In the hope of distracting certain people from creeping Pink-Harpism on another topic, allow me to ask the following question:
Who is the THE leading contemporary composer today?
(The answer is NOT Elgar!)
In the later 19th century of course Wagner was #1, even the anti-Wagnerians had to admit that. Before him no doubt it was Beethoven.
In the last century, there were 2 who held sway for several decades: Schoenberg and Stravinsky. Perhaps Shostakovich nudged them aside in the 1950's.
Do they have counterparts today? If not, why not?
I recall when the classical music world waited with excitement for the latest musical statement from Stravinsky and Shostakovich.
For whose work do we wait with excitement today?
In no particular order I offer these nominees: feel free to add your own!
Penderecki, Stockhausen, Glass, Adams, Henze, Valentin Silvestrov, Lowell Liebermann, Aho, Saariaho, Pärt, Rutter...?
(Fill in your nominee!)
And if not one of these qualifies, why not? Is the classical musical world too fragmented to have one reigning light showing the way? Too many "-isms" (Minimalism, Neo-Medievalism, Neo-Romanticism) or too many hyper-individualized styles (Stockhausen)?
Where the hell is Elliot Carter?
I know very little about living composers, so I go for the recently departed: Berio and Ligeti. Cage. For what concerns the Second Half of the XXth Century sui generis I have great consideration for Malipiero and Maderna.
My opinion is that Paert, despite the fact that the multitude worships his music, is no way a great composer. No comparison with names such as Messiaen and Ligeti.
Penderecki is difficult, as it could well be him, basing the balance on musical quality as well as everybody knowing his name. The problem with calling him a leading composer of today is that he would be named that for music he composed over 30 years ago. Boulez is too part-time, Stockhausen is too niche/weird as hell, the minimalists/"I'm so holy"s = :( ...
Carter comes across as the most consistently inspired AND reasonably "middle ground".
Does anyone eagerly await new works by Ades and Turnage? ???
A big problem with the 2nd half of the 20th century is all the stylistic chameleons, and composers who would probably give Vaughan Williams a heart attack (considering that he called STRAVINSKY a composer who relied on "elaborate tricks"). Should they be discounted for their often uneven and strange output compared to Carter's rock-solid progression? It's a pain in the arse to judge :P
Quote from: Mark on November 03, 2007, 12:07:47 PM
Does anyone eagerly await new works by Ades and Turnage? ???
No, hehe. Although I think that Ades has potential. With some coverage of him, it is as if he is being set up as the poster boy for acceptable modernism by some sources (such as Gramophone), but he seems to have continued to produce interesting things, and the incoming violin concerto could be a good listen.
Quote from: Lethe on November 03, 2007, 12:16:06 PM
... the incoming violin concerto could be a good listen.
I've heard a large chunk of it. I liked what I heard. :)
Steve Reich?
Oh, I forgot something. It's not just the diffuse styles that make composers of the second half of the 20th century much harder to "rank" than previous ones, it's also widespread availability of recordings - a lot of it of niche music. The internet is going to irreversably advance this, too. As a result, people can't plead ignorance to other composers anymore, and generally have very broad tastes. If the leading composers of today were born in the late 19th century, the legacy of some would live and many more would die. IMO the usual "sorting the wheat from the chaff" of previous eras will be impossible due to the internet, and other developments in distribution.
Quote from: Mark on November 03, 2007, 12:24:13 PM
I've heard a large chunk of it. I liked what I heard. :)
Coolie, I like it when modern composers use (reasonably) traditional forms - does it compare to any other pieces/composers you've heard?
Quote from: Cato on November 03, 2007, 11:49:50 AM
Whose work do we I wait with excitement today?
Autechre :)
Tan Dun?
Quote from: Lethe on November 03, 2007, 12:30:57 PM
... does it compare to any other pieces/composers you've heard?
Tricky for me to answer that, as I'm not generally too well up on modern composers. :-\
Per Nørgård
A good question. I think that since Ligeti's death I'd have to go with Carter.
Some other names I'd put into consideration would be Dutilleux (despite his extremely slow rate of production), Birtwistle, Kurtag and Rihm.
If I'm to nominate the composer I look forward most to hearing new stuff from, however, it might just be Helmut Lachenmann: however his style is somewhat extreme and unlikely to appeal to a great number of listeners.
How about Robin Holloway?
Quote from: Cato on November 03, 2007, 11:49:50 AM
In the later 19th century of course Wagner was #1, even the anti-Wagnerians had to admit that. Before him no doubt it was Beethoven.
Given that Wagner didn't really become #1 until, say, the 1860s (Tristan and the Ring), you have a gap of thirty-plus years wherein Beethoven was not the great contemporary composer. That complaint aside, I would cast my vote for
Philip Glass.
You really think that Holloway is the world's greatest living composer? Better than Kurtag, Dutilleux, Carter?
Perhaps you have a vested interest in saying that - maybe he reads these forums!
Well, I must say that in these circumstances, I often think of Helmut Lachenmann, too.
He's very good indeed. I heard Arditti play his third string quartet in Wroclaw. That was quite a thrill. I look forward to the next recording of Lachenmann with a great deal of anticipation, though I suppose that for sheer batedness (in the breath, you know), no one in my life has equalled Luc Ferrari. My sons and my friends and I would elbow each other out of the way in record stores for the next Luc Ferrari album. Even with such giants as Kagel or Cage, we were relatively polite in our shoving and pushing.
I'd say all the pluralism is a good thing, though. I look forward to the next piece or next album of dozens of people, from Francis Dhomont to Diana Simpson. At least one? At least one hundred, may be. To pick only one nowadays would be to pick only one style, too. As there is no one preeminent style, so there is no one preeminent composer. (Probably never was, really. Look at all the giants clustered around the century changes of a hundred years ago, or two.)
Generally speaking, the most anticipated releases these days come from this crowd. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp0ccQVy1og)
The idea of a leading composer in the 20th Century is just too old fashioned. There are many leading composers. In America, we have Carter, Wuorinen, Reich, and Adams. These are composers who demand a huge following and whose premiers are events. I am not so familiar with other countries, but I know Finland has Lindberg and Denmark has Norgard. There is a huge vacuum left by Ligeti in Western Europe, but I would have to venture Rihm.
Quote from: Catison on November 03, 2007, 08:00:33 PM
The idea of a leading composer in the 20th Century is just too old fashioned.
It's true!
Quote from: Catison on November 03, 2007, 08:00:33 PMThere is a huge vacuum left by Ligeti in Western Europe
Say WHAT???
Boulez, Henry, Dhomont (now that he's back in France), Bruemmer, Eckert, Huber, Marchetti (Walter and Lionel--not related), Radigue, Ferreyra, Bokanowski, and Lachenmann and Nørgård, already mentioned. These folks might um have a bit trouble accepting that there's a
huge vacuum.
Of course everyone misses György, but it seems to me that Ferrari is even more missed over there, perhaps because here was a huge presence who was finally, just at the end of his life, getting furtive little mentions in the books. All the people active in new music knew and loved him, as did some of us lucky listeners in the U.S. who found those precious and much coveted LPs in the seventies and eighties, but the book writers and the press (at least in the U.S.) just didn't catch on.
I don't think there is one. I listen to a lot of contemporary/modern music, and there are just so many styles, it would be foolish to say there was ONE composer really leading the way. There are several "groups" that come to mind though.
The Brits: Ades and Turnage
I'm just getting into them, but both seem to write sophisticated music that is challenging yet attractive (which seems to be a defining phrase these days). Ades is talked about already as a "wonder boy", I don't know about that yet, but I think they're going to be a big presence in the future.
The Finns: Saariaho, Aho, Lindberg, Salonen, Hakola, etc
Something was in the water over there the decade these were born...it's impressive, what a crop of classical musicians Finland has produced from that age group. All really interesting composers that share some similarities stylistically (due to their shared Sibelian heritage?) but have unique voices and aims. Well-crafted, colorfully orchestrated, easily likeable music. Definitely a force.
The Americans Minimalists: Reich, Glass, Adams
Extremely popular and performed a whole lot. I think they are, already, big leaders in the scene, especially here in America. All have reached "maturity" as composers and their premieres are met with much interest and high expectations.
Carter, Wuorinen: Both write challenging, but very interesting and provocative music. Carter has long been a force in the scene, and Wuorinen is already establishing himself as an important name.
John Corigliano, Christopher Rouse: Corigliano has enjoyed a lot of success, also a leader, his students (Eric Whitacre, Elliot Goldenthal, John Mackey) are also doing very well. Same with Rouse, who also has notable students.
Michael Daugherty, Richard Danielpour, Michael Torke: Well, these kind of come after the above, and are maybe not as strong compositionally, but are pretty well-known. The thing here is audiences like their music. Daugherty, opinions diverge, but he writes fun music and is getting performed a lot. Orchestras seem more than happy to premiere his new works, he is quite popular. Part of his name is helped by the wind band works he's composed, which are favorites for college bands to play at high profile perfomances.
Osvaldo Golijov, Jennifer Higdon, Michael Gandolfi ("The Atlanta School"): Very accessible but strong compositions, they've been lucky to have the backing of Robert Spano, who has made sure their works are getting good recordings and being performed, not only in Atlanta, but when he conducts other places. Golijov is hot right now, and will probably continue to be. Like his operas and vocal music a lot.
Aaron Jay Kernis, Steven Stucky: I like what I've heard from both of these over broadcasts, they're both composers-in-residence which is certainly helpful to them for premieres and commissions.
And there are so many more. I don't know the European scene that well, besides Rihm, and then we have the talented composers from Asia, like Tan Dun, all ones to watch out for.
There has not been a greatest living composer since Beethoven died.
Cato,
Funny how most of these composers of today are either minimalists or avant-gardists. I mean, where's the heavy-hitting Romantic composers of today? There's Atterberg but he doesn't have the depth. He's good though.
There really isn't another great Heavy hitter after Shostakovich. We don't need 'concept' experiments anymore. That was done already throughout the 1900's and hit the climax at 4"33''. What's next after absolute silence? Back to music, that's what!
Quit making noise and actually do something :D
Is this what we have to look forward to?? :
Penderecki, Stockhausen, Glass, Adams, Henze, Valentin Silvestrov, Lowell Liebermann, Aho, Saariaho, Pärt, Rutter
Come on... >:(
Frankly I think there is more anticipation in new works by people such as Andrew Lloyd Webber than any of the contemporary composers cited previously. The way in which new works tend to be ripped to shreds by critics during the annual Proms season in London would suggest that new 'serious' music will continue to fail to reach a wider audience and thus fail to be appreciated by anyone but a decreasing minority.
To answer the question 'why not?'. IMHO new music may well be technically brilliant but it rarely hits anything in terms of human emotional response - I may enjoy watching and listening to a new piece, but does it give me a buzz outside of appreciating the sequences and instrumentations? No - not really, so unless someone is tuned in (oh dear) to appreciating music as a collection of notes that create organised sound on a level aside from the emotional, then it doesn't work.
But then, what do I know?
Quote from: 12tone. on November 03, 2007, 10:42:56 PM
Cato,
Funny how most of these composers of today are either minimalists or avant-gardists. I mean, where's the heavy-hitting Romantic composers of today? There's Atterberg but he doesn't have the depth. He's good though.
There really isn't another great Heavy hitter after Shostakovich. We don't need 'concept' experiments anymore. That was done already throughout the 1900's and hit the climax at 4"33''. What's next after absolute silence? Back to music, that's what!
Quit making noise and actually do something :D
Is this what we have to look forward to?? :
Penderecki, Stockhausen, Glass, Adams, Henze, Valentin Silvestrov, Lowell Liebermann, Aho, Saariaho, Pärt, Rutter
Come on... >:(
Many thanks for all the responses!
Yes, there was an interregnum of sorts - perhaps - between Beethoven and Wagner - when is ours due to end?
Certainly the comment on fragmentation, with the Internet increasing it - seems to be on target.
Techniquest's comment also seems accurate: do we need or await a new Wunderkind (
Jay Greenberg?) to remedy this situation?
Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 03, 2007, 10:40:37 PM
There has not been a greatest living composer since Beethoven died.
Perhaps this can be argued for instrumental music. But
opera peeked after Beethoven with two of the greatest giants in the operetic world: VERDI 0:) and WAGNER 0:). I would like to argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss the history of opera without mentioning the works of these two composers- in addition, I like to think of Wagner as the rightful heir to Beethoven's throne ;D.
PS: in terms of late 19th early to mid 20th Century composers I am surprised that no one here has mentioned Richard Strauss and Puccini.
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on November 04, 2007, 06:07:45 AM
Perhaps this can be argued for instrumental music. But opera peeked after Beethoven with two of the greatest giants in the operetic world: VERDI 0:) and WAGNER 0:). I would like to argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss the history of opera without mentioning the works of these two composers- in addition, I like to think of Wagner as the rightful heir to Beethoven's throne ;D.
PS: in terms of late 19th early to mid 20th Century composers I am surprised that no one here has mentioned Richard Strauss and Puccini.
marvin
The point was a single greatest composer - given that Verdi and Wagner were contemporaries along with Brahms and a host of other great composers one cannot claim supremacy for a single one. No one has occupied the position Beethoven held in his career, nor will anyone likely do so in the future
Quote from: marvinbrown on November 04, 2007, 06:07:45 AM
Perhaps this can be argued for instrumental music. But opera peeked after Beethoven with two of the greatest giants in the operetic world: VERDI 0:) and WAGNER 0:). I would like to argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss the history of opera without mentioning the works of these two composers- in addition, I like to think of Wagner as the rightful heir to Beethoven's throne ;D.
PS: in terms of late 19th early to mid 20th Century composers I am surprised that no one here has mentioned Richard Strauss and Puccini.
marvin
I would have mentioned them. When you said "opera peaked after Beethoven with two of the greatest giants," I thought of Verdi and Puccini, with Strauss springing to mind immediately after.
As for major living composer, my choice writes operas, too, as well as symphonies, concertos, oratorios, chamber music, and so on: John Adams. I don't know any other contemporaries whose work in a variety of forms holds up so well with the masters of old. (Note: I'm not saying they don't exist, only that I don't know them).
Quote from: longears on November 04, 2007, 06:36:03 AM
I would have mentioned them. When you said "opera peaked after Beethoven with two of the greatest giants," I thought of Verdi and Puccini, with Strauss springing to mind immediately after.
I'm glad I wasn't the only person who thought of Puccini. :)
Quote from: Greta on November 03, 2007, 10:27:33 PMsophisticated music that is challenging yet attractive (which seems to be a defining phrase these days).
These days and the these days for the past fifty or sixty years, maybe more. Indeed, I learned back in the seventies, when I first started listening to "twentieth century music," that these words meant either "Well, it's difficult and ugly, but you might like it anyway; it's not
that bad" or "While most modern music is really awful, this composer has bravely gone his (or her) own way and written music that you will find to be pretty."
"Challenging yet attractive" I came to find was a clear warning: avoid this music! Why not attractive
because challenging? Attractive
because noisy,
because harsh,
because chaotic? Not that all good music is noisy, harsh and chaotic; of course it's not. But neither is it true that the only music worth listening to is "pretty in a nineteenth century sort of way." Or, as Greta describes the Finns she mentions, "Well-crafted, colorfully orchestrated, easily likeable music."
Warning! Danger!!
Or as she describes Carter and Wuorinen: "Both write challenging, but very interesting and provocative music." But. Always with the "buts." (Interesting
because challenging and provocative in their case.) Or this, about Golijov, Higdon, and Gandolfi: "Very accessible
but strong." [Emphasis mine.]
Ades, Saariaho, Aho, Lindberg, Salonen, Hakola, Reich, Glass, Adams, Corigliano, Rouse, Daugherty, Danielpour, Torke, Golijov, Higdon, Gandolfi, Kernis, Stucky, Rihm, Dun, these are "all ones to watch out for" according to Greta, after being at some pains to explain how well-known they all already are.
Sophisticated but not
too sophisticated. Challenging but not
too challenging. Strong but not
too strong. That's what we really want, it seems--the classic description of "mediocre." And many people--by no means all!!--on Greta's list are happy to oblige.
Seriously, do we really think that the mediocre are the leaders? But of course, we don't think they're mediocre--they just strike a balance between adventurous and safe, that's all. A middle ground, as it were...!
Quote from: Cato on November 04, 2007, 03:26:00 AM
Yes, there was an interregnum of sorts - perhaps - between Beethoven and Wagner - when is ours due to end?
Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Rossini--some interregnum! ...and I'll take any of them before Wagner.
I can't believe no one has mentioned
EINOJUHANI RAUTAVAARA
I'd place him WAYYYY above Lindberg or Bergman or Saariaho or Aho or any of the other Finns.
Quote from: some guy on November 04, 2007, 10:06:20 AM
These days and the these days for the past fifty or sixty years, maybe more. Indeed, I learned back in the seventies, when I first started listening to "twentieth century music," that these words meant either "Well, it's difficult and ugly, but you might like it anyway; it's not that bad" or "While most modern music is really awful, this composer has bravely gone his (or her) own way and written music that you will find to be pretty."
"Challenging yet attractive" I came to find was a clear warning: avoid this music! Why not attractive because challenging? Attractive because noisy, because harsh, because chaotic? Not that all good music is noisy, harsh and chaotic; of course it's not. But neither is it true that the only music worth listening to is "pretty in a nineteenth century sort of way." Or, as Greta describes the Finns she mentions, "Well-crafted, colorfully orchestrated, easily likeable music."
Warning! Danger!!
Or as she describes Carter and Wuorinen: "Both write challenging, but very interesting and provocative music." But. Always with the "buts." (Interesting because challenging and provocative in their case.) Or this, about Golijov, Higdon, and Gandolfi: "Very accessible but strong." [Emphasis mine.]
Ades, Saariaho, Aho, Lindberg, Salonen, Hakola, Reich, Glass, Adams, Corigliano, Rouse, Daugherty, Danielpour, Torke, Golijov, Higdon, Gandolfi, Kernis, Stucky, Rihm, Dun, these are "all ones to watch out for" according to Greta, after being at some pains to explain how well-known they all already are.
Sophisticated but not too sophisticated. Challenging but not too challenging. Strong but not too strong. That's what we really want, it seems--the classic description of "mediocre." And many people--by no means all!!--on Greta's list are happy to oblige.
Seriously, do we really think that the mediocre are the leaders? But of course, we don't think they're mediocre--they just strike a balance between adventurous and safe, that's all. A middle ground, as it were...!
I'm gonna have to disagree with this rant. It isn't as if there is a challenging side and an accessible side, so if you have a little of both you can only be in the middle. Every single composer's music is both challenging and accessible, but these attributes form a different balance depending on who you are talking to. Most really good compositions take a little bit of work to understand. Stylistic differences can often clash between composer and audience. Yet there is always a first layer that the audience can pick up on. In traditional music, this is the usually the melody or big tune. In experimental and modern music, it is something different. What characterizes a good composer is that his music has something else lying beneath this first layer. (Really great composers seem to have an infinite amount of layers to explore.) These other layers can be more challenging than the first. And this is how you get accessible yet challenging music.
Recently there has been a huge push to make that first layer more accessible. But that isn't to say that the composers are coping out. They honestly want their music to be understood and heard. John Adams, is a great example of this. On the surface his music is just pulsating chords, but there is always a weath of detail hiding under it. Wuorinen, a composer from the opposite side of everything from Adams, is similar. His music, although atonal, has an immediately understandable logic on its surface. But underneath is hiding so much energy and color, that it can be jarring how much you miss if you don't take the time to really listen to his music.
Quote from: Catison on November 04, 2007, 04:16:16 PM
I'm gonna have to disagree with this rant. It isn't as if there is a challenging side and an accessible side, so if you have a little of both you can only be in the middle. Every single composer's music is both challenging and accessible, but these attributes form a different balance depending on who you are talking to. Most really good compositions take a little bit of work to understand. Stylistic differences can often clash between composer and audience. Yet there is always a first layer that the audience can pick up on. In traditional music, this is the usually the melody or big tune. In experimental and modern music, it is something different. What characterizes a good composer is that his music has something else lying beneath this first layer. (Really great composers seem to have an infinite amount of layers to explore.) These other layers can be more challenging than the first. And this is how you get accessible yet challenging music.
Eloquently stated.
Quote from: Catison on November 04, 2007, 04:16:16 PM
I'm gonna have to disagree with this rant. It isn't as if there is a challenging side and an accessible side, so if you have a little of both you can only be in the middle. Every single composer's music is both challenging and accessible, but these attributes form a different balance depending on who you are talking to. Most really good compositions take a little bit of work to understand. Stylistic differences can often clash between composer and audience. Yet there is always a first layer that the audience can pick up on. In traditional music, this is the usually the melody or big tune. In experimental and modern music, it is something different. What characterizes a good composer is that his music has something else lying beneath this first layer. (Really great composers seem to have an infinite amount of layers to explore.) These other layers can be more challenging than the first. And this is how you get accessible yet challenging music.
Recently there has been a huge push to make that first layer more accessible. But that isn't to say that the composers are coping out. They honestly want their music to be understood and heard. John Adams, is a great example of this. On the surface his music is just pulsating chords, but there is always a weath of detail hiding under it. Wuorinen, a composer from the opposite side of everything from Adams, is similar. His music, although atonal, has an immediately understandable logic on its surface. But underneath is hiding so much energy and color, that it can be jarring how much you miss if you don't take the time to really listen to his music.
Very well put, Catison!
Eloquent to be sure, but at the expense of almost completely misunderstanding the rant he disagrees with. Hmmm. Maybe that's why it looked to me like Catison was not disagreeing with me.
Anyhow, if the two members of the Catison fan club, and perhaps Catison as well, will do me the favor of rereading my little rant, carefully, I'd be much obliged!! (If only so you don't miss the subtle pun at the end that cost me so much in mental power. I'm not as young as I used to be.)
Seriously, if you reread the rant, you'll see I'm not really so much talking about composers (as Catison does in his eloquent disagreement) as I am about people who write about music. So I'm not attacking the composers that Catison so ably defends--a sly dig at three or four of them is all. And so I have no particular quarrel with his assertion about layers of meaning being how you get accessible yet challenging music aside from pointing out that it just doesn't address my point.
And Catison's remark that composers "honestly want their music to be understood and heard" is as true a statement as anyone will ever make on this or any forum. But it's not just true for the composers that I implied were copping out. All composers, however "thorny" or "difficult" or "avant garde" or "noisy" or whatever, all of them want their music to be understood and heard.
Quote from: some guy on November 04, 2007, 09:50:12 PM
Anyhow, if the two members of the Catison fan club...
"Fan club"?
Try again...
Longears: I agree with you on that post-Beethoven interregnum, but it seems neverheless that none of them shook the world to the same degree as Beethoven or, later, Wagner.
It is interesting that Richard Strauss, who certainly was no conservative in his earlier years at least, and was for a time the/a leading light in music, faded so quickly in influence after Rosenkavalier. Perhaps if he had followed the path of Elektra he might have been able to match the new wave coming.
But that is another topic.
What is perhaps more interesting is the wealth of Scandinavians (should we include Miss Bjork?) as candidates for Leading Composer of the 21st Century!
What might be the cause of this? Perhaps the same new energy that has brought eco-techno-fame to e.g. Finland (Linux, Nokia)?
What would one need as additional proof, besides concert programming? A group of acolytes attempting similar stylistic feats? Number of available CD's?
Critical consensus? :o (Now that sounds scary!)
And on Catison's comment: to be sure, there is a thin line between being the leading composer of your day, and pleasing the audiences so your work will be heard.
Check out the comment above on Richard Strauss for the dangers involved!
I'm not one to usually incite rants here but anyway... 0:) I was just naming some names off the top of my head that seem to get performed and recorded frequently these days.
And I actually forgot Rautavaara. :o The older generation...Aulis Sallinen, also Paavo Heininen...great, great music. I wish they were played more here in the States. Rautavaara is I think long acknowledged as a leader in the Finnish contemporary area.
Quote from: some guy"Well-crafted, colorfully orchestrated, easily likeable music."
Warning! Danger!!
Really? I'm sorry, I don't like ugly, forbidding music. No matter how
sophisticated,
strong, or
challenging it is.
The above in quotes describes Rautavaara perfectly to me. And definitely Adams. Reich, Glass.
QuoteSeriously, if you reread the rant, you'll see I'm not really so much talking about composers (as Catison does in his eloquent disagreement) as I am about people who write about music.
Like me, right? :D I'm certainly not as eloquent as Brett, but what he said is the idea I had in mind, and I think is a reason why some of these composers are successful right now.
Quote from: CatisonThese other layers can be more challenging than the first. And this is how you get accessible yet challenging music.
Recently there has been a huge push to make that first layer more accessible. But that isn't to say that the composers are coping out. They honestly want their music to be understood and heard.
This is stated very well. I maintain there is nothing inherently wrong with music not being a wall for the audience to climb. And hopefully they find something of interest on the other side. With many I mentioned there (not all!), I personally do.
Audiences sitting in the concert hall hearing contemporary music often don't have the luxury of looking up a recording of the piece, or may not have ever heard of the composer, with new music there is a completely blank canvas that the composer has the length of the piece to paint a coherent picture on. Composers today show a "consciousness" of the audience that is translating to music that is easier to penetrate, though it can still have a lot going on underneath. There is still a lot of inaccessible music being written of course, but a lot of it I have heard lately is just not of good quality - as opposed to the mid-century music of Boulez or Webern, which can be difficult, but the quality of writing is very high. Of the high quality music being written currently, there is a larger proportion that tends toward more accessibility. We even have a section in the new edition of our Music History textbook, titled "The New Accessibility".
Quote"Challenging yet attractive" I came to find was a clear warning: avoid this music! Why not attractive because challenging? Attractive because noisy, because harsh, because chaotic?
There is a lot of music I find attractive for all these reasons, though many other people do not...Berio, Ives, Varese, Messiaen fit the above descriptors. But unfortunately they are all dead! ;)
Quote from: Cato on November 05, 2007, 03:30:41 AM
Longears: I agree with you on that post-Beethoven interregnum, but it seems neverheless that none of them shook the world to the same degree as Beethoven or, later, Wagner.
Yes, I believe whole-heartedly that nobody shook the music world quite like Beethoven and later his rightful heir WAGNER. In the words of Gustav Mahler-"There was only Beethoven and Wagner". Wagner, a great admirer of Beethoven, intended to pick up where Beethoven left off. He saw in Beethoven's 9th Symphony the "genesis" of his music dramas, and much like Beethoven he revolutionized music in ways never before imaginable. In the opera world he surpasses every composer I can think of.
marvin
Quote from: Cato on November 05, 2007, 03:30:41 AM
What is perhaps more interesting is the wealth of Scandinavians (should we include Miss Bjork?) as candidates for Leading Composer of the 21st Century!
What might be the cause of this?
a) Sibelius
b) Nielsen
c) As a consequence of a, the very strong composition and conducting programs of the Sibelius Academy.
Quote from: marvinbrown on November 05, 2007, 04:06:03 AM
Yes, I believe whole-heartedly that nobody shook the music world quite like Beethoven and later his rightful heir WAGNER. In the words of Gustav Mahler-"There was only Beethoven and Wagner". Wagner, a great admirer of Beethoven, intended to pick up where Beethoven left off. He saw in Beethoven's 9th Symphony the "genesis" of his music dramas, and much like Beethoven he revolutionized music in ways never before imaginable. In the opera world he surpasses every composer I can think of.
Don't you mean "Beethoven and his rightful heir
Elgar?"
If Wagner intended to pick up where Beethoven left off, then he missed the mark by a country mile. Beethoven left off with pure music of timeless beauty in the late symphonies, piano sonatas, and string quartets. Wagner wrote "music dramas" (not operas) in which the music is subservient to the drama (or lethargy, depending on your point of view).
You, of course, are entitled to your opinion, and may take comfort in the fact that many more share your opinion of Wagner than share 71dB's opinion of Elgar.
As for opera, even if we stretch the category to include Wagner's set pieces, he's not even a patch on Mozart, nor, for that matter, on Verdi, Puccini, Rossini, or Strauss. Of course, not suffering from narcissistic grandiosity, they had the good sense to work with librettists who knew a thing or two about drama, thus produced entertaining works that sparkle with wit and humanity, rather than turgid, stillborn, pretentious monuments to one sad little man's vanity (but he was a genius at self-promotion, I'll sure grant him that!).
Quote from: longears on November 05, 2007, 05:13:56 AM
Don't you mean "Beethoven and his rightful heir Elgar?"
If Wagner intended to pick up where Beethoven left off, then he missed the mark by a country mile. Beethoven left off with pure music of timeless beauty in the late symphonies, piano sonatas, and string quartets. Wagner wrote "music dramas" (not operas) in which the music is subservient to the drama (or lethargy, depending on your point of view).
If we forget about Wagner for a moment and look at this academically are we to believe that no one was able to match Beethoven's accomplishment in music after his death? what are we saying here, Beethoven has no heir, has GREAT music ended with Beethoven? Its a very sad thought and one that I am sure Mahler and Bruckner would not have agreed with. If not Wagner who then? and who now in this present age? Music has changed dramatically after Beethoven's death and the revolutionaries that changed it are Wagner, Mahler, Schoenberg, and countless others, even R. Strauss contributed as well. I do recognize GREATNESS in music even after Beethoven.
By the way I never argued that Wagner was the GREATEST composer to have ever lived but he sure is a front runner for the Greatest
opera composer to have ever lived.
marvin
Greta, I would say that I don't like ugly music, either, were it not that my point is that "ugly" is largely a matter of where you're standing. That is, something you might find ugly, I might find beautiful. And vice versa.
I certainly was not saying that I don't like well-crafted and colorfully orchestrated music, either, but simply that those words (especially when coupled with the words "easily likable," set off a red flag for me.
I too could say I like accessible music, music that's easily likable. But what I'd be referring to would be Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Tudor, Yoshihide, Rowe--folks like that. Music that I find it easy to like. Music that I find accessible. But if you were to say you liked accessible music, meaning Ades or Barber, and I said I liked accessible music, meaning Merzow or Marclay, well you see how we would be talking about very different things even though we were using the same words.
I'm suspicious, at the very least, of discourse that relies on words that can have practically any kind of content, and worse, that uses those words as if they in fact referred to one kind of thing and one only. I like beautiful music as much as you do, you see, but what I find beautiful and what you find beautiful could perhaps be quite different things.
Quote from: longears on November 05, 2007, 05:13:56 AM
If Wagner intended to pick up where Beethoven left off, then he missed the mark by a country mile.
Great question! I don't think it is so much that
Wagner wanted to pick up where
Beethoven left off, but that
Wagner wanted to legitimize his own work as an "inevitable" Artwork of the Future, by the notion that after
Beethoven, music
had to go The
Wagner Way.
You may think this splitting hairs (and maybe it is); another way of looking at it, perhaps, is that
Wagner picked up on those few bits of
Beethoven which he selectively filtered as Important; which is a different matter to seeing all the musical value in the
Beethoven oeuvre.
Quote from: marvinbrown on November 05, 2007, 10:04:45 AM
but he sure is a front runner for the Greatest opera composer to have ever lived.
But he is not quite as fast as Mozart in that regard
Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 05, 2007, 10:20:18 AM
But he is not quite as fast as Mozart in that regard
LOL :D a very clever remark indeed.
marvin
Quote from: karlhenning on November 05, 2007, 10:13:31 AM
Great question! I don't think it is so much that Wagner wanted to pick up where Beethoven left off, but that Wagner wanted to legitimize his own work as an "inevitable" Artwork of the Future, by the notion that after Beethoven, music had to go The Wagner Way.
Thank you Karl for explaining it in words that escaped me.
marvin
Quote from: some guy on November 05, 2007, 10:08:23 AM
Greta, I would say that I don't like ugly music, either, were it not that my point is that "ugly" is largely a matter of where you're standing. That is, something you might find ugly, I might find beautiful. And vice versa.
I certainly was not saying that I don't like well-crafted and colorfully orchestrated music, either, but simply that those words (especially when coupled with the words "easily likable," set off a red flag for me.
I too could say I like accessible music, music that's easily likable. But what I'd be referring to would be Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Tudor, Yoshihide, Rowe--folks like that. Music that I find it easy to like. Music that I find accessible. But if you were to say you liked accessible music, meaning Ades or Barber, and I said I liked accessible music, meaning Merzow or Marclay, well you see how we would be talking about very different things even though we were using the same words.
I'm suspicious, at the very least, of discourse that relies on words that can have practically any kind of content, and worse, that uses those words as if they in fact referred to one kind of thing and one only. I like beautiful music as much as you do, you see, but what I find beautiful and what you find beautiful could perhaps be quite different things.
But I think you are overlooking one of the most valuable resouces in this discussion: the composers themselves. When it was a taboo 50 years ago, it is now more common then not to hear composers talking about how they write for their audiences. This really is happening and is a dramatic shift from the rhetoric of the middle 20th Century. Those composers were writing for their legacy, for a future audience. They couldn't care what anyone throught about their music. Now composers are writing for the current audience and hoping for a legacy built upon their current reputation.
As an example, take the violin concertos of Schoenberg and Adams. The "layers" argument works nicely here. Schoenberg's outer layer is dominated by its twelve-tone origins. It is harmonically complex, and its melodies can seem elusive. Adams' concerto is infused with clanking rhythmic patterns, which about anyone can tap their feet to. The middle movement has a ground based on Pachebel's Canon, the epidome of accessible music, and the finale is a sparkling color wheel, spinning at breakneck speed.
But looking underneath, the picture is very different. Adams builds the first movement of his concerto up through a constantly evolving melody. It is impossible to find a tune, although it feels like one is just under the surface. The Pachebel ground in the second movement is only superfically there. The notes are interchanged with beat patterns of three, four, and five shifting around. On the first hearing it is impossible to judge just how the bass moves next. (Here (http://csobassblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/hangover.html) is a bassist talking about how irregular a seemingly regular Adams bass part can be.) And the third, supercharged movement is
perpetuo, but with so much synchopation, it is like the violin part pauses at random to catch its breath. The Schoenberg, for all its expressionistic harmony, is just a Brahms concerto in disguise. The form could not be more straightfoward. Schoenberg relied upon the depth of his harmonic language to carry his voice (making him and Stravinsky such antagonists). His forms were traditional.
So both composers are accessible in their own way: Schoenberg in his forms, Adams in his physical energy. But which of these is an audience going to respond to more easily? How many people are going to recognize Brahms in Schoenberg? How many people are going to tap their feet to Adams? These are leading questions, but the point is clear. Adams builds into his music a more immediate impact for his audience. That isn't coping out, not with the level of detail behind that first impact.
Both the Adams and Schoenberg concertos are some of my favorite pieces of music. I liked Adams immediately, and I still enjoy revisiting his music. The energy is palpable and sometimes just plain breathtakingly gorgeous. Schoenberg required a long journey for me, but one well worth it. There is little other music that is so beautiful. I'd call one of these composers accessible, and the other not so much, but the end result is the same. Composers today are recognizing that. The words 'challenging', 'rewarding', and 'accessible' don't have to be coupled, like composers half a century ago thought. It is an old-fashioned thought now, and people like Adams prove it.
Quote from: Guido on November 03, 2007, 05:03:22 PM
You really think that Holloway is the world's greatest living composer? Better than Kurtag, Dutilleux, Carter?
Perhaps you have a vested interest in saying that - maybe he reads these forums!
Haha fear not, I know the music of not one of them. Anything beyond 1750 is simply not music ;-) However he is my lecturer so perhaps I should be nice, for extra marks/brownie points...
Quote from: Lethe on November 03, 2007, 12:04:40 PM
Penderecki is difficult, as it could well be him, basing the balance on musical quality as well as everybody knowing his name. The problem with calling him a leading composer of today is that he would be named that for music he composed over 30 years ago.
Except his late chamber music walks all over his early stuff. What, it isn't great unless it's 12 tone?
Schnittke (emotional content) and Ligeti (craft) are my first choice when it comes to contemporary composers. Unless of course were are talking about living ones.
Quote from: Greta on November 05, 2007, 03:38:53 AM
...Music History textbook, titled "The New Accessibility".
Is this Grout? I absolutely hate the chapters on 20th Century music, and I'm glad he keeps them short.
Catison, it's true that in the post you quote I don't talk about what composers think about audience. But that's because I'm trying to make a point about the discussion in that post, not about the music.
In a previous post, I do talk about composers, about how they want to be understood and heard, all of them. And while all composers do write to a greater or lesser extent for an audience, the makeup of that audience differs from composer to composer. (Tim Hodgkinson doesn't write for the same audience as Rautavaara does.)
For most of the people I know, audience is not primary. Sound is. Once they've done whatever they're going to do with whatever sounds they've chosen, they of course want people to listen to the results and to like them. Only natural. I suppose anyone could be thinking about what other people like, but I suspect for most composers that that's secondary to thinking about their materials and what to do with them. Only makes sense. Your materials are something you know, the clarinet or the violin or the sawtooth wave or the sample of train brakes or whatever. The audience (that great amorphous, indefinable, contradictory beast) is less known--because less knowable.
And just by the way, that taboo you mention is largely illusory, given a spurious sense of reality by being repeated over and over again in history books and music reviews. I know what Babbitt titled his famous (infamous) essay, but I also know (having actually read it) that it's a positive essay with positive advice for composers. It's not a "turn your back on the audience and write for the future" kind of thing at all. No, I'm pretty sure that all composers always have been interested that people respond well to what they do. And I'm pretty sure that all composers always have concentrated on musical concerns when composing.
Quote from: longears on November 05, 2007, 05:13:56 AM
As for opera, even if we stretch the category to include Wagner's set pieces, he's not even a patch on Mozart, nor, for that matter, on Verdi, Puccini, Rossini, or Strauss. Of course, not suffering from narcissistic grandiosity, they had the good sense to work with librettists who knew a thing or two about drama, thus produced entertaining works that sparkle with wit and humanity, rather than turgid, stillborn, pretentious monuments to one sad little man's vanity (but he was a genius at self-promotion, I'll sure grant him that!).
I hope this Wagner bashing feels good. Does it calm your vanity and increase your self-promotion? I love Wagner, but you wrote the above. You must hear what I can't, you musical genius you. I know it's not rational to have to begin every post on his forum with "in my opinion," but...
If there isn't at least one, why not? That's a great question. Why isn't there a music champion today?
Quote from: marvinbrown on November 05, 2007, 10:04:45 AM
If we forget about Wagner for a moment and look at this academically are we to believe that no one was able to match Beethoven's accomplishment in music after his death? what are we saying here, Beethoven has no heir, has GREAT music ended with Beethoven? ... If not Wagner who then? and who now in this present age? ... By the way I never argued that Wagner was the GREATEST composer to have ever lived but he sure is a front runner for the Greatest opera composer to have ever lived.
Great music certainly didn't end with Beethoven, even though I think no one has bettered or even matched his music for solo piano and for string quartet, and only Sibelius surpassed his symphonic work. Great composers certainly didn't end with Beethoven, either. For my money, Brahms, Dvorak, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Debussy, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, and Shostakovich at the very least were great in the same broad sense, and Schubert, Verdi, Puccini, Strauss, Chopin, Berlioz, and, yes, even Wagner were all great in a narrower sense.
Some regard Brahms as LvB's heir. I don't think
anyone after LvB has matched his achievement, and perhaps only Mozart before. And (as I said earlier) even if you regard Wagner as an opera composer, he wasn't a patch on Mozart. I also already offered my candidate for the present age: John Adams.
Quote from: longears on November 05, 2007, 02:28:36 PM
Great music certainly didn't end with Beethoven, even though I think no one has bettered or even matched his music for solo piano and for string quartet, and only Sibelius surpassed his symphonic work. Great composers certainly didn't end with Beethoven, either. For my money, Brahms, Dvorak, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Debussy, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, and Shostakovich at the very least were great in the same broad sense, and Schubert, Verdi, Puccini, Strauss, Chopin, Berlioz, and, yes, even Wagner were all great in a narrower sense.
Some regard Brahms as LvB's heir. I don't think anyone after LvB has matched his achievement, and perhaps only Mozart before. And (as I said earlier) even if you regard Wagner as an opera composer, he wasn't a patch on Mozart. I also already offered my candidate for the present age: John Adams.
Fair enough I will respect your opinion :).
marvin
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on November 05, 2007, 01:11:07 PM
I hope this Wagner bashing feels good.
Wagner bashing? ??? I think the comments about his personality are incontrovertible, and the linkage between his character flaws and the flaws in his art seems obvious.
Quote from: longears on November 05, 2007, 02:38:35 PM
Wagner bashing? ??? I think the comments about his personality are incontrovertible, and the linkage between his character flaws and the flaws in his art seems obvious.
That comment is uncalled for.
marvin
Quote from: some guy on November 05, 2007, 12:39:18 PM
Catison, it's true that in the post you quote I don't talk about what composers think about audience. But that's because I'm trying to make a point about the discussion in that post, not about the music.
In a previous post, I do talk about composers, about how they want to be understood and heard, all of them. And while all composers do write to a greater or lesser extent for an audience, the makeup of that audience differs from composer to composer. (Tim Hodgkinson doesn't write for the same audience as Rautavaara does.)
For most of the people I know, audience is not primary. Sound is. Once they've done whatever they're going to do with whatever sounds they've chosen, they of course want people to listen to the results and to like them. Only natural. I suppose anyone could be thinking about what other people like, but I suspect for most composers that that's secondary to thinking about their materials and what to do with them. Only makes sense. Your materials are something you know, the clarinet or the violin or the sawtooth wave or the sample of train brakes or whatever. The audience (that great amorphous, indefinable, contradictory beast) is less known--because less knowable.
The point of my post is that this music-first-audience-second idea is starting to dither away. Or, to put it more into the modernist perspective, the audience's reaction is influencing the sound world of composers. The audience may be amorphous, but it is the composer's conception of who that audience might be that directs their sound. Of course, it has always been this way, but the difference is that in the mid-20th Century, that audience was some unknown distance away, an audience who had evolved enough to get it, but as the evolutionary idea of music is dying, that conceptual audience has retreated from the future into the present.
Quote from: some guy on November 05, 2007, 12:39:18 PM
And just by the way, that taboo you mention is largely illusory, given a spurious sense of reality by being repeated over and over again in history books and music reviews. I know what Babbitt titled his famous (infamous) essay, but I also know (having actually read it) that it's a positive essay with positive advice for composers. It's not a "turn your back on the audience and write for the future" kind of thing at all. No, I'm pretty sure that all composers always have been interested that people respond well to what they do. And I'm pretty sure that all composers always have concentrated on musical concerns when composing.
I have read the Babbitt essay (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,757.msg102872.html#msg102872) as well. The essay has been mischaracterized more than Babbitt's music has actually been heard, I would think. But I wouldn't call it an advice article. He was defending highly complex music, music so complicated and academic (ewww, bad word) that the audience at the time of its conception would be small. He was arguing for equal opportunity research for the arts. Why should physics be allowed to progress unchecked by the opinion of the masses and music not?
This assumes there would be an audience in the future, however. That is Babbitt's unsaid hypothesis. Just as the most academic, abstract research into quantum mechanics eventually filters down into the textbooks of high school, the modernist composers assumed that their music would eventually enter the repertoire of the NY Phil. Webern thought people would be whistling his music, walking down the road to buy milk (sorry, bad joke). These composers were writing for that unseen audience, just over the horizon. By this hypothesis, the modern composers were able to create amazing music. There are a lot of modernist masterpieces written in the 20th Century. If they were worried about how people around them would judge their music, then they might have composed differently, one never knows.
But that hypothesis is now horribly old-fashioned. Composers are, in general, more concerned with how their music is received by the audience of the present, whatever that is, than they have been in the past. And it is creating a different type of music, not better or worse, just different.
So naturally, to get back to the subject of this thread, the leading composers of our time are going to be more concerned with current audiences. And hence, in the words of Greta, their music is going to be accessible, but challenging, or complex, but beautiful. In the post-modern world, those "buts" are important.
Quote from: marvinbrown on November 05, 2007, 02:45:27 PM
That comment is uncalled for.
Not everyone here is as gentlemanly as you, Marvin. Another poster "called for it" when he referred to my earlier comments as "Wagner bashing" and then further impugned my character and motives for posting.
Wagner strikes again? Now someone bring up 4'33" and the circle will be complete.
Oops.
Quote from: longears on November 05, 2007, 03:28:28 PM
Not everyone here is as gentlemanly as you, Marvin. Another poster "called for it" when he referred to my earlier comments as "Wagner bashing" and then further impugned my character and motives for posting.
This was your Wagner bashing: "As for opera, even if we stretch the category to include Wagner's set pieces, he's not even a patch on Mozart, nor, for that matter, on Verdi, Puccini, Rossini, or Strauss. Of course, not suffering from narcissistic grandiosity, they had the good sense to work with librettists who knew a thing or two about drama, thus produced entertaining works that sparkle with wit and humanity, rather than turgid, stillborn, pretentious monuments to one sad little man's
vanity (but he was a genius at
self-promotion, I'll sure grant him that!)."
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on November 05, 2007, 01:11:07 PM
I hope this Wagner bashing feels good. Does it calm your vanity and increase your self-promotion?
Quote from: longears on November 05, 2007, 02:38:35 PM
Wagner bashing? ??? I think the comments about his personality are incontrovertible, and the linkage between his character flaws and the flaws in his art seems obvious.
Quote from: Cato on November 03, 2007, 11:49:50 AM
In the hope of distracting certain people from creeping Pink-Harpism on another topic, allow me to ask the following question:
Who is the THE leading contemporary composer today?
(The answer is NOT Elgar!)
In the later 19th century of course Wagner was #1, even the anti-Wagnerians had to admit that. Before him no doubt it was Beethoven.
In the last century, there were 2 who held sway for several decades: Schoenberg and Stravinsky. Perhaps Shostakovich nudged them aside in the 1950's.
Do they have counterparts today? If not, why not?
I recall when the classical music world waited with excitement for the latest musical statement from Stravinsky and Shostakovich.
For whose work do we wait with excitement today?
In no particular order I offer these nominees: feel free to add your own!
Penderecki, Stockhausen, Glass, Adams, Henze, Valentin Silvestrov, Lowell Liebermann, Aho, Saariaho, Pärt, Rutter...?
(Fill in your nominee!)
And if not one of these qualifies, why not? Is the classical musical world too fragmented to have one reigning light showing the way? Too many "-isms" (Minimalism, Neo-Medievalism, Neo-Romanticism) or too many hyper-individualized styles (Stockhausen)?
(http://jove.prohosting.com/steg33/Img/bilbo.jpg)
Bilbo Baggins.
This hobbit wrote some great music... ;D
Osvaldo Golijov.
Regarding the last 30 years, I think that the greatest composer is DUTILLEUX. His 2nd Symphony, the cello and the violin concertos and above all the extraordinary string quartet are among the most inspired works of the 20th century.
After Dutilleux I would refer BOULEZ (Pli selon Pli, Le Marteau sans Maitre, Rituel), BERIO (Coro, Sinfonia), NONO (Il Canto Sospeso, Como una ola de fuerza y luz, string quartet an Diotima).
Quote from: val on November 06, 2007, 12:06:53 AM
Regarding the last 30 years, I think that the greatest composer is DUTILLEUX. His 2nd Symphony, the cello and the violin concertos and above all the extraordinary string quartet are among the most inspired works of the 20th century.
After Dutilleux I would refer BOULEZ (Pli selon Pli, Le Marteau sans Maitre, Rituel), BERIO (Coro, Sinfonia), NONO (Il Canto Sospeso, Como una ola de fuerza y luz, string quartet an Diotima).
Dutilleux is an interesting choice, but again I wonder about the criteria of influence or at least consensus. Is he blazing a path where others are following, and then blazing their own paths? (cf.
Schoenberg, Berg, Webern or
Wagner, Strauss, Mahler).
One would think that it should be
Boulez, but I fear, like with
Bernstein, he will remain a might-have-been.
Certainly 50 years ago
Boulez had a chance of being perhaps the first influential composer/conductor since
Mahler.
What happened? No great, famous audience pleaser was composed, too much time given to conducting and recording, etc....?
Or will compositions by
Boulez be experiencing a resurrection 0:) of interest?
Or perhaps the man has a few more desk-hidden compositions waiting to shake our ears and souls (cf.
Explosante-fixe), and they will establish his reputation as #1
non pareil. 8)
Quote from: longears on November 05, 2007, 02:28:36 PM
I don't think anyone after LvB has matched his achievement . . . .
Of course not; every great composer's oeuvre is
sui generis, partly because no two composers work in quite the same "field."
There have been many great composers since
Beethoven; but no, no one has 'matched his achievement'.
Apart from the fact he's dead, Howells. Fantastic Requiem.
A reference to Herbert Howells:
http://www.fasindy.org/Programs/ChoralColors/Howells.html
Amazon lists a good number of recordings, including a CHANDOS release with assorted orchestral works, and a CD with 2 piano concerti.
Howells died in the 1980's: his music seems to be in the tradition of Ralph Vaughan Williams.
I only bumped into this interesting thread today. And it isn't without a bit of merriment that I contemplate its final outcome: the last man standing turned out to be Herbert Howells...
I wonder if the musical world might be so fragmented today, that finding a handful of leading composers, or even just one, has become impossible.
For example, what would a composer who leans toward e.g. Boulezianism :o directly find in Lauridsen or Pärt ?
On the other hand, an eclectic type would not find any contradictions! 0:)
Quote from: 12tone. on November 03, 2007, 10:42:56 PM
Cato,
Funny how most of these composers of today are either minimalists or avant-gardists. I mean, where's the heavy-hitting Romantic composers of today? There's Atterberg but he doesn't have the depth. He's good though.
There really isn't another great Heavy hitter after Shostakovich. We don't need 'concept' experiments anymore. That was done already throughout the 1900's and hit the climax at 4"33''. What's next after absolute silence? Back to music, that's what!
Quit making noise and actually do something :D
Is this what we have to look forward to?? :
Penderecki, Stockhausen, Glass, Adams, Henze, Valentin Silvestrov, Lowell Liebermann, Aho, Saariaho, Pärt, Rutter
Come on... >:(
There are lots of living neo-romantic, neo-classical and neo-modern living composers. My biases first, I don't like minimalism or avant-garde. I like basically tonal music, although it can use dissonance as a device to create excitement as Bartok and Stravinsky have done, however I don't like clashing ugly atonal music.
Here are my favorite living Classical composers (mostly neo-romantic)
DAUGHERTY, MICHAEL (1954-
DAVIES, SIR PETER MAXWELL (1934-
ELFMAN. DANNY (1953-
GANDOLFI, MICHAEL (1956-
HÖGBERG, FREDRIK (1971-
LINDBERG, CHRISTIAN (1958-
MacMILLAN, JAMES (1959-
MEIJ, JOHAN DE (1953-
NELSON, RON (1929-
THEOFANIDIS, CHRISTOPHER (1967-
ZABEL, FRANK (1968-
And here is my nomination of the finest living Classical Composer:
HIGDON, JENNIFER (1962-
My work here has not even begun . . . .
Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2009, 01:01:25 PM
And here is my nomination of the finest living Classical Composer:
HIGDON, JENNIFER (1962-
Hurwitz has this to say:
"Jennifer Higdon's lively allegros and poetic slow movements, modern in conception and technique yet approachable and not afraid of a good tune now and then, strikes me as some of the best work being done on the contemporary music scene."
I've ordered the Telarc recording of her Concerto for Orchestra. Thanks for bringing this composer to my attention.
Sarge
For a discography of Jennifer Higdon nominated by Teresa above:
www.jenniferhigdon.com
Thank heavens her name is not Tiffany or Amber or something else "inappropriate" for a composer! $:)
As for composers named "Danny" or "Ron" ... 8)
Maybe I will start a new topic on composer's names!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 23, 2009, 01:14:05 PM
Hurwitz has this to say:
"Jennifer Higdon's lively allegros and poetic slow movements, modern in conception and technique yet approachable and not afraid of a good tune now and then, strikes me as some of the best work being done on the contemporary music scene."
I do professionally detest the snide undertone encoded in
and not afraid of a good tune now and then. Which, of course, is a remark on Hurwitz, and not at all on the composer.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 23, 2009, 01:26:24 PM
I do professionally detest the snide undertone encoded in and not afraid of a good tune now and then. Which, of course, is a remark on Hurwitz, and not at all on the composer.
Well, I know Hurwitz's views on much of the music of the last half century, so that kind of remark doesn't register with me. I think it's as ignorant as Cuddles recent remark that Strauss's
Salome has no memorable melodies or tunes. You just have to laugh ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Cato on February 23, 2009, 01:25:02 PM
Thank heavens her name is not Tiffany or Amber or something else "inappropriate" for a composer! $:)
Bambi Higdon....yes, a name like that would have doomed her to a far different career path ;D
Thanks for the link, Cato.
Sarge
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 06, 2007, 06:48:32 AM
Of course not; every great composer's oeuvre is sui generis, partly because no two composers work in quite the same "field."
There have been many great composers since Beethoven; but no, no one has 'matched his achievement'.
I often think that when listening to the Late String Quartets.
my 2 cents, IMHO (finally figured THAT out!)
Boulez and Carter MAY get front page obituaries...however...
I believe we live in an age where the PERFORMER has become the new star. Consider how, in a backwards way, the Arditti Quartet IS the composer of the how many hundreds of pieces written for them. Apparently there WAS NO INSPIRATION (to write str. qrts. in the 70s)before they came along (don't take me literally), but look at how just about every major composer has TRIED to write something reallly good for them. The same goes for EnsembleIntercontemporain and all the other superstar groups out there. Where would Terry Riley be without Kronos? Maybe I'm not using the best words right now, but does anyone know what I'm saying? It's the age of the performer.
And no one has mentioned just the modern world we live in. Beethoven didn't have cds, or marketing firms, or Warner Bros Inc. Things are different now.
For me, the "composer age" ends with Stravinsky '71- DSCH '75....then we have a "dark age", and when we wake up in the late 80s, pow!, the world is starting to get a lot different. I think in the late 80s and 90s we have a final flowering of the "classic modernists" (Ligeti, Cage, Xenakis, Berio, et al), but they are all gone but Boulez and Carter (and a few others)....and "the world at large" NEVER liked their stuff the way "normal" people like Beethoven, Mozart, etc.
Call it the "granny test."
Sometimes I get the feeling that labels that want to make complete editions of modern composers (like Timpani w/Xenakis) must be CRAZY. How many people outside of an avant-garde forum are going to buy these cds? I get embarassed thinking they did it all for just little ole me. How do they make money??? How many people are going to buy a Kagel box, or a Nono box set, or wot not?
Think about recent "crossover" blockbusters: Gorecki's 3rd, The Red Violin/ The Piano....everything I can think of comes on elektra-nonsuch!! This is the kind of classical that "the world" waits with baited breath for.
Me, personally...I thought at some point that NO new piece of music should be written until ALL the old music has been recorded. Can you think of a particular piece of music that you scratch your head saying, "WHY haven't they done this yet?" All you young music composer wanna be's.....why can't more of you want to be conductors?
Admittedly, BIS and such labels boggle the mind with the amount of music they've unearthed.
Look, I "like" most of the composers mentioned on this thread already. That's not the issue. We all (well, most of us,haha) seem to like a LOT of currently active composers. But forgive me, but I never seem to hear about "crap music" on this forum, and I for one have heard oodles of it.
I was surfing the net and saw someone say, "The Killers (a current pop band) are killing music." HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER SAID SOMETHING LIKE THIS? I know someone here seems to think that Wagner killed music. But seriously, does crap only happen in the pop field? Yanni? Kenny G? It's sad, but it seems if I want to know who I'm not going to like, I simply have to look at the last ten years of the Kronos Qrt. borrrring. I finally got Tan Dun "Ghost Opera" from the library, really expecting something cool, and boy was I let down. Golijov?- enough with the klezmer as classical thing already. ONE CD of Piazzolla's tangos was enough for me. IT'S POP MUSIC. POP. POP. Tavener? Part?
I'D like to be a composer, but I'm like what's the point? How many "serenly beautiful" adagios does the world need? as in "the adagio has something of the Barber in it."
Maybe that's why "high moderism" was so...mmm...complex? nobody could TELL if it were crap or manna, but I've heard first works (from the 60s) by today's major composers, and I tell you not even they could resist the hippie stuff. But I like to think I have a high alert "crap factor" button in me, and when someone tries to foist the "emperor has no clothes" on me, I get really offended. I'm thinking of the endless minimalism, though I remember when "The Thin Blue Line" movie came out, I thought that this Philip Glass guy was cool. That was then.
back to the performers. I start thinking that technique has gotten so far that "composers" are there just to "organize" the plethora? of options,...Sciarrino, for instance (whom I really dig). Where would he be if he couldn't just sit there and listen to someone playing the tuba in every conceivable fashion, and then just write down his "observations"? But yes, it DOES take a really creative mind to put all these sounds together so that someone might take pleasure in them (as opposed to a dry academic exercise). Glokobar?
whew....I'm ranting, I know.
I am not waiting with baited breath for ANY new music, from Carter to The Killers to the next blues guitar sensation to the Blue Man Group to the reunion of Pink Floyd, the Who, or the Stones.
I never NEEDED Paul McCartney to write classical....arrrgh.
Here's something.....Wuorinen, or Glass, or one of you fellows....you want to impress me? Write a kick ass POP song that goes straight to number one. THAT would be something.
And The Killers...you want to impress me? Write a kick ass old school symphony.
But you won't.
Hey, and Arditti...how about finishing up the old school guys before you give all your recording time to students. Sorry if I sound harsh.
But yea, it's basically 2010 and the music biz seems just like this economic quagmire...instead of going back and fixing old mistakes (like completing surveys by dead composers) you just throw more and more money (new composers) at the problem.
I TOTALLY agree with the guy who runs at "challenging but accessable". I used to call that King Crimson or Pink Floyd or led Zeppelin.
IMHO there are no more masterpieces to be written...or needed.
I'm thinking of the term "sadly neglected composer."
I hope I haven't offended anyone. Please forgive me if I have. Thank you! >:( :( :o :'( :-\ :-X
Quote from: Catison on November 03, 2007, 08:00:33 PM
The idea of a leading composer in the 20th Century is just too old fashioned. There are many leading composers. In America, we have Carter, Wuorinen, Reich, and Adams. These are composers who demand a huge following and whose premiers are events. I am not so familiar with other countries, but I know Finland has Lindberg and Denmark has Norgard. There is a huge vacuum left by Ligeti in Western Europe, but I would have to venture Rihm.
(My emphasis)
Snyprr:
Catison wrote that back in November, so s/he would possibly agree with your statement that performers are dominant over composers right now.
Some of your comments remind me of
Hermann Hesse's novel
Das Glasperlenspiel (translated either as
Magister Ludi or more literally
The Glass Bead Game).
In this novel he postulates a future society that resembles a strange Middle Ages: no new art is being produced, because of an attitude that everything valuable in Art has already been produced. With everything frozen, creativity has few outlets. One is critical interpretation of the past.
The other is The Glass Bead Game, which allows creative types to find mystical connections among every aspect of creation, i.e how the motto of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony might connect to a Chinese epigram, as well as Polynesian battle cries or other such esoterica.
That the major/minor system is "worn out" and, nothing new is possible therefore, is an idea which led
Schoenberg to the 12-tone method. (He later relented on the absolute impossibility of doing something new with the key system.) Obviously it led to all the other experiments in xenharmony, musique concrete, etc.
Whenever old
Elliot Carter decides it is time to shake hands with
Jesus, we will see if the CBS Evening News carries a retrospective.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 17, 2009, 11:49:18 PM
. . . I believe we live in an age where the PERFORMER has become the new star.
Not sure I can agree; however, that does seem to be the driver for the big recording distributors.
Revisiting this recently resurrected thread this morning, I discovered a couple of surprising comments by our beloved schoolmaster, Cato.
Quote from: Cato on February 23, 2009, 01:25:02 PM[re. Jennifer Higdon]: Thank heavens her name is not Tiffany or Amber or something else "inappropriate" for a composer!
Eh? Surely you're old enough to remember that damn near every bimbo who came of age in the '80s was named Jennifer?
Quote from: Cato on November 03, 2007, 11:49:50 AMIn the later 19th century of course Wagner was #1, even the anti-Wagnerians had to admit that.
Have you forgotten Brahms and the great divide?
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 18, 2009, 06:38:04 AM
Have you forgotten Brahms and the great divide?
My guess is that Cato wasn't there when it happened. If he had, chances are he would have been aware that there were quite a number of composers who are virtual unknowns today who at the time were considered better than Mozart or Beethoven or Wagner - not by a small circle of cognoscenti, but a larger audience. Some reputations take a couple of knocks downward over time, and some grow over time. Carter and Boulez are pretty big right now. There's no telling what happens when they're gone.
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 18, 2009, 06:38:04 AM
Revisiting this recently resurrected thread this morning, I discovered a couple of surprising comments by our beloved schoolmaster, Cato.Eh? Surely you're old enough to remember that damn near every bimbo who came of age in the '80s was named Jennifer?
Have you forgotten Brahms and the great divide?
I. I am almost too old to remember that! :D
II. No, I am not so old that I have forgotten this, :o but I believe the point was that
Wagner was #1, and the
Brahmsians, led in Vienna by Eduard Hanslick, among others, knew that the cult of
Wagner was dominant.
Quote from: Cato on March 18, 2009, 07:16:37 AM
I. I am almost too old to remember that! :D
II. No, I am not so old that I have forgotten this, :o but I believe the point was that Wagner was #1, and the Brahmsians, led in Vienna by Eduard Hanslick, among others, knew that the cult of Wagner was dominant.
P.S. The Symphony of
Hans Rott has been called an attempt to bridge the
Wagner-Brahms divide!
Ligeti. Unsung.
Quote from: jlaurson on March 18, 2009, 08:47:20 AM
Ligeti. Unsung.
Well, folks have left flowers there.
Someone here, I believe, recently said that Bruno Walter, who wanted to be a composer, heard Mahler and decided "what's the point?", and decided it was better to just to conduct. I suppose I just wish more conservatory students would have that epiphany.
I DO subscribe to the "Glass Bead Game."
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be: and there is no new thing under the sun."
I find myself quoting Ecclesiates a LOT lately!!! "All is vanity!"
Didn't B.A. Zimmerman have this problem?
btw- GREAT thread!!!
Quote from: snyprrr on March 21, 2009, 11:28:58 AM
I DO subscribe to the "Glass Bead Game."
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be: and there is no new thing under the sun."
I find myself quoting Ecclesiastes a LOT lately!!! "All is vanity!"
There are few things better to quote than Ecclesiastes! 0:)
But there are new things still possible! 17-tone or 19-tone scales based on adding 1/3-tones or 1/4-tones have really not been exploited in any systematic way. Many have tried with some success (e.g.
Haba and
Partch ).
Haba switched around to other divisions, and also had a "system" of "non-thematic music" which I found wanting.
Partch was and is limited by what is most appealing about his music: the invention of new instruments to play microtonal music.
Beware: As a former microtonalist (quarter-tone scales), I always found the reception from bourgeois ears less than ecstatic! But 1/3 tones might be the way to go: the xenharmony involved is possibly easier on the unexpecting ears.
On the other hand, quarter-tone music was being pushed 70 years ago by people like
Leopold Stokowski: e.g. he premiered a
Concerto for Quarter-Tone Piano and String Orchestra by
Hans Barth. Apparently it never caught on, along with many other
Barth works in quarter-tones.
Are they of no interest, or were they not given a chance?
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lib/Barth-Hans.htm
Ivan Wyschnegradsky has some of the most compelling works in quarter-tones: melodically and contrapuntally expressive.
I had hoped in the 1970's that
Penderecki who used quarter-tones in his pre-neo-Romantic works, sometimes as part of a melody, at other times just to create white noise or slow glissandos, might have been tempted to become the
Bach of a microtonal system.
My hope was that a
Microtonal-Bach would have such compelling works that the resistance to the tuning would fade away. In which case, such a composer could be
The One! 0:)
On the other hand, it may be that we ask too much of the human psychology of hearing to accept microtonal music of any kind. :o
I have a prob with the word "microtonal."
You're talking "systematic," like, better than Bach? I believe I understand you.
But then I think of "blues" notes, and the kind of micro-modern where the composer just comes up, comes up, comes up to a base tone, or goes down, down, down, a la Xenakis, Ligeti, Pendercki...the last especially, since he is not really known for using math to make his fun sounds. I believe Xenakis once said when asked about his rivals, that he liked Lutoslawski and Penderecki, but he wished they used mathematic principles...anyhow...you know what I mean by this kind of "microtonal"? I guess I'd call it the "easy" kind, whereas you're talking more in an extended, spectral, systematic relationships and matix type big forehead stuff? Why can't computers realize this?
Are there any other sub headings ?(remember: Bartok turned "pizzicato" into five different types, and so on) Scelsi seems to fit more in the "easy" category?
What of Georg Freidrich Haas?
I read a review of an orchestral Wyschnegradsky cd, and they said it sounded like sort of typical dark broody Germanic 1930s music with the pianos? (don't remember) chiming in with the "microtonal" flourishes, or something like that.
But in a way, doesn't the polyphonic web of Ligeti and Xenakis SATISfy the need for a "microtonal" music? Many of Xenakis' "melodies" DO have that extended, out of tune-ish quality (like how an ambulance siren seems to rise as it's coming, and fall when it's going). It seems to me there is a "natural" microtonal world already out there, and then there would be the more man made types of systems like Haba. new wine into old casks?
I've been chomping to get the Arditti/Wyschnegradsky disc (I even learned to spell the guy's name!)-of course, whether I like it or not!
Sometimes, and only sometimes, I have felt that "microtonalism" was just another complexity forced down my throat....so daunting...so many choices....notes...the ultimate musical fear factor...
when ultimately...and I think Donatoni said it...either the melody's going up, or it's going down, or it's in the same place!
what are you looking for in microtonal music? a hitherto unnamed mystery chord? I'm not being cheeky.
Are you saying that you were an avowed microtonalist who, as they studied what's been done before, has seen mostly failures and "limitations"? I feel like I can hear what this Super Bach would sound like, but I'm thinking I must have heard this before.
Why is Norgard's 3rd sym. popping in my head? Never heard it.
For me, the hallmark of "classical" microtonalism is that "stinging" piano sweep, a very distinctive sound...but is it just an effect? How many more emotions could composers pull out of their hat with more notes? I'm rambling.....
It's just that I'm interested. So we have Haba and Wyschnegradsky and Barth...and over here Partch. Is this the extent of the "systematic" approach? As far as I know. Since I've been on the trail of the string quartet holy grail, I've been tempted by Haba's 16!!! qrts., but have no idea how they sound. Is it "funny" sounding "regular" music, or something completely diff? Judging by your research I would say no? If there's not a masterpiece in the bunch I can always stand to save the $$$. The Arditti/Wysch. disc seems like it COULD be...missed it on ebay @a month ago.
I guess I just get Pavlovian when I see the term "19 note scale", haha...now if there were a computer program...
So what of Ligeti and Xenakis and the like? even spectral? ISN'T it all right here, right now?
I TEND to be more of an absolutist than a relativist, that's all.
I still see this Super Bach of yours making a deal with satan!
Snyprr: I think the two composers who came closest to showing the expressive, emotional possibilities of microtonal and specifically quarter-tone music were
Julian Carrillo and
Ivan Wyschnegradsky (
Vishnegradsky would be the English transliteration, but for some reason the German version seems dominant).
Haba and
Carrillo got caught up in the experimentation, rather than focusing on one scale: e.g.
Haba has a quartet for a scale using "fifth-tones": would that percentage make a difference? As mentioned,
Partch went for experimentation with new instruments, and his scale with well more than 24-tones becomes impossible without new instruments.
You might want to explore microtonal music by Americans
Easley Blackwood and
Ben JohnstonComputer synthesizers have opened up all sorts of possibilities, and
Blackwood has some interesting and fun things for them, but as I wrote, we await the
Bach of the quarter-tone synthesizer.
QuoteAre you saying that you were an avowed microtonalist who, as they studied what's been done before, has seen mostly failures and "limitations"? I feel like I can hear what this Super Bach would sound like, but I'm thinking I must have heard this before.
Yes, agreed, except for the part after the last comma. I probably have not heard this before, but I know it is not the 21st-century
Bach to make a definitive statement about a particular 19-tone or 24-tone scale.
Perhaps then we would have our #1 Leading Contemporary Composer: but I am not hopeful.
Quote from: Cato on March 23, 2009, 05:42:09 AM
but I am not hopeful.
great...so agreed? that music is dead and there's no hope...I have gardening to attend to. ;D
Living composers can't be great because they haven't been dead long enough. You could be great while still living as recently as the '70s, so something has changed. I think what has changed the most is the relative decline in importance of concert music, as well as the fragmentation that leaves no central artistic perspective. So no one is taken seriously enough to be great, and no critical consensus will ever line up behind anyone the way they did for Stravinsky. All that's left is retrospective greatness, and maybe not even that.
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2009, 08:17:24 PMLiving composers can't be great because they haven't been dead long enough.
Well, living composers aren't dead at all.
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2009, 08:17:24 PMYou could be great while still living as recently as the '70s, so something has changed.
That seems to have become the new mantra, that something happened in the '70s. I started listening to modern music in 1972, and it took a decade or so to get to where I was current in my listening. That is, I was listening to pieces in 1982 that had been written in 1982. Anyway, I certainly had the impression that there were "greats," though I think the idea of "the great composer" has indeed gradually been fading out. Though few people I hang out with are in any doubt about the greatness of Cage or Ferrari or Chopin (Henry), to take them in order of decease. Nor of Dhomont or Henry or Radigue or Oliveros, all of whom are still alive.
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2009, 08:17:24 PMI think what has changed the most is the relative decline in importance of concert music, as well as the fragmentation that leaves no central artistic perspective. So no one is taken seriously enough to be great, and no critical consensus will ever line up behind anyone the way they did for Stravinsky. All that's left is retrospective greatness, and maybe not even that.
Well, you're more and more likely to see contemporary composers in other places besides symphony halls, but that doesn't mean that there aren't concerts. The ones I go to are in smaller venues, and don't catch the eye of big newspapers or mainstream music magazines. Maybe all you're seeing is just that. Less and less coverage by the big news media. And while no one fashes themselves much about the lack of a central artistic perspective (if there ever was such a thing), many people are taken quite seriously, quite enough to be great (if that's how one gets to be great!).
I don't know that there's ever been any such thing as critical consensus, either. Were people really lined up behind Stravinsky? All of them? I recall in 1972--at least in my then small and then not very hip circle--that Stravinsky and Bartok were almost universally excoriated. Cage and Boulez and Stockhausen were unknown. Now the former are almost universally accepted everywhere (as is usual) and the latter are often excoriated. And while all three of the latter are very highly esteemed by some, there's nothing universal about it. But hasn't that always been true?
(In Europe, among the musicians I hang out with, Luc Ferrari is almost universally honored. And there have been many concerts of his music all over the EU in these few years after his death.)
Quote from: snyprrr on March 23, 2009, 07:57:29 PM
great...so agreed? that music is dead and there's no hope...I have gardening to attend to. ;D
Ha! No, of course I meant that I was not hopeful to find The One among microtonal composers. 0:)
Some Guy: the comment on
Luc Ferrari is most intriguing.
And certainly in the earlier part of the 20th century the classical musical world was divided between
Stravinsky and
Schoenberg, although not cleanly, since fragmentation was already occurring.
That the 21st century has no
Stravinsky or
Schoenberg as far as fame is concerned, let alone a
Beethoven, is obvious.
Perhaps we have reached some point where such a leader is not possible or not necessary. ???
i've been seriously sitting here for an HOUR just thinking about this thread. awesome posts!!! but, yes,...(cue ominous voice):
sOMEtHing hapPened in the 70s!!!
Quote from: snyprrr on March 25, 2009, 10:11:53 PM
i've been seriously sitting here for an HOUR just thinking about this thread. awesome posts!!! but, yes,...(cue ominous voice):
sOMEtHing hapPened in the 70s!!!
Snyprr:
Here is something else for you to contemplate, which has intrigued me for some time: the world's population is larger than ever before, and with opportunities in theory better than ever before...
Why are there not multiple 21st-century Mozarts, Beethovens, Verdis competing for our attention?
Consider the 19th-century population of "Germany": one source lists the population c. 1870 as being less than half of what it is today. And yet the area produced
Beethoven,
Schumann,
Wagner, etc.
With twice the population now...? ???
I would bet that it's not a lack of genius (oh, Hi Josquin) but rather that today's talent is being diffused into a much greater variety of disciplines. Serious music was once supported by great patrons, and promoted as a thing of beauty and importance by aristocrats all over Europe. Today, there are so many more outlets for creativity in children such as a future Mozart or Beethoven, beyond pop or other kinds of music to even entire categories of art such as film that didn't exist back then. The truly great composers, from what I've read, spent a lifetime devoted to their craft, supported by the state, wealthy patrons, or devoted family, etc. Those supports are mostly gone now, and the lures of fame and immortality that once spurred composers to the highest heights have been supplanted by other arts. Ask a (cliche alert) man on the street who were the greatest artists in the 20th century, and you'll hear about actors and directors, painters, pop stars, writers. 1 in a hundred might mention Stravinsky or Schoenberg, at least in my experience.
So I would say that there are still great composers out there, to be sure, but not in the same numbers or celebrated in the same way as in the Vienna of old -- the talent is still there, probably at the same rate or higher, but it's often otherwise occupied. Which may not be entirely a bad thing, the world does keep turning after all....
Quote from: jwinter on March 26, 2009, 10:20:28 AM
I would bet that it's not a lack of genius (oh, Hi Josquin) but rather that today's talent is being diffused into a much greater variety of disciplines. Serious music was once supported by great patrons, and promoted as a thing of beauty and importance by aristocrats all over Europe. Today, there are so many more outlets for creativity in children such as a future Mozart or Beethoven, beyond pop or other kinds of music to even entire categories of art such as film that didn't exist back then. The truly great composers, from what I've read, spent a lifetime devoted to their craft, supported by the state, wealthy patrons, or devoted family, etc. Those supports are mostly gone now, and the lures of fame and immortality that once spurred composers to the highest heights have been supplanted by other arts. Ask a (cliche alert) man on the street who were the greatest artists in the 20th century, and you'll hear about actors and directors, painters, pop stars, writers. 1 in a hundred might mention Stravinsky or Schoenberg, at least in my experience.
So I would say that there are still great composers out there, to be sure, but not in the same numbers or celebrated in the same way as in the Vienna of old -- the talent is still there, probably at the same rate or higher, but it's often otherwise occupied. Which may not be entirely a bad thing, the world does keep turning after all....
Thoughtful post, thanks. Also, other areas attracting talented, creative men
and women (oh, hi, Josquin) that have opened up in the industrialized world. If he were born, say, 40 years ago, what are the chances that Beethoven would have become a software engineer instead of a musician?
If he were born, say, 40 years ago, what are the chances that Beethoven would have become a software engineer instead of a musician?
[/quote] I'm catching up over the weekend. I think this last point has been my point from the beginning. But no,... dude, dear ole Ludwig van would be catchin some tasty waves and jammin to Dick Dale on Venice Beach!
And if he has a trust fund????
Wow, I've been away from this thread for a few days...I was wondering why I was feeling so good? Oh, that's right...I forgot about the "reality" of it all...the first thing I did catching up on this last page...was...sigh, deeply.
I've been enjoying 1909 so much lately, I FORGOT it was 2009! Thank God for CDs!!
Two composers I would lift up as "standard" modern composers would be DUSAPIN and FEDELE, two names which should be familiar. Very well crafted...it's got this, it's got that....but where's the out and out insanity of experimentation?....oh, that's right, it's the postpost modern age...all the experiments have been done...it's only up to SuperBach now to put it all together...but I STILL think he's going to make a deal with the devil!
oh, I KNEW I had something more important and topical to say...???...I can't remember...it's been a loooooong week.
Concerning Ivan Fedele:
http://www.composers21.com/compdocs/fedelei.htm
And Pascal Dusapin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_Dusapin
Dusapin is better represented on CD's, and one can even obtain a DVD of his opera Faust, The Last Night on Amazon, albeit used. There are 3 rave reviews about it on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Dusapin-Faustus-Night-Georg-Nigl/dp/B000H0MH4A/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1238585678&sr=1-4