GMG Classical Music Forum

Who was the most significant of these three American composers?

Interesting question!

I voted for Ives because he was really the first American composer to establish an authentic American sound. Copland and Gershwin were important too, but Ives's innovations predate Copland and Gerswhin. Ives took all kinds of desperate styles of music and filtered them through a Modernistic blender and you ended up with these gorgeous collages of sounds ranging from demonic band marches to a lonely hymn melody being splattered across a few sparse, dissonant chords. The man was ahead of his time.

Quote from: karlhenning on March 09, 2012, 06:42:37 PM
Interesting question!

Thought you might like it, Karl. ;) :D

I voted for Copland.  Ives might be our greatest, but I hear much more of America in Copland.

Quote from: DavidW on March 09, 2012, 06:58:55 PM
I voted for Copland.  Ives might be our greatest, but I hear much more of America in Copland.

Copland wrote good music, but so did Gershwin and Ives. I can see why Copland would be more popular, especially with listeners, but I don't see how he is more significant especially if we put all three composers into historical perspectives.

Each of the three is significant, but (of course) in largely different ways. How do you 'weigh' the three for comparison?

None are my favorites but I'll give it to Copey.  :-*

Quote from: karlhenning on March 10, 2012, 04:45:12 AM
Each of the three is significant, but (of course) in largely different ways. How do you 'weigh' the three for comparison?

I would say Ives for his innovations in polytonality, the use of tone clusters, and quarter tones. Like, for example, according to Wikipedia his Symphony No. 4 was written in 1916! Central Park in the Dark was written in 1906! Wow....so far ahead of its time.

Quote from: Mirror Image on March 10, 2012, 06:57:12 AM
I would say Ives for his innovations in polytonality, the use of tone clusters, and quarter tones. Like, for example, according to Wikipedia his Symphony No. 4 was written in 1916! Central Park in the Dark was written in 1906! Wow....so far ahead of its time.

As mentioned, depends what you mean by significant. Ives seems to have had comparatively little influence on his contemporaries. Many of his works were not even performed in his lifetime. An interesting aside, Copland was one of his supporters. It is hard to compare him against anyone really - rather unique in many ways.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 10, 2012, 07:21:25 AM
As mentioned, depends what you mean by significant. Ives seems to have had comparatively little influence on his contemporaries. Many of his works were not even performed in his lifetime. An interesting aside, Copland was one of his supporters. It is hard to compare him against anyone really - rather unique in many ways.

Actually, for me, it's not hard to see who is more significant. Mahler's music wasn't well-known during his lifetime but look how important it is now. He's now seen as a crucial link between late-Romanticism and Modernism. So, it's not so much how they affected their contemporaries, but rather how they are viewed from a historical perspective.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 10, 2012, 07:21:25 AM
As mentioned, depends what you mean by significant. Ives seems to have had comparatively little influence on his contemporaries. Many of his works were not even performed in his lifetime. An interesting aside, Copland was one of his supporters. It is hard to compare him against anyone really - rather unique in many ways.

He is rather like Schubert in that regard.  btw I think that Gershwin has tremendous historical significance for bridging the classical and popular divide.

Voted for Gershwin as his is the music I enjoy most out of these composers. Much of it I love very much! :D

Copland would come next, with Ives rather far behind. I am not the biggest fan of his music from what I heard, maybe I should give it another go some time in the future though.

I was going to vote for... Feldman or ... Lou Harrison...

Quote from: Arnold on March 11, 2012, 08:00:11 AM
I voted for Gershwin largely because I like his music the best of these three.

:)

Arnold, I'm not sure why you deleted your last post, but you said you didn't think Mahler was of much significance historically. I have to whole-heartedly disagree with your statement. History has been more kind to Mahler than it has Webern or even Schoenberg for that matter. Not to discount Schoenberg's music, but what is Schoenberg mostly remembered for? Not his music, but his musical theories. What is Berg remembered most for? His opera Wozzeck. What is Webern most known for? Confusing the hell out of everybody pretty much. ;) :D But seriously, Mahler was remembered for his music, which isn't often said of the Second Viennese School, who, by the way, admired Mahler.

Copland for me.  This should reopen the corral, Karl. ;)

Quote from: Mirror Image on March 11, 2012, 08:13:30 AM
Arnold, I'm not sure why you deleted your last post, but you said you didn't think Mahler was of much significance historically. I have to whole-heartedly disagree with your statement. History has been more kind to Mahler than it has Webern or even Schoenberg for that matter. Not to discount Schoenberg's music, but what is Schoenberg mostly remembered for? Not his music, but his musical theories. What is Berg remembered most for? His opera Wozzeck. What is Webern most known for? Confusing the hell out of everybody pretty much. ;) :D But seriously, Mahler was remembered for his music, which isn't often said of the Second Viennese School, who, by the way, admired Mahler.

Good to see you defending Mahler, John! :)

Quote from: Arnold on March 11, 2012, 08:35:02 AM
I changed my mind about that post since it was not the kind of post I usualy make because I do not wish to contribute to a discusison of "what composer is considered the most significant".  To me this is almost entierly subjective unless you define which technical aspects you wish to compare (a discussion I am even less interested in having).   Different composers will be significant to different people for personal or even professional reasons, but which do not necessarily add up to any kind of objective measure.  I am much more interested in hearing people say they like the music of "X" and hear a bit about why they do.  Sometimes it is a memory from childhood sometimes it has nothing to do with the music itself but some other association. 

So I intended to delete both my posts since I did not want to see this thread appear when I click on "new posts in threads to which I've contributed".

:)

I'm just responding to your comment. That's all I was doing. I challenged your opinion, but I understand you don't want to have the discussion. It would be rather pointless because Mahler's importance has been documented for quite some time now that his body of work really speaks for itself.

Quote from: madaboutmahler on March 11, 2012, 09:46:57 AM
Good to see you defending Mahler, John! :)

I was getting ready to hurl a Mahler hammer at Arnold but it's good to see he backed down. ;) :D

Although Ives is by far my preferred composer of these three, and Copland is more well-known in concert halls and recordings, I'm inclined to say that Gershwin played a more significant role in American music.

Quote from: Mirror Image on March 11, 2012, 01:15:10 PM
I was getting ready to hurl a Mahler hammer at Arnold but it's good to see he backed down. ;) :D

I'm impressed, John! :D

Quote from: madaboutmahler on March 11, 2012, 01:26:49 PM
I'm impressed, John! :D

:P

Voted for Gershwin, I really like his music and how he merged the impressionist/expressionist influences with the rythm and the melodies of Jazz, such brilliant and involving music.

Quote from: Lisztianwagner on March 11, 2012, 01:45:20 PM
Voted for Gershwin, I really like his music and how he merged the impressionist/expressionist influences with the rythm and the melodies of Jazz, such brilliant and involving music.

One of my favorite Gershwin works is Porgy & Bess Suite believe it or not. I like the usual suspects like Rhapsody in Blue or American In Paris, but this suite is really, really enjoyable. Lullaby is a nice work too written for a string orchestra I believe. My favorite performance of Porgy & Bess Suite is with Levine conducting the CSO on DG. What a smashing performance.

Charles "Shut Up and Take Your Dissonance Like a Man" Ives has my vote!

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on March 11, 2012, 01:18:20 PM
Although Ives is by far my preferred composer of these three, and Copland is more well-known in concert halls and recordings, I'm inclined to say that Gershwin played a more significant role in American music.

Although I wrote this I forgot to say that I voted Ives.

Quote from: Cato on March 11, 2012, 03:43:30 PM
Charles "Shut Up and Take Your Dissonance Like a Man" Ives has my vote!

Ha! I love it! :P If I'm not mistaken, didn't Ives say this line to someone in an audience who was heckling a Ruggles work?

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on March 11, 2012, 03:49:03 PM

Although I wrote this I forgot to say that I voted Ives.

I knew you would, Greg. ;)

Banana.

I have the impression that Ives is respected, but not loved in the way Gershwin and Copland are.

Quote from: eyeresist on March 11, 2012, 06:16:43 PM
Banana.

I have the impression that Ives is respected, but not loved in the way Gershwin and Copland are.

That would be an assumption on your part of course. You certainly don't speak for every American classical listener. I love Ives' music. I merely like Copland and I seldom listen to Gershwin.

Well, as I said, it's my impression of the consensus. I'd like to hear how people feel.

Quote from: eyeresist on March 11, 2012, 06:16:43 PM
Banana.

I have the impression that Ives is respected, but not loved in the way Gershwin and Copland are.

Quote from: eyeresist on March 11, 2012, 07:22:10 PM
Well, as I said, it's my impression of the consensus. I'd like to hear how people feel.

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on March 11, 2012, 01:18:20 PM
Although Ives is by far my preferred composer of these three, and Copland is more well-known in concert halls and recordings, I'm inclined to say that Gershwin played a more significant role in American music.

I voted for Ives here, but more because he's one of my favorite composers, and I feel the best American composer. But it took years before I knew the name Charles Ives, whereas during those years I was very familiar with famous Gershwins tunes and could whistle Fanfare for the Common Man and themes form Appalachian Spring. Not attributing this with Copland and Gershwin being a better composer, just that their music is more well-known and wide spread, there for they could be seen as offering greater contributions to American music.

One of the things I admire about Ives was his very direct way of composing. His music wasn't afraid to make a joyful noise on occasion like in his fourth symphony or in the Fourth of July from Holidays Symphony but even when it got dissonant there was always purpose to the music. It wasn't a bunch of musical cells colliding. There was a strong sense of momentum to it. There's not a note misplaced in any of Ives' music. It all is laid out right in front of the listener.

Quote from: Mirror Image on March 11, 2012, 08:05:02 PM
There's not a note misplaced in any of Ives' music.

I'd say he's not afraid of "misplacing" them, which is nice, too.

Quote from: springrite on March 11, 2012, 08:07:26 PM
I'd say he's not afraid of "misplacing" them, which is nice, too.

That's true. ;)

Quote from: Mirror Image on March 11, 2012, 06:21:35 PM
That would be an assumption on your part of course. You certainly don't speak for every American classical listener.

He didn't claim to speak for every listener of any category. That would be an assumption on your part of course ; )

Quote from: springrite on March 11, 2012, 08:07:26 PM
I'd say he's not afraid of "misplacing" them, which is nice, too.

Now that observation is intelligent.  Ives was not a "tidy" composer, so the remark that "there's no note misplaced" is just fannish puffery.

Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2012, 03:42:37 AM
He didn't claim to speak for every listener of any category. That would be an assumption on your part of course ; )

He edited his post, Karl. ::)

Ah, well, there's always that : )

Incidentally, John . . . as I revisit the Schnittke Fourth, there is a great deal in the method which reminds me of comparable passages in Ives.  I do not, I suppose I am saying, find that symphony any more a matter of "shock value" than I do Ives. Or, where I do, I think it entirely a good and musical thing.

Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2012, 08:10:17 AM
Ah, well, there's always that : )

What eyeresist said is he had the impression that Ives is respected but not loved in the way Copland and Gershwin are. How is this not an assumption?

Because he speaks of an impression, rather than making an assertion. (An example of an assertion would be your idea that Schnittke's only goal was "shock value" ; )

FWIW, my impression is in line with eyeresist's – that is, that as a matter of a listening consensus (any given individual possibly excepted) Ives's music does not command the degree of affection accorded to either Copland's or Gershwin's.  And, so far as I understand the composer, I think Ives would have been okay with that.

Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2012, 08:29:58 AM
Because he speaks of an impression, rather than making an assertion. (An example of an assertion would be your idea that Schnittke's only goal was "shock value" ; )

FWIW, my impression is in line with eyeresist's – that is, that as a matter of a listening consensus (any given individual possibly excepted) Ives's music does not command the degree of affection accorded to either Copland's or Gershwin's.  And, so far as I understand the composer, I think Ives would have been okay with that.

Fair enough, I just thought the comment was a bit pretentious. That's all.

Quote from: Mirror Image on March 12, 2012, 08:08:37 AMHe edited his post, Karl. ::)

No, I didn't - you can check!

Also, what Karl said - I was talking about my impression of the consensus (based partly on a recent Gramophone thread). I don't see how that is offensive or pretentious.

Quote from: eyeresist on March 12, 2012, 05:38:09 PM
No, I didn't - you can check!

Also, what Karl said - I was talking about my impression of the consensus (based partly on a recent Gramophone thread). I don't see how that is offensive or pretentious.

Oh, sorry, eyeresist. I forgot to take my meds when I wrote all of that. Please forgive my error of judgement.

QuoteI have the impression that Ives is respected, but not loved in the way Gershwin and Copland are.

I do remember a Peter Schickele quote where he said basically that the Ives's music is not as good as his ideas, or something to that effect.

Anyway, the list is
1. Ives
2. Barber
3. Gershwin

Quote from: Mirror Image on March 12, 2012, 05:44:02 PMOh, sorry, eyeresist. I forgot to take my meds when I wrote all of that. Please forgive my error of judgement.

It's alright, I know you have your moods :)  Plus I have the advantage in that I post from work during the day, while you are typing late into the night. Silly time difference.

Quote from: eyeresist on March 12, 2012, 07:17:51 PM
It's alright, I know you have your moods :)  Plus I have the advantage in that I post from work during the day, while you are typing late into the night. Silly time difference.

Yeah, I'm pretty moody. I'm like one of those 3D cards that, depending on the angle, you get a different picture or expression. :)

NONE of the above.

Charles Griffes !!!!!!!!!!!    8)

Talk about yer contrarians . . . .

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on March 11, 2012, 01:18:20 PM
Although Ives is by far my preferred composer of these three, and Copland is more well-known in concert halls and recordings, I'm inclined to say that Gershwin played a more significant role in American music.

For that reason, yes, Gershwin definitely.

Sarge

Quote from: Scion7 on March 17, 2012, 04:49:31 AMCharles Griffes !!!!!!!!!!!    8)

I like Griffes. I only have one disc of his music and it's orchestral works with JoAnn Falletta conducting on Naxos. I really need to dig that disc out and listen to it again. I remember rather enjoying his unique style of Impressionism.

Yeah, his stuff is pretty decent.   Naxos recorded him pretty extensively.  He's almost completely absent from concert hall.

I was being contrary, tho' - in terms of sheer impact, Gershwin is the man (and outside of Summertime covered by pop groups, and perhaps some Miles Davis, I don't listen to him); in terms of musical profundity - Ives, and in terms of "fun" - Copland!

When I first heard of Griffes he seemed right up my alley, but he came across as a low-rent Debussy trying too hard to be "impressionistic." For Debussy and others I think that style of music came naturally, with Griffes it feels forced, and forcing that style just doesn't work.

This was a hard decision! All three are very special to me, equal in my mind for what each was going for in their art.

I chose Ives, but it is a subjective decision as he is indeed one of my life heroes. I love not just his music, but also his philosophy, ideas, writings, and way of life. I understand and take into consideration that he was a complex individual and it is impossible to pin him down. I deeply enjoyed the interesting consideration that Eliot Carter and later, Maynard Solomon, brought to the table, the thesis being Ives redid his scores to add dissonance and so forth. Regardless of what really happened, this argument has built a new road of debate on the dating of his works, a study that only serves to illuminate Ives the artist and musician.