# The Modern Era Composers, post Wagner ending Elliott Carter



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Finally have the correct forum, GENERAL Discussion. NOT Composers per se.
Hey Mods , I'm learning.
I would like to begin with Wagner's Parsifal /1882 and Tristan/1859 as ushering in *New Sounds*. 1st Modern Composer...?? Hard to argue against. Debussy wrote Prelude/1894. Ravel must have been blown away at the premiere.

Every stylistic era has beginnings that come out of a hazy dense fog, like a Figure from the Creative Depths. *The Spirit of the times*. The zeitgeist.

Then as it came like a whirlwind, so too like tornadic paths, ,,,its gone as quickly as it came,,,time moves on,,,,The Zeitgeist has changed its tune, a new spirit arises. 
So within this brief,,,100 and some odd years span, 1882-1982, there is a wide, vast expanse of interesting evolving, challenging music offered for the thirsty, explorative traveler.

Yet there may exist some born within this mighty era, yet you personally feel, should NOT be included in this High Arts genre.
Due to any number of personal reasons. 
Maybe you feel, a certain name has been edged in, willy-nilly by a certain roge fan base who wants to try to convince you, , his composer is ligit and so rightfully belongs in The Modern High arts category.

Yet after a few sessions of trial by error,,,you somehow have to question the devotee's suggestion/recommendation.

You are like thinking ,,,*how did we get so far off the beaten path of a modle /form laid out previous by another modern master , proven in compostion?
Varese had incredible ideas which some composers later on, picked up on and added to Varesequian models. ie Elliott Carter.

YOU CAN SKIP TO HERE FOR THE BIG Q
if you do not wish to read all the previous.

Which composers in the post Wagner through Elliott Carter Modern era, 
do you feel somehow does not make it on the list
of 
The Modern Era Composers.

You can choose any you like, only condition to make a fair judgement call is that you 
1) know most of this era's composers
2) you gave a fair, open minded listen to at least 2 or 3 of that composers major works

Otherwise your suggestion are invalid. 
Now true, you do not have to bear the unbearable and listen all the way through,,,as you can only endure , just so much,,,,torture.
I mean you can pick any composers you like, which may ~grate the nerves~~~, I mean I've seen some folks not care for composers like
, ,,,Stockhausen,,others not all happy with Ligeti,,,others seem not to regard Cage as true Modern High Arts composer,,,,I've even seen Berio mentioned as *nerve racking*m,,,and then others have brought up the german composer, Wolfgang Rihm,,as not really offering music which one can truly say, belongs in the catalogue of Great Modern Era Composer list.

The previous are only composers I've seen mentioned by long standing seasoned classical music fans, who apparently know their business.

Again, feel free to mention any composers you believe did not qualify, due to going it as old frankie sings *I did IT MY OWN WAY*,,,with absolutely no connections with past PROVEN masters within The Modern Era/Epoch.

I mean if we take into account our foundational giants, Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Beethoven,,,there must be some accountability to be held against this super creative tradition as the background.

Hovhaness seems to love borrowing quite a lot,,and not giving much in return....Sibelius , early on, had masterpieces, but sadly he had some hangups which affected his writing.

There can be any number of reasons why you chose the composers which can not seem to stand up to the claims made by others.

Time to sift the wheat from the chaff.

Stockhausen
Rhim
Berio
Ligeti
Cage
Ives
Messiaen


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Why do you make repeated attempts to incite arguments on who is the greatest or who should be completely and utterly excluded from the perennial "Great Modern Era Composer list"? The beauty of contemporary music is that, for the time being, there is no 'great' and there is (little to) no ranking. We'll let history sort that stuff out for us 100 years down the line, but for now all we can do is bask in the glory of the music.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

A few houses down the street a group of teeners practice their r&r band music with amplifiers at full blast and a drummer who is less than regular with the beat. Alas … I suggested they attempt the John Cage piece 4'33". Does this count toward responding to anything in this particular thread?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

What is the question?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Although I despise most of the music of Cage, I can't doubt he was an original thinker in music. His music (or non-music) will be remembered more than a lot of the conventional music, however well-written, of the era. Music is so diverse now, there is no single movement to pigeonhole composers in rankings, no melting pot. John Adams and Ferneyhough will never go head-to-head, and just representative of their respective styles.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I lost your train of thought midway through the OP. But I'll say this much, you're wrong about Ligeti, Stockhausen, and especially Messiaen. The latter is as close a continuation to your beloved Ravel and Debussy as you're going to get. Worth revisiting. The other two I mentioned I'm fairly confident you will come around on too. 

You may well be wrong on the rest of them too. I don't know enough of their music to say. But I think it's wrong to write off entire composers like that. A childish approach to music listening. Though I agree that it makes it easier to sift through the mountain of music out there, it's just not the right way to go.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I see no reason to decide on or limit any list. One is then free to come and go and come back to them again for another listen. Ligeti and Messiaen, yes. Stockhausen was fascinating. There's also Nono. Cage, I believe so. Ives, oh yes, remembered as the American iconoclast. Carter's better works will emerge, yes. Schnittke seems to be growing in interest. Pettersson has his work cut out for him except perhaps for his 8th Symphony. Henze was so eclectic that some listeners aren't sure where to begin. Perhaps the choices will be related to the 20th Century as the Age of Anxiety, Radical Experimentation, and Discovery.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I'd be surprised, Paul, if this performance does nothing for you at all.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Which noted composers writing after 1880 do we not like, right? I'm not so keen on Saint-Saens but wouldn't say I don't like him. I do like some of his pieces. I have yet to find pleasure in Ives. I'm not so fond of most minimalists or Adams. And I am no fan of MacMillan or Holmboe. There are probably a few others - including most of the Russian composers who were contemporary with Shostakovich. I quite like Henze but feel he compares poorly with many of his peers.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> Which noted composers writing after 1880 do we not like, right? I'm not so keen on Saint-Saens but wouldn't say I don't like him. I do like some of his pieces. I have yet to find pleasure in Ives. I'm not so fond of most minimalists or Adams. And I am no fan of MacMillan or Holmboe. There are probably a few others - including most of the Russian composers who were contemporary with Shostakovich. I quite like Henze but feel he compares poorly with many of his peers.


Nice list,,,can not argue with any of your additions to The List.
Your post caused me to go to YT and revisit, 
Per Norgard
Scelsi
Holmboe
I already know some Xenakis. who I will also add to 
The List.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ The list of "rejects"? But you can't reject Norgard and Xenakis! Nor Scelsi for that matter. Norgard can be a bit mixed but there are some great pieces. I won't trouble you with Xenakis because he is among a group of composers who I know you don't (yet) like.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Although I despise most of the music of Cage, I can't doubt he was an original thinker in music. His music (or non-music) will be remembered more than a lot of the conventional music, however well-written, of the era._

I think maybe more talked about in places like this than actually "remembered." I don't know anyone that attends classical music concerts or collects recordings that has "heard" anything by Cage.

As to the conventional, well-written music of the era … that would include Shostakovich, the last great composer whose output equals a Beethoven or Mozart, a composer that set the Western world afire with his Leningrad symphony during World War II, and a composer whose biography is still talked about today. He is easily the greatest composer since Wagner and probably the most important one too.

His "Babi Yar" Symphony No. 13 was just programmed by my local university to "celebrate" the anniversary of the 1941-43 slaughter and to coincide with recent D-Day celebrations.

While it is not clear who may or may not have written the greatest music of the 21st century, it's fairly certain that Shostakovich's music better rhymes with important 20th century historical developments -- the rise of communism and totalitarianism, World War II and the Holocaust -- than most composers.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Norgard is too thin,,,there are some interesting *passages*,,,but hardly any connecting lines, as you point out its a mix, a *grab bag*, 
I'm looking for solid masterpieces, Remember we come from Vivaldi/bach
Mozart/Beethoven,,,through Wagner/Debussy,,,2nd Viennese,,,,there are standards set,. 
This is the main subject of this topic. Holmoe, Hovaness, Xenaksis, ,,,Ligeti have *hits N misses*. Mixed bag = ain;'t buying in. = put these and many others as high as you wish, I ain't buying.

EDIT
Berio/Rihm
EDIT spurious is the word I am looking for here...let meck the definition,,,,,be right back.....


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

John McCabe and David Matthews are worth a listen.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

yep, spurious music. 
so to shorten the OP Q
Which composers in the modern era you hear as writing music that is , Spurious?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

What the h*** is 'spurious music' ... is that the classical music version of 'fake news'? And whose opinion do we use to establish that?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> John McCabe and David Matthews are worth a listen.


care to pick others from 
*this* list?

Like prot churches,,there is a new kid on the block every day
with no end in sight

Modern Classical, or something *different*. Your call. I already made up my mind on that matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_21st-century_classical_composers

and please note, this list in not comprehensive, we could extend this to 2 X's. 
We need to sort all this out. 
Who stands in line with Bach/Vivaldi, Mozart/Beethoven, Wagner/Debussy/2nd Viennese?
This is the Trillion $ Q.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Becca said:


> What the h*** is 'spurious music' ... is that the classical music version of 'fake news'? And whose opinion do we use to establish that?


You posted too soon, I just answered your Q,,had you waited another minute, ,,,
Spurious means just that. Is it essential?
Mozart is essential. Berio is not. He can very easily be substituted for superior music.
I'm no guardian of aesthetics , not a censureship of the High arts, not by any means. But we should maintain standards. 
this is all I'm saying, Hovhaness is below the set standards. He copies too often with no developments. I think Langaard is also guilty here.
Why the need for Nielsen? When we have superior music in Sibelius?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

You had better check a dictionary because essential and spurious have nothing at all to do with each other. As to answering my question, if you call that an answer, I certainly don't,.

Incidentally, who sets the 'standards'?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> I see no reason to decide on or limit any list.... Ives, oh yes, remembered as the American iconoclast. .


I do, see the need to rank, set standards. 
Why lower the bar for the High arts. 
Stack any of Sibelius syms against Pettersson.

Pettersson has much more depth, breath, width, and most of MEANING...
I can't understand nota single word of Sibelius music. Its just sounds coming from instruments,,,at times I do *get it*, the rocky cliffs, the sea, mountains, wind storms. Got it, His Kullervo is a masterpiece. 
But can we rate Sibelius high based on a few masterpieces? 
Icons are meant to be smashed.
The new can not live with the old standing in the way.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Becca said:


> You had better check a dictionary because essential and spurious have nothing at all to do with each other. As to answering my question, if you call that an answer, I certainly don't,.
> 
> Incidentally, who sets the 'standards'?


Schnittke is essential, He developed a unique sound, yet one based on his studies of past masters. 
Rihm just went his own little path into the forest.Expecting us to follow along.

The standards are set. We listen to Mozart's piano concerto,,,then we listen to Cage/Stockhausen/Ligeti/Nono's piano concerto. 
The gap is so huge, so distant, so utterly away from Mozart in terms of real music. Schnittke only appears to sound completely different, yet it is connected to Bach/Beethoven/Mozart/Schoenberg

Cage just went his merry little way, with complete disregard for the set standards.

Cage is connected to which major of the past 300 years?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Spurious is something that pretends to be important but is not, or something that appears to be real but is not. Lots of people wrote music like this but the trick is to determine whose opinion you believe since art, of course, is opinion.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_ Pettersson has much more depth, breath, width, and most of MEANING... I can't understand nota single word of Sibelius music._

I just spent weeks with both of them and would say for me the opposite is true: Sibelius is full of concision and meaning and Pettersson's symphonies are just the opposite: meandering empty gestures following other empty gestures that don't add up to anything.

I began listening to the latter because he was around here compared to Bruckner. I think I understand why but, in terms of development, there is no comparison. Bruckner wants to say something and says it, often repeatedly. Pettersson's music tends to be a lengthy stream of consciousness, even dream sequences strung together, with a lot of heaving and sighing.

It isn't bad and I can see why some people adore it but not me.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

larold said:


> Spurious is something that pretends to be important but is not, or something that appears to be real but is not. Lots of people wrote music like this but the trick is to determine whose opinion you believe since art, of course, is opinion.


It has nothing to do with importance: not being what it purports to be; false or fake.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

larold said:


> _ Pettersson has much more depth, breath, width, and most of MEANING... I can't understand nota single word of Sibelius music._
> 
> I just spent weeks with both of them and would say for me the opposite is true: Sibelius is full of concision and meaning and Pettersson's symphonies are just the opposite: meandering empty gestures following other empty gestures that don't add up to anything.
> 
> ...


I like your thoughts, very well expressed, and fair/honest.
You have a romantic soul, as Sibelius does offer plenty of lush, thick sonorities, melodies which are enchanting. 
I used to love Sibelius,,,early on.

Glad you gave Pettersson a fair listen, and who knows decades from now you may revisit.

I like Bruckner's codas , 1st and 4 th movement 7th sym, really neat scoring, both codas are exceptional.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

larold said:


> Spurious is something that pretends to be important but is not, or something that appears to be real but is not. Lots of people wrote music like this but the trick is to determine whose opinion you believe since art, of course, is opinion.


Again you seem to be fair mined, open minded about these issues. 
Listen to Beethoven;'s syms,,,now listen to Ives, cage, Berio. 
Who is not able to hear the disparity between the 2 styles of music.
I have no problems with Schoenberg being quite dif from Mozart,,,yet Schoenberg developed a form which 2 other masters picked up on and went even further in their own individual creativity.
Schoenberg is all over the place, with some neo romantic works. His works are creative, inventive and unique,,,Not so with Rihm, who offers a *mixed bag*.

btw I heard some Boulez piano solo works, I like them more than his orchestra,,its on order.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

paulbest said:


> Schnittke is essential, He developed a unique sound, yet one based on his studies of past masters.
> Rihm just went his own little path into the forest.Expecting us to follow along.
> 
> The standards are set. We listen to Mozart's piano concerto,,,then we listen to Cage/Stockhausen/Ligeti/Nono's piano concerto.
> ...


As usual you have not answered the specific questions so it seems pointless to continue.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Becca said:


> As usual you have not answered the specific questions so it seems pointless to continue.


OK, Had Beethoven scored in such a way which did not match his superior excellence as expressed in most of his works,,,would he have the same sense of importance as he holds today?

had Mozart not written his late PC's, late syms,,, would we consider him as great as we do today. If Wagner had not written Parsifal, would his reputation be just as strong, enduring, alluring?
had ravel left out 1/2 his piano solo/1/2 his orchestral, say no such score as Daphne...would he rate as high as he does in the catalogue of composers?

No, no, and no.
Now we have all these incredible ~~Phenomenal~~ masterpieces with us today...
These past masters have proven over the centuries that theie works are worthy and masterful artmanship. Should we not place Modern Composers on the very same scale?

If you feel I am still avoiding the Q, , being evasive about the whole issue, by all means just don't post anything.

Pointless means you have nothing to add to the conversation. 
take some time,,,think things over,,,I've been thinking these issues over now for decades. 
Ideas which I feel need to be said, now and not later.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> But can we rate Sibelius high based on a few masterpieces?


He left more than a few.



> Icons are meant to be smashed.


If they are merely icons they will fall of their own accord. Since the intolerant dogmas of Modernism have receded like an ebb tide, Sibelius stands out like a cliff above the sea. Your pick axe won't make a dent in the rock.



> The new can not live with the old standing in the way.


If the new is any good it will live to stand beside the old. Be patient.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> He left more than a few.
> 
> If they are merely icons they will fall of their own accord. Since the intolerant dogmas of Modernism have receded like an ebb tide, Sibelius stands out like a cliff above the sea. Your pick axe won't make a dent in the rock.
> 
> If the new is any good it will live to stand beside the old. Be patient.


Excellent, insightful, well thought out.

Yes The Granite Rock is wearing me out,,,only managed to takea few chips, handle is busted.

Agree, Icons can wear thin on their own,,,all the great beautiful greek temples are now reduced to broken shards,,ahh but what once exitsed..UNREALLLL Those temples were *eternal masterworks*. Or so they thought.

You know it was a very good thing for Salonen to record the great Kullervo with the Los Angeles. Really sursied me that orch had the skills to bring it off as a 10/10, with help from the gorgeous Swedish radio Orch. STUNNING!!!

There is a story about the premiere of that work,,,some critics had given thumbs down or something to that affect...?? which opinion held over for some time.

*Be patient*...a characteristic trait I've always came up short on,,and still paying the heavy burdensome priceSSS (plural, abundant pluralism)…

Yeah so like if this OP is itself, spurious,,,in nature,,it'll be forgotten like some old jalopy stuck out in the desert, out of gas, flat tires, rusting away....

You know you could not say any of these things, 20, even 10 yrs ago, as I was new to many 20Th C moderns....ith YT, we can all experience trial and error new modern composers.

Something for everyone...
I just don't understand how we have come from Beethoven/Brahms/Ravel and ended up with a few of the modern expressions in music. 
The gap is gigantic if not questionable.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> care to pick others from
> *this* list?
> 
> Like prot churches,,there is a new kid on the block every day
> ...


No one needs to align with them. The aesthetics are meant to be different. It's like going to a cinema, expecting to watch Casablanca, but offered Pulp Fiction.



paulbest said:


> Again you seem to be fair mined, open minded about these issues.
> Listen to Beethoven;'s syms,,,now listen to Ives, cage, Berio.
> Who is not able to hear the disparity between the 2 styles of music.
> I have no problems with Schoenberg being quite dif from Mozart,,,yet Schoenberg developed a form which 2 other masters picked up on and went even further in their own individual creativity.
> ...


It's strange you would knock down Rihm. Rihm is aligned himself with the Romantic ideals, while using more contemporary musical language. He is much more aligned with older tradition than your beloved E Carter.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Your Rihm cd selection is the very one I ordered. I heard tid-bits over at YT and thought it was a winner,,,now after a few attempts, I gave up. 
I just listened to most of the YT upload,,,its pretty good, I have the cd as I say,,,might revisit the work, What other work from Rihm do you recommend?

I can re-evaluate some of my deletions,,,but not by much. When I hear a composer on the level of Henze, this somehow affects my listenings of other contemporary composers. Its like back in the days of Beethoven, It was not easy for another contemporary composer to compete with his majestic scores. 
I'll have to reconsider Rihm, , I usually do not purchase a cd, unless there is value there,,,except in my Berio purchases. That was a wrong move. Picked up several for $6 on ebay. ,,,not sure what I plan to do with them. 

Its fun researching new composers, I found some real great music these past 4 months. 
Let's head over to YT for more Rihm. 

btw a new discovery was Boulez solo piano,,,his orch stuff, was not my cup of tea,,,kind of wrote him off, then came across his piano works, due to a recommend of Idil Biret's Webern cd, she also has some Boulez. She is a great pianist and her Boulez record is superb.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

...well i'm back in 3 minutes,,,from a very short journey into Rihms,, No.
Just based on this one work,I hope never in my entire last days on this earth,,that I ever hear another note from this *composer*...Add Rihm to the top of The Deletion List.,,ahead of Stockhausen and Ligeti

Read droog's comment on this YT upload,,says it sounds like a mischievous and lurid fly walking across the window pane,,,says it is weird stuff.

The Rihm cd is going in the trash,,,now,,there it goes,,trash man comes tomorrow....

its headed for the Kenner City dump


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Is being an *** a hobby of yours? Have you ever heard _Jagden und Formen_?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

oops..I'm going to retract those two names as I misunderstood the OP- poor skim reading. I actually love their music and don't find their work spurious at all. Both men are highly gifted artists and not charlatans. Do you know their work Paul? I find them both to be very distinctive, but I digress.
If I have to choose one composer I dislike, feel is over-rated and would consign to a second tier of quality, then that'd be Glass. I acknowledge his individuality but it is borne out of a blandness that irritates my sensibilities beyond (repeated) measure. I wouldn't say his work is spurious (that is surely too disparaging an adjective for any artist with a degree of discernment, including Glass), but rather laborious to listen to at least with my ears.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

paulbest said:


> care to pick others from
> *this* list?
> 
> Like prot churches,,there is a new kid on the block every day
> ...


Not sure what you are getting at here Paul. McCabe and Matthews are masters of their craft and hardly 'new kids'. McCabe was also a fine pianist with plenty of acclaimed recordings.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I did not know John McCabe was a composer. I have a couple of his recordings.

@Paul, glad you're enjoying Ms. Biret's Boulez 2nd piano sonata. It is an astonishing recording. I could easily understand if perhaps you'd heard a lesser performance in the past and wrote it off, because it takes serious talent (and stubbornness) to pull it off! As for his orchestral music, I am still coming to terms with much of it, but I really enjoyed the piece Répons (a long one, just to warn) as well as what I've heard of Le marteau sans maître. I think Boulez was a good, maybe great composer. An excellent craftsman of symmetry in the vein of Webern, only working in much larger forms. But I will not pretend that I understand all of his works!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> ...well i'm back in 3 minutes,,,from a very short journey into Rihms,, No.
> Just based on this one work,I hope never in my entire last days on this earth,,that I ever hear another note from this *composer*...Add Rihm to the top of The Deletion List.,,ahead of Stockhausen and Ligeti
> 
> Read droog's comment on this YT upload,,says it sounds like a mischievous and lurid fly walking across the window pane,,,says it is weird stuff.
> ...


I.don't bother with Youtube comments, which come in all shapes and sizes, for or against a piece of music. Sure it's a weird piece, but is edgy and a good exercise on syncopation. His quartets are well regarded, but in the more contemporary idiom, which may not be your thing. His Deus Passus is still the only Classical CD I bought of Classical music from this century.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> I did not know John McCabe was a composer. I have a couple of his recordings.
> 
> @Paul, glad you're enjoying Ms. Biret's Boulez 2nd piano sonata. It is an astonishing recording. I could easily understand if perhaps you'd heard a lesser performance in the past and wrote it off, because it takes serious talent (and stubbornness) to pull it off! As for his orchestral music, I am still coming to terms with much of it, but I really enjoyed the piece Répons (a long one, just to warn) as well as what I've heard of Le marteau sans maître. I think Boulez was a good, maybe great composer. An excellent craftsman of symmetry in the vein of Webern, only working in much larger forms. But I will not pretend that I understand all of his works!


Yes, it was your posting of the Biret's Webern, which led me to her performance of Boulez's piano solo,..I was gladly surprised at Boulez's talents in piano sol,,His orch works,,i am not keen on. But I may try again.

@ Portamento,,,I'll give Rihm's Jagden a chance to redeem. 
But its very unlikely,,,,In my 35 yrs experience, ifa composers's SQ is as it is, in the Rihms,,,it would takea work as graet as a Beethoven sym , for me to come back and accept his music.

Is Jadgen as great as Mozart's 41st?
If so, then I will certainly come to enjoy Jagden.

I have standards, set by Mozart, Wagner. Ravel , Schoenberg. 
For me to like a Mod composer, they have to show something that at least approaches such greatness.

@Mikeh..
Glass? Is he still considered as a *classical composer* rankings??
Who is manipulating the category to slip him in,,under the cover of darkness, = ignorance.

I did not bring up Glass, as he has already been shot down, all too often. His wings are clipped. 
Might be great *music*, just not in the classical tradition. 
Listen to any Elliott Carter work, then listen to Glass' best work..See what I mean?
Standards.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Rihm is a post mod composer,,should we include post mod inside the great true classical arts tradition. I vote a solid defiant 
NO.

Post mod is just what it is, POST< = after the show is over with,,
The great classical era, is over,,
Jagden is not classical,,,, it is something other than. 
I hear nothong connecting that piece to any great composer before.
With who, Varese? 
Varese never has anything even remotely as schizoid as Jagden.
Lets be real here.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

paulbest said:


> @Mikeh..
> Glass? Is he still considered as a *classical composer* rankings??
> Who is manipulating the category to slip him in,,under the cover of darkness, = ignorance.
> 
> ...


I thought we could mention people we think should not be included. Ah well, it matters not.
I've known Carters work for many years and one of my (late) best friends played on the seminal recording of his 4tets 1+4, so I'm not here in ignorance, Glass v Carter = no contest.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

*rankings*, is a gernal cast all term. Means , making the list of classical composers, 
Wiki's classical composers list, is like 100K names included. 
= wiki is a computer generated system, a comp has no sensibilities to hear music on a creative level. Oh yes, it is programmed to tag 10K names ona list, but it takes human sensibilities and valuation, judgements to sort through the 10K.


This is what I mean here.

I just can not find any music, post Elliott Carter which qualifies as inside the true classical tradition. 


Even pre Elliott carter,,,Hovhanness for instance. Classical trad? 
Not
Norgard? Yes if you like boring classical. 
Nielsen? Why? Sibelius wrote far superior, more interesting. 
Nielsen might edge in, like Britten, but neither's music does anything for me,,,,I can find better in many other modern masters. 

England has Vaughan Williams, she should be happy for that. Thanks to Ravel.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

paulbest said:


> England has Vaughan Williams, she should be happy for that. Thanks to Ravel.


Paul, you do yourself no favours at all with statements like that. Ravel said himself that VW was the only orchestration student of his that didn't sound like him. Your ears are too addled methinks....


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> Paul, you do yourself no favours at all with statements like that. Ravel said himself that VW was the only orchestration student of his that didn't sound like him. Your ears are too addled methinks....


No, I am saying RVW was greatly benified by the great master in orchestration. 
RVW went on to score masterpieces, I really have no issues with any of his syms. This is what I meant to say, that RVW learned from Ravel and went on to become a master , becoming englands greatest, by far, composer. 
I did not intend to disparage RVW's music,, his syms are masterworks.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I don't consider Wagner to be modern, but rather the apotheosis of an earlier era. 

Debussy is the first who springs to mind; Scriabin.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Debussy was definitely a considerable paradigm shift, a prerequisite for modernism.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Portamento said:


> Why do you make repeated attempts to incite arguments on who is the greatest or who should be completely and utterly excluded from the perennial "Great Modern Era Composer list"? The beauty of contemporary music is that, for the time being, there is no 'great' and there is (little to) no ranking. We'll let history sort that stuff out for us 100 years down the line, but for now all we can do is bask in the glory of the music.


I agree; Hovhaness, for example. I know he is not "great," but I like the territory he is covering: Eastern-influenced music, often modal, which seems to improvise within a scale rather than "develop" thematically.

I think the idea of "masterpieces" by "greats" is an outmoded concept left over from traditional, pre-technology history.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The desire to "destroy icons" is a manifestation of modernism's post-WWII consciousness of "heroic Man" as being inherently self-destructive (h-bomb). If the causes of self-destruction (the old icons) are destroyed, then the situation is defused; the bomb has been dismantled.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I agree; Hovhaness, for example. I know he is not "great," but I like the territory he is covering: Eastern-influenced music, often modal, which seems to improvise within a scale rather than "develop" thematically.
> 
> I think the idea of "masterpieces" by "greats" is an outmoded concept left over from traditional, pre-technology history.


I do not know anything of Hovhaness, but his inspirational sources sound similar to Messiaen.

The entire idea of being the greatest of the greatest, seems to be a nonsense discussion, best to be ignored. It is all a matter of taste and it does not matter of what you like is disliked by 99% of the population. The only consequence will be that the popular vote defines what is being recorded and distributed in great numbers and played in concert. In fact, only a very tiny selection of all available music is played over and over again. A narrow selection of warhorses that prevent the public from getting acquainted with something new.

Another aspect is that once a composer is 'discovered', his music will become popular very fast and everyone will want to record it. We saw this with Mahler, from the sixties onwards (as Mahler already predicted, it happened exactly 50 years after his passing) and with Shostakovich some twenty years later.

So, the music market merely defines what music is to become popular and what will remain in the shades.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Good points. 
I faintly recall the Mahler scenario,,where his music was only *remembered* some decades after his death.

Schoenberg 's notoriety, along with Berg, Webern, mostly was posthumous.

Shostakovich was hidden in dark Russia, which helps partly explains his late recognition.

Kajanus gave up his composition, in order to support full time devotion to his compatriot 's music, Sibelius.

Schnittke is slowly gaining recognition. We can thank the BIS label for their dedication for all things Schnittke. w/o BIS, pickings will be slim,,oh should also mention Chandos for their SPECTACULAR catalogue in Schnittke.

Conductor Christian Lindberg and his associates at the Norrepoking SO, have worked hard on a world wide tour called The Pettersson Project. I think audiences have been receptive to this *new music*. It sure ain't Bruckner, that's FOR SURE. (=Bruckner is in *The Tradition= more accessible = more welcoming = more easy to assimilate/accept* vs the *uncomprehensible* Pettersson)

I'd love to see Szymanowski gain in recognition,,,major, composer for sure, yet somehow has flown under the radar.

last, we come to Henze,,,no wait, 1st Elliott Carter. amazing that there are such folks as *anti-Carterists* in the USA,,,in Europe they love him.

Now we come to Henze…*who is that? Never heard of him...* is the common response.
Now Henze has a long way to go. 
He is somehow jumbled in with many late mod composers.

sure its all about what the market dictates, obviously it can not be any other way.

Lets say, this year in 2019,,every classical music fan comes to love and adore all things Henze,,I mean a sensation like Elvis Prestly or even the Beatles coming to the USA...something along those lines.

why, what would happen?
Nothing,,except Henze cd sales would rocket and prices would go top $,,,,,but as for concerts? can't happen, as most programs are already locked up years in advance.

The classical music industry is just that,, a industry,,which has nothing whatever to do with individual choices.

Folks go to the concert and are forced to accept whatever is performed. The Common man;'s vote is left out the equation. 
\
That is to say the Henze craze can only take place ona individual level, never in a group form,,,at least not in this present epoch..and considering modern man is under attack from every angle and his $ is near worthless, , classical music is the furthest thing on his mind. 
Pop music rules, jazz also has a huge following. 
I avoid both like the plague of H1N1 Ebola.

Henze's recognition may not ever take off, his music is not *easy*, not *straightforward*. its challenging , its different its unique, Things modern man has no time nor energy to break down.

lazy modern man is out of touch with The High arts. 
besides he always yearsn for 8the good old days*...ahhh how things once were,,,those were the good times..
the music of Henze destroys all such *reminiscences*. 
….although …..


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

NLAdriaan said:


> .
> 
> The entire idea of being the greatest of the greatest, seems to be a nonsense discussion, best to be ignored. It is all a matter of taste and it does not matter of what you like is disliked by 99% of the population. .


I hope I addressed your 2nd part, *if 99% does not like a certain composer*, majority rules the roost , in the post #50
1st idea, about *best of the best*. 
This is all I am after in my 35 yrs of classical music. 
Which are the greatest composers from each country. This is what I am after these 35 years in The High Arts. 
I make it a point to willfully, cognitively , aesthetically arrive at my choices. 
I am not driven as mass common man is derived.

= Beethoven will remain most popular for quite a long yet. No forseeable changes there. 
So no, I do not embrace the whole classical spectrum,,,only the best of the best. 
The rest you can have.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> Rihm is a post mod composer,,should we include post mod inside the great true classical arts tradition. I vote a solid defiant
> NO.
> 
> Post mod is just what it is, POST< = after the show is over with,,
> ...


I asked this in a previous thread: How is Carter in any way connected to music from the past? He is also considered postmodern by some, at least in stance, although fell under the modernist era just by living in that time, no more than Glazunov was typical of his time (people thought his music came from much earlier from its sound). Rihm music is said to be "embedded" in both modern and postmodern. It seems to me you are inventing things into what you hear.

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140104579770


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I am sure, everything said in the book, , in such glowing terms, about Rihm , is true. 
If I came across that snippet in a mag,,i no doubt would have bought his music in the LP days,,as we had no resources such as YT to ck it out pre purchase. The descript of his music, sounds intriguing, , fantastic, *not to be missed*…

With Elliott Carter , as I mentioned often here on TC, I hear his music as a development of , perhaps what Varese did not get around to finish. Also Carter can be heard as Second Generation, 2nd Viennese. If you look at any list of USA classical composers, top 3 or 4 will always include Copland, Ives, Hanson, and a few others,,,Carter might/might not be on some *top 5 ameriacn classical composers*. Why is this?

His music is outside the *norm*,,,Carter's music to me, is not *American*, whereas Copland is 100% pure USA. Carter to me is international, no boundaries, , also perhaps late modern, but DEFINETLY NOT <post modern>
Rihm is post modern german.

Henze has nothing,,,,well no, he is german, no doubt there,,,but he is also, International, such as Carter.
Both I hear as exact contemporaries , both on the same level of genius. And both outside *the box*, the norms. 
Henze's name gets thrown in with the group of famous post moderns, by error and ignorance.

look at wiki, has Stockhausen in terms as *significant,,,,,influential,,,highly important...*,,whereas go to Henze,,,*was a german composer*,,I make edits *germany's greatest late 20th C, post WW2 composer*,,,,wiki editors keep deleting my opinions. 
wiki is only for base bone facts, no fleshing out, = misses the mark of reality = popular opinion, pop vote.

Henze can not become known as his music requires a certain level of hearing skills.

No one can just walk up to Henze as a classical newbie, and *get* his music, Not going to happen. One must have the stars and stripes of years around all eras of classical mujisc under ones experiences before grasping Henze. 
Takes a certain maturity to gather in Henze. 
I can clearly understand this.

I've found out there is bigotry and stubbornness among classical music fans. 
Oh its there.

Henze needs a new generation of classical music devotees,,and I do not forsee this group emerging any time soon,,,not in my lifetime.

We must thank Wergo for bringing Henze,,,oh and of course DG's 16 cd set, for helping to make Henze accessible to the general public.

Rihm is pure post modern,,, fits in perfectly with other post mods, Ligeti, Stockhausen... Messiaen. , Berio, Xenakis.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Modern 100%






Post modern 100%


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> I am sure, everything said in the book, , in such glowing terms, about Rihm , is true.
> If I came across that snippet in a mag,,i no doubt would have bought his music in the LP days,,as we had no resources such as YT to ck it out pre purchase. The descript of his music, sounds intriguing, , fantastic, *not to be missed*…
> 
> *With Elliott Carter , as I mentioned often here on TC, I hear his music as a development of , perhaps what Varese did not get around to finish. Also Carter can be heard as Second Generation, 2nd Viennese.* If you look at any list of USA classical composers, top 3 or 4 will always include Copland, Ives, Hanson, and a few others,,,Carter might/might not be on some *top 5 ameriacn classical composers*. Why is this?
> ...


Carter is nothing like an extension of Varese, or 2nd generation 2nd Viennese. His compositional approach is completely different, Whereas Stockhausen used serialism as did Webern. This is why I'm questioning your associations and classifications.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

I'm done with this thread. You make no sense whatsoever.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Portamento said:


> I'm done with this thread. You make no sense whatsoever.


Don't go away mad; etc.


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Portamento said:


> I'm done with this thread. You make no sense whatsoever.


I just wrote like 15 posts, most over 1000 words long,,
you mean to tell me, honestly,,there is not even 1, not 1 idea somewhere in that stack which you can at least put in a thumbs up, a Like Hit,,..come on man, I ain;'t buying. "there is something either I said, or a composer you love, which I may have knocked, which brings up this snidey remark.

Come on , like pat Benitar sings..
*Hit me with your best shot,,,fire away...*


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> Don't go away mad; etc.


that's what i'm saying, ,,,what do you think I said in my 1000 worded posts which may have caused such a reaction.
As you and everyone here knows, how much I love classical music.
and that all my posts come fropm the heart, and are not intent on flaming. 
just straightup beliefs, 
Things that I've been holding in for decades now. 
There are issues in the CM industry that need addressing. 
better sooner than later....
that's all i'm here for, open friendly debates.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

These are the posts that really ticked me off:



paulbest said:


> ...well i'm back in 3 minutes,,,from a very short journey into Rihms,, No.
> Just based on this one work,I hope never in my entire last days on this earth,,that I ever hear another note from this *composer*...Add Rihm to the top of The Deletion List.,,ahead of Stockhausen and Ligeti
> 
> ...
> ...





paulbest said:


> I have standards, set by Mozart, Wagner. Ravel , Schoenberg.
> For me to like a Mod composer, they have to show something that at least approaches such greatness.





paulbest said:


> Rihm is a post mod composer,,should we include post mod inside the great true classical arts tradition. I vote a solid defiant
> NO.
> 
> Post mod is just what it is, POST< = after the show is over with,,
> ...


You sit on this high horse like you're the arbitrator who deems what is 'great' music and what is not; what is classical music and what is something else. You pose questions such as "should we include post mod inside the great true classical arts tradition[?]" as if this is stuff that gets decided right here, right now and not over hundreds of years. Then you go about capitalizing "The Deletion List" as if you are conducting scholarly research when it is just one man's opinion. Rihm is not my favorite composer, but how can you judge his entire ouevre based on a single three-minute session of one work? Don't give me that "I've been an expert for 35 years" bull.

There are, however, some things which _aren't_ opinions. _Jagden_, for one, _is_ classical music no matter how much you want to spin it. It's your blatant rejection of such facts that turns me off. Statements such as "For me to like a Mod composer, they have to show something that at least approaches such greatness" and "The great classical era, is over" are precisely the type of things that alienate many young listeners from contemporary classical music (if not all classical music).


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

paulbest said:


> ...Henze can not become known as his music requires a certain level of hearing skills.
> 
> No one can just walk up to Henze as a classical newbie, and *get* his music, Not going to happen. One must have the stars and stripes of years around all eras of classical mujisc under ones experiences before grasping Henze.
> Takes a certain maturity to gather in Henze.
> ...


Fwiw: I look on this thread as pro-modern/contemporary music and as such I avoid making negative comments about the examples given or composers being discussed. Even though I'm not a big fan of much of it I still like to check in and have some understanding of what is thought to be great modern works.

But, there has been a lot of comments by the same 3 or 4 individuals about how unfair it is that people trash modern works and composers as if there is some agenda to run people off the forum. And yet, I periodically see stuff like the above which infers that not liking some or all modern works is due to some inborn deficiency or lack of effort and/or that liking modern music requires great classical music listening acumen, all of which is just asking for a backlash. Seems to me that you guys should start monitoring your own comments a bit.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Yep indeed, some of the items you point out about my characterizations are ,,,lamentedly true.
I have set some high standards, had Ravel wrote some very weird pieces,,,mixed in,,supposition of course,,with fantisic beautiful pieces,,,i'd feel like its a fly in the soup...= he would be lowered in my estimation,.,,But the fact is, he did not, Every one of his works hold beauty, He set out to do it, and accomplished. 

Do I expect every great composer to maintain what ravel did? Absoluetly ( I really hate that word, but here it fits) not. As Ravel was of another era, and a different level of genius.

You say, though Rihm may have a off piece or 2, that does not pseak for his entire output...well considering what I've heard, , how can I make a connection with my preferred music. 
His music stands opposed to my 400+ CD collection,.
Its something *other than*. 
Sorry, if the youths are going to take up the torch and carry CM into the 22 nd C,,,they will need to know what the standards are.
What is great, what is OK, what is mediocre. 
Rihm may have been very serious about his works, along with Ligeti. Messiaen as well, has been told *great excellent works*. Wuorinen has a rather faithful following. Music which I nibbled on, but not sure if I want more of,,Not sure, I could go back today and make that final call if I wish..but I don't. 



I don't want to appear as the ho hum arbitrator of whats what in CM..,,so I am only offering strong suggestions., So far no composer has come out of france to carry on Debussy and Ravel's legacy. 
Some say they do not feel Carter has carried Varese ideas further/more developed, I think Carter does this service,,which qualifies him as America's greatest composer. He is connected to a PREVIOUS MASTER...Copland is Americanism landscape, folk tunes. OK, but I am not interested, as it falsely portrays a currently fake image of the land as it is NOW, today. That is to say, I hate Copland, though he is held as America's greatest. According to wiki.


We began with Correli, Vivaldi, and Bach,,,how can Rihm qualify to be in this illustrious company? 
He went off on his own path. 
Or tell me, which composer is his inspiration?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Fwiw: I look on this thread as pro-modern/contemporary music and as such I avoid making negative comments about the examples given or composers being discussed. Even though I'm not a big fan of much of it I still like to check in and have some understanding of what is thought to be great modern works.
> 
> But, there has been a lot of comments by the same 3 or 4 individuals about how unfair it is that people trash modern works and composers as if there is some agenda to run people off the forum. And yet, I periodically see stuff like the above which infers that not liking some or all modern works is due to some inborn deficiency or lack of effort and/or that liking modern music requires great classical music listening acumen, all of which is just asking for a backlash. Seems to me that you guys should start monitoring your own comments a bit.


well had you waited,,I hope my post #62 would answer some of those Q's

I think many of my comments are outlandish,,maybe because some of these comments are long over due in making, in confrontation..How often over at CMC, GMG, did I see post mods mentioned,,,right along with true genius gifted modern composers. 
Seeing that, rankled my nerves, I was furious as to how post mods were mentioned as if the composer earned the rights to be in CM discussion boards.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

when post moderns can compose a work matching Elliott Carter's piano concerto, I'll be 1st in line to purchase the cd.

Elliott Carter's PC from 1964 stands along side Beethoven's , Mozart, Schoenberg's Ravel's piano concertos. Equal to any from Bartok and Prokofiev,






a , level of writing I do not hear from any of the great(est) of post modern composers.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Ok, got it,,,Found something I was looking for, to back up my ideas here and everywhere across the TCF board these past few days,,,Read 
Stuart Segan's comment , about 5 comments down
*a piano concerto that sounds like everyone,,and yet no else at the same time...*
BINGO, hallelujah . Now I have something solid to back up my ideas .
*Like everyone*,,that is to say, like Beethoven, Mozart, Schoenberg, Ravel. In this sense...and yet,,*no one in particular*,,that is unique in its own way, not out copying anyone directly.

Got to get off the comp,,,just forgot tea on stove and evaporated away.... 
later....


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Fwiw: I look on this thread as pro-modern/contemporary music and as such I avoid making negative comments about the examples given or composers being discussed. Even though I'm not a big fan of much of it I still like to check in and have some understanding of what is thought to be great modern works.
> 
> But, there has been a lot of comments by the same 3 or 4 individuals about how unfair it is that people trash modern works and composers as if there is some agenda to run people off the forum. And yet, I periodically see stuff like the above which infers that not liking some or all modern works is due to some inborn deficiency or lack of effort and/or that liking modern music requires great classical music listening acumen, all of which is just asking for a backlash. Seems to me that you guys should start monitoring your own comments a bit.


I think what many fans of modern and contemporary music object to in this thread is that the main poster claims to like modern music but trashes most of it while standing up for a few worthy but possibly not top rank modern composers. It doesn't help that he does so in ways that suggest he believes himself to be in-touch with something that those who disagree with him are not open-minded, intelligent or perceptive enough to appreciate when he is showing himself to have ears closed to the bulk of the music that many modern music fans believe has been great. Of course, we all have stuff we love and can't understand when others don't love it. I guess that is the frustration and the life-blood of a forum like this.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Someone recently posted his breakdown of the classical fan groups, ,his analysis was , honest, practically , made in all fairness.
He listed 4 broad/generalized, , but specific range CM fan base groupies.


I did not care for groupies of the 2nd group.


Look, who had to go dig up Szymanowski's composer chat room out the bottom of the dungeon?


Someone poked a funny and has Szy in a romanticized camp.
hummm, to me, Szymanowski is solidly Modern.


Now sure I am no fan of the oldies but goodies era music,. I can do fine w/o 95% of the music pre 1900, .which places me solidly in the modern camp. 
,,Yet I have to *draw lines in the sand*,,,I have to maintain, what I feel are traditional patterns and hold any music with the 20th C up to a past which all is built upon. 


I don't like to *throw the baby out with the bath water*. Great music is born from great music, Great composers never rejected completely the greats of the past, They only remolded and reformed these patterns. 

Its like the modern composers I hold to, have seen great beauty of the past,,yet witnessed another view of Mount Beauty,,,they could see another distant pathway up the mountain of art, and this those with sympathetic hearing, follow their paths to a higher art form.

This is what modern masters have done for us. If someone wishes to remain down on a lower peak, who am I to say *hey come up higher where the sights and sounds are UNREAL....Group 2 campers are very happy where they are, and have no interest to explore any further.



Now as to this *other modern group*,,which I hear as post modernism,,,, No I can;'t follow that path. It completely interfers with what I know as Traditional Classical Beauty. 
Webern sparkles with beauty. Post ModernISM gets in the way.
I can smell post modernism a mile away,,now that I have made incursions into that camp, these past few months. 


Elliott Carter completes The Classical,,,no wait, Henze passed away in 2007, Elliott Carter in 200,,,wait be right back,,,,OK, Henze 2012, Elliott Carter 2012. 
Both passings are significant in the classical tradition, as a ending to a long glorious genre of High art.



Which remains to decipher who is who within late 20th C. 
Stockhausen may have been composing early on in the greatest era for classical music, The 20TH C,,,yet his works have to stand up to others who worked out their modern masterpieces.

I would say the closest contemporary to Stockhausen would be Elliott Carter and also Hans Henze. 

I hear nothing from Stockhausen which qualifies his music to be considered on the same level of creativity as either great 20th C great masters.
Stockhausen broke too many rules and established patterns for me to come around to his ideas how to score music. 

Stockhausen is 100% post modern, inspite of the fact he worked solidly within the great Modern C, the 20th. 
He just went off on a ,,tangent
You call it classical music, I call it New Age, aka Post Modern Pop Art


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

This is what I am in search for and have made such discoveries and also rejections.
Which composers of the 20th C rank as The Modern Beethovens among all 20th C composers 
Not all composers can qualify for the Classical Modern era of composers. Wiki has a list for 20th C classical composers, its is over 1000+ names.

Are there 1000 composers whose work qualifies to be considered as in the genre of music along side Beethoven?


In the classical era, we have Mozart, Hayden, Beethoven anda few others,,,the transition years from classical era to romantic styles, witnessed a profound blossoming of new composers following in the paths of the 3 great masters. 

Late romanticism ushered in dozen's more great composers , who followed on the paths of the earlier romantics.

Now we come to the trans of late romanticism to early modern composers. 
Wagner in Parsifal, and Debussy in Prelude sets a new sound, which had never existed previously. 

Other worthy proven greats now experimented with new forms, Varese, Schoenberg Ravel, Szymanowski.


it is this epoch which concerns me most, for it is music of my time, my Zeitgeist. 


and now along comes *others*, foreigners , strangers, who somehow get mixed in with the great proven masters of the Modern Era. 
many of just have Ligeti sit right next to Berg,,as if both belong at the same table. 



Composers whose creativity does not rise up to the music of Beethoven, I cast into a large catchall net, called the Post modern, otherwise I tag as New Age music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

What you hear as "great" obviously has to do with having speech-like phrasing, not Stockhausen's pointillistic "star music" which is beyond speech gestures. 
Then your great music begins and ends with Man; it is not concerned with stars or the universe.
Man is a virus; we must set our sights higher than this. As Nietzsche described him, "the over-man."
Meanwhile, back at the hydrogen bomb testing facility...which reminds me, I think I'll get out John Adams' "Dr. Atomic" and listen to it.









_
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.

_


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> What you hear as "great" obviously has to do with having speech-like phrasing, not Stockhausen's pointillistic "star music" which is beyond speech gestures.
> Then your great music begins and ends with Man; it is not concerned with stars or the universe.
> Man is a virus; we must set our sights higher than this. As Nietzsche described him, "the over-man."
> Meanwhile, back at the hydrogen bomb testing facility...which reminds me, I think I'll get out John Adams' "Dr. Atomic" and listen to it.
> ...


YES, you have explained a lot,,,
now as you all know, I am fair and open minded in mjuisc,,,I just came from YT, cking further into Xenakis,,,seems I may have to re-evaluate at least 1 of his works...
can you believe it,,,here I am shooting down Xenakis past few weeks, and ,,just days later,,,i am eating my criticism..
I have to recobisder at least some of Xenakis,,,sure his music is not for everyone,,,but as a true modernist,,,I must live by a certain open mindedness.

What made me hear this work differently is the comment on YT. by Bela Giya,,who says, *Xenakis has successfully built a equilibrium between noise and music,,,,* and continues on,,it is this comment which struck chord,,and piqued my interest,,,and only then did I hear clearly,,,WEBERN come through....Now we havea connection, Now there is a hook which alolows me to listen further, more openly.

Xenakis may hold some real goods..
Here you read and listen, tell me what you think


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It sounds like Xenakis. I have never questioned it.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

please interpret *I have never questioned it...*...Is most of Xenakis like this piece above?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

ok GOT IT,,,Xenakis is following Varese, and trying to make something higher, newer. Elliott Carter picked up on Varesequeian ideas and made master works. whereas Xenakis is doodling around, making a big mess of things.
43 minutes worth


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

paulbest said:


> when post moderns can compose a work matching Elliott Carter's piano concerto, I'll be 1st in line to purchase the cd.
> 
> Elliott Carter's PC from 1964 stands along side Beethoven's , Mozart, Schoenberg's Ravel's piano concertos. Equal to any from Bartok and Prokofiev,


Just for giggles, let's have it actually stand alongside Beethoven and Mozart:

Carter Piano Concerto





Beethoven Piano Concerto #4





Mozart Piano Concerto #20


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> when post moderns can compose a work *matching* Elliott Carter's piano concerto, I'll be 1st in line to purchase the cd.
> 
> Elliott Carter's PC from 1964 stands along side Beethoven's , Mozart, Schoenberg's Ravel's piano concertos. Equal to any from Bartok and Prokofiev,
> 
> ...


Whose judgement are we to go by? Yours, mine, critics or Youtube likes vs. dislikes? This one matches or surpasses in all counts except yours probably.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Oh come on, you know what suggestion I am implying about this inference.

The Mozart and Beethoven concertos are from a distinct era, music was as it was. Mozart could not have scored a new concerto in the format of Elliott Carter's model. Different epochs of expectations , influences and developments. 
Mozart was inspired by his studies of music, as Beethoven was instilled with his creative ideas , based upon the models in front of him. 
Both masters created works which have proven to be masterpieces, which is why each has been programed and recorded repeatedly over the centuries and will continue for another 100 years to fascinate and intrigue the audiences. 
Mozart and Beethoven concertos draws the crowds. 


Elliott Carter's concerto in the meantime, is a New Work, its brand new and awaits the audience's awareness. 
Besides , look at how often the Beethoven has been recorded/performed. Mozart has a few less recordings , yet ranks high in popularity among the concert audiences. 


Whereas Elliott Carter's conceryo , already has 1 or 2 very successful recordings and we have to thank Ursla Oppens and her accompaniment for bringing us 1st class recordings. 
The level of dif is like a mountain compared to the foothills of playing a Beethoven and Mozart concerto. 
We can not rate *greatness* only in terms of popularity,,but by the overall structure and musical content as per the era's expression. 


Elliott Carter has achieved the pinnacle of expressiveness in The Modern Sound. 
Yet not so far out there to be considered, thankfully, not post modern category.. A style which believes, the more rules I break, the better the music.
Carter never completely disregards the past masters. Mozart and Beethoven's ideas, he carried with him in the scoring. Its there, if you wish to hear it.
But its music that is not going to sound like your typical Mozart and Beethoven. It is music cast in The Modern Format, his concerto looks forward, far far into the distant future. It is timeless, as Beethovena and Mozart's hold a sense of timeless/

Whereas had Carter chose a different path,,that of any of the post mods,,his music would be nothing more than *Post Modern*. A style and form which falls miserable away from the great past masters. 

Ellliott Carter instinctively knew all this. 
He knew to break so far away would minimialize his music to ,,post modern garbage,,where rules and past masterpieces have no influences.


It is this sense we can catalogue Carter along side Mozart, Beethoven, Berg, as well with Ravel.

Hope some of this helps explain my ideas.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> Whose judgement are we to go by? Yours, mine, critics or Youtube likes vs. dislikes? This one matches or surpasses in all counts except yours probably.


had you waited another few minutes,,i would have answered your inquiries in my post #76

Its not decision as to make a universal judgement call. 
The future gen of classical music community will have to render its own valuations.
My only purpose is to attempt to shed light on this issue,,of who is who among Modern Composers. 
Who is authentic, and who is post modern style. 
There is a huge gap twix the 2 styles.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

paulbest said:


> ok GOT IT,,,Xenakis is following Varese, and trying to make something higher, newer. Elliott Carter picked up on Varesequeian ideas and made master works. whereas Xenakis is doodling around, making a big mess of things.
> 43 minutes worth...


Xenakis represents to me an even more radical approach than Varese or Stockhausen. Like the Greek idea of the Quadrivium, he is making "music" solely out of mathematics. If anything, I would think that you & many others would consider him to be worse than John Cage.
Even more than Cage, Xenakis seems to have succeeded in completely removing his personality from the music, unless I'm missing something. One of his purely electronic pieces is so grating that it could cause ear damage. I've got the CD! The reason, is because he based it entirely on an algorithm, with no regard, apparently, for any aesthetic effect.
I'm not saying I don't like Xenakis; I simply accept him for what he is. I tend to choose purchases of his work based on the instrumentation: whatever might produce some sort of "pleasant" listening experience. The "Electronic Works" CD is good for blowing out your tweeters.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

@ Phillovesclassical


Oh Lutoslawski ,,,I missed that posting,,,No I do not care for Lutoslawski,,But as I am fair minded,,i'll give him another shot..., from what I recall he is ok,,at least he is not post mod. 


Thanks Millions, for that upsot on Xenakis. 
NO WONDER 
I am having great trepidations about his *music*. No I will completely pass.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

paulbest said:


> Elliott Carter's concerto in the meantime, is a New Work, its brand new and awaits the audience's awareness.


Hyperbole is inversely proportional to credibility. The Carter Concerto is over a half century old.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Hyperbole is inversely proportional to credibility. The Carter Concerto is over a half century old.


Sure I was aware the concerto was not *new% in terms of actual historical time (though I had no idea when it was actually written, ,,wait the YT says 1974,,,thats more than ,,OK, you did say *over*,,,a half century,,which makes the work *dated*...But lets put aside actual historical date,,,lets consider the idea as *The New Sound*, as per 2nd Viennese/Vareseque, definitely not Stravinskyian.

I consider 2nd Viennese/Varese ,,The New Classical Model.

Carter's concerto sounds within this sphere of creative expression. 
And so completes this style of expression.

As Bach was the end of baroque, Beethoven the end of the Classical, ,,the Modern Era , has no clear beginnings, no clear distinct endings. ,,,or does it,,have clear endings.
Henze passes with Elliott Carter in 2012. Now I'm am not superstitious , or anything, BUT,,,you don't consider that,,,synchronicity. 2 distinct events, in time/space, yet in unison connected? 
In do.

I am not making all this up as I go,,I am telling you, when my intuition function, kicks in, she's goes....

Anyway,,back to what I was saying,,,now where was I,,,,,,

Oh yes, Incredulity , on my part,,tagging the idea of *New* on the 60 yr old concerto..Heck that's a long time ago,,,yet in the creative arts, where a work has not been given status, it retains its sense of *newness* until its actually heard and digested over time.

I bet the concerto has not been performed here in the USA, no morev than 10 times live,,and maybe 10 times in Europe. Only 1 in 10 concert goers have actually heard the work live and only 1 in 10 have the cd in their collections. 
= its New.

Its a phenomenal work, and one destined to become greater than and more popular than Beethoven;s 5 piano concertos. 
Destiny always takes time to reveal itself in these matters of art. 
Look at Mahler,,,w/o Bernstein, and Bruno Walter, Mahler would be lost to posterity.

Elliott Carter's time has not arrived, due to the nature of this creative expression, the depths of his genius. 
Takes genius to know (ie hear) genius.

the classical community is , for the most part, not yet ready to embrace Elliott Carter as *the new kid on the block*. 
as one TC member here advocated, *Be patient, these things take time*.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

^^^ Look, you said 'brand new'. If you mean something else, then take a little time to express it in the first place without all the exaggerations.You're throwing all sorts of things against the wall, but very little is sticking so you spend a lot of time explaining a previous post or backtracking when it's questioned.

Re: "Its a phenomenal work, and one destined to become greater than and more popular than Beethoven's 5 piano concertos."

No, after 54 years, it shows absolutely no sign of being considered as a work in the same league as Beethoven's concertos.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

DaveM said:


> ^^^ Look, you said 'brand new'. If you mean something else, then take a little time to express it in the first place without all the exaggerations.You're throwing all sorts of things against the wall, but very little is sticking so you spend a lot of time explaining a previous post or backtracking when it's questioned.
> 
> Re: "Its a phenomenal work, and one destined to become greater than and more popular than Beethoven's 5 piano concertos."
> 
> No, after 54 years, it shows absolutely no sign of being considered as a work in the same league as Beethoven's concertos.


You know, I have to completely agree with youl. I mean making opinions, based on some hard factsk, is one thing,,,*brand new*,,what I mean is that, its rarely if ever played on classical FM radio, brought up in musical discussions. 
If it were well know, that is not brand new,,,we might see it programed at least 1 or 2 x's a year here in the USA.

I could be wrong, maybe some US orch is performing the work as I type.

I mean, if we consider the concerto in all its aspects,,,its not like composers are flinging a piano concerto out daily on the same level.
Can you name one PC scored here in the USA past 50 yrs to match the musical quality of Carter's ?

I have no idea how the Viennese reacted to a new Beethoven piano concerto...was it FLASH NEWS hot off the press and crowds packed the halls to witness the premiere?
History may not tell us. What we do know is that the 5 receive plenty of attention, .

I have no interest in any of them. Never did in 35 yrs. I attempted to like the great 5th, his best,,but never worked out. 
Elliott Carter's, was love at 1st hearing. 
Just sayin

Perhaps Carter's concerto may not gain popularity. But then , many of us here are curious as to what the future holds for all classical music.

If only we had a crystal ball, and could see how things worked out in the long run, 100 years from now.

If Elliott Carter in 100 yrs from now, does gain priority over the Beethoven 5,,,,poor thinking,,,,lost thought,,,,the Q here is, what will be the state of classical music in 100 yrs, the orchestras, soloists, conducting, recordings.

Hillary Hahn is the biggest sensation in all classical music, been that way past 15+ years...She continues to packed houses, solid, world over. 
This shows some interest in this art is alive and well.

My guess is a generation will arrive that will be more,,enlightened, sensitive, curious , open minded,,to all and every major composer past 300 yrs,,,with no limitations.

That is to say, Szymanowski will see sunshine, Pettersson will be heard, fairly, Schnittke will gain stature and become as often mentioned as Beethoven is today.,..,,and Elliott Carter will not only be given his rightful dues,,but will be granted the acclaim as not only America's greatest composer, but the only true great composer born on American soil. 
= Copland will be nothing more than dental office and elevator music. Ives will be completely forgotten, as if he never existed.

EDIT"
and I ain;t backing off anything just written.

Chiseled in stone.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Many 20th-century composers would do anything but comfort their listeners, and Carter was usually one of them, though they could quite often be probing, intriguing and challenging, and Carter was usually one of them:


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

so far I've not heard any American composer approaching the art of Elliott Carter. 
Just to be clear. 
Nice post Larkenfield.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_so far I've not heard any American composer approaching the art of Elliott Carter. Just to be clear_

I'd say the most important there is "I've" … just to be clear … since "I've" heard the art of many American composers transcend Elliot Carter.

Of living composers I would count first among them Michael Daugherty's "Trail of Tears" Flute Concerto I heard in concert in the recent past.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

,,,*I've*,,,,you've got me,,,such crappy English, well I am from New Alwins,,we speak deep southern....I have not as yet heard ,,,how 's that,,better?
I'll give Mike's work a shot. 
I could be mistaken.


----------

