GMG Consensus: Who was the greatest composer of the 20th century?

[smitty1931]

Sibelius or Rachmaninoff

[Christo]

Ralph Vaughan Williams. Of course. Even if he's really timeless, and therefore not associated that often with just the 20th Century.

[Guido]

I don't think there is an answer. Stravinsky keeps coming up, but something makes me reluctant to completely agree (the emotional aridity mainly), although I do acknowledge his supreme achievement...

I remember Robin Holloway in a lecture saying that if the greatest felicities of Carter and Messiaen were combined we would have a composer as great as Bach, which struck me as an interesting thought! i.e. Each is clearly very great, and where each has their failings, the other has their greatest strength. Interesting to see these as an antagonistic late 20th century pairing (appropriately born a day apart) - they're very rarely discussed as such.

[karlhenning]

Just a note that I protest the "emotional aridity." I don't find Stravinsky any more "emotionally arid" than I do Bach.

[karlhenning]

But look at my av. I would say that, wouldn't I?

[Florestan]

I don't there is an answer. Stravinsky keeps coming up, but something makes me reluctant to completely agree (the emotional aridity mainly),

This definitely doesn't apply to the great ballets. If Rite is not a tsunami of extreme emotions, I don't know what it is. Add the more melancholy intimate Petrushka, or the magically fairytale-ish Firebird and there you are --- as emotionally as it gets. 

Besides, I have never ever heard any emotionally arid Russian music. 

[Guido]

The classical reserve of Stravinsky is the most extreme of all composers after Beethoven (historically after, not with Beethoven at the top of the reserve tree!). I'm not denying that his music is superbly powerful, extreme, at times wondrously beautiful, but I would say that it's really almost never truly emotional - he's not revealing his heart, and is never trying to stir up emotion in you (compare to say his antithesis Strauss), and the music doesn't work by appeal to the emotions - he appeals principally to the senses and the intellect, and is one of the greatest of all composers at this. Even a beautiful cantilena like we might find in the cello and piano or violin and piano suites, is held in such reserve, at such a distance, like a beautiful classical object regarded and admired from all sides, but it's not in itself an obect of emotion.

It's not a slight on him at all - it's just how he operates.

See the famous quotations:

For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention – in short, an aspect which, unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being

and clarification of this:

The over-publicized bit about expression (or non-expression) was simply a way of saying that music is supra-personal and super-real and as such beyond verbal meanings and verbal descriptions. It was aimed against the notion that a piece of music is in reality a transcendental idea "expressed in terms of" music, with the reductio ad absurdum implication that exact sets of correlatives must exist between a composer's feelings and his notation. It was offhand and annoyingly incomplete, but even the stupider critics could have seen that it did not deny musical expressivity, but only the validity of a type of verbal statement about musical expressivity. I stand by the remark, incidentally, though today I would put it the other way around: music expresses itself

Clearly it's a more nuanced view than is often thought. But what's significant is that he denies this link, where other composers (of the Strauss variety) certainly wouldn't, and would argue against him vehemently.

[Guido]

And Bach, while only rarely a sensualist, is a valid comparison in terms of intellectual appeal, but is clearly an extremely emotional composer (Erbarme Dich the most obvious, but almost literally countless other examples) - the strength of his music surely being the sublime allying of emotion with intellect.

[karlhenning]

It's not a slight on him at all -

All right. Though emotional aridity is a phrase with apparently limited upside . . . .

[Guido]

All right. Though emotional aridity is a phrase with apparently limited upside . . . .

Ok, fair enough! I don't think it's innacurate, but it isn't nice to see traditionally negative language applied to your favourites I know! My model is Wilfrid Mellers though.

See also here:

For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention – in short, an aspect which, unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being.

[Scarpia]

Listening to Apollon, Symphony of Psalms, and many other works will easily demonstrate the disconnect between what he claims in an interview and what he produces in his music.

The disconnect is between what he claims in his music and what you experience in his music.  when he experiences the music, he may well judge that the music expresses itself. 

I find myself closer to agreeing with Stravinsky than disagreeing.  Music is patterns of sound.  The emotions we may experience when listening are induced, rather than "contained" in the music and in large part are culturally conditioned.

[Guido]

Appollon is incredibly beautiful, but it's also very reserved emotionally - I can't really explain my position any clearer than already stated. For me, the intricate working of his ideas aren't that interesting (beyond how we might better understand his music), more telling is that he was trying to justify this mode of thought (and therefore his music). It is significant that this man is saying these things, rather than another man - as I say Strauss would never agree.

[Guido]

Appollo is, as its name suggests, like Stravinsky himself, extremely Apollonian. Is this music of fiery passion, or refined, sculpted, "objective", classical, beauty. Interesting that the greeks were such a fascination for both Stravinsky and Strauss, and just compare their treatment of them!!! Elektra and Apollo - two more different works it would be difficult to imagine!

I'm just struggling to imagine that the experience of listening to Apollo is a deeply emotional one, compared to say yet another very different composer, Tchaikovsky. Is Stravinsky ever moving in the same way as the finale of Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony or say the ending of Eugene Onegin? The Rake's Progress is an absolute case in point. Has there ever been a more emotionally restrained opera?

[jochanaan]

There's a big difference between "restrained" emotion and lack of emotion.  Much of Stravinsky's music, especially from the Neoclassical period, is all the more moving precisely because its emotional content is kept on a tight rein.

There's also a difference between genuine emotion and "emotionalism."  I would characterize the latter as art (music, literature, visual art or whatever other arts there are) which uses certain techniques or devices specifically and deliberately to evoke emotion.  Now, many genuinely emotional composers such as Mahler will also practice emotionalism of this type, but we can probably all name composers whose music is more characterized by this kind of emotional manipulation than by real emotion.  Much as I enjoy Richard Strauss' music, I find that some of it is more emotionalist in this sense than truly emotional.  (Others may differ on this, and that's perfectly valid.)

And then there's the easily-observed phenomenon that the same great music will raise different emotions in different people , suggesting that either the emotion isn't truly inherent in the original music, or it is a thing that grows between the composer, the players and singers, and the listeners.  I favor the latter interpretation, but other valid ones may also be found.

[Luke]

I'm with Guido on this one - and on the Mellers reference, too, of course (his descriptions of Tchaikovsky are probably in your mind, Guido, as they are in mine). Though my thoughts aren't defined enough about it all to enter the discussion fully.

But just a warning - if you start talking about the Apollonian the ghost of Sean begins to rise...

[Guido]

...concerning the claim that none of Stravinsky's music expresses any emotional content.

Who claimed that? I did say almost never. My point is just that it's basically never a concern of his, and that the music is not of itself particularly emotional. Sensual - absolutely - as has been pointed out, there is hardly another experience in music like The Rite of Spring. Intellectual too - there's something profoundly satisfying in so much of Stravinsky's music, but simultanously, moment to moment, he never gives it to you fully, never completely sates your desires; he's always moving on, new ideas, new gestures, new beauties. I'm in awe of his compositional facility and the generosity of ideas - the only other composer I can think of who is as fecund and throws beautiful ideas around with such generous abandon is Janacek in his mature operas.

[Scarpia]

While it is true that I experience something of an emotional content in music, not just Stravinsky's, but also not equally for all works.  Some works leave me cold while others connect strongly on an emotional level.  I tend to doubt it is purely subjective or accidental. 

In any event, I also lean towards a absolute music orientation, i.e. music expresses itself, but I am not  doctrinaire about it.

I don't see any contradiction.  I do not claim that the emotional reaction to music is accidental or incidental, but it is culturally conditioned.  Composers learn to evoke those associations, even if they are a property of the people listening to the music rather than the music itself.   

[eyeresist]

The classical reserve of Stravinsky is the most extreme of all composers after Beethoven (historically after, not with Beethoven at the top of the reserve tree!).

No-one wants to comment on this?

[eyeresist]

Apologies for doublepost.

[drogulus]

I don't see any contradiction.  I do not claim that the emotional reaction to music is accidental or incidental, but it is culturally conditioned.  Composers learn to evoke those associations, even if they are a property of the people listening to the music rather than the music itself.   

     When a certain sequence of buttons is pushed some people respond strongly and others weakly. So which is true?

     Composers who get a strong response from the majority are great.

     Composers who get a strong response from the minority that respond strongly when the majority doesn't are great.

     There you have it. The 2 paths to greatness, to please many or to please many that are hard to please, are really a wide field through which many possible paths composed of 2 tendencies can be cut. You can go this way or that way, and mix it up. If you go too far in one direction you lose the hard-to-please, and too far in the other you lose the great majority. You need a foothold in both worlds to reach the top, but individuals find their own combination.

     Tastemakers fiddle with what they think the formula is that describes what history is enacting, and often what they think it should be, thereby putting a little bit of pressure onto what it might become. Most of the pressure, though, comes from ordinary foot soldiers voting with CD purchases, concert attendance, GMG posts about Who was the greatest composer of the 20th century?, things like that. *

     You could go circular instead of linear and make the distinctions more like the Inner Party and the more numerous Outer Party. Then you can nest these within larger circles of more popular forms or overlap them like Venn diagrams.

     _{* We don't have antlers, so hierarchies sort themselves out through other means like the books, music, politics we choose. Personally you couldn't pay me to have antlers, The Rite of Spring is more to my taste.}