# Best 25 works of this century?



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I haven't read it, yet, but feel sure I will not agree with everything! This article is from The Guardian today:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/sep/12/best-classical-music-works-of-the-21st-century

Do you agree with any of the choices?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Mmmmmm.....

It seems the overwhelming majority of composers alive and working are in the English-speaking world. I somehow doubt this is the case.

Maybe all that "foreign rubbish" simply "doesn't travel well"?

Then again The Minotaur is pretty awesome. I have a great deal of admiration for Birtwistle, so pleased he's got an entry.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I've heard some of these; I liked Michael Daughtery's Trail of Tears concerto better than any of them.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The Guardian ought to stick to their left of center journalism and leave music to other publications. Aren't they the rag that published the opera is stupid article? A composer from Spain that I find very impressive is Jose Sanchez-Verdu. Check out his release on the Kairos label. it's superb!

https://www.amazon.com/Philharmonie...e+sanchez-verdu&qid=1568307630&s=music&sr=1-3


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ To be fair to The Guardian, they tend to print a range of views even when it comes to the news and politics. But it is most certainly not a left of centre rag. It is unashamedly centrist, is just as likely to attack the left as the right and probably employs more right leaning than left leaning columnists. Did you have any views on the pieces they chose for praise?


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

> *1 Hans Abrahamsen: Let Me Tell You (2013)*


Wow, after having grumbled, groaned and moaned to myself about seeing Carl Nielsen assigned as a 4th tier composer it is relief for a Danish nationalist like me to see Hans Abrahamsen winning this one!! 
I will put on my "klaphat" and clap! Hat: :tiphat: Clap : :clap:


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I have heard a few - little to love, nothing to tap your toe to, nothing other than a lot of noise to me. The Thomas Ades overture to The Tempest - sounds like an orchestra warming up. Both Tchaikovsky and Sibelius wrote a Tempest - and both made a far more agreeable and worthy work than Ades. 

Adam's City Noir is ok; it's imaginative, well-orchestrated, has contrast and a nice sax part.

MacMillan's Stabat Mater I've heard live. It's an affecting, often haunting work. Some of the best new music is being written for choral groups. 

Will any of this music survive another 50 years? Or even 10? I still say audiences expect, and demand, beauty - a good tune, beautifully harmonized, and well orchestrated (in any form). So many composers seem to want to out-ugly each other as if that's a good aesthetic. And then they wonder why pop music dominates.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

^^ Indeed. Although anything in print is left-wing compared to the likes of The Mail and the now effing-irritating Telegraph. For left-wing, you need the Morning Star, which has a circulation of about 7. Horrid, horrid publication, sees Corbyn and his politburo as woolly liberals. The typical Grauniad reader would be a LibDem supporter, beard, corduroys, bad breath etc.

It was originally from Manchester (printed there from about 1820?, Just after they discovered moveable typeface up there) but as with probably all our national newspapers, is now London-based.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I was about to get incensed about the lack of Richard Strauss or Jean Sibelius on this list.

Then I realized "this century" means the 21st.

I am old.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ To be fair to The Guardian, they tend to print a range of views even when it comes to the news and politics. But it is most certainly not a left of centre rag. It is unashamedly centrist, is just as likely to attack the left as the right and probably employs more right leaning than left leaning columnists. Did you have any views on the pieces they chose for praise?


I'm familiar with a number of the composers but not the pieces they chose. I've heard some good music from Saariaho, Harvey, Abrahamsen, and Chin. But I'm not sure my favorite pieces are from this century. As I mentioned, right now I like Sanchez-Verdu. I was impressed with all of the pieces on the CD I bought.

I should say I have heard the Adams piece on the radio. A lively work to keep one awake in a traffic jam but he's not saying anything new. But it was more exciting than a lot of the second tier baroque music they play on my local station.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Let's be excited for those lesser sons of greater sires on The Guardian's list.

meanwhile:

1. Shore, Howard - The Return of the King
2. Shore, Howard - The Two Towers
3. Shore, Howard - The Fellowship of the Ring
4. Williams, John - Revenge of the Sith
5. Williams, John - Philosopher's Stone
6. Williams, John - The Last Jedi
7. Williams, John - Attack of the Clones
8. Williams, John - The Force Awakens
9. Williams, John - A.I. Artificial Intelligence

and then:
"Williams' 9th" will show them. No idea which spot will it deserve. Can't wait till December. They are recording it as we speak!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ To be fair to The Guardian, they tend to print a range of views even when it comes to the news and politics. But it is most certainly not a left of centre rag. It is unashamedly centrist, is just as likely to attack the left as the right and *probably employs more right leaning than left leaning columnists.* Did you have any views on the pieces they chose for praise?


I follow the G every day

I dont think that is true

There are one or two token leavers and right leaners only.

the rest are so called progressives


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Definitely pretty Anglo-centric. I like the inclusion of Linda Catlin Smith and Cassandra Miller, though!


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

I think this is an admirable attempt at a "best" list. They managed to squeeze quite a few of my personal favorites on the list, e.g. the Neuwirth, Saariaho, Kurtag, Abrahamsen, JL Adams, Chin, and MacMillan works. The inclusion of Goebbels' _Hashirigaki_ was a pleasant surprise as I'm a fan of some of his other works, but this was new to me and did not disappoint.

I disagree with the Adams and Reich entries as I think they are fairly lesser works in both of their catalogues and they only placed due to their overall popularity from their past works. I notice that they attempted a list with great diversity in styles and nationalities, but it still seems to skew somewhat toward UK/Canadian-based composers. I, for one, have never heard of Jennifer Walshe, Linda Catlin Smith, or Cassandra Miller and am only slightly familiar with Gerald Barry. Now those works may be great for all that I know, but I'm skeptical they all should be included given the Ades, Richter, Saunders, Harvey, and MacMillan entries.

Some works that I think probably should be on a list like this (but are not necessarily personal favorites) are:
Haas: in vain (2000)
Not my favorite Haas work, but it's probably his most admired and perhaps the most influential work to the spectral and Darmstadt communities. It was the hands-down selection as best work of the 21st century from a large survey of European music professionals. I personally prefer _limited approximations_ or his 7th String Quartet but those have not had quite the same impact.

Gubaidulina: In Tempus Praesens (2007)
A work that I find to be a wonderful and moving sequel to her first great violin concerto. Representative of her expressive and powerful style, it's the work of a master at the peak of their powers. Plus the fact that it was commissioned from and has support from Anne-Sophie Mutter should be a boon.

Gibson: The Four Pillars Appearing from The Equal D under Resonating Apparitions of The Eternal Process in The Midwinter Starfield (2014)
I still don't know quite what to make of this piece but I would put it on a list purely for its mind-blowing ambition and concept which R. Andrew Lee convincingly executes. I think lists should not merely reflect what is popular, but also showcase the incredible capabilities possible within classical music.

Stockhausen: Cosmic Pulses (2007)
Romitelli: An Index of Metals (2003)
I think electronics are an indispensable instrument of contemporary classical music and I think these works are great examples of pure and incorporated electronic works. These two seem to have found their audiences, but those more familiar with the genre may find better, more interesting representatives. I personally like some of Dhomont's works a bit more but they appear considerably lesser-known.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

I'm not that familiar with the stuff of this century, but Penderecki's Piano Concerto _Resurrection_ is missing? It is an extraordinary piece!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

25 is a short list so many, many composers are left out. I am exploring some of the 25 on YT. The premiere performance of the Kurtag opera is up there. And I'm checking out the Arditti's recording of Harvey's quartet.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Have been listening to Olga Neuwirth's Lost Highway Suite - it brought to mind Pink Floyd's On the Run off of 'The Dark Side Of The Moon'. 

I have heard Abrahamsen's Let Me Tell You (live) and Luther Adam's 'Become Ocean'.

I haven't enjoyed any of these pieces thus far.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I think it is a good list as far as such things go. Like others some of my favourite works from the period are not there. 

I know and like many of the composers chosen and quite a few of the works. I'm listening to Dusapin's Passion and liking it a lot (his music is so approachable!). I also have a lot of time for Harvey, Saariaho and Kurtag (although I didn't know the works selected). And I am also pleased to see Linda Catlin Smith in the list. There are also some composers who I don't greatly like (Adams, MacMillan).

I know and like quite a few of the selections including Birtwistle's Minotaur (wonderful work!), Benjamin's Written on Skin (ditto!), Abrahamsen's Let Me Tell You (very approachable and satisfying), Ades' The Tempest (which I quite like), Olga Neuwirth's Lost Highway and Rebecca Saunders' Skin. I note that Barbara Hannigan is the star of the works place first and second!

The links to the music are meaning that I may find others that interest me. 

So, for me, I'll forgive the missing pieces (those I would have liked to see in the list) for the riches that are in it.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I like lists like this one. Tom Service from the Guardian has had great articles on contemporary composers before so I like to believe in him  I have heard at least 8 of the 25 works and now have more music to explore.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Portamento said:


> Definitely pretty Anglo-centric. I like the inclusion of Linda Catlin Smith and Cassandra Miller, though!


An interesting and good article, but:
though it's predictable and overall quite OK for an English newspaper, only about 8 of those 25 works are not coming from Anglo-American composers.

However I don't follow the most contemporary scene closely enough to give a really qualified critique, since my listening habits tends to be more sporadic for post-2000 works. Trying to catch up with the decades before 2000 represents plenty of work in itself. But there are many more interesting Austro-German, French, Spanish and Scandinavian composers, for example.

Checked, works after 1999 I have are by:

- Ablinger
- Abrahamsen
- Adamek
- Ades
- Aho
- J.Anderson
- Aperghis
- Artyomov
- Azevedo
- Balada
- Beamish
- B.Belet
- G.Benjamin
- Birtwistle
- L.A.Bisgaard
- Borissova-Ollas
- Boulez

etc.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

joen_cph said:


> An interesting and good article, but:
> though it's predictable and overall quite OK for an English newspaper, only about 8 of those 25 works are not coming from Anglo-American composers.
> 
> However I don't follow the most contemporary scene closely enough to give a really qualified critique, since my listening habits tends to be more sporadic for post-2000 works. Trying to catch up with the decades before 2000 represents plenty of work in itself. But there are many more interesting Austro-German, French, Spanish and Scandinavian composers, for example.
> ...


To that list could be added some big *Danish names* - although they are certainly not young composers and they were active way before the millenium: 
*Per Nørgård, Karl Aage Rasmussen, Bent Sørensen and Pelle Gudmundsen-Holmgreen.* (Gudmundsen-Holmgren died in 2016, so he can't contribute more).

I'm not a fan of those composers - just wanted to mention them now that Hans Abrahamsen all of a sudden over-shadows them all...


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

I don't listen to much contemporary classical music, so the only piece written after 2000 that I can say I truly love is *Gavin Bryars' concerto for piano, choir and orchestra "Solway Canal"* premiered 2011 - ca. 30 minutes:
I like other genres in contemporary music - like post metal and post rock and some indie.


----------



## anahit (Dec 10, 2018)

the list obviously promotes UK music.
also, 50/50 male/female is also taken in account.
after that, not so much is left for other composers. it seems that there are no composers outside of western/north hemisphere.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I would love to see lists like this from other places. Norway f.ex.! I'm really not up to date here at home...I feel the UK cares about contemporary music more than other places. Anyway the list is a tiny part of it all


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The only piece I have heard anything of is the awful Birtwistle Minotaur piece which I turned off pretty quickly as I found it unpleasant to listen to. If everything else is of the same sort of colour but I can’t see it attracting a major audience


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DavidA said:


> The only piece I have heard anything of is the awful Birtwistle Minotaur piece which I turned off pretty quickly as I found it unpleasant to listen to. If everything else is of the same sort of colour but I can't see it attracting a major audience


We'll miss you DavidA but we know that you have to do your own thing and you know that the music is going to keep going.


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

I would have chosen The Dharma at Big Sur (2003) over City Noir to represent John Adams on this list.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PeterFromLA said:


> I would have chosen The Dharma at Big Sur (2003) over City Noir to represent John Adams on this list.


I totally agree with that!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I plan a game on favourite 21st century works starting October.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> The only piece I have heard anything of is the awful Birtwistle Minotaur piece which I turned off pretty quickly as I found it unpleasant to listen to. If everything else is of the same sort of colour but I can't see it attracting a major audience


Actually, there is a lot of variety in the list, as you would expect from a list made by a number of very different critics. It has links so you could have listened to all if you had wanted to so it is presumably a lack of interest (perhaps the result of experience) that stops you discovering if the other works are the "same sort of colour". As for attracting "a major audience", we have pop music for that these days. These are different times and the tradition has adapted. You don't need to go with it. If you care about the contemporary there is pop music. If not, there is the classical music of the past.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> As for attracting "a major audience", we have pop music for that these days. These are different times and the tradition has adapted. You don't need to go with it. If you care about the contemporary there is pop music. If not, there is the classical music of the past.


It's unwise to reject public money. And still, it's not so simple to divide music: there are tiers of sorts in terms of what is a major audience.

1. pop, rock, rap - full stadiums
2. Hans Zimmer, Einaudi, Andre Rieu
3. Nutcracker, Quattro stagioni, Star Wars
4. Eroica, Jupiter
5. established major classical works by minor composers or minor classical works by major composers
6. "inaccessible" modern music that proves to be of good quality
7. "incaccessible" modern music that turns out to be of poor quality - empty chairs

Selecting a programme is no small conundrum these days.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I don't understand why wisdom dictates that a composer of vision and with integrity should chase money unless it is money for something that they want to do. That seems to be unwise to me as it could trash the strongest asset they have. And how does "public" money (government money and grants?) end up going to the popular (it's purpose is almost the opposite)? 

Your tiers do seem to broadly represent different levels of popularity with joe public but what happened to modernists like Bartok, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Britten? Are they in tier 4? They can't be 5 as there are quite a number of modernists (say, those producing between 1900 and 1960) who are far from minor and yet widely understood - so they are certainly not in tier 6. Then your suggestion that the difference between good quality and poor quality modern (let us say "contemporary") music baffles me more: quality seems to make a difference in this level of popularity (only the good get as high as tier 6) but who decides on quality of something that is newish and how do potential audiences know to avoid tier 7 music?


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Of what I have heard I have really loved these works and they would make my own list of top 25 from this century. 

Gubaidulina: In Tempus Praesens (2007)
Abrahamsen: Let Me Tell You (2013)
Van der Aa: Up-Close (2010)
Furrer: Konzert für Klavier und Orchester (2007)


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I like John Adams, but City Noir is a minor work and not really anything as special as some of his other works like Harmonielehre, Nixon in China, or Naïve and Sentimental Music (which none of those three is from the 21st century)


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

The list is kind of okay as a whole, I guess, even if half of these works don't deserve to be on a "best of" list. Its emphasize of opera is very old-fashionned, and shows how this is a journalists' list. They go to big premieres, and know very little about the rest of the works written by these composer. They have listened to a few cds, but they nothing about composers who aren't big names. Therefore, this list is all kind of wrong. Hamlet is not Dean's best piece, nor is Passion Dusapin's best, etc. This is not a list of the best 25 works of this century, this is a list of some stuff journalists who barely know music have heard these last years.

And the idea that the mediocre _Let Me Tell Yo_u is the best work of the 21th century is laughable.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

20centrfuge said:


> I like John Adams, but City Noir is a minor work and not really anything as special as some of his other works like Harmonielehre, Nixon in China, or Naïve and Sentimental Music (which none of those three is from the 21st century)


_City Noir_ is, with _The Dharma at Big Sur_ and maybe _Doctor Atomic_, the only interesting work written by Adams after 2000. He wrote his good stuff before that date. They probably had to put him there because he's famous and all, and they didn't have much choice.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

It's missing Osvaldo Golijov's Azul (2006), which is among the greatest Cello Concertos of any decade/century.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> It's missing Osvaldo Golijov's Azul (2006), which is among the greatest Cello Concertos of any decade/century.


Scaruffi concurs as usual.  How does he rate that and others way above Elgar's or that over Ligeti's? Any insight? It sounds rather derivative to me.

https://www.scaruffi.com/music/violin.html


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Scaruffi concurs as usual.  How does he rate that and others way above Elgar's or that over Ligeti's? Any insight? It sounds rather derivative to me.
> 
> https://www.scaruffi.com/music/violin.html


I have no idea. Though Im familiar with his lists (of course) I dont think Ive ever asked him about Classical and I dont think he's written about it yet.

Not sure whats so derivative about it though (more than one could say about many near masterpieces/masterpieces, save for the most singular ones). Expressively, it's somewhere between Part, Messiaen and the masters of the Romantic era. A very powerful & spiritual work in its miraculous, profound and sensuous contemplations, crescendos, ascensions ... always with an overwhelmed and highly evocative sense of prayerful yearning.

His St Matthew Passion (from a Latin fused perspective) is also a pretty interesting work (though Azul is probably his greatest achievement thus far).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> I have no idea. Though Im familiar with his lists (of course) I dont think Ive ever asked him about Classical and I dont think he's written about it yet.
> 
> Not sure whats so derivitive about it though (more than one could say about dozens, maybe hundreds, of other near masterpieces/masterpieces). Expressively, its somewhere between Part, Messiaen and the masters of the Romantic era. A very powerful & spiritual work in its miraculous, profound and sensuous contemplations, crescendos, ascensions ... always with an overwhelmed and highly evocative sense of prayerful yearning.
> 
> His St Matthew Passion (from a Latin fused perspective) is also a pretty interesting work (though Azul is probably his greatest achievement thus far).


I remember his St. Matthew Passion, written to celebrate the anniversary of Bach along with a few others. The one by Rihm, Deus Passus, was way more interesting to me. This sounds derivative because it has a lot of typical film music and also Holy Minimalism harmonies, which themselves are pretty derivative. The great masterpieces were not derivative, that's why they stand out. I don't hear Messiaen at all.

This has none of the brilliance of the Elgar, or the originality of the Ligeti. I think Scaruffi is just trying to show his diversity in taste haha.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I remember his St. Matthew Passion, written to celebrate the anniversary of Bach along with a few others. The one by Rihm, Deus Passus, was way more interesting to me. This sounds derivative because it has a lot of typical film music and also Holy Minimalism harmonies, which themselves are pretty derivative. The great masterpieces were not derivative, that's why they stand out. I don't hear Messiaen at all.
> 
> This has none of the brilliance of the Elgar, or the originality of the Ligeti. I think Scaruffi is just trying to show his diversity in taste haha.


Ive never found Scaruffi to be the type to list and rank something "just because" ... and I'm never too surprised if someone who doesn't really favor him assumes as much to explain/justify their disagreement (maybe?)

Anyway, this will probably be yet another case where we'll end up having to "agree to disagree"

But...

I don't think it's as tonally and emotionally ambiguous as Messiaen. And its more Romantic/melodious than him, but it approaches his idiom in its evocations of nature, spiritual communion, bird-songs and its crescendos that, while formally "calamitous" or "cataclysmic", manage to not necessarily express violence (perhaps some spiritual anguish/unrest) but more so rapture, epiphany, ascending states and release of spirituality or more spectacular vistas/flights of nature and so on (not too dissimilarly than Messiaen).

His Klezmer Clarinet and String Quartet "The Dreams and Prayers of Isaac The Blind" (1994) is also quite amazing.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Ive never found Scaruffi to be the type to list and rank something "just because" ... and I'm never too surprised if someone who doesn't really favor him assumes as much to explain/justify their disagreement (maybe?)
> 
> Anyway, this will probably be yet another case where we'll end up having to "agree to disagree"
> 
> ...


I would think Scaruffi should be the one needing to explain and justify his ranking of the Golijov over the likes of Elgar, Ligeti, Schumann, Barber, and Walton. But I already read his blurb before how he judges music, it basically amounts to: he just does it.

https://www.scaruffi.com/music/criteria.html

I found that last quote pretty funny:
"Buxtehude was considered a greater musician than Bach. Raphael Mengs was considered as great as Raphael. Hummel was considered greater than Beethoven. I don't get easily impressed by which musician receives the greatest accolades during her/his/their lifetimes."
Yet ask him to explain how Beethoven is greater than Hummel or Bach greater than Buxtehude in more real musical terms. I've yet to see a review where he doesn't resort to pseudo-philosophy, pseudo-mysticism.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I would think Scaruffi should be the one needing to explain and justify his ranking of the Golijov over the likes of Elgar, Ligeti, Schumann, Barber, and Walton. But I already read his blurb before how he judges music, it basically amounts to: he just does it.
> 
> https://www.scaruffi.com/music/criteria.html
> 
> ...


I mean, if it's so important that you keep having to bring him up in a critical light during our discussions (this time with a very sweeping and general statement) ... well, you know, just actually read his site and you'll find mountains of contrary examples to your claims.

Examples among countless others: https://www.scaruffi.com/avant/1900.html

Or just email him and ask? (NOTE: the more he knows you the more worthwhile and descriptive his answers will tend to be ... also it depends on "what" you ask. If you ask him something of great disinterest to him like, say, "Why do you rate the Beatles too low?" he'll probably either ignore you or just say as little as possible such as: "Because my opinion is different than yours")

You'll also find that that criteria page very definitely goes on to discuss what he values and the basis of his criteria if you just read on down after the first couple paragraphs. The main point he is making at the beginning is that he doesn't truly consider that he is "judging" but believes his judgments to align to a "historical" perspective as opposed to "critical" or that of a "critic", and that they amount to something more "objective" (based on the various philosophies/points he cites), which he then proceeds to explain (you don't have to agree with him that it is more "objective")

Also, very key to understanding his notes/reviews/analysis is:

"I think it is almost impossible to understand my thinking without having read "all" of my notes. The meaning of a note is in its relationship with all the other notes."

... and to realize that in his reviews/analyses/statements/notes about a work/artist, he is speaking mainly to an audience that is already tracking with him experientially and in terms of judgments. This assumed, he then usually is mainly pointing out what is essential, the core points, to understand so that you may assimilate the work yourself.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> I mean, if it's so important that you keep having to bring him up in a critical light during our discussions (this time with a very sweeping and general statement) ... well, you know, just actually read his site and you'll find mountains of contrary examples to your claims.
> 
> Examples among countless others: https://www.scaruffi.com/avant/1900.html
> 
> ...


I've read a lot of material from his site and don't see a shred of evidence where he actually goes into the more technical aspects of the music he is judging. How does he rate music out of 10 if he only looks at the historical conditions it was written? How can he say Mozart's Jupiter is a masterpiece just by delving in history that others have written to basically confirm what it is already. I get a big sense of autosuggestion of things that aren't there from his reviews. He'll look at what were the works of Art in say painting at the time, prevalent political situation, predominant philosophies, cultural, and then draw links from the music to those supposed influences, without explaining how he makes those links from the music, which I doubt he even reads or knows how to read the score.

But I have just sent him an email about his musical training credentials. I'll post his reply if there is one.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I've read a lot of material from his site and don't see a shred of evidence where he actually goes into the more technical aspects of the music he is judging. How does he rate music out of 10 if he only looks at the historical conditions it was written? How can he say Mozart's Jupiter is a masterpiece just by delving in history that others have written to basically confirm what it is already. I get a big sense of autosuggestion of things that aren't there from his reviews. He'll look at what were the works of Art in say painting at the time, prevalent political situation, predominant philosophies, cultural, and then draw links from the music to those supposed influences, without explaining how he makes those links from the music, which I doubt he even reads or knows how to read the score.
> 
> But I have just sent him an email about his musical training credentials. I'll post his reply if there is one.


I don't believe he has ever claimed the technical training you insist he must possess. But I am glad you're trying to get this answered for yourself so we can stop talking about it already. I predict his reply will be hilariously anticlimactic such as "None" or "None of us know anything but spend our lives knowing all about it". Or maybe an elegant or witty little quote similar or analagous to that of Welles such as: "You can actually judge acting better if you don't understand the language." / "I don't know anything about art but I know what I like."

Either way, you will likely remain befuddled at how he could make such judgments until you are able to do so yourself from a similar perspective (which isn't the purely technical one you seem to be requiring).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AfterHours said:


> I don't believe he has ever claimed the technical training you insist he must possess. But I am glad you're trying to get this answered for yourself so we can stop talking about it already. I predict his reply will be hilariously anticlimactic such as "None" or "None of us know anything but spend our lives knowing all about it". Or maybe an elegant or witty little quote similar or analagous to that of Welles such as: "You can actually judge acting better if you don't understand the language." / "I don't know anything about art but I know what I like."
> 
> Either way, you will likely remain befuddled at how he could make such judgments until you are able to do so yourself from a similar perspective (which isn't the purely technical one you seem to be requiring).


Frankly judging from his website quoted he wouldn't need much technical training to write what he has!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Frankly judging from his website quoted he wouldn't need much technical training to write what he has!


Precisely. I think he is a quack.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> Precisely. I think he is a quack.


Plenty of them around! :lol:


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Frankly judging from his website quoted he wouldn't need much technical training to write what he has!





Phil loves classical said:


> Precisely. I think he is a quack.


Yeah! Get him! We need more like buttons!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Quack or not (I have no view and have barely looked at his site), I don't know. But I do think it is very wrong to claim that critical assessment of a piece of music requires an ability to read a score. That can only be nonsense. And, certainly, one of the most famous and best loved British critics, Neville Cardus, had no formal musical training and could not (I think I am right in this) read music. His approach was personal and subjective.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hey Afterhours, check out my impersonation of Scaruffi on Bieber.

Justin's Purpose album is exactly that: full of purpose. Shortly after his namesake was elected into office of his home country, after the stagnant Conservatives regime, he released this album. It is one full of hope in the new era of Liberalism. In his personal life, he is finally able to move on from his stifling relationship with Selena Gomez, and was able to obtain the long overdue spiritual release with an apology to her in the song "Sorry". Listen to the precision of the drum machine and programmed keyboards, it reflects the mental precision of the man who has clearly deliberated and made up his mind to move on. In a superficial sense in "Where are U Now" he contemplates about his father who left the family when Justin was at a tender age. He is in fact grieving for the child he was in lost innocence, but finds solace in the ethereal awareness he is not alone, depicted by those delicate digital piano chords... [blah, blah]

... the scope of this album is unprecedented, the lyrics deeply profound, leaving no stone unturned in its prosaic discourse of Justin's journey to self-forgiveness and finding his place in the cosmic order.

8.8/10

BTW, if you disagree with me on my estatic appraisal of the quality of this album, you are missing out on the subtle nuances that can't be analyzed technically.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Quack or not (I have no view and have barely looked at his site), I don't know. But I do think it is very wrong to claim that critical assessment of a piece of music requires an ability to read a score. That can only be nonsense. And, certainly, one of the most famous and best loved British critics, Neville Cardus, had no formal musical training and could not (I think I am right in this) read music. His approach was personal and subjective.


I can understand a rock music critic no requiring musical training, but in Classical how is anyone going to praise Mozart's Jupiter's coda intertwining the 5 themes introduced previously, or Bach's use of dissonance in his counterpoint, Beethoven's expansion of the sonata form, Stravinsky's innovations in rhythm. Sure some qualities can be picked up, but to articulate even more generally what makes the music great needs some bit of more formal analysis.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> hey Afterhours, check out my impersonation of Scaruffi on Bieber.
> 
> Justin's Purpose album is exactly that: full of purpose. Shortly after his namesake was elected into office of his home country, after the stagnant Conservatives regime, he released this album. It is one full of hope in the new era of Liberalism. In his personal life, he is finally able to move on from his stifling relationship with Selena Gomez, and was able to obtain the long overdue spiritual release with an apology to her in the song "Sorry". Listen to the precision of the drum machine and programmed keyboards, it reflects the mental precision of the man who has clearly deliberated and made up his mind to move on. In a superficial sense in "Where are U Now" he contemplates about his father who left the family when Justin was at a tender age. He is in fact grieving for the child he was in lost innocence, but finds solace in the ethereal awareness he is not alone, depicted by those delicate digital piano chords... [blah, blah]
> 
> ...


Not bad but would be funnier if you didnt stretch the joke so far past what he would actually say about The Biebs.

If you ever get past your assumptions of his qualifications and a necessity to replace your "purely/mostly technical criteria" with his "more historical, emotionally/conceptually expressive and comparative results-based criteria (leaning more towards the "means" as only having value in view of the "ends", than vice versa) ... then you may be far less confused about his views/reviews/analyses and welcome their concision amongst the endless hours of work he has put in to document so many art forms and their essential works.

If you are ever interested in getting an accurate grip on his real-life disposition/personality (likely much different than your "projection" of him) and some insight into his overarching purpose (for his site, dedication, the groups he organizes, etc) and his interest in Art as a whole in relation to culture/history/humanities, then this video interview may be of some assistance:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I can understand a rock music critic no requiring musical training, but in Classical how is anyone going to praise Mozart's Jupiter's coda intertwining the 5 themes introduced previously, or Bach's use of dissonance in his counterpoint, Beethoven's expansion of the sonata form, Stravinsky's innovations in rhythm. Sure some qualities can be picked up, but to articulate even more generally what makes the music great needs some bit of more formal analysis.


I do not see why. I don't see why a critic needs necessarily to have a technical understanding of what a composer was doing to appreciate and understand what it results in. The examples you give are things I can _hear_. Why would I need to read them to get them? But I also think that knowing what a composer is doing (whether by listening or reading) is not important to enjoying the music. And, anyway, I gave an example of a noted and celebrated critic achieved this status without doing the things you describe as essential.

It might even be that an understanding of how a composer achieves the results that s/he does obstructs true appreciation of those results. Certainly, I have seen arguments here (quite often) whereby some members post theoretical reasons for disliking great music and have found myself thinking "if only he would just _listen _to the music - then he would get it". I can imagine that it can be very interesting to study a piece after you have gotten to know and appreciate it, though. But that would be explaining how the composer did it and I don't think you find what is great by _approaching_ it from a technical standpoint.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Not bad but would be funnier if you didnt stretch the joke so far past what he would actually say about The Biebs.
> 
> If you ever get past your assumptions of his qualifications and a necessity to replace your "purely/mostly technical criteria" with his "more historical, emotionally/conceptually expressive and comparative results-based criteria (leaning more towards the "means" as only having value in view of the "ends", than vice versa) ... then you may be far less confused about his views/reviews/analyses and welcome their concision amongst the endless hours of work he has put in to document so many art forms and their essential works.
> 
> If you are ever interested in getting an accurate grip on his real-life disposition/personality (likely much different than your "projection" of him) and some insight into his overarching purpose (for his site, dedication, the groups he organizes, etc) and his interest in Art as a whole in relation to culture/history/humanities, then this video interview may be of some assistance:


The point I'm trying to make is Scaruffi suffers from apophenia (tendency to draw false connections that aren't there), a theme he ironically mentions in his own art. I suspect he doesn't really believe what he says, it's more a marketting or attention grabbing thing like "The Beatles suck, here's why:". I recall Akira Kurosawa quoted one time something like there was never a film critic who didn't add meanings or metaphors to his films that he never intended. You might see me as more cold/analytical towards Art, I see him (and subsequently his fans) as more fanciful, like looking at an ink blot and seeing elaborate structures.

Back to the Golijov, his "tunes" and use of harmony is pretty cheap, and is not that different from the corny New Age stuff. If you want to talk *real emotion and expression*, the Elgar concerto is way above it, regardless of whether or not it was written in the aftermath of World War I, which it was. Any defense of the Golijov over (I'd say even being near the same league as) the Elgar resorts to making highly subjective and fanciful arguments to defend one's taste over true recognition of greatness.

How about this review (post #10)? I bet if Scaruffi only heard the music and wasn't in on how it was actually "constructed" and liked it, feeling there is some grand design, it could pass as one of his reviews, with some fine tuning of course.

All 555 Scarlatti Sonatas played at once


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I do not see why. I don't see why a critic needs necessarily to have a technical understanding of what a composer was doing to appreciate and understand what it results in. The examples you give are things I can _hear_. Why would I need to read them to get them? But I also think that knowing what a composer is doing (whether by listening or reading) is not important to enjoying the music. And, anyway, I gave an example of a noted and celebrated critic achieved this status without doing the things you describe as essential.
> 
> It might even be that an understanding of how a composer achieves the results that s/he does obstructs true appreciation of those results. Certainly, I have seen arguments here (quite often) whereby some members post theoretical reasons for disliking great music and have found myself thinking "if only he would just _listen _to the music - then he would get it". I can imagine that it can be very interesting to study a piece after you have gotten to know and appreciate it, though. But that would be explaining how the composer did it and I don't think you find what is great by _approaching_ it from a technical standpoint.


I can understand a music critic review certain performances of a Classical work not requiring to read the score. It could be argued any deviations from the score are just a matter of interpretation. I agree with your last part. That is probably what people do, they hear something great and check the score to see exactly how the composer achieves the effect. But when you were listening to Mozart's Jupiter did you hear all 5 themes appearing in the coda the same time, with exactly the same interval spacing in the themes as before? It is common to change the spacing in development, and I doubt all 5 themes can be caught by casually listening. How would you articulate Bartok is a great composer, if you were only familiar with traditional harmony? I hear from casual listeners who compare him with atonal composers, they just hear dissonance. The dissonance may appeal to the listener in a basic way just like a drum rhythm does. Is the listener who hears Bartok the same as Webern truly listening?


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Magnus Lindberg had several pieces in the 21st century better than most of the pieces on this list. Including incredible concertos for piano, 2 for violin, cello. 

Narong Prangcharoen's great Phenomenon for orchestra is pretty special.

Augusta Read Thomas' EOS (Goddess of the Dawn) from 2015 is worthy of being on that list.

Estonian composer, Erkki-Sven Tüür has several pieces that are better than some on this list.

These are off the top of my head.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> But when you were listening to Mozart's Jupiter did you hear all 5 themes appearing in the coda the same time, with exactly the same interval spacing in the themes as before? It is common to change the spacing in development, and I doubt all 5 themes can be caught by casually listening.


Statistics aren't part of my enjoyment of the work. I don't think noticing that would add anything to my listening. As I've said, I suspect it would get in my way.



Phil loves classical said:


> How would you articulate Bartok is a great composer, if you were only familiar with traditional harmony? I hear from casual listeners who compare him with atonal composers, they just hear dissonance. The dissonance may appeal to the listener in a basic way just like a drum rhythm does. Is the listener who hears Bartok the same as Webern truly listening?


This baffles me. Why could I not articulate that Bartok was a great composer? I agree that his music is notably different to the music of the 2nd Viennese School. Did you think I wouldn't hear the difference? 

I do like both, though, but my experience with Bartok is much longer and deeper.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I can understand a rock music critic no requiring musical training, but in Classical how is anyone going to praise Mozart's Jupiter's coda intertwining the 5 themes introduced previously, or Bach's use of dissonance in his counterpoint, Beethoven's expansion of the sonata form, Stravinsky's innovations in rhythm. Sure some qualities can be picked up, but to articulate even more generally what makes the music great needs some bit of more formal analysis.


You're describing technical musical analysis. That's not what a music critic is required to do. A classical music critic comments on the interpretation and performance of a piece. And the fidelity of the recording. I don't read classical music reviews. I can trust my own ears to know whether I'm enjoying a piece. And if I don't, I can file it away and come back to it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Simon Moon said:


> Magnus Lindberg had several pieces in the 21st century better than most of the pieces on this list. Including incredible concertos for piano, 2 for violin, cello.
> 
> Narong Prangcharoen's great Phenomenon for orchestra is pretty special.
> 
> ...


I certainly respect that you have digested the 25 works on the list but am surprised that you find the work of Tuur and even Lindberg unambiguously superior to them. I gave up on Tuur long ago. Do I need to return? I quite like some Lindberg pieces (but no more than that) but, again, had not anticipated his becoming a major composer as some on the list undoubtedly are.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Statistics aren't part of my enjoyment of the work. I don't think noticing that would add anything to my listening. As I've said, I suspect it would get in my way.
> 
> This baffles me. Why could I not articulate that Bartok was a great composer? I agree that his music is notably different to the music of the 2nd Viennese School. Did you think I wouldn't hear the difference?
> 
> I do like both, though, but my experience with Bartok is much longer and deeper.


You're mixing enjoyment from critique/analysis. A true critique analysis much involve more I'm saying. Not addressing you personally between Bartok/Webern, but I've known some who can't tell the difference (heck I was one of them).



starthrower said:


> You're describing technical musical analysis. That's not what a music critic is required to do. A classical music critic comments on the interpretation and performance of a piece. And the fidelity of the recording. I don't read classical music reviews. I can trust my own ears to know whether I'm enjoying a piece. And if I don't, I can file it away and come back to it.


I agree with a classical recording critic, as in my subsequent post #56. But another type of critic goes to a work's premiere and writes about it, that are usually musically-trained. Since they aren't given the score, a lot of first impressions of acknowledged masterpieces like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (only Ravel recognized its greatness right away) and one of Prokofiev's piano works (can't remember exactly which one, but a critic was claiming he was punching random notes) get bad reviews, but later the greatness is realized. But you're right, I might be mixing critic with scholar. But the main idea was the critic reviewing or ranking a piece in a greatest list should have some sort of musical training or education even if not formal. With Scaruffi there is no evidence, since he doesn't refer to the music itself but extraneous stuff surrounding the music. He only uses the most general terms such as "tonal", "chord" to associate with something else.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/insider/classical-music-critic-philharmonic.html


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

As a follow-up to this article, I drafted my own list of what I consider to be 50 great works of the 21st century. Whether they're the _greatest_ is something I don't know if anyone can say. I tried to base this list not as much on how favorable the pieces are to me subjectively (admittedly impossible to isolate this entirely...), but rather if they are a "significant" accomplishment. More specifically, I researched and listened to see if each piece pushed the "boundary" of classical music forward; or if the piece contained some new, sui generis conception; or if the piece was at the height of an already established movement/genre/etc. I also was fairly stingy in awarding multiple entries to the same composer. Some corollaries of these criteria are that the pieces tended to a more "epic" scale in terms of length and the list tended to be fairly diverse but perhaps not very accessible.

1. Haas: in vain (2000)
2. Saariaho: L'amour de loin (2000)
3. Abrahamsen: let me tell you (2013)
4. Stockhausen: Cosmic Pulses (2007)
5. Adams, JL: Become Ocean (2013)
6. Kurtág: Fin de Partie (2010-18)
7. Abrahamsen: Schnee (2008)
8. Benjamin: Written on Skin (2012)
9. Rihm: Jagden und Formen (1995-2001)
10. Gubaidulina: In Tempus Praesens (2007)
11. Chin: Cello Concerto (2006-08, rev. 2013)
12. Birtwistle: The Minotaur (2008)
13. Golijov: La Pasión según San Marcos (2000)
14. Adams: The Dharma at Big Sur (2003)
15. Haas: limited approximations (2010)
16. Romitelli: An Index of Metals (2003)
17. Shaw: Partita for 8 Voices (2009-12)
18. Murail: Les Sept Paroles (2009-10)
19. Adès: Violin Concerto "Concentric Paths" (2005)
20. Neuwirth: Lost Highway (2003)
21. Lang: the little match girl passion (2008)
22. Richter: Sleep (2015)
23. Chin: Violin Concerto (2001)
24. Dillon: The Book of Elements (1997-2002)
25. Barrett: Dark Matter (1990-2003)
26. Furrer: Piano Concerto (2007)
27. Adès: The Exterminating Angel (2016)
28. Finnissy: The History of Photography in Sound (1995-2001)
29. Dutilleux: Correspondances (2003)
30. Sciarrino: Studi per l'intonazione del mare (2000)
31. Soper: Ipsa Dixit (2010-16)
32. Lachenmann: Grido (2001)
33. Saunders: Skin (2016)
34. Norman: Play (2013)
35. Gibson: The Four Pillars Appearing from The Equal D under Resonating Apparitions of The Eternal Process in The Midwinter Starfield (2014)
36. Gordon: Timber (2009)
37. Ferneyhough: String Quartet No. 6 (2010)
38. Steen-Andersen: Piano Concerto (2014)
39. Greenwood: There Will Be Blood (2007)
40. MacMillan: Stabat Mater (2015)
41. Murail: Winter Fragments (2000)
42. Glass: Etudes for Piano (1994-2012)
43. Ablinger: Voices and Piano (199
44. Harvey: Speakings (2007-08)
45. Berio: Sequenza XIV (2002)
46. Ge: String Quartet No. 5 "The Fall of Baghdad" (2005)
47. Billone: 1+1=1 (2006)
48. Czernowin: MAIM (2002-06)
49. Tavener: The Veil of the Temple (2002)
50. Van der Aa: Blank Out (2015)

I'd be happy to hear any suggestions on notable omissions and/or bizarre inclusions.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> You're mixing enjoyment from critique/analysis. A true critique analysis much involve more I'm saying. Not addressing you personally between Bartok/Webern, but I've known some who can't tell the difference (heck I was one of them).


I have been responding to your earlier comments and disagreeing with the part I have highlighted -



> in Classical how is anyone going to praise Mozart's Jupiter's coda intertwining the 5 themes introduced previously, or Bach's use of dissonance in his counterpoint, Beethoven's expansion of the sonata form, Stravinsky's innovations in rhythm. *Sure some qualities can be picked up, but to articulate even more generally what makes the music great needs some bit of more formal analysis.*


I say again - no formal analysis is needed to appreciate those features. They either work or they don't.



Phil loves classical said:


> I agree with a classical recording critic, as in my subsequent post #56. But another type of critic goes to a work's premiere and writes about it, that are usually musically-trained. Since they aren't given the score, a lot of first impressions of acknowledged masterpieces like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (only Ravel recognized its greatness right away) and one of Prokofiev's piano works (can't remember exactly which one, but a critic was claiming he was punching random notes) get bad reviews, but later the greatness is realized. But you're right, I might be mixing critic with scholar. But the main idea was the critic reviewing or ranking a piece in a greatest list should have some sort of musical training or education even if not formal. With Scaruffi there is no evidence, since he doesn't refer to the music itself but extraneous stuff surrounding the music. He only uses the most general terms such as "tonal", "chord" to associate with something else.


I am not defending Scaruffi as I have not read his stuff. But I don't think musical training is needed to "understand" a new piece, either. It isn't really cleverness that makes music great. And if the cleverness is hidden so much the better.

I also do not see why musical training is needed to arrive at a ranked list of the greatest. Why should it be? Would you have it that half the members here should just keep quiet while the experts discuss technicalities to arrive at definitive evaluations of the masterpieces of music?


----------



## hoodjem (Feb 23, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I haven't read it, yet, but feel sure I will not agree with everything! This article is from The Guardian today:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/sep/12/best-classical-music-works-of-the-21st-century
> 
> Do you agree with any of the choices?


I do not know many of these pieces, but I do note that very many are operas, song cycles, or choral works. Most interesting.


----------



## hoodjem (Feb 23, 2019)

starthrower said:


> The Guardian ought to stick to their left of center journalism and leave music to other publications. Aren't they the rag that published the opera is stupid article? A composer from Spain that I find very impressive is Jose Sanchez-Verdu. Check out his release on the Kairos label. it's superb!
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Philharmonie...e+sanchez-verdu&qid=1568307630&s=music&sr=1-3


Today Eisenhower would be regarded as left-of-center, and FDR would be labeled as a radical socialist.

Also intriguing:
https://www.amazon.com/Sánchez-Verd...?keywords=Sanchez-Verdu&qid=1570029440&sr=8-1


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ And The Guardian would still be regarded as "dead centre".


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Simon Moon said:


> Magnus Lindberg had several pieces in the 21st century better than most of the pieces on this list. Including incredible concertos for piano, 2 for violin, cello.
> 
> Narong Prangcharoen's great Phenomenon for orchestra is pretty special.
> 
> ...


Agree. I believe Lindberg is the greatest (or one of them) tonal composer of our times. Also a great orchestrator.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Really? Can you suggest a few works that are memorable and inspiring? Maybe I am missing something. So far, I have found some his music enjoyable on first hearing but get a little bored of it quite quickly. For me I need to know that I can listen to a piece tens (or even hundreds) of times and keep hearing more and more invention and inspiration. It isn't about getting it on first hearing (at a concert, for example) and I don't expect to get very new music until I have heard it a few times. I am not that sure what it is that makes me keep listening to an intriguing piece sufficiently to actually get to know it. I suppose my favourite work of Lindberg's is the clarinet concerto but that may be more because I love the instrument and feel that a lot more needs to be written for it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Really? Can you suggest a few works that are memorable and inspiring? Maybe I am missing something. So far, I have found some his music enjoyable on first hearing but get a little bored of it quite quickly. For me I need to know that I can listen to a piece tens (or even hundreds) of times and keep hearing more and more invention and inspiration. It isn't about getting it on first hearing (at a concert, for example) and I don't expect to get very new music until I have heard it a few times. I am not that sure what it is that makes me keep listening to an intriguing piece sufficiently to actually get to know it. I suppose my favourite work of Lindberg's is the clarinet concerto but that may be more because I love the instrument and feel that a lot more needs to be written for it.


Check out his cello concerto 2 violin concerto 2, piano concerto.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

BTW, Scaruffi replied to my email:

"musical education can be a problem, not a solution, whether it's Western, Indian or Chinese
it's technique not art
and it may make you miss the historical context and a thousand other facts that
IMHO are much more important
i did study music theory but luckily i forgot all about it "

You always hear the example of those who study music, but don't hear it. I believe in these cases, they wouldn't have heard it anyway if they didn't study it. Personally, I was only able to get E Carter by seeing how he used the technique he used, otherwise I could easily dismiss his music based on hearing alone. It still doesn't suit my taste, but at least now I can follow what he is expressing. Also Scaruffi couldn't explain how conductors, who know the music inside/ out, can find lots of detail and aspects in the music that casual listeners couldn't (yes you have to be musically educated to be a conductor) https://study.com/articles/How_to_Become_a_Music_Conductor_Education_and_Career_Roadmap.html

On historical context, I say it can add to the understanding, or take away from the music. 17 year old Mozart wrote his Symphony 25 shortly after the success of an opera. How does this context depict the angst in the music, which is more readily noted by analysis (his first in a minor key).

Also take Mahler's 9th. Many interpret the last movement as Mahler acknowledging his own impending death, but Mahler didn't know about his heart condition and was successful at the time. Also Walter, who knew Mahler best, interpreted it differently. Here is a good article on the danger of reading too much into the historical context of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/t...l/29/mahlers-ninth-tom-service-symphony-guide


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> BTW, Scaruffi replied to my email:
> 
> "musical education can be a problem, not a solution, whether it's Western, Indian or Chinese
> it's technique not art
> ...


Not a surprising answer from him & Im glad you finally got one.



Phil loves classical said:


> It still doesn't suit my taste, but at least now I can follow what he is expressing. Also Scaruffi couldn't explain how conductors, who know the music inside/ out, can find lots of detail and aspects in the music that casual listeners couldn't (yes you have to be musically educated to be a conductor) https://study.com/articles/How_to_Become_a_Music_Conductor_Education_and_Career_Roadmap.html


I dont see how or where or from what you assume "Scaruffi couldnt explain" this. Of course you have to be musically educated to be a conductor. I am sure he would agree with you. And of course a conductor is likely to notice way more details of "how" the music is expressed which can of course expedite one's understanding of the work, but I dont think its an absolute that the conductor will hear the "end result" much differently than a very attentive listener.



Phil loves classical said:


> On historical context, I say it can add to the understanding, or take away from the music. 17 year old Mozart wrote his Symphony 25 shortly after the success of an opera. How does this context depict the angst in the music, which is more readily noted by analysis (his first in a minor key).


I think your confusing what is meant by historical context to mean only/mainly "external influences/social/cultural changes separate from the music" or something similar. What is meant are in essence (1) historical context that influenced/inspired the content of the musical expression; (2) the composer's own artistic history/development: as in his/her own development of ideas/expressiveness throughout his works, leading up to and through the work under evaluation; (3) other works/arts that served to inspire this development or the general culture of art of the time or before that served to inspire this development (such as: a major reason Bach sounds as he does is because he composed during the Baroque period. Had he composed in the Romantic period he would've sounded much different even if with the same skills/musical IQ.); (4) The composer's personality or personal life, their own personal history, that in many cases can be an integral part in his/her expressiveness (some more than others, perhaps Mahler and Shostakovich among the most "explicit")

^^^ Obviously there's overlap amongst those and thats in a nutshell...

Scaruffi tends to listen to a composer's works more or less, perhaps entirely, "from the ground up", so he is following his/her development/expressive changes as they happen. One can observe the changes in Mozart (or whoever) very closely this way. One can hear them. One doesnt need to know the key is Minor to hear angst (or what have you), one just has to have a good grasp of how to hear emotional states expressed musically. Knowing a work is, say, D Minor is only a very general clue that the composer may be expressing such states. But obviously all works in that key are not the same emotional expression (Mozart's 20th PC and Bachs 2nd Violin Partita are quite different expressive states ... one is much more lush and ornate, one is much more solemn ... etc ... But if you just judged by the key you might think they will sound and express the same things ... this can of course be extrapolated into a much wider sphere where many details could be missed if one only judged by such details).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> I dont see how or where or from what you assume "Scaruffi couldnt explain" this. Of course you have to be musically educated to be a conductor. I am sure he would agree with you. And of course a conductor is likely to notice way more details of "how" the music is expressed which can of course expedite one's understanding of the work, but I dont think its an absolute that the conductor will hear the "end result" much differently than a very attentive listener.
> 
> I think your confusing what is meant by historical context to mean only/mainly "external influences/social/cultural changes separate from the music" or something similar. What is meant are in essence (1) historical context that influenced/inspired the content of the musical expression; (2) the composer's own artistic history/development: as in his/her own development of ideas/expressiveness throughout his works, leading up to and through the work under evaluation; (3) other works/arts that served to inspire this development or the general culture of art of the time or before that served to inspire this development (such as: a major reason Bach sounds as he does is because he composed during the Baroque period. Had he composed in the Romantic period he would've sounded much different even if with the same skills/musical IQ.); (4) The composer's personality or personal life, their own personal history, that in many cases can be an integral part in his/her expressiveness (some more than others, perhaps Mahler and Shostakovich among the most "explicit")
> 
> ...


I think you're underestimating the role of the conductor. He is the conduit of the music from the composer to reaching the listener. A less gifted conductor can obscure certain details in execution, even if they are aware of it in their head. A listener could never appreciate all the considerations the conductor has taken, unless they look at the score themselves. Even then, the conductor's has the expertise is to make it come together and make sense.

The key is just one of many indications. Also a work should never be judged primarily by historical context. Scaruffi read way too much into the influences in Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica, that isn't in the music, as much he would like to say it is by hearing. Like linking him to Ives just because Beefheart probably said he was an influence on the interview. Ives music is nothing like that album, except in the most superficial sense as in using cacaphony, where many others since Ives did the same. The influence of Mozart in Schoenberg is more clear in his quartet (and as Schoenberg suggested, by studying.  It's easy to read this context, listen to Schoenberg and say "Sure I hear Mozart"). That was also my biggest beef of your interpretation of Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom. By reading too much into his accident, there was autosuggestion in hearing that first song as very depressed. That rhythm was in fact light-hearted, especially with a modulation up in the intro. Either he was poor at expressing that depression, or it wasn't really depressed.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

*RE: "Also take Mahler's 9th. Many interpret the last movement as Mahler acknowledging his own impending death, but Mahler didn't know about his heart condition and was successful at the time. Also Walter, who knew Mahler best, interpreted it differently. Here is a good article on the danger of reading too much into the historical context of it."*

I assume youre referring to Walter's famous 1938 rendition which is much faster than most, which alters greatly such an interpretation with its swift (imo glib) tempos. The problem with such a rushed interpretation is that it can sort of work for the first 3 movements but in the last movement Walter smears the contrapuntal lines, climaxes and expressive gestures, smothering the clarity of textures and causing a very murky sonic profile. Mahler, being among (perhaps THE) greatest composer of orchestration ever, I think it is VERY unlikely he intended it this way.

I think its far more likely an extension (or on the order of) similar themes he was contemplating through his Das Lied. I think its a major error to dismiss themes of death and tragedy from the work, as had been so prominent throughout his life, as an inspiration through his most monumental symphonic creations. Regardless of how aware he was of his own medical state, I think it's probably an error to dismiss the probability the "harbinger of death" was not on his mind as he was rather aware and superstitious about this being a death knell to a composer that had reached such a tally as Beethoven.

Personally I think the work is a monumental synthesis of his whole self/life probably conflated to larger preoccupations/existential questions.

The final movement only seems to work structurally/texturally at (roughly) a minimum of 22 min, which gives it an unmistakable sense of overwhelming tragedy for that tempo and anything slower.

However I dont think its that simple. It also seems to be expressing both a monumental ecstacy and eternity. This synthesis and conflation of emotional expression is how the entire symphony works in that all its gestures and climaxes are conflated by multiple levels of simultaneous expression, by dichotomies, juxtapositions. I do believe it to be Mahler's monumental synthesis of his life, tragedies, joys & preoccupations, and a culmination of what he had been attempting with the symphony itself:

"A symphony must be like the world. It must contain everything."


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> *RE: "Also take Mahler's 9th. Many interpret the last movement as Mahler acknowledging his own impending death, but Mahler didn't know about his heart condition and was successful at the time. Also Walter, who knew Mahler best, interpreted it differently. Here is a good article on the danger of reading too much into the historical context of it."*
> 
> I assume youre referring to Walter's famous 1938 rendition which is much faster than most, which alters greatly such an interpretation with its swift (imo glib) tempos. The problem with such a rushed interpretation is that it can sort of work for the first 3 movements but in the last movement Walter smears the contrapuntal lines, climaxes and expressive gestures, smothering the clarity of textures and causing a very murky sonic profile.


That is impossible. Do you know the speed Walter took it? At about 25 bpm, and well within Mahler's marking. Any orchestra can play multiple times that speed without loss of clarity, no effect on sonic profile. Here you're mixing the quality of the recording which at 1938 can't compare with other recordings. Plus I can hear all the parts just fine. 


AfterHours said:


> Mahler, being among (perhaps THE) greatest composer of orchestration ever, I think it is VERY unlikely he intended it this way.


Did you check the score?



AfterHours said:


> I think its far more likely an extension (or on the order of) similar themes he was contemplating through his Das Lied. I think its a major error to dismiss themes of death and tragedy from the work, as had been so prominent throughout his life, as an inspiration through his most monumental symphonic creations. Regardless of how aware he was of his own medical state, I think it's probably an error to dismiss the probability the "harbinger of death" was not on his mind as he was rather aware and superstitious about this being a death knell to a composer that had reached such a tally as Beethoven.
> 
> Personally I think the work is a monumental synthesis of his whole self/life probably conflated to larger preoccupations/existential questions.
> 
> ...


Sounds nice on paper. Walter used more rubato than other conductors, making his interpretation is less rigid than others, and more flexible in expression and less one-dimensional or purely full of dread as others.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

It's not impossible, it's what happened. Listen and directly compare to Ancerl, then Masur's, then Karajan's (each of those are successively longer from 23 to 26 to 28 min). Much clearer/symmetrical articulation, delineation of the lines/texture/counterpoint that Walter obfuscates (it's not just the sound quality of recording, he actually does smear/misalign the delineation/counterpoint which messes up the momentum, structure, ascending, inter-weaving development of the movement). Whether the tempo is technically okay or not, maybe there's a reason he himself thought it was a poor performance (in his words "deeply disappointing" if I remember correctly) and perhaps influencing his reconsideration where his 1961 version was in line with current performance practice (educated guess/speculation on my part; Im not a big fan of his 1961 rendition either but its much improved). I guess one has to look at whether the 1938 rendition aligns to Mahler's expressive goals. Personally I think it obviously doesnt -- including the liberal rubato that you mention, which clips it too much expressively in my view and (along with the rushed tempo) I personally think the work becomes glib, emotionally incoherent & mitigated (none in a compelling way) -- and I think Mahler suffers greatly if expressively mitigated much or too little vibrato.

22 min was probably an exaggeration (re: "minimum") and I should re-phrase that to that's approx where the rendering seems to work most unanimously (22 on up to about 30). You're probably right in that it does seem plausible the work could be done at faster speeds; I just haven't heard it successfully. Walter's later 21.5 fourth (1961) is fine with no loss of anything structurally/texturally like 1938.
Norrington's similar (to Walter/1938) 19.5 min 4th maybe works "structurally", but it's expressively awful (lacking in vibrato which is clearly needed to pull the piece off. The idea this is "HIP" for Mahler especially is very dubious imo) ... maybe just a better Mahler conductor needs to give it a go at those faster tempos to prove it can be pulled off -- but it's probably an indication of workability that the great Mahler conductors uniformly opt for 22+ min speeds ...

RE: Rock Bottom ... Nope. Unfortunately, you still don't seem to know what I was talking about. I eventually just came to the conclusion that you must've never read what I said (in the analysis, nor when I kept replying: which was mainly about its multiplicity/ambiguity/fusing of emotion/expressive states, not "depression from his fall" or what-have-you).

Here's a good symphony guide for Mahler's 9th that makes some interesting correlations:
https://utahsymphony.org/explore/2016/05/mahler-9-listening-guide/


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

@Phil 

Letting you know ahead of any response that I'm going to have to wrap this up. Lots of things to do and I just don't have time to keep discussing this with you, where I doubt an end is in sight, endlessly retorting, including points that weren't even made! I'm sure you'll disagree with the above, which is what it is... 

On all my responses I have been in a rush which also limits my patience in how much time/effort I'm willing or able to employ in the various points and discussion. Add to this that my interest level is pretty low, mainly due to past "discussions" (if they can even be called that! Lol) 

Not to mention we're high-jacking this thread on points now that are only vaguely reminiscent of the original topic...


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> It's not impossible, it's what happened. Listen and directly compare to Ancerl, then Masur's, then Karajan's (each of those are successively longer from 23 to 26 to 28 min). Much clearer/symmetrical articulation, delineation of the lines/texture/counterpoint that Walter obfuscates (it's not just the sound quality of recording, he actually does *smear*/misalign the delineation/*counterpoint* which messes up the momentum, structure, ascending, inter-weaving development of the movement). Whether the tempo is technically okay or not, maybe there's a reason he himself thought it was a poor performance (in his words "deeply disappointing" if I remember correctly) and perhaps influencing his reconsideration where his 1961 version was in line with current performance practice (educated guess/speculation on my part; Im not a big fan of his 1961 rendition either but its much improved). I guess one has to look at whether the 1938 rendition aligns to Mahler's expressive goals. Personally I think it obviously doesnt -- including the liberal rubato that you mention, which clips it too much expressively in my view and (along with the rushed tempo) I personally think the work becomes glib, emotionally incoherent & mitigated (none in a compelling way) -- and I think Mahler suffers greatly if expressively mitigated much or too little vibrato.
> 
> 22 min was probably an exaggeration (re: "minimum") and I should re-phrase that to that's approx where the rendering seems to work most unanimously (22 on up to about 30). You're probably right in that it does seem plausible the work could be done at faster speeds; I just haven't heard it successfully. Walter's later 21.5 fourth (1961) is fine with no loss of anything structurally/texturally like 1938.
> Norrington's similar (to Walter/1938) 19.5 min 4th maybe works "structurally", but it's expressively awful (lacking in vibrato which is clearly needed to pull the piece off. The idea this is "HIP" for Mahler especially is very dubious imo) ... maybe just a better Mahler conductor needs to give it a go at those faster tempos to prove it can be pulled off -- but it's probably an indication of workability that the great Mahler conductors uniformly opt for 22+ min speeds ...
> ...


Come on, you're getting that from Hurwitz's review  He is confused, it is not rushed to the point of "contrapuntal smearing" as I already proved. Also the bass line is clear, contrary to what he is saying (ok maybe because i have the EMI transfer and the sound might be better than the Naxos, still no excuse for faulting the interpretation). Walter was at first very happy with the results as the producer stated. It is the orchestra's fault for not so great ensemble at times, and definitely not even close to the point of "smearing". Unrelated to Walter's interpretation. Some reports say he had tears in his eyes or his face brightened up when he heard the recording (including the producer's).

Hurwitz is always makes excuses against bad sound. He values it over interpretation. Some of his 10/10 reviews in sound/performance are undeserved compared to classic interpretations. Also he favours American recordings, loves Naxos recordings, hates Brit ones, and doesn't appreciate subtlety. As an aside, this is a guy who rates some no-name conductor over Chung who Messiaen personally approved (I heard the greatness of his version of the Symphony BEFORE reading anything about Messiaen's approval ).

https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-7827/


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Come on, you're getting that from Hurwitz's review  He is confused, it is not rushed to the point of "contrapuntal smearing" as I already proved. Also the bass line is clear, contrary to what he is saying (ok maybe because i have the EMI transfer and the sound might be better than the Naxos, still no excuse for faulting the interpretation). Walter was at first very happy with the results as the producer stated. It is the orchestra's fault for not so great ensemble at times, and definitely not even close to the point of "smearing". Unrelated to Walter's interpretation. Some reports say he had tears in his eyes or his face brightened up when he heard the recording (including the producer's).
> 
> Hurwitz is always makes excuses against bad sound. He values it over interpretation. Some of his 10/10 reviews in sound/performance are undeserved compared to classic interpretations. Also he favours American recordings, loves Naxos recordings, hates Brit ones, and doesn't appreciate subtlety. As an aside, this is a guy who rates some no-name conductor over Chung who Messiaen personally approved (I heard the greatness of his version of the Symphony BEFORE reading anything about Messiaen's approval ).
> 
> https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-7827/


Okay man, thanks for your perspective.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^^ You're welcome, I just like exposing the ACTUAL sources  of certain perspectives and analyzing them.

To get this thread back on track, this quartet is dubbed the most difficult to play ever. Written in 1984 (technically a 20th century piece) took decades to find performers and 14 years of practice to finally perform it! This world premiere recording is in 2016.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Check out his cello concerto 2 violin concerto 2, piano concerto.


OK. I have now listened to the piano concerto. I do quite like Lindberg but nowhere near as much as some of the items on the Guardian list. His music is attractive but I have always found it palls after a few hearings. I don't know if this will be the same. Thanks for the recommendations.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> ^^ You're welcome, I just like exposing the ACTUAL sources  of certain perspectives and analyzing them.


And quite an exposure it was!

Not everyone can be so original as to express acclaim for Walter's Mahler, such as yourself.

In terms of recordings, Hurwitz is among those I agree with most often, along with Jed Distler (I also find classicstoday to be very reliable in general such as Victor Carr, Vernier, etc ... though those first two most closely align with what I look for when selecting recordings). Second to that, I would say Scaruffi & Musicweb. I like Peter Gutmann for surveys of more historical recordings and a user on RYM called "lesbianwalrus" (dont let the name fool you from how seriously he's taken the task!).
Sources like Penguin and Gramophone are okay, but have too many biases, so with a grain of salt. And then the reviewers of Allmusic (Classical only) are actually pretty reliable (or at least more than I anticipated). Thats the general order I listen to when searching for and comparing recordings for a particular work and more often than not find that one of the reviewers from classicstoday, Scaruffi, or Musicweb matches my tastes. I only turn to those others if those fail to satisfy, or to fill out my own survey of recordings if still needed, or if I have a hunch there are still better renditions to be sorted out.

There are also plenty of users on this site I find to be very worthwhile for certain composers/repertoire/insights, such as Woodduck (especially Wagner but pretty much anything he provides insights for), millionrainbows, EdwardBast, and many others ... and recordings, users such as realdealblues and Trout tend to align closely to my tastes.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> And quite an exposure it was!
> 
> Not everyone can be so original as to express acclaim for Walter's Mahler, such as yourself.
> 
> ...


I thought you said you were giving up? Original? I just read after I wrote that, some article or something also noting his use of rubato, there is no doubt about it (and I didn't have to look it up before writing ). It's Hurwitz and regurgitations of his review () who had to be so original (and wrong) to suggest Walter's tempo is what led to "contrapuntal smearing" and such (at 25 bpm, it's not exactly Flight of the Bumblebee). It's not even my favourite version, which is Klemperer's. But flawed or not, (ok, Walter admitted there were flaws) there is no doubt it has certain insight few other recordings have, I don't care how well played, as many others also do (I'm finally appealing to others' opinions I know).

You should get your review of the Golijov published by Fanfare magazine. That was original, if not concise nor convincing (just my opinion).


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I thought you said you were giving up? Original? I just read after I wrote that, some article or something noting his use of rubato, there is no doubt about it (and I didn't have to look it up before writing ). It's not even my favourite version, which is Klemperer's. But flawed or not, (ok, Walter admitted there were flaws) there is no doubt it has insight few other recordings have, I don't care how well played, as many others also do.


My favorites are (1) Karajan live 1982; (2) Masur live 1994; (3) Bernstein/NYP; (4) Ancerl/CPO; (5) Ozawa

I go back and forth on Chailly as to whether or not he should join those (which is extremely dedicated and very well played) but I'm mixed on his tempos which are maybe too much on the slow side and may be overly contemplative/lack enough momentum.

I remember thinking Levine's was among the best, though it's been too long since Ive heard it so can't include it (yet?) with those at this time even if I suspect from memory that it could join them.

It's been a long time since I listened to Klemperer's but I do remember it as being superb and one of the recordings I need to revisit.


----------



## MrMeatScience (Feb 15, 2015)

I've just been to a performance of Mark-Anthony Turnage's _Massarosa_ for bassoon and string quartet. I don't know if it's one of the "best" works of this century, but I was captivated by it and it would certainly be on my own subjective list. I believe there's a recording of the premiere in New York -- it's well worth hearing. Very lyrical, enigmatic music.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

I am looking for other recorded performances of Golijov's amazing Cello Concerto "Azul" if anyone is familiar with any.

Of course I am familiar with the following, which I believe is the only "official" release so far: https://www.amazon.com/Golijov-Stoc...1?keywords=golijov+azul&qid=1570562991&sr=8-1

But if there are others you're aware of or come across such as live recordings on Youtube or on similar video sites, I would appreciate any recommendations/notifications.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)




----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Art Rock said:


>


Much appreciated, will give it a listen


----------



## radiodurans (Dec 8, 2018)

We all know the best work of this century will be when some young lad or lass adapts Twin Peaks into a new Operatic Ring Cycle.


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

I enjoyed reading the Guardian list. I was so excited about the release of Kurtág's Fin de Partie but still haven't gotten around to watch/listen to it.

What I would be eager to add is Stephen Hough's first 3 piano sonatas. There is a fourth that has been published but I have not heard/found a recording of it.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

For those interested, a game on this theme has started (taking nominations now). Link.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

For the game mentioned above, we have nominated 300 works composed from 2000 to 2019 (overview here). Even if you're not interested in games, you might be interested in this list.


----------

