April 07, 2011, 06:27:46 AM
The classical reserve of Stravinsky is the most extreme of all composers after Beethoven (historically after, not with Beethoven at the top of the reserve tree!).
No-one wants to comment on this?
Apologies for doublepost.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 07, 2011, 03:23:53 PM
I don't see any contradiction. I do not claim that the emotional reaction to music is accidental or incidental, but it is culturally conditioned. Composers learn to evoke those associations, even if they are a property of the people listening to the music rather than the music itself.
When a certain sequence of buttons is pushed some people respond strongly and others weakly. So which is true?
Composers who get a strong response from the majority are great.
Composers who get a strong response from the minority that respond strongly when the majority doesn't are great.
There you have it. The 2 paths to greatness, to please many or to please many that are hard to please, are really a wide field through which many possible paths composed of 2 tendencies can be cut. You can go this way or that way, and mix it up. If you go too far in one direction you lose the hard-to-please, and too far in the other you lose the great majority. You need a foothold in both worlds to reach the top, but individuals find their own combination.
Tastemakers fiddle with what they think the formula is that describes what history is enacting, and often what they think it should be, thereby putting a little bit of pressure onto what it might become. Most of the pressure, though, comes from ordinary foot soldiers voting with CD purchases, concert attendance, GMG posts about
Who was the greatest composer of the 20th century?, things like that. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif) *
You could go circular instead of linear and make the distinctions more like the Inner Party and the more numerous Outer Party. Then you can nest these within larger circles of more popular forms or overlap them like Venn diagrams. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
* We don't have antlers, so hierarchies sort themselves out through other means like the books, music, politics we choose. Personally you couldn't pay me to have antlers, The Rite of Spring is more to my taste.
Quote from: Guido on April 07, 2011, 06:27:46 AM
The classical reserve of Stravinsky is the most extreme of all composers after Beethoven (historically after, not with Beethoven at the top of the reserve tree!).
Quote from: eyeresist on April 07, 2011, 09:03:40 PM
No-one wants to comment on this?
Is it worth commenting? ;D
Quote from:
Guido on April 07, 2011, 06:27:46 AM
QuoteThe classical reserve of Stravinsky is the most extreme of all composers after Beethoven (historically after, not with Beethoven at the top of the reserve tree!).
Quote from:
eyeresist on April 07, 2011, 09:03:40 PM
Quote
No-one wants to comment on this?
Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on April 08, 2011, 12:50:28 AM
Is it worth commenting? ;D
Well, why not? Although I am not sure I completely understand
Guido's comment at the end, here goes:
How "classically reserved" (and what exactly does that
mean?) are e.g.
All the symphonies,
all the piano concertos, the Opus 111, etc. etc. etc.?
Since many would say that
Beethoven is one of the stormiest of composers, that he is the best example of "classical reserve" seems indeed an odd comment.
Then too, it is unjust to establish Tchaikovsky arbitrarily as the "emotive norm" in music. To castigate Stravinsky for being "less emotional" than Tchaikovsky (or to call the one emotionally arid and the other emotionally juicy) . . . well, rather than observe that Merlot is drier than Catawba Pink, let's consider it a fault of Merlot's, that it is not so sweet as Catawba Pink . . . .
I don't think Guido was castigating anyone...
Quote from: eyeresist on April 07, 2011, 09:03:40 PM
No-one wants to comment on this?
+ Cato, + Il Conte Rodolfo
Sorry, my own parenthesised clarification wasn't clear enough clearly! I meant of composers after Beethoven, historically, not with Beethoven as the apogee of classical restraint. Of course there's the Boulezes and Stockhausens and so on, but it's hard to call their unemotionalism classical.
Anyway, the point of this whole digression is that although I think Stravinsky does what he does
supremely well, and it works incredibly well on its own terms, in terms of what music can do, he doesn't quite manage to tick as many boxes (horrible phrase but I hope people get the meaning) as say Bach or Schubert I think, and so I hesitate to agree without more debate (however spurious!) that he is the greatest figure of the last 100 years. He's certainly one of the strongest contenders.
And to Leon: no Tchaikovsky is not the baseline, he is the extreme of that aspect of music - I used him as an example because his case is so clear - my question was is Stravinsky doing the same
sort of thing as Tchaikovsky? (to whatever lesser degree). I don't think so. Part of why The Rite is so significant is that it is a rejection of Romanticism, coming exactly as that era began to fold and buckle under it's own gargantuan weight (think of all the post Wagnerian teutons - Strauss, Reger, Schreker, Korngold etc. etc. their writing becoming ever more opulent, extravagant, deluxe) and a work of extraordinary genius at that. The romantic rejection continues with the neo classical phase and even into the wonderful final serial phase, where in Schoenberg there was never a rejection at all.
Shall we consider Messiaen? A more controversial choice than Stravinsky perhaps, for various reasons, but he is also surely in the running. As I say, I'm dubious that in this of all eras we could nail it down to just one, but it's interesting as an excercise in getting our ideas about music in order, and trying to define what we value in the greats, and how we do say that "Bach is the greatest composer of the baroque".
Quote from: Luke on April 08, 2011, 05:36:41 AM
I don't think Guido was castigating anyone...
Sorry; arid still strikes me as the wrong word, and a strongly prejudicial word.
If I am doing our mate Guido a disservice by considering that castigation, I do apologize.
Quote from: Apollon on April 08, 2011, 05:50:15 AM
Sorry; arid still strikes me as the wrong word, and a strongly prejudicial word.
If I am doing our mate Guido a disservice by considering that castigation, I do apologize.
Well it's not a
well of emotion (Tchaikovsky) or an
ocean of emotion (Bach) - I'm sticking with my water related lingo!
I was awaiting a beautiful and well thought out post from Luke, but he's gone off line.
Quote from: Guido on April 08, 2011, 05:37:24 AM
+ Cato, + Il Conte Rodolfo
Sorry, my own parenthesised clarification wasn't clear enough clearly! I meant of composers after Beethoven, historically, not with Beethoven as the apogee of classical restraint. Of course there's the Boulezes and Stockhausens and so on, but it's hard to call their unemotionalism classical.
I see now. Thanks for clearing things up.
Quote
Anyway, the point of this whole digression is that although I think Stravinsky does what he does supremely well, and it works incredibly well on its own terms, in terms of what music can do, he doesn't quite manage to tick as many boxes (horrible phrase but I hope people get the meaning) as say Bach or Schubert I think
He certainly doesn't --- but then again, I don't think he ever intended to. :)
Quote from: Guido on April 08, 2011, 06:01:28 AM
Well it's not a well of emotion (Tchaikovsky) or an ocean of emotion (Bach) - I'm sticking with my water related lingo!
Hah!
Well . . . I don't know that Bach stands in that relation to Tchaikovsky, so far as emotion is concerned. I am apt to think of Bach and Stravinsky as inhabiting more or less the same neighborhood, so far as a talent for dispassionate note-management goes. (Maybe I just tend to listen to the more arid stretches of Bach's work!)
Quote from: Apollon on April 08, 2011, 06:09:40 AM
Hah!
Well . . . I don't know that Bach stands in that relation to Tchaikovsky, so far as emotion is concerned. I am apt to think of Bach and Stravinsky as inhabiting more or less the same neighborhood, so far as a talent for dispassionate note-management goes. (Maybe I just tend to listen to the more arid stretches of Bach's work!)
Two words: Erbarme Dich.
Sorry, Guido, in and out today, the weather's too nice to stay inside!
Quote from: Apollon on April 08, 2011, 05:50:15 AM
Sorry; arid still strikes me as the wrong word, and a strongly prejudicial word.
If I am doing our mate Guido a disservice by considering that castigation, I do apologize.
It's only that I understand Guido to be using language in the purely literal sense, as Wilfrid Mellers did - in fact, Guido says as much himself. When Mellers describes Tchaikovsky, for instance, as the most adolescent composer of all, he does so not in a pejorative sense but in a purely literal one (he also thinks Tchaikovsky is an utter genius, just as Guido thinks Stravinsky is, I think). It may be argued that, in that case, Mellers could choose his words better, but I don't think so; I think he chooses his words carefully and perfectly, in general, and just needs to be read with understanding to be revealed as the illuminating musical thinker he was. In the case of his description of Tchaikovsky - strip the word 'adolescent' of any acquired pejorative associations and it describes Tchaikovsky perfectly: adolescence is the time when emotions are heightened, passions more passionate, pain more painful, a time when there is, quite necessarily, a dominance of in-the-moment nervous feeling over order, structure, perspective, retrospection. This is how things should be; adolescence is as valid a point in life as childhood or maturity, not only a transition, and Tchaikovsky is therefore not being dismissed by Mellers but implicitly seen to be as 'valid' a composer as any other.
Well, Guido's description of Stravinsky as' emotionally arid' strikes me similarly - fine, arid is a word that is often used pejoratively, but I'm certain that G didn't mean that here. He can speak for himself, but he's a great lover of Stravinsky's music, I think. 'Arid' also simply implies dryness, asperity even, and also implicit in its use is the idea that emotion in music is something that can be parcelled-out by the composer as they see fit, or that can, at least, derive from the composer's attitude and working method. Stravinsky did work in a very precise, distanced, constructivist way much of the time, and his music has a precise, distanced, highly constructed sound which is beautiful and full of its own unique charms. A very different working method to Tchaikovsky, with very different results.
The whole issue of Stravinsky and emotion/expression is a thorny one, as we've seen here(!), and Guido's problem here is simply that a throwaway phrase of his has been blown out of context. Some see emotion and expression in music as inherent in or existing in the listener - Stravinsky's music expresses something to me, therefore it is expressive. Nothing wrong with that. Some take Stravinsky's own attitudes to musical expression as evidence - nothing wrong there, either. Does the emotion come from the composer? How? Is Tchaikovsky more emotional because the music seems to flow in a less meditated, mediated flood, where Stravinsky's appears more coolly calculated? What do we mean by emotion, anyway? That the music makes us feel something? Or that the music makes us feel aware of an emotion (the composer?) without actually feeling it ourselves? Or that the music is clearly designed to me 'emotional' even if it doesn't actually affect the listener at all? If a composer uses the signs and signifiers of emotion in his music, does the music count as emotional, even if these signs are strictly controlled and objectively used? The list of issues and questions is very long, so the issues isn't easily resolved.
My own feeling is that a composer with personality will exhibit that personality throughout his music. As long as the music is making us feel something, it is expressive; but if the composer's personality is of the disguised, distanced, emotionally ambivalent type described above, as was the case with Stravinksy, then the music will reflect this. So to me - yes, Stravinsky's music is expressive, it makes me feel emotions that no other music does. But those emotions, when I analyse them, are very often* to do with the beauty of the construction and the artifice, and the distance that composer has put between himself and the audience; I find that charming and moving.** In other words, for me, the peculiar expressive qualities of Stavinsky's music derive in part from the strategies the composer uses to mask expression.
* not always, and I'm really talking about the post-Rite music onwards
** it's a similar story with Ravel, for me, except that Ravel's beating heart is closer to the surface and revealed more frequently.
Quote from: Guido on April 08, 2011, 06:33:56 AM
Two words: Erbarme Dich.
Igor Fyodorovich can play that game even better. One word: Lacrimosa. Trying to set up such a distinction seems to be in part a matter of selective characterization of the oeuvre of either Master; in part, relying too much upon present perspectives viz. the relation of music and emotion, as some kind of fixed standard.
Excellent post, Luke!
Great post, Luke, though if you've got beautiful weather, this Bostonian says you're a fool not to go out and bask in it! : )
Going back out to bask! 8)
Thanks Luke for the defence and clarification. As ever you describe my thoughts better and more fairly than I could. I'm learning still! People get so hung up on words and preconcieved meanings! (though I knew this already - glad to have stimulated some debate at least).
And I should have mentioned the expressive/emotional distinction that is very pertinant here. Again, with literal meanings intended here.
The weather is glorious.
And for the record, if it wasn't already abundantly clear, I think Stravinsky is an extraordinary genius, as I do Tchaikovsky also.
Some years ago I wrote a small essay on why - despite having composed for several years - I decided I really could not be a composer. I destroyed everything and have not looked back.
The few times when a work was performed (a few organ pieces, piano sonata, and a quarter-tone work a la Bach for a primitive synthesizer) the experience disturbed me in the following way: they made me feel completely exposed psychologically! The last work, in my quarter-tone system, was especially disquieting, although at the time of its composition I was "coolly" more worried about the internal logic of the piece than about any emotional expressivity.
And yet I was extremely unsettled, when others heard it, and reacted (often with astonishment, and comments such as "Be careful! They will use that against you at your sanity hearing!" :o )
The point here is that emotional content can be quite different for the composer vs. the listener. I thought I could handle letting other people hear my subconscious calculus: I could not. I also thought I knew what my work expressed, having built it note by note. But the actual sonic experience was often too much.
Mahler, after hearing his Sixth Symphony, became scared of it. Scriabin had the same experience with his Piano Sonata #6.
And Bach with his herd of children and two marriages can hardly have been "cerebral" all the time! 0:)
As Luke has pointed out: the composer might carefully disguise his emotional content, or parcel it out, and the listener might pick up that reticence (a similar charge has been made against Busoni) and consider it a negative.
Quote from: Cato on April 08, 2011, 09:42:59 AM
As Luke has pointed out: the composer might carefully disguise his emotional content, or parcel it out, and the listener might pick up that reticence (a similar charge has been made against Busoni) and consider it a negative.
And of course, you also have listeners who find Busoni's reticence a positive, such as myself: I find the restraint with which he expresses emotional content in his late works heightens the emotional experience greatly.
One might make a similar point with Stravinsky: in a work like
Symphony of Psalms the composer's reticence is overwhelmed by the fervour of the music--once again this, for me, intensifies the emotional content.
Well, and in general (the man was Russian after all), the music which is (or hovers near the) liturgical is designedly outside the emotions . . . whether we're talking of the Symphony of Psalms, the Mass, the three motets, the Canticum sacrum, the Requiem Canticles, or Threni . . . .
Quote from: Cato on April 08, 2011, 09:42:59 AM
And Bach with his herd of children and two marriages can hardly have been "cerebral" all the time! 0:)
You mean CPE, JC, WF, and the gang didn't just spring from his head like Athena from Zeus? :D "Ach, these verdammte headaches!"
Quote from: Grazioso on April 08, 2011, 10:21:48 AM
You mean CPE, JC, WF, and the gang didn't just spring from his head like Athena from Zeus? :D "Ach, these verdammte headaches!"
I was wondering who might run with that "cerebral" set up! ;D
Besides
Stravinsky, one also thinks of the emotional portrayals in the works of
Sibelius: increasingly enigmatic, "restrained," and yes, even "cerebral." I still remember the classic
Watanabe/Japan Philharmonic set of
Sibelius symphonies, which had an image of the composer - embossed in the cardboard (I believe) - showing him with huge distended veins all over his head!
And yet...!
Quote from: Cato on April 08, 2011, 11:04:25 AM
I was wondering who might run with that "cerebral" set up! ;D
Besides Stravinsky, one also thinks of the emotional portrayals in the works of Sibelius: increasingly enigmatic, "restrained," and yes, even "cerebral." I still remember the classic Watanabe/Japan Philharmonic set of Sibelius symphonies, which had an image of the composer - embossed in the cardboard (I believe) - showing him with huge distended veins all over his head!
And yet...!
This discussion reminds me of the hilarious King of the Moon segment from Terry Gilliam's
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. The King's head, bent on pondering the abstract mysteries of the cosmos, literally detaches from his body, floats around, and gets in a fight with his body, which is more interested in banging the queen. All played manically by Robin Williams :D
If by sheer impact on music development in the classical realm,
Schoenberg - Stravinsky - Bartok
... these men's breaking of new ground or advancing certain aspects of the music is pretty much undisputed by musicologists.
And I'd rather listen to Shostakovich or Prokofiev over Igor any day and twice on Sunday. 8)
Quote from: Cato on April 08, 2011, 09:42:59 AM
Some years ago I wrote a small essay on why - despite having composed for several years - I decided I really could not be a composer. I destroyed everything and have not looked back.
The few times when a work was performed (a few organ pieces, piano sonata, and a quarter-tone work a la Bach for a primitive synthesizer) the experience disturbed me in the following way: they made me feel completely exposed psychologically! The last work, in my quarter-tone system, was especially disquieting, although at the time of its composition I was "coolly" more worried about the internal logic of the piece than about any emotional expressivity.
And yet I was extremely unsettled, when others heard it, and reacted (often with astonishment, and comments such as "Be careful! They will use that against you at your sanity hearing!" :o )
The point here is that emotional content can be quite different for the composer vs. the listener. I thought I could handle letting other people hear my subconscious calculus: I could not. I also thought I knew what my work expressed, having built it note by note. But the actual sonic experience was often too much.
Mahler, after hearing his Sixth Symphony, became scared of it. Scriabin had the same experience with his Piano Sonata #6.
And Bach with his herd of children and two marriages can hardly have been "cerebral" all the time! 0:)
As Luke has pointed out: the composer might carefully disguise his emotional content, or parcel it out, and the listener might pick up that reticence (a similar charge has been made against Busoni) and consider it a negative.
I so have the fear of what others would be hearing also! But, haha, I was writing horror, and painting horror, and writing very sad sad songs, so, surely, I have deserved what I've gotten.
I was thinking about the guitar piece I'm (haha) "working" on. Surely the opening section is so discordant as to turn any listeners ear,... but, what WILL they think?
Oh, I remember,... here's my "argument": HR Giger, the wonderful artist of 'Alien' fame, who makes such "horrible" stuff, and lives in a castle,... apparently he thought that because his stuff was so 'complex', or whatever,... he thought that his 'fans' would be people more like him. Well, what happened is that his fans turned out to be dumb ass hippie freaks, or, let's just say people he really didn't WANT being his fans,... and they would come banging on his castle door and wotnot. I guess my point is is that we really HAVE to be careful when we initially forge our "fame".
Think about great pop musicians who are know for the one song they hate (reminds me of Paul Simon lamenting 'Kodakchrome',... many many other examples I can think of). I am so glad my 'Piece of the Pie' never became a hit, haha,... whew!! Dodged a lifetime's worth of Theme Park Concerts (Spinal Tap, haha) with that one!
So, now, I'm a nobody,... BUTTTTTTT, I'm NOT the guy that you can blame for 'Piece of the Pie' ('...apple of my eye-eye-eye,...love, you're the cherries in my piece of the pie...' ACK!!!). You can thank me now!!! ;)
All is not lost.
btw- Cato, your story does deliver the Fear of God!!! I can only imagine your horror.
ok,... it's a little funny! ;D
Cato and I have met, more than once . . . rest assured that he gives no impression of cowering pale in the shade of Horror : )
Consensus polls are more useful to beginners I feel than to those more familiar with the particular subject concerned (they will have their own considered opinion already). My considered opinion is that such a question isn't that productive for my own enjoyment of 20th century music.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 23, 2012, 07:11:26 AM
I so have the fear of what others would be hearing also! But, haha, I was writing horror, and painting horror, and writing very sad sad songs, so, surely, I have deserved what I've gotten.
I was thinking about the guitar piece I'm (haha) "working" on. Surely the opening section is so discordant as to turn any listeners ear,... but, what WILL they think?
Oh, I remember,... here's my "argument": HR Giger, the wonderful artist of 'Alien' fame, who makes such "horrible" stuff, and lives in a castle,... apparently he thought that because his stuff was so 'complex', or whatever,... he thought that his 'fans' would be people more like him. Well, what happened is that his fans turned out to be dumb ass hippie freaks, or, let's just say people he really didn't WANT being his fans,... and they would come banging on his castle door and wotnot. I guess my point is is that we really HAVE to be careful when we initially forge our "fame".
Think about great pop musicians who are know for the one song they hate (reminds me of Paul Simon lamenting 'Kodakchrome',... many many other examples I can think of). I am so glad my 'Piece of the Pie' never became a hit, haha,... whew!! Dodged a lifetime's worth of Theme Park Concerts (Spinal Tap, haha) with that one!
So, now, I'm a nobody,... BUTTTTTTT, I'm NOT the guy that you can blame for 'Piece of the Pie' ('...apple of my eye-eye-eye,...love, you're the cherries in my piece of the pie...' ACK!!!). You can thank me now!!! ;)
All is not lost.
btw- Cato, your story does deliver the Fear of God!!! I can only imagine your horror.
ok,... it's a little funny! ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on March 23, 2012, 07:16:19 AM
Cato and I have met, more than once . . . rest assured that he gives no impression of cowering pale in the shade of Horror : )
I was not a little amazed to discover that this was resurrected last week: of course it is the season for such things! 0:)
No, I have not cowered in horror, but I have been nervous and disconcerted! 8)
Karl politely sat through one of my "Bachian" Quarter-tone compositions, and is still alive! 0:)
Snyprr: many thanks for your response! You also reminded me of the story about
Alec Guiness, who was highly upset by the attention he received from
Star Wars groupies seeming to believe that he actually was Obi-Wan! :o
"You have acted too well, Obi-Wan! Now you must pay the price!"
Quote from: Cato on March 28, 2012, 04:23:06 AM
Snyprr: many thanks for your response! You also reminded me of the story about Alec Guiness, who was highly upset by the attention he received from Star Wars groupies seeming to believe that he actually was Obi-Wan! :o
"You have acted too well, Obi-Wan! Now you must pay the price!"
Did I tell you the story which I read in (I think) the BFI series book on Star Wars . . . ?
Sir Alec was at some publicity event, and an enthusiastic young man met him with joy, telling the actor, "I've seen the movie [some crazy high number, don't remember . . . maybe 50] times!"
The actor replied, with grave mien, "Do you think you could promise me not to see it again?"
hmmm......it's not simple to choose, I would be inclined to say Gustav Mahler; but there wasn't just one dominant figure in the world of the 20th century music, like Bach in the Baroque era, Mozart in the second half of the 18th century or Beethoven and Wagner in the Romantic era.
For importance and influence, I could say: Mahler, R. Strauss, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Debussy, Ravel and Schönberg.
Mahler? You're just saying that to please Daniel, Ilaria! ; )
Quote from: karlhenning on March 28, 2012, 05:56:59 AM
Mahler? You're just saying that to please Daniel, Ilaria! ; )
Not at all! >:( :)
I said more and once that if Wagner, Beethoven and Liszt had never existed, Mahler would have been my absolute favourite composer.
I am dismayed at the lack of support for Ferde Grofé.
Quote from: Lethevich on March 28, 2012, 07:17:08 AM
I am dismayed at the lack of support for Ferde Grofé.
Maybe if he changes the spelling of his name to Freddie (Mc)Gruff?
He just needs a PR team to tout him as An American Maverick . . . .
I could imagine a Fergal Ó Gríofa having some currency :)
Edit: WHY always with the out of context posts on the top of the next page.
Quote from: Lethevich on March 28, 2012, 07:27:46 AM
I could imagine a Fergal Ó Gríofa :)
And they will name a perfume after him, too!
Quote from: karlhenning on March 28, 2012, 07:25:43 AM
He just needs a PR team to tout him as An American Maverick . . . .
Or
An American Maverickette, if Lethe gets her way.
Quote from: Lethevich on March 28, 2012, 07:17:08 AM
I am dismayed at the lack of support for Ferde Grofé.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Just not enough travel suites: if he had completed the
Ritz-Carlton Suite, that would have made a difference in his reputation!
Quote from: Cato on March 28, 2012, 09:58:15 AM
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Just not enough travel suites: if he had completed the Ritz-Carlton Suite, that would have made a difference in his reputation!
Motel 6 Suite would have more popular appeal, I'd think. Ah so many memories from my youth! Couldn't afford Ritz then!
It's not many who know that the Grand Canyon Suite was originally the La Quinta Suite!
(Delighted that Paul got there first, though!)
Don't see how the choice could be anything but Debussy, even if one prefers other composers.
By far the most influential on great music afterward--without him we would not even be discussing other composers as we recognize them (Ravel, Bartok, Stravinsky, Messiaen, Ligeti...). He basically established a whole new non-Germanic musical tradition, combined with the highest quality experimental yet equally listenable output in multiple genres. Keyboard and orchestral music fully a match with anything before, phenomenally evocative. You can also trace his resonance through popular music to today.
Some other expendable thoughts:
After him, perhaps Berg, student surpassing his master(s). The beautiful extension of Germanic/Viennese tradition, more sensuous and worldly than Schoenberg or Webern. The two most perfect operas since Mozart, and maybe the best violin concerto ever written.
Ligeti for 2nd half of century--most complete and original but eclectic formal innovations, and greatest choral works, masterpieces in all genres, e.g. piano concerto.
Depending on perspective, Stravinsky floats up or down, but not really above Debussy. For sure one could argue that he was greatest ballet composer and collaborator in history, with the greatest stylistic and rhythmic range of all 20th century composers.
After them, Bartok (who was kind of a master of both the new French and Germanic traditions), Messiaen, Prokofiev, etc. Sibelius gets the integrity award.
Mahler and Strauss IMO suffer both on taste, and respectively on the take yourself too seriously or not seriously enough scale, and both with one foot firmly in 19th century. Not to forget they were supreme orchestrators, and so on.
Greatest composer living in 20th century was for me without any doubts Richard Strauss. But I can't call him the greatest composer of the 20th century even if I think that his best works was composed in this century.
I would say Prokofiev because a lot of his best works are among the most inspired compositions of this century but some his other works are so mediocre that I'm not absolutely sure if he can be called great.
So let my vote be for Bartok.
Quote from: James on March 28, 2012, 07:13:59 PM
Yea .. I agree. The other major towering figure of the 2nd half of the 20th century .. pointing to the future .. is Stockhausen.
::)
Soooo... What's the consensus?
Quote from: chasmaniac on March 30, 2012, 03:32:25 AM
Soooo... What's the consensus?
Consensus?! ;D
It seems to be that the greatest composer is
Charles Gustav Arnold Alban Richard Debubergiveshausengetikofievichiski ::)
Quote from: Cato on March 30, 2012, 03:38:51 AM
Consensus?! ;D
It seems to be that the greatest composer is
Charles Gustav Arnold Alban Richard Debubergiveshausengetikofievichiski ::)
For those looking for a short answer - it's Chuck! :)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 30, 2012, 03:48:49 AM
For those looking for a short answer - it's Chuck! :)
Get 'im onto the podium, then. Up, Chuck!
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 30, 2012, 03:48:49 AM
For those looking for a short answer - it's Chuck! :)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Chuck_Berry51.JPG/190px-Chuck_Berry51.JPG)
The greatest composer of the 20th century!
Quote from: North Star on March 30, 2012, 05:30:24 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Chuck_Berry51.JPG/190px-Chuck_Berry51.JPG)
The greatest composer of the 20th century!
What about the composer who "writes the songs that make the whole world sing" ???
(http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/40298959.png)
Well, obviously it was Richard Nanes. ;)
Ah, the songs of love and special things . . . . .
Quote from: edward on March 30, 2012, 06:00:59 AM
Well, obviously it was Richard Nanes. ;)
The first time in years to hear his name. Still have his 'symphonies' though. ;)
Quote from: some guy on March 21, 2011, 11:00:33 PM
Hahaha, good one.
Since it's James who started this thread, no one will dare say one particular name, even if they think he really is the greatest.
No one but me.
And even though I agree that "greatest" is a stupid word, putting the real, tangible value of composers on the level of sports figures or pop stars, I would say that the most influencial composer of the twentieth century, the one who clearly changed the whole rule book, as it were, was John Cage.
James will do his usual Tourette's routine that the word "Cage" triggers, but "Oh well." I think of James, now, as a little bug. That I will crush. Under my foot. On the sidewalk. Without compunction. (Well, maybe a little compunction. Eugh. If I actually did do that, I'd have to buy a new pair of shoes.)
John Cage met Marcel Duchamp in hell. Duchamp was condemned, for eternity, to provide an appropriate visualisation for Cage's '16 Minutes of Silence.' Each version was rejected by the Judge and Duchamp had to make another, over and over again, for eternity. Cage was condemned to produce a sound track for Ducamps' 'Urinal.' The result was accepted by the Judge, but Cage had to produce it, over and over again, for eternity.
the consensus? well, there is no single "one" - but Stravinsky and Bartok and Schoenberg made the biggest waves in invention, and Bartok is a towering figure in music
orchestral, I flip flop
- Phillip Glass, really amazing. His music has completely infected popular culture, surely that has some value? He is a No 2 or No 3, no?
- Samuel L Barber, talk about being apropos! Addagio for Strings, isn't just a song, it's a bookend to history. Yes there is more to him then that.
- Mahler or Debussy, arguably the finest
Many of the others mentioned are also fine candidates, and some i have to get to know better.
but nomination for best of the century, orchestral or no? for me, and I still have more to listen, so I hope this doesn't draw ire...
For me, the greatest composer of the 20th century is Jean Michael Jarre.
Beware consensus, it's often just pooled ignorance ;)
It's a piece of information, and like any piece of information, may be used discerningly, or foolishly.
It seems like Stravinsky and Schoenberg are near consensus, and then maybe Bartok.
For the fourth... I know I probably should say Prokofiev but I want to say Hindemith, Glass, Adams, Reich, Nono, Piazzolla, Ligeti, or Scnittke - but I really, really want to say Stockhausen - but I most of all have to pick Ellington.
Hindemith's certainly on just about every list of VIP's of the 20th century.
In hindsight, the composer of the past century has been Bach.
Indeed. But his influence has been larger than any other composer's.
Quote from: Christo on April 28, 2012, 01:38:26 PM
Indeed. But his influence has been larger than any other composer's.
Well first how do you even measure that, and second that doesn't negate James's point.
Quote from: david johnson on April 23, 2012, 04:52:23 AM
Beware consensus, it's often just pooled ignorance ;)
Absolutely, I can use my own ears to decide which composers I find 'great'.
Quote from: Philoctetes on April 28, 2012, 01:43:01 PM
Well first how do you even measure that, and second that doesn't negate James's point.
So. This topic is about
measuring? (And for readers for whom "James' point" isn't obvious?) ::)
Maybe unprovable is a better word than measuring then?
1) Ives
2) Stravinsky
3) Rachmaninov
In general, Jazz is more important to the 20th century than classical music, but of Ellington's works, I think his popular songs are much more important than his more serious suites.
Quote from: Christo on April 29, 2012, 03:02:36 AM
So. This topic is about measuring?
No, but you said that Bach had the most influence, which entails some sort of measurement.
Quote from: starrynight on April 28, 2012, 10:36:19 PM
Absolutely, I can use my own ears to decide which composers I find 'great'.
But even in saying that, you cast great in scare-quotes — denoting that you are using that adjective as code for what [ I ] like.
Who was the greatest composer of the 20th Century? We'll know once 20th Century music has been digested in an historical context and a consensus has formed ... say in another hundred years or so, if Western civilization lasts that long.
My choice is an unpopular one and few really give a damn what anyone else thinks, anyway!
Quote from: karlhenning on April 30, 2012, 05:13:43 AM
But even in saying that, you cast great in scare-quotes — denoting that you are using that adjective as code for what [ I ] like.
Yep. Good morning, Karl!
Nice to see you back Dave! :)
Good morrow, Dave!
Quote from: bigshot on April 29, 2012, 10:50:45 AM
In general, Jazz is more important to the 20th century than classical music [....]
What a fascinating assertion!
How would you make the case?
Quote from: Scion7 on April 08, 2012, 11:06:44 AM
the consensus? well, there is no single "one" - but Stravinsky and Bartok and Schoenberg made the biggest waves in invention, and Bartok is a towering figure in music
A vote for the "towering figure in music" -- Bela Bartok.
JS
Quote from: karlhenning on April 30, 2012, 06:30:14 AMWhat a fascinating assertion!
How would you make the case?
Off the top of my head, and bear in mind this is purely academic, I'd say Jazz was the most popular and the most broadly influential music of the first half of the century, and the root of all the popular music developments of the second half (and plenty of the unpopular ones too). I attribute a large part of its popularity to the way it rose "naturally" as a folk idiom, rather than being the intellectual construct of an individual.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 30, 2012, 05:13:43 AM
But even in saying that, you cast great in scare-quotes — denoting that you are using that adjective as code for what [ I ] like.
Yeh, I don't like the use of the word great much. The main question for me I suppose is whether it is actually any
use to me in ranking things to such a fine degree. I don't think there really is. Concentration on a greatest list is probably more limiting potentially with both listening and discussion.
Hindemith
There's an oft-quoted review of the Aeolian Quartet's complete Haydn box, to the effect that the review would happily listen to nothing else for a whole year and not feel he was missing out on anything, such is Haydn's range and comprehensiveness. I was thinking of this when holding a similarly-sized box of complete works - the 22CD "Works of Igor Stravinsky". If that's a test of greatness - i.e. the composer whose complete works you would take to a desert island and not get bored - then it's Stravinsky.
DF
My vote for greatest composer of the 20th C. is Igor Stravinsky.
But if we are allowed three, I'd add Arnold Schoenberg and Elliott Carter. This is not to say that Bela Bartok is not of their artistic level, just that I think his footprint is not as big.
So a convincing case for the Greatest Composer of the 20th Century could be made for any of the following:
Stravinsky
Schoenberg
Carter
Bartok
:)
Quote from: James on May 03, 2012, 01:33:40 PM
Karlheinz Stockhausen (1928-2007)
::) That's too funny! Thanks I needed a laugh today. There's nothing great about a composer who spent more time behind a computer than actually writing great music. I think you're way off there, James.
Stockhausen might be on my top five list. He's definitely on my top ten list. Even if I don't rate Stockhausen quite as highly as James does, there's nothing laughable about valuing his music. Whereas one could be forgiven for laughing in response to the notion that Stockhausen was merely a "computer," when in truth — like all great artists — his best work fuses rigorous construction with astonishing leaps of imagination.
Quote from: DaveF on May 03, 2012, 08:36:22 AM
There's an oft-quoted review of the Aeolian Quartet's complete Haydn box, to the effect that the review would happily listen to nothing else for a whole year and not feel he was missing out on anything, such is Haydn's range and comprehensiveness. I was thinking of this when holding a similarly-sized box of complete works - the 22CD "Works of Igor Stravinsky". If that's a test of greatness - i.e. the composer whose complete works you would take to a desert island and not get bored - then it's Stravinsky.
DF
I come from the opposite perspective. What's made me love
modern classical music isn't one big name or even a smallish group of famous names, it's actually been listening through the music of a few thousand different composers and enjoying all the variety of voices and invention they have brought to the style. I've probably enjoyed pieces now from over 2000 twentieth century composers, no way would I give up that variety for a few composers. I don't care if that has the historians of music shaking their heads and saying that the most famous ones are all that matters, because they aren't all that matters to me. As a genre while I could still like it listening to just a few composers, it would also be far less enjoyable and so important to me. That's probably not the case with some earlier periods though where there was less variety of styles.
Morton Feldman
has anyone said Britten yet?
just throwing it out there
Quote from: xochitl on May 05, 2012, 02:59:53 AM
has anyone said Britten yet?
No. And unlikely to happen. 8)
:(
Quote from: James on May 05, 2012, 04:39:11 AM
.. and he's an unavoidable figure in music for the 2nd half of the century without a doubt.
I've done a pretty good of avoiding him. :)
Greatest composers of the 20th Century?
Claude Debussy
Maurice Ravel
Bela Bartok
Igor Stravinsky
Dmitri Shostakovich
Sergei Prokofiev
Arnold Schoenberg
Quote from: James on May 16, 2012, 03:13:38 AM
You're missing half of what went on in the century there .. Say if this survey was just the latter half of the century, who would be your top 5? Just curious.
That I'm unsure, but I'll take a stab at it:
Ligeti
Stockhausen
Xenakis
Carter
Pärt
Reich
How's that? I even included Stockhausen. :)
Quote from: James on May 16, 2012, 06:33:12 PM
Is this a tell'em what they want to hear, not what I really think type of response. Hmmmm
You can't ask a question and end the sentence with a period. From the way it looks right now, there is no question there. :)
Honestly, James, I picked these names from the second half of the 20th Century based on research that I've done and based on their critical reception. In all honesty, I don't really even know why I participated in this thread, because "who is the greatest composer of the 20th Century" is pretty irrelevant to me. What is important to me is the music and what it means to me as a listener. Putting one composer over another seems like silly thing to do and it can ultimately lead to some downright nasty arguments which I'm going to be avoiding. From the list I made, I do like Ligeti and Pärt. Xenakis is just too far out there for me, but I'm becoming more familiar with his music as I think it has a kind of brutality to it that's somewhat appealing but only in short doses.
Quote from: James on May 16, 2012, 07:51:07 PM
These sorts of discussions come up on forums .. it's nothing serious but it can be a fun or even interesting exercise that spawns musical introspection and thought. It brings into focus the music of the last century (a century we are all connected-to & are apart of) and it's pre-eminent composers - maybe people will check out composers they aren't that familiar with too as a result of a thread like this. Who knows ..
Perhaps but too often I see a thread like this turn into some kind of contest with each parties trying to prove their composer's worth to each other. Music isn't a competition.
Quote from: James on May 16, 2012, 08:06:37 PM
That's life ..
No, that's mindless bickering which doesn't mean anything.
Quote from: James on May 16, 2012, 08:14:07 PM
to you.
Well let me ask you, James. Do you honestly enjoy arguing with people over who the "better" composer was? What do you honestly have to gain by doing this?