Modern composers with an original harmonic language

[escher]

When at the start of the XX century there was the crisis of tonality, people like Schoenberg stated that atonality was a necessity because the possibilities of the tonal language were finished. As we know this is not true, in the sense that a lot of composers developed a peculiar and recognizable harmonic language: Szymanowski sounds different from Delius, Messiaen sounds different from John Foulds, Ligeti sounds different from Vermeulen, Dane Rudhyar sound different from Alec Wilder, Bartok sounds different from Hindemith, Sorabji sounds different from Britten,  and so on. And they all sounds different from the music of the romantic composers of the previous century. There were also the microtonalists like Wyschnegradsky, Partch, Haba.
Also jazz composers developed peculiar approach to harmony with unique ideas, with musicians like Thelonious Monk, Andrew Hill, Eric Dolphy, Wayne Shorter, George Russell, Charles Mingus.

But today?
Do you feel the same for  any recent composer? I don't know if it's clear because my english is not good, but maybe because of my ignorance i can't say the same for any composer of more recent times. Maybe the spectralists but i'm not crazy at all about what i've heard of Grisey, Saariaho, Murail etc. Maybe Per Norgard and Scelsi (though he have similarities with Ligeti).
Any idea? I'm not talking about technical details, but there are modern pieces that when you hear it you think (even if it's a tonal piece) "i've never heard something like that before", by an... "harmonic point of view"?

[Chaszz]

When at the start of the XX century there was the crisis of tonality, people like Schoenberg stated that atonality was a necessity because the possibilities of the tonal language were finished. As we know this is not true, in the sense that a lot of composers developed a peculiar and recognizable harmonic language: Szymanowski sounds different from Delius, Messiaen sounds different from John Foulds, Ligeti sounds different from Vermeulen, Dane Rudhyar sound different from Alec Wilder, Bartok sounds different from Hindemith, Sorabji sounds different from Britten,  and so on. And they all sounds different from the music of the romantic composers of the previous century. There were also the microtonalists like Wyschnegradsky, Partch, Haba.
Also jazz composers developed peculiar approach to harmony with unique ideas, with musicians like Thelonious Monk, Andrew Hill, Eric Dolphy, Wayne Shorter, George Russell, Charles Mingus.

But today?
Do you feel the same for  any recent composer? I don't know if it's clear because my english is not good, but maybe because of my ignorance i can't say the same for any composer of more recent times. Maybe the spectralists but i'm not crazy at all about what i've heard of Grisey, Saariaho, Murail etc. Maybe Per Norgard and Scelsi (though he have similarities with Ligeti).
Any idea? I'm not talking about technical details, but there are modern pieces that when you hear it you think (even if it's a tonal piece) "i've never heard something like that before", by an... "harmonic point of view"?

This is a good topic and I wish I had something to contribute. I seem to spend more time lately listening to rock and other pop music and less to classical. As I dislike atonality and dissonance I don't listen to modern or contemporary classical but still explore the 17th, 18th and 19th c. repertory for works I haven't yet heard. In rock I am struck by how much can still be wrung out of the old hoary dozen or so standard chords which that genre uses, when it isn't just using the three main ones. In my sculpture and painting I try to wring new experiences out of realistic seeing -- or more accurately to express what in actual seeing moves me that has not been expressed before -- so I guess I'm an anachronism across the board :-) . But seriously I agree with escher that valid new music and art doesn't have to be based on entirely new systems, and that much of it today has an obsessive fetish for keeping any system that has been used before at a great remove. 

[Mirror Image]

I dislike atonality and dissonance

Dissonance, if used correctly, can be a compelling affect on a work. Pure atonality I can understand someone not liking, but dissonance is what gives music it's yang, otherwise, all you would ever have is the ying. It takes the ying and yang in music to work for me.

[AllegroVivace]

dissonance is what gives music it's yang, otherwise, all you would ever have is the ying. It takes the ying and yang in music to work for me.

That's a great explanation. I have heard too many modern composers who avoid dissonance to be more pleasing... and even more composers (most music departments in America) who think of dissonance (pure atonality) as the only acceptable mode of expression. I think both sides are delusional. The listener needs both ying asnd yand.

[ibanezmonster]

It's all about the approach to harmony.

My two favorite composers, for example, have their own trademark approaches.
Mahler said, "there's a regular eight-note and then there's a Mahler eigth note." His trademark approach was to use a note a step up from a chord and take it down to resolve it, while in a tonal framework that was a bit more flexible chord-progession-wise than music from the classical era (there are more "jumps" in chord progressions that are happening).

Prokofiev basically takes a simple harmonic framework (major or minor) and accents "off-notes" (especially augmented fourths) and dissonant chord progressions that go everywhere and end up back in the same key (creating the oddest cadences ever).

As for modern composers with an original harmonic language, I think some of the minimalists sound unique. Phillip Glass is pretty recognizable.  I don't listen to contemporary stuff much any more, though.

I've thought of a few approaches that sound original when I apply them to my improvisation, but mostly I don't care for them. My best bet seems taking first steps by starting with the harmonic language of Mahler and then mixing with my own instincts to create something that he wouldn't have written.

[Mirror Image]

That's a great explanation. I have heard too many modern composers who avoid dissonance to be more pleasing... and even more composers (most music departments in America) who think of dissonance (pure atonality) as the only acceptable mode of expression. I think both sides are delusional. The listener needs both ying asnd yand.

Yes, but I don't think atonality is quite the scary beast many people make it out to be. There's good atonal music and there's bad atonal music. Just like in tonal music. In atonal music, I prefer composers who treaded the fine line of tonality/atonality like Berg, Schoenberg, Bartok, Dutilleux, to name a few.

[escher]

As for modern composers with an original harmonic language, I think some of the minimalists sound unique. Phillip Glass is pretty recognizable.  I don't listen to contemporary stuff much any more, though.

i don't know because i know only few works of glass, but in general minimalism harmonically is very simple though there are things like Harmonielehre of John Adams.
I have to say that it seems to me that a lot of modern music is concentrating more on rhythm and sound and a lot less on  harmony. My sensation is that composers feel that there are not new possibilities (though i'm very interested by modern investigations on microtonalism).
Anyway, it is not a thread like "tonal vs atonal music", i like also atonality, my idea is just that when schoenberg said that tonal music had nothing new to express he was wrong because a lot of composers have demonstrate that there were a lot of other possibilities (i'm talking only about what i ear). I'm wondering if there are still other unexplored possibilities and obviously i'm looking for suggestions.
For example, i don't know if it's true, because i know very few things about theory, but Per Norgard is one of the few that make me think that he sounds original and different from the composers of the past.

[ibanezmonster]

I'm wondering if there are still other unexplored possibilities and obviously i'm looking for suggestions.

Well, if I could improvise that one thing I played with mainly 4ths/5ths/7ths chords (w/free, open progressions) for you, there's that (at least, I've never heard music like that before)... but I don't do that anymore because it sucks- the most boring sound you can imagine.  It's like "write music that reminds you of the sound of the open string of the guitar or violin." 

It seems hard to find composers that aren't totally influenced by either the atonal or minimalist traditions. Even some of Magnus Lindberg's music, for example, which is partially tonal and atonal at the same time, is just the natural result of Schoenberg's atonal tradition evolving throughout 90+ years and changing form.

I think you're looking for something that might sound like it's coming out of the Romantic era, but with a new harmonic sense. I don't quite hear a "trademark" sound or approach to harmony, but you could try the Lowell Liebermann video posted by Philo on "Only the New (Music)." It's sounds like it's from the Romantic tradition, but no one from that era could have/would have written it. I think there are some videos with other tonal music as well.

[snyprrr]

Grisey, Saariaho, Murail etc. Maybe Per Norgard and Scelsi

This is where I'm at,... let me know if you 'find' anything, but I suspect we're in a 'backtracking' phase now and won't be privy to ANY new stuff (if there really is anything new under the sun). I think Composers are more interested now in the non-musical aspects (Brokeback Mountain) of their stuff. We're in a 'political' phase now,... harmony is to be subjugated to ideology,... and,... you vill like it!! Ve Have Vays!!

[starrynight]

Well, if I could improvise that one thing I played with mainly 4ths/5ths/7ths chords (w/free, open progressions) for you, there's that (at least, I've never heard music like that before)... but I don't do that anymore because it sucks- the most boring sound you can imagine.  It's like "write music that reminds you of the sound of the open string of the guitar or violin." 

It seems hard to find composers that aren't totally influenced by either the atonal or minimalist traditions. Even some of Magnus Lindberg's music, for example, which is partially tonal and atonal at the same time, is just the natural result of Schoenberg's atonal tradition evolving throughout 90+ years and changing form.

I think you're looking for something that might sound like it's coming out of the Romantic era, but with a new harmonic sense. I don't quite hear a "trademark" sound or approach to harmony, but you could try the Lowell Liebermann video posted by Philo on "Only the New (Music)." It's sounds like it's from the Romantic tradition, but no one from that era could have/would have written it. I think there are some videos with other tonal music as well.

Of course there can be things that mix romantic and modern, nothing unusual about that.  But there doesn't have to be complete technical originality for a piece to be interesting.  Most people don't listen to music to find a combination of notes that are completely original and never heard before within a piece.  They look for something of a composer's character to come through in the music, but that can be due to various factors and how they are combined together.  The success of a piece is more often about the clever re-using of ideas in a way which makes it seem fresh and individual, and it's been that way for centuries I expect.

[AllegroVivace]

In atonal music, I prefer composers who treaded the fine line of tonality/atonality like Berg, Schoenberg, Bartok, Dutilleux, to name a few.

Do you know any living composers who could be praised for doing that? Just curious.

[Mirror Image]

Do you know any living composers who could be praised for doing that? Just curious.

MacMillan, Lindberg, Adams, Vine, to name a few. By the way, Dutilleux is still alive. He's pretty old now (I think he's in his 90s), but let's hope he has a few more tricks up his sleeve. I'm not sure if his last works will get his approval as he's such a perfectionist.

[AllegroVivace]

MacMillan, Lindberg, Adams, Vine, to name a few. By the way, Dutilleux is still alive. He's pretty old now (I think he's in his 90s), but let's hope he has a few more tricks up his sleeve. I'm not sure if his last works will get his approval as he's such a perfectionist.

Thanks. A couple of new names to check out...

[Mirror Image]

Thanks. A couple of new names to check out...

No problem.

[some guy]

It seems hard to find composers that aren't totally influenced by either the atonal or minimalist traditions.

What follows assumes that you mean the "pattern repetition" kind of minimalism when you say "minimalist tradition." That assumption could of course be wrong. And that by "atonal," you mean generally the serial vein.

Harry Partch
John Cage
David Tudor
Denis Smalley
Beatriz Ferreyra
Luc Ferrari
Mauricio Kagel
Walter Marchetti
Lionel Marchetti
eRikm
Otomo Yoshihide
Martin Tetreault
Christian Marclay
Helmut Lachenmann
Mark Andre
Natasha Barrett
Simon Steen-Andersen
Lyn Goeringer
Ludger Bruemmer

The preceding, I assure you, is an extremely short list. I mean, be fair: David Tudor, Pauline Oliveros, Alice Shields, Sachiko M....

[jochanaan]

At last report, Elliott Carter was still alive and composing--at age 102!

A couple of recent discoveries for me, both living composers, are Christopher Rouse and Michael Daugherty.  Daugherty has written a magnificent concerto called "UFO" for percussionist Evelyn Glennie.

[Mirror Image]

At last report, Elliott Carter was still alive and composing--at age 102!

A couple of recent discoveries for me, both living composers, are Christopher Rouse and Michael Daugherty.  Daugherty has written a magnificent concerto called "UFO" for percussionist Evelyn Glennie.

Christopher Rouse is a cool composer. I haven't really given a fair shake to Daugherty yet.

[Grazioso]

pop music and less to classical. As I dislike atonality and dissonance I don't listen to modern or contemporary classical but still explore the 17th, 18th and 19th c. repertory for works I haven't yet heard.

Music of those centuries has lots of dissonance peppered throughout scores, but it usually acts as a moment of contrast before a return to consonance and stability. There's lots of 20th century classical music that is quite tame where (extreme) dissonance is concerned.

In rock I am struck by how much can still be wrung out of the old hoary dozen or so standard chords which that genre uses, when it isn't just using the three main ones. In my sculpture and painting I try to wring new experiences out of realistic seeing -- or more accurately to express what in actual seeing moves me that has not been expressed before -- so I guess I'm an anachronism across the board :-) . But seriously I agree with escher that valid new music and art doesn't have to be based on entirely new systems, and that much of it today has an obsessive fetish for keeping any system that has been used before at a great remove.

I think it was Schoenberg who said there's still a lot to be written in C Major. The procedures of the Common Practice period were embraced for so long by so many great composers because they work exceptionally well at building and releasing tension, at manipulating a listener's emotions, at creating clear structures.

[karlhenning]

I think it was Schoenberg who said there's still a lot to be written in C Major.

Aye, and he himself continued to write tonal music throughout his career, albeit the highly charged tonality characteristic of the late Romanticism which was practically always his style.

The procedures of the Common Practice period were embraced for so long by so many great composers because they work exceptionally well at building and releasing tension, at manipulating a listener's emotions, at creating clear structures.

And yet, a friend of mine in upstate New York (an organist) says, The further along a composer finds himself in the history of tonal music, the more difficult it becomes not to repeat himself—or someone else.

Not sure that the operations of building and releasing tension, manipulating a listener's emotions, [&] creating clear structures is any particular trait of Common Practice, though there is no question that composers succeeded at those things in that milieu for a long time.

[Grazioso]

And yet, a friend of mine in upstate New York (an organist) says, The further along a composer finds himself in the history of tonal music, the more difficult it becomes not to repeat himself—or someone else.

Challenge is good for an artist

Not sure that the operations of building and releasing tension, manipulating a listener's emotions, [&] creating clear structures is any particular trait of Common Practice, though there is no question that composers succeeded at those things in that milieu for a long time.

I don't say they're unique to Common Practice, but they're certainly well enabled by it. A perfect cadence is, if not perfect, damn useful