# What are 5 works from the Modern Era (1945-present) that you view as MASTERPIECES?



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

What are 5 works from the Modern Era (1945-present) that you view as MASTERPIECES?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

There are plenty from composers who also wrote substantial works before 1945 (Strauss, Shostakovich, VW and so on).

I'm listing here five masterpieces (to my taste) of composers who composed (mainly) after 1945.

Gorecki - Symphony 3
Sallinen - Songs of life and death
Silvestrov - Silent songs
Takemitsu - From Me Flows What You Call Time
Vasks - Cor Anglais concerto


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Here are five in traditional forms:

Robert Simpson* Symphony No. 1*

Einojuhani Rautavaara *Canuts Arcticus (Concerto for Birds)*s and *Angel of Dusk double bass concerto*

William Schuman *Violin Concerto*

Michael Daugherty *Trail of Tears Flute Concerto*


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Five is difficult. It isn't even easy to limit it to five composers. But of the top of my head and for today only and limiting myself to one piece per composer (when it could have been five from any one of them), and without any operas:

Boulez - Le Marteau Sans Maître
Britten - War Requiem
Kurtag - Kafka Fragments
Lachenmann - Allegro Sostenuto 
Maderna - Aura

Plus many more!

Strangely, though, I don't think I recognise any of the suggestions so far are being very worthwhile (let alone masterpieces)! So, within a week I suspect we will have hundreds of different works and no consensus at all! Is this because the period is so fresh or because it is so broad?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I don't think I recognise any of the suggestions so far are being very worthwhile (let alone masterpieces)! _

In comparison to the 400 years that came before I think that is the case for most music written since 1945 though I would agree the Britten requiem has a standing like nothing else listed. However, as music, it doesn't compare well to the Mozart, Brahms or Verdi requiem.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Was that what your selections were chosen to demonstrate? :lol: (Just joking).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Prokofiev Symphony 6
Arnold Symphony 7
Shostakovich Quartet 15
Schnittke Quartet 3
Babbitt Quartet 4


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Britten: Peter Grimes (if I'm not allowed that because it was mostly written in 1944, then Britten: A Midsummer Night's Dream)
Tippet: Midsummer Marriage
Tavener: Song for Athene
Vaughan Williams: Symphony No. 8
Shostakovich: Symphony No. 14


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

The greatest film scores by John Williams

Require no introduction, really.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Messiaen - Turangalila-Symphonie
Shostakovich - Symphony No. 10/late quartets
Britten - War Requiem
Berio - Sinfonia
Takemitsu - From Me Flows What You Call Time

After Easter season and my binge of choral music, I think it's time for me to take the plunge into exploring contemporary classical. I have so many listening projects I want to do soon, but some 21st century composers have really piqued my interest through the research I've done.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Only 5?

If this were to be revised to 500 works, then I could start listing titles for you. 

One could easily cite 5 works by Pierre Boulez alone.

Also, I consider 1948-'49 as the time period after which composers were obligated to utilize mathematics in their compositions and to forsake Romanticism.

Britten or Shostakovich pieces shouldn't dominate over works by Xenakis or Nono.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Adams: _The Dharma at Big Sur_
Glass: Symphony No. 8
Rautavaara: Symphony No. 7 _"Angel of Light"_
Reich: Music for 18 Musicians
Schnittke: Viola Concerto


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

A tonal symphony completed in year 1962 may very well be considered a masterpiece by many folks, but it should not be selected to represent 'modern' trends of thought and/or aesthetics.

TC members should be considering works written for magnetic tape, or with respect to serialism, sonorism, minimalism or spectralism.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Prodromides said:


> A tonal symphony completed in year 1962 may very well be considered a masterpiece by many folks, but it should not be selected to represent 'modern' trends of thought and/or aesthetics.
> 
> TC members should be considering works written for magnetic tape...


Why in a classical music forum?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I agree with many of the above. Would add:

Stockhausen: Kontakte
Riley: In C
Ligeti: Hamburg Concerto
Saariaho: Graal theatre
Takemitsu: Fantasma/Cantos


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

larold said:


> _I don't think I recognise any of the suggestions so far are being very worthwhile (let alone masterpieces)! _
> 
> In comparison to the 400 years that came before I think that is the case for most music written since 1945 though I would agree the Britten requiem has a standing like nothing else listed. However, as music, it doesn't compare well to the Mozart, Brahms or Verdi requiem.


I have to agree with you. Looking through the list of nominees so far there is very, very little that I've ever encountered in a live concert. The Prokofiev 6th, Shostakovich 14th. The Britten. Not to say there aren't things I enjoy, but to label them "masterpiece" is both premature and largely inaccurate. With few exceptions, every work today we consider a masterpiece was also hailed as a great achievement in its own day and eagerly performed and listened to. That just doesn't happen with practically any of the music listed. The Britten was well-received, oft-recorded. Outside of musical circles, no one is beating down the box office door to get tickets to hear Schnittke, Berio, Boulez, Maderna. The music does not have mass appeal no matter what supporters delude themselves into believing. Yes, times are different. But when you compare the rapturous receptions given composers like Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Elgar and even Mahler when they brought out new music, today's composers must be green with envy. There is no one alive today that can command that sort of following in the classical arena.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Prodromides said:


> A tonal symphony completed in year 1962 may very well be considered a masterpiece by many folks, but it should not be selected to represent 'modern' trends of thought and/or aesthetics.
> 
> TC members should be considering works written for magnetic tape, or with respect to serialism, sonorism, minimalism or spectralism.


You are likely correct that a tonal symphony does not represent modern trends in classical music, but the OP simply asked for masterpieces composed after 1945. If someone feels that a particular tonal symphony may be considered a masterpiece, that seems fair game for this thread.

My 5 (with possible substitutions) are:

Boulez: Sur Incises
Reich: Music for 18 Musicians
Messiaen: Turangalîla-Symphonie
Ligeti: Piano Concerto or Atmospheres
Schnittke: Piano Quintet


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> Outside of musical circles, no one is beating down the box office door to get tickets to hear Schnittke, Berio, Boulez, Maderna.


That's true - if you think it's important the only conclusion is there are no more masterpieces in the classical tradition since that tradition has become too much a niche interest. That's a defensible view, but at odds with the premise of this thread.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> I have to agree with you. Looking through the list of nominees so far there is very, very little that I've ever encountered in a live concert. The Prokofiev 6th, Shostakovich 14th. The Britten. Not to say there aren't things I enjoy, but to label them "masterpiece" is both premature and largely inaccurate. With few exceptions, every work today we consider a masterpiece was also hailed as a great achievement in its own day and eagerly performed and listened to. That just doesn't happen with practically any of the music listed. The Britten was well-received, oft-recorded. Outside of musical circles, no one is beating down the box office door to get tickets to hear Schnittke, Berio, Boulez, Maderna. The music does not have mass appeal no matter what supporters delude themselves into believing. Yes, times are different. But when you compare the rapturous receptions given composers like Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Elgar and even Mahler when they brought out new music, today's composers must be green with envy. There is no one alive today that can command that sort of following in the classical arena.


My nomination went to Britten's _Peter Grimes_. That *was* rapturously received at the time (with bus drivers going past the opera house announcing 'Alight here for the murdering, sadistic fisherman' etc). It was near-universally regarded as the most significant contribution to native English opera in around 300 years. It went straight into the international repertoire and has stayed there ever since. It _was _"eagerly performed", right round the world and very much "listened to". And the subsequent passage of 75 years allows us to look back on that and measure its success as something that wasn't a flash-in-the-pan or merely _a la mode_.

Funnily enough, the War Requiem which a couple of others have nominated _could_ be regarded differently (I'm a bit ambivalent about it). Whilst it was near universally-hailed as a profound artistic statement, and it has certainly entered the common repertoire and is performed very frequently, there was a large body of critical opinion at the time that saw it as derivative of its Verdian forebear, going for cheap emotional impact at the expense of musical profundity and so on. Stravinsky was, famously, not impressed with it, for example. I don't go that far myself, but others did at the time, and since.

Anyway, Britten's obviously dead and therefore doesn't fall under your criticism of 'anyone alive today', so hopefully you'll give him a break


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Prodromides said:


> A tonal symphony completed in year 1962 may very well be considered a masterpiece by many folks, but it should not be selected to represent 'modern' trends of thought and/or aesthetics.
> 
> TC members should be considering works written for magnetic tape, or with respect to serialism, sonorism, minimalism or spectralism.


Maybe you should make your own thread with that premise. That is not what the OP is asking for. He (or she) said nothing about style, only era.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Maurice Ohana - Syllabaire pour Phaedre
Olivier Messiaen - Harawi
Giacinto Scelsi - Uaxuctum
Gyorgy Ligeti - Requiem
Delia Derbyshire - The delian mode


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Strauss Metamorphosen.


----------



## Durendal (Oct 24, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> I have to agree with you. Looking through the list of nominees so far there is very, very little that I've ever encountered in a live concert. The Prokofiev 6th, Shostakovich 14th. The Britten. Not to say there aren't things I enjoy, but to label them "masterpiece" is both premature and largely inaccurate. With few exceptions, every work today we consider a masterpiece was also hailed as a great achievement in its own day and eagerly performed and listened to. That just doesn't happen with practically any of the music listed. The Britten was well-received, oft-recorded. Outside of musical circles, no one is beating down the box office door to get tickets to hear Schnittke, Berio, Boulez, Maderna. The music does not have mass appeal no matter what supporters delude themselves into believing. Yes, times are different. But when you compare the rapturous receptions given composers like Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Elgar and even Mahler when they brought out new music, today's composers must be green with envy. There is no one alive today that can command that sort of following in the classical arena.


This certainly can't be ignored. There are very few (if any?) modern composers since the end of WWII that have achieved any kind of mainstream success aside from those concentrating on composing film scores like John Williams, etc. It should also be noted that classical music of the past 75 years however has had to contend with far more musical competition than prior to that...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Durendal said:


> This certainly can't be ignored. There are very few (if any?) modern composers since the end of WWII that have achieved any kind of mainstream success aside from those concentrating on composing film scores like John Williams, etc. It should also be noted that classical music of the past 75 years however has had to contend with far more musical competition than prior to that...


And this brings up that pressing question with no solid answer...is contemporary classical music unpopular because people have lost interest in classical music, or because it is not as good as the music of the past? I honestly think that a lot of popular music fans would love quite a bit of contemporary classical if they even knew about it. For example, the amazing popularity that Gorecki's 3rd experienced (the first classical album on the Billboard Top 10, I believe?) due to its unusually high exposure.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Strauss Metamorphosen.


I thought Metamorphosen was composed earlier, but it does make the cut. I agree it qualifies as a masterpiece.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Assuming the OP meant "classical" masterpieces, this topic once again raises the issue of what is meant by the term "classical". Bernstein's West Side Story is considered a classical opera in many places, though not so much in the US. I would limit myself to the period 1945-1975, since as I have said elsewhere, a large part of what makes art classical is its significance when viewed in its cultural historical context. So here are some from more or less that period (in addition to many already mentioned) that I consider significant for a wide range of reasons:
Shostakovich, 24 Preludes and Fugues; Poulenc, Dialogue des Carmelites; Messiaen, Le merle noir, Catalogue d'oiseaux; Varese, Poeme Electronique; Boulez, Notations, Le marteau sans maitre; Penderecki, Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima; Crumb, Ancient Voices of Children, Makrokosmos II, Vox Balaenae.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Prodromides said:


> A tonal symphony completed in year 1962 may very well be considered a masterpiece by many folks, but it should not be selected to represent 'modern' trends of thought and/or aesthetics.
> 
> TC members should be considering works written for magnetic tape, or with respect to serialism, sonorism, minimalism or spectralism.


The OP only says 'modern era' so TC members *should* be choosing what they think are masterpieces, and should not be limited by what you consider appropriate categories. If you want to limit it, then start your own thread.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

...and given a lot of what came in the last half of the 20th century, I would argue that a 21st century tonal symphony is a modern trend!


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Boulez - Le Marteau Sans Maître
Riley: In C
Carter: String Quartet no. 3
Ferneyhough: La Chute D'Icare
Schnittke: Cto Grosso no 4 / Symphony no 5


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

DaveM said:


> Why in a classical music forum?


The post-WW II years witnessed a flourishing of artistic 'movements' within music composition - and one of these was works for tape or _musique concrete_.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Shost SQ #8
Black Angels 
From Me Flows What You Call Time
The People United Will Never Be Defeated 
Three Voices for Joan La Barbara 
War Requiem 
Le Grand Macabre
Como una ola de fuerza y luz


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> but the OP simply asked for masterpieces composed after 1945. If someone feels that a particular tonal symphony may be considered a masterpiece, that seems fair game for this thread.


Yes, this is true. Nonetheless, I expect the OP searches for music which doesn't sound as if composed prior to WW II.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Prodromides said:


> Yes, this is true. Nonetheless, I expect the OP searches for music which doesn't sound as if composed prior to WW II.


That's possible. The OP can certainly clarify when posting again. There are quite a few works listed in the thread that meet your suggestions.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> Maybe you should make your own thread with that premise. That is not what the OP is asking for. He (or she) said nothing about style, only era.


Yeah, I could do so; TC has had similar threads in the past to this one here. One was about 1911 through the present. Another was about 20th or 21st century music or both.
If I do start a thread, I might focus on the past 40 years (e.g. 1980 to present) so members won't be able to shoe-horn Shostakovich into their replies.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Prodromides said:


> Yeah, I could do so; TC has had similar threads in the past to this one here. One was about 1911 through the present. Another was about 20th or 21st century music or both.
> If I do start a thread, I might focus on the past 40 years (e.g. 1980 to present) so members won't be able to shoe-horn Shostakovich into their replies.


I say go for it. I would participate to the best of my ability, so would several others, I reckon.

I would agree were you to suggest that a "1911-to-present" thread would be totally meaningless. That's just too big of an era. It would include everything from Mahler and Elgar through to Lutoslawski and Carter to Jürg Frey. People would zero in on whatever they like.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Prodromides said:


> If I do start a thread, I might focus on the past 40 years (e.g. 1980 to present) so members won't be able to shoe-horn Shostakovich into their replies.


Howabout Richard Kastle?
Piano Concerto No. 8
Royce Concerto


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Two recent relevant threads for people genuinely interested in post-1945 classical music:

The 1980-2000 listening group with 30 works selected by participants (link).

The 2000+ game, with 300 compositions of 2000-2020 selected by participants (link).


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> I thought Metamorphosen was composed earlier, but it does make the cut. I agree it qualifies as a masterpiece.


I looked it up to be sure that it wasn't 1944. 

I would argue that it is the piece that inaugurates the postwar era thematically, so it fits by either means of estimation.


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

I have to think about it, but I already have one:
Miloslav Kabeláč: The Mystery of Time


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> I have to agree with you. Looking through the list of nominees so far there is very, very little that I've ever encountered in a live concert. The Prokofiev 6th, Shostakovich 14th. The Britten. Not to say there aren't things I enjoy, but to label them "masterpiece" is both premature and largely inaccurate. With few exceptions, every work today we consider a masterpiece was also hailed as a great achievement in its own day and eagerly performed and listened to. That just doesn't happen with practically any of the music listed. The Britten was well-received, oft-recorded. Outside of musical circles, no one is beating down the box office door to get tickets to hear Schnittke, Berio, Boulez, Maderna. The music does not have mass appeal no matter what supporters delude themselves into believing. Yes, times are different. But when you compare the rapturous receptions given composers like Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Elgar and even Mahler when they brought out new music, today's composers must be green with envy. There is no one alive today that can command that sort of following in the classical arena.


Cardew writes about this in his book _Stockhausen Serves Imperialism_ (12-13):

"The achievement of the great bourgeois composers such as Beethoven was to make the composer 'independent' from feudal patronage. Now he sold his product in the market like any producer. But he had to compete for custom with other artists. His music had to be marked with a strong individual musical style order to sell - a kind of brand name. With the trend towards individualism also came the removal of the composer from direct social contact with his audience. In the open market, or to be more exact, in the world of music publishers, agents, concert and theatre impresarios, you either had the saleable product or nothing. Relations were strictly on a cash basis. So the composer became alienated from his product or music, and from the audience. This explains the trend of 'serious art' towards abstraction. The audience capable of following such music has diminished. Most composers in that tradition can now only make a living by teaching or pumping out music for TV commercials or background music for films. Such 'serious' composition as is done has been reduced to an almost entirely private, 'Sunday' activity amongst a few receptive friends and for minute public audiences (mostly consisting of the very same friends)."

I basically agree with this, and the situation hasn't changed much since he wrote the book in 1974. Obviously, that doesn't change the fact that bourgeois composers (past and present) have written incredible works-they have. It's just that the ship has sailed for trying to rescue 'classical music' from classism.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Ligeti Etudes for Piano

Rautavaara Piano Concerto No.2

Ginastera Piano Concerto No.1

Crumb Mikrokosmos

Johnston String Quartets


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I knew this thread would lead to some tension between followers of the new and old but there exists great music on both sides of that divide. That’s why I didn’t make more specifications in the OP.

I know “5” isn’t a lot of choices but I think more people participate when you ask for a smaller number of submissions as well as it obviously forcing people to be even more discriminating. Having said that, I welcome anyone to make an “honorable mention” list after their top five.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Part - Tabula Rasa
Shostakovich - String Quartet 8
Strauss - Vier Letzte Lieder
Penderecki - Symphony 3
Glass - Satyagraha

but I was tempted to double dip on Part and include Spiegel im Spiegel instead of Satyagraha.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I am in no way qualified to judge whether a particular work is a masterpiece but I'll play for fun.

Bartok - Concerto For Orchestra
Lutoslawki - Symphony No.3
Ligeti - Violin Concerto
Stockhausen - Gruppen
Charles Wuorinen - Piano Quintet


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

I am much chagrined that Vingt Regards was composed a year too early to make this list...


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

John Cage: Sonatas and Interludes (1946-48)
Terry Riley: In C (1964)
La Monte Young: The Well-Tuned Piano (1964-)
Steve Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1974–76)
Simeon ten Holt: Canto Ostinato (1976-1979)


----------



## Shosty (Mar 16, 2020)

Hard not to cheat here! here are my favorites:

Shostakovich String Quartet no. 8 (1960) and Symphony no. 10 (1953)
Mesiaen Turangalila Symphony (I was going to pick Quartet for the End of Time but that was composed pre-45)
Takemitsu Requiem for String Orchestra (1957) and November Steps (1967)
Steve Reich The Desert Music (1983)
Rautavaara Cantus Arcticus (1972)


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_My nomination went to Britten's *Peter Grimes*. That was rapturously received at the time _

Agreed, this was the last opera to go into standard repertoire of most houses.

Whether or not John Adams* Nixon In China* and *Doctor Atomic* are masterpieces will be determined in the next century.

The *Shostakovich 10th symphony* is a masterpieces in my opinion not matched by any other symphony (including his own later ones) since the composer died 1975.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

larold said:


> _My nomination went to Britten's *Peter Grimes*. That was rapturously received at the time _
> 
> Agreed, this was the last opera to go into standard repertoire of most houses.
> 
> ...


"Nixon" is generally viewed as part of the standard opera rep now and I, personally, think it's one of a handful of the most important operas of the 20th century alongside the likes of Bartok's Bluebeard, Peter Grimes, Wozzeck, etc


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

starthrower said:


> I am in no way qualified to judge whether a particular work is a masterpiece but I'll play for fun.
> 
> Bartok - Concerto For Orchestra
> Lutoslawki - Symphony No.3
> ...


Concerto for Orchestra doesn't quite make the date cutoff--composed 1943. I know this because I checked Bartok on the wiki before making my list 

Looks like the only piece Bartok composed in 1945 before his death was his third piano concerto--a good one but not one that I consider one of his best.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Prodromides said:


> The post-WW II years witnessed a flourishing of artistic 'movements' within music composition - and one of these was works for tape or _musique concrete_.


Maybe so, but that doesn't make 'works for tape' classical music.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

dizwell said:


> Britten: Peter Grimes (if I'm not allowed that because it was mostly written in 1944, then Britten: A Midsummer Night's Dream)
> Tippet: Midsummer Marriage
> Tavener: Song for Athene
> Vaughan Williams: Symphony No. 8
> Shostakovich: Symphony No. 14


Hard to argue with that list ...........


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

why can't I delete posts?


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Thank you centefruge20 - you have given me a right royal headache!

After a little cogitation, my list is ...........

*Messiaen* - Des Canyons aux Etoiles (1974)

*Simpson* - Symphony no. 9 (1987)

*DSCH* - Symphony no. 15 (1971)

*Britten *- War Requiem (1962)

*Berio* - Sinfonia (1968)

Because of your tight remit on just 5, I had no room for any string quartets or chamber scale works!!!


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

OK, let's give it a try...:

*Pierre Boulez*: Répons
*Arvo Pärt*: Tabula Rasa
*Morton Feldman*: Rothko Chapel
*Henryk Górecki*: Symphony No.3
*Henri Dutilleux*: Tout un monde lointain...

There's a lot of major late 20th century names that I'm just not familiar enough with to comment on with any authority; Stockhausen, Cage, Ferneyhough, Carter, Henze, Takemitsu, Kurtág, Ligeti etc... shame on me... but I'm working on it, I swear.  A lot of this music is very complex, I can only process one thing at a time...


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

HenryPenfold: If it were 10, what else would be in your list?


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

20centrfuge said:


> HenryPenfold: If it were 10, what else would be in your list?


Some more Britten, some Ligeti, *Birtwistle, * and string quartets like PMD, late DSCH and Schnittke .......


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Prodromides said:


> Yeah, I could do so; TC has had similar threads in the past to this one here. One was about 1911 through the present. Another was about 20th or 21st century music or both.
> If I do start a thread, I might focus on the past 40 years (e.g. 1980 to present) so members won't be able to shoe-horn Shostakovich into their replies.


I did the opposite, looking at 1945-75. Although some big names from that era are still living, such as Arvo Pärt, Philip Glass, George Crumb, Krzysztof Penderecki, Ned Rorem, and John Corigliano, it no longer seems like part of the current era. (I think all the composers I just mentioned are over 80.) I think that makes overall evaluations a little more fair. Shostakovich is certainly part of that earlier era, and just as certainly not a contemporary composer. Even Stravinsky was still active then, as well as Hindemith, Poulenc and Copland (and Britten, as many have mentioned already). W.W. II is now too long ago to think of this as the "post-war" era.


----------



## Common Listener (Apr 6, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> OK, let's give it a try...:
> 
> *Pierre Boulez*: Répons
> *Arvo Pärt*: Tabula Rasa
> ...


I'm still working on the 1900-1950 part, myself, and may never get here. I can only name five pieces total from this era that I like and they don't seem to fit in this thread. I second your Gorecki which is amazing, and, aside from that, only know and like Strauss' Oboe Concerto (1945), Finzi's Clarinet Concerto (1949), Poulenc's Sonata for Flute and Piano (1957), and... Star Wars! (1977).

But this serves to subscribe me to the thread so I can learn more.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

howlingfantods said:


> Concerto for Orchestra doesn't quite make the date cutoff--composed 1943. I know this because I checked Bartok on the wiki before making my list


Revised in 1945. I'm assuming this is the version we all know? I'm not positive. Close enough for me. I love the third piano concerto. It's not as challenging from a technical standpoint, and this was deliberate because Bartok composed the piece for his wife to perform. Although Gyorgy Sandor premiered the work in 1946.


----------



## Dirge (Apr 10, 2012)

If it's true that one man's masterpiece is another man's piece of crap, then here are five of my favorite post-WWII masterpieces/pieces of crap …

György KURTÁG: *Kafka Fragments* (1985-86)
:: Csengery & Keller [Hungaroton '90]





Elliott CARTER: *A Symphony of Three Orchestras* (1976)
:: Boulez/NYPO [CBS '77]





Joaquín RODRIGO: *Invocación y danza* (1961)
:: (Pepe) Romero [Philips '92]





Benjamin BRITTEN: *The Turn of the Screw* (1954)
:: Britten/English Opera Group [Decca '54]





Arnold SCHOENBERG: *A Survivor from Warsaw* (1947)
:: Reich, Boulez/BBC SO & Chorus [CBS '76]


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

There are so so many
Just five?

Saariaho: L'amour de loin
Boulez: Pli selon pli
Stockhousen: Stimmung
Berio: Sinfonia
Messiaen - Turangalila-Symphonie


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Maybe so, but that doesn't make 'works for tape' classical music.


Indeed, but this in reality is a forum for art music, not classical music. Classical music is more 1750-1810 so I'm pretty sure the actual term of art music is the accepted definition of classical music here, and it definitely counts of art music!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Op.123 said:


> Indeed, but this in reality is a forum for art music, not classical music. Classical music is more 1750-1810 so I'm pretty sure the actual term of art music is the accepted definition of classical music here, and it definitely counts of art music!


Maybe you and some others have decided that this now a forum for art music, but when I joined a forum called Talk Classical, silly me, I assumed it was a classical music forum. Fact is, generally, I don't have a problem with people discussing art music here, but I have a problem when someone tells people they shouldn't consider a 1962 work as a modern music masterpiece because it's tonal and then proceeds to direct people, instead, to works for magnetic tape:



Prodromides said:


> A tonal symphony completed in year 1962 may very well be considered a masterpiece by many folks, but it should not be selected to represent 'modern' trends of thought and/or aesthetics.
> 
> TC members should be considering works written for magnetic tape, or with respect to serialism, sonorism, minimalism or spectralism.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

As far as I see it, the way in which classical music is usually referred to is as art music and opera. If people have referred to minimalist pieces, such as Terry Riley's "in C" as a masterpiece of modern classical music they might as well refer to works for magnetic tape.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Op.123 said:


> As far as I see it, the way in which classical music is usually referred to is as art music and opera. If people have referred to minimalist pieces, such as Terry Riley's "in C" as a masterpiece of modern classical music they might as well refer to works for magnetic tape.


If people have considered minimalist pieces such as Terry Riley's "in C" as not masterpieces of modern classical music then people shouldn't refer to works for magnetic tape as such. 

Anybody rushing out to see a classical music performance of such works or are they restricted to a relatively few hunkered down in a room somewhere with headphones on?


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> If people have considered minimalist pieces such as Terry Riley's "in C" as not masterpieces of modern classical music then people shouldn't refer to works for magnetic tape as such.
> 
> Anybody rushing out to see a classical music performance of such works or are they restricted to a relatively few hunkered down in a room somewhere with headphones on?


Hmmm, I just find it pointless to restrict art - if someone sees a work for magnetic tape as a masterpiece of modern classical music then what's the problem. If a minimalist work can be considered a masterpiece on the same grounds then why not a more experimental work? Innovation is key to the survival of art.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Op.123 said:


> Hmmm, I just find it pointless to restrict art - if someone sees a work for magnetic tape as a masterpiece of modern classical music then what's the problem. If a minimalist work can be considered a masterpiece on the same grounds then why not a more experimental work? Innovation is key to the survival of art.


Exactly.

On a side note, I hate the term "art music" as it implies other music is not art. "Concert-hall" or "non-vernacular music" are much better terms.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Op.123 said:


> Hmmm, I just find it pointless to restrict art - if someone sees a work for magnetic tape as a masterpiece of modern classical music then what's the problem. If a minimalist work can be considered a masterpiece on the same grounds then why not a more experimental work? Innovation is key to the survival of art.


(My final word on the subject in deference to the OP.) Apparently, it's not doing much for the survival of classical music.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

---- ignore - double post


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> (My final word on the subject in deference to the OP.) Apparently, it's not doing much for the survival of classical music.


The influence of contemporary thinking is rarely felt immediately


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM has a good point though, if we were to consider this sort of stuff 'classical music', not a genre of its own unrelated to classical music.





then why not also consider this stuff as classical music?:


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> DaveM has a good point though, if we were to consider this sort of stuff 'classical music', not a genre of its own unrelated to classical music.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wasn't aware the second work wouldn't be considered in this context. Just that it's very unlikely someone would consider it a masterpiece.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Harvey: Mortuos Plango
Rzewski: El Pueblo Unido
Adams: Harmonielehre 
Berio: Sinfonia
Rihm: Phantom und Eskapade


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

starthrower said:


> Revised in 1945. I'm assuming this is the version we all know? I'm not positive. Close enough for me. I love the third piano concerto. It's not as challenging from a technical standpoint, and this was deliberate because Bartok composed the piece for his wife to perform. Although Gyorgy Sandor premiered the work in 1946.


Bruckner 9
Mahler 10

Just sayin' bruv ............ :devil:


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

The HIP movement that gave us the fresh and swinging baroque music, does that count?


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

Prodromides said:


> A tonal symphony completed in year 1962 may very well be considered a masterpiece by many folks, but it should not be selected to represent 'modern' trends of thought and/or aesthetics.
> 
> TC members should be considering works written for magnetic tape, or with respect to serialism, sonorism, minimalism or spectralism.


I hope everyone will forgive me for asking a naive question. I'm sincerely curious: How do you get into this stuff? I've been involved with classical music (or art music, or non-vernacular music if you like) for a long time, but outside of university music departments, how can you even encounter this kind of music? If there is a way for me to approach it, I would like to try to learn more about it and even see if I might enjoy it.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

seitzpf said:


> I hope everyone will forgive me for asking a naive question. I'm sincerely curious: How do you get into this stuff? I've been involved with classical music (or art music, or non-vernacular music if you like) for a long time, but outside of university music departments, how can you even encounter this kind of music? If there is a way for me to approach it, I would like to try to learn more about it and even see if I might enjoy it.


I'm in a very similar situation right now, just starting to explore some contemporary music. Though I've definitely come across some stuff I've felt a strong repulsion to, I've discovered some gems as well. I can't help you with electronic/magnetic tape stuff, but I think the first thing to do is to listen to Webern's 6 Pieces for Orchestra and imagine the composer working with vibrant colors on a canvas rather than trying to create something with a distinct form or structure. If you can get into that, try the same thought process with longer works like Takemitsu's "From Me Flows What You Call Time" and Messiaen's "Eclairs." I certainly have conservative ears and many things are just too much (Penderecki's "Threnody," for example, just sounds like sheer noise to me). But, having spent some time slowly adjusting my ears to the modernist aesthetic, I was recently able to enjoy a true contemporary masterpiece - Sofia Gubaidulina's "Offertorium," a violin concerto based off the King's Theme from Bach's _Musical Offering_. It's an _amazing_ piece of music that will at first sound strange and foreign if you are unaccustomed, but your patience will be rewarded in due time, because towards the end of the piece the music turns completely tonal in an unforgettable moment - the prize at the end of the road, so to speak. So, in general, I would say the keys to enjoyment are patience, open-mindedness, and the willingness to change your criteria for listening ever-so-slightly.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

Henri Dutilleux: Tout un monde lointain (Also: Correspondances)
Elliott Carter: Interventions
Gyorgy Ligeti: Piano Concerto (Also: Études, Violin Concerto, Le grand macabre)
Pierre Boulez: Le marteau sans maître
Gérard Grisey: Quatre chants pour franchir le seuil


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

seitzpf said:


> I hope everyone will forgive me for asking a naive question. I'm sincerely curious: How do you get into this stuff? I've been involved with classical music (or art music, or non-vernacular music if you like) for a long time, but outside of university music departments, how can you even encounter this kind of music? If there is a way for me to approach it, I would like to try to learn more about it and even see if I might enjoy it.


Hi, seitzpf.

Glad you are at least interested enough to learn. 

My potential reply would be much too wordy, so I'll start by being simple. One will not be able to encounter such compositions via radio & TV broadcasts or concerts. My situation (during 1993 through 2008) was such that I could afford to spend money on 'blind-buy' CD purchases. Conditions are different at present with most brick & mortar stores no longer in existence selling CDs.
If, 25 years ago, one was to peruse a Tower Records' classical annex (as I had done about once per week), then one could witness a multitude of 'import' discs produced by smaller independent labels with focus on 'new' music programs. Some were Nordic in origin, but the lion's share came from France: Accord, Adda, Ades, Arion, etc. A lot of the content on these discs were premieres - whether newer works composed a few years prior to recording ... or else debuts of decades-long hibernating scores. I'd estimate that 95% of my acquisitions were 20th century compositions which I had NOT heard before buying. Very little regrets. If I wasn't able to absorb the music upon 1st hearing, then I kept the disc in my collection for years. Eventually, I would revisit such. After my listening experiences (which were ever-expanding) grew, I could find that I was then able to appreciate that which eluded me beforehand.

As for attempting to discover this area of music in year 2020 (under reduced financial circumstances and/or without physical media), my only thoughts are to recommend exploration within YouTube channels such as the Wellesz Co. and start listening for free their uploads of albums from the labels I referred to above.

… and remember to discipline yourself to continue to listen to pieces and composers whom you do not like initially.

Good luck and happy hunting.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

seitzpf said:


> I hope everyone will forgive me for asking a naive question. I'm sincerely curious: How do you get into this stuff? I've been involved with classical music (or art music, or non-vernacular music if you like) for a long time, but outside of university music departments, how can you even encounter this kind of music? If there is a way for me to approach it, I would like to try to learn more about it and even see if I might enjoy it.


I suggest you take part in this group:
1980-2000 Listening Group

One piece per week, selected by the participants. It's just started a few weeks ago, so you can catch up on the first works as well. Listen, and then read what others think of it, then listen again.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I think some of the greatest music post-WWII have been film scores, Bernard Herrmann's score for "Psycho" topping the list imo. Then there's Hugo Friedhofer's score for "The Best Years of Our Lives" and Philip Glass's for "Koyaanisqatsi" and Zhao Jiping's for "Raise the Red Lantern". Finally, not a film score, but in his memory I'll nominate Penderecki's "Threnody".


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Stockhausen - Kontra-Punkte
Boulez - Le Marteau Sans Maître
Ligeti - Atmosphères
Takemitsu - The Dorian Horizon
Feldman - Rothko Chapel

If I'm given one more
Ferneyhough - Lemma-Icon-Epigram


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Stockhausen - Kontra-Punkte
> Boulez - Le Marteau Sans Maître
> Ligeti - Atmosphères
> Takemitsu - The Dorian Horizon
> ...


Good choices, though I must admit that I heard The Dorian Horizon the other day and it didn't leave much impression on me, it was the Ozawa/Boston recording. Definitely owe it another listen.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Yes, times are different. But when you compare the rapturous receptions given composers like Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Elgar and even Mahler when they brought out new music, today's composers must be green with envy._

I agree with the first part, the second part may be speculative, and disagree completely with the third part.

I know I sound like a broken record but composers the wrote music before playback equipment existed, or before pianos were commonly in middle class homes so it could be played in Liszt transcription, had only one alternative for their music: have it played in concert. Therefore they had to wrtie music that pleased audiences to get it performed.

Since the advent of the gramophone and more to the point the long playing record after World War II composers did not have to write music to please audiences. They could write music to please themselves, their peers, their intellectual adversaries, anyone they wanted. No one had to like it except recording companies because it could have a life on records.

While the Second Viennese School under Schoenberg began the change in the 1920s ahead of this technology, I don't think there any coincidence that people like Boulez, Cage, Stockhauzen and others came along later in the 20th century with ideas about music that were at odds with about 99 percent of the musical public.

They knew someone, and enough someones, would support their ideas financially to make them live. They also knew if they became famous they could get jobs at universities and/or conservatories, another change in the 20th century for composers.

I also don't think it coincidence none of this music was played much in concerts outside of megamarkets like London and New York and that no one composes in these fashions any longer. These trends have for the most part come and gone and we are left with a classical music industry that has no idea what it is, who it performs for, or what people want.

I also have a theory people no longer need art but that is for another day.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Great post! I’d also like to hear your thoughts on art.

I’ve often thought about that aspect wrt recordings. It sure has changed the dynamic. I’m sure there’s an analysis to be done on how streaming services affect listening and demand as well.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Great post! I'd also like to hear your thoughts on art._

Classical music isn't the only traditional art form that has declined in both popularity and production of masterpiece type works in the last half-century. If you look at film and literature you will see a similar trend.

I don't know what writer active today could be considered in a breath with a Jean-Paul Sartre, Norman Mailer or David Halberstam -- intellectuals who wrote time-tested tomes about our condition and the people that put us in that condition. Clearly the decline of publishing has contributed to this but books are still written, sold and read.

I once thought the reason classical music declined was because the visual arts surpassed it. There is evidence for that, principally from music theater. That has a tradition almost as long as classical music and it has continued great guns into the late 20th and 21st centuries grinding out hit after hit and making new fans all over the world through them -- just the opposite of what has happened to classical music.

However, film has also declined dramatically since the 1970s. One reason for this is the end of the old studio system which meant the end of a lot of big money productions. Now if you want big money and you don't have a studio to back you you must enlist the aid of a Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, George Clooney or some other big name to get you the money.

But the art has declined also. The easiest way to see this is to look at the films nominated for best picture Oscar by decade. You can do so at this Wikipedia site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture

If you do so you will see the nominees in 1980 were Ordinary People, Coal Miner's Daughter, The Elephant Man, Raging Bull and Tess -- three of which have gone onto become classics played regularly on free and pay TV services. To me this was the last such year when so many classics were nominated in a single year.

If you look at nominees during the period 1973 through 1976 almost every one of those films has gone onto classic status. And that excludes some the greatest films ever made that were made in the 1970s including The Godfather and The French Connection.

I thought we might be turning the corner in 2013 when two instant classics were nominated but the films that came out in following years showed the trend intact. The fact is a lot of mediocrities win the best picture award now because the industry is full of mediocrity. The Motion Picture Academy has ensured this level of mediocrity by decreeing as many as 10 nominees per year. If you look at a lot years since 1990 there wasn't a single picture nominated as good as any nominated during 1973-76.

Which brings us again back to the "1975" question: what happened in the mid-1970s that changed things? The most obvious was digital technology. This wasn't de rigueur in 1975 but it was by 1985. First there were digital recordings, then digital players, then digital phones and the greatest digital discovery in history: the Internet.

I know there have been endless good that has come from all these things,. However, I don't think there is any question the cell phone has changed classical music dramatically -- both the music itself and the industry -- and the Internet has pretty much ended classical music being a profitable enterprise for big companies. Now anything you want to hear you can find free somewhere. The few willing to spend can find it for a few dollars a month on an Internet subscription service.

I once read the countertenor Andreas Scholl, of whom I was a great admirer, say his favorite form of music listening was to turn on his phone and listen through ear buds. To me that was evidence the world had made a strong left turn digitally and was going in the wrong direction ... because the idea behind music is that it be heard in space, not confinement.

This is the theory behind why people build concert halls the way they do: to maximize the sound of the music. It's why they built Wagner a hall at Bayreuth. And here was a high profile practicing classical music artist, one of the best of his type, saying he preferred the confinement format.

So the cell phone not only dramatically influenced classical music -- look what it did to reading and publishing. Illiteracy is now on the rise in the United States and growing annually. We have an entire world full of people think sign language like LMAO and BFF are forms of communication among members of the most advanced societies on our planet. We are everyday reducing our traditional written and spoken forms of language by these practices which are rampant everywhere. Most evidence indicates schools don't do much to alter this.

So why, when we have a phone and the Internet that does everything for us, do we need art? What is/was the role of art: entertainment? elevation of the human spirit? celebration of the creative impulse? Do we even need that anymore with machines that will do it for us just by twiddling our thumb and forefinger? And if our languages are obsolete do we need art?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

larold said:


> Classical music isn't the only traditional art form that has declined in both popularity and production of masterpiece type works in the last half-century. If you look at film and literature you will see a similar trend.
> 
> ...
> 
> So why, when we have a phone and the Internet that does everything for us, do we need art? What is/was the role of art: entertainment? elevation of the human spirit? celebration of the creative impulse? Do we even need that anymore with machines that will do it for us just by twiddling our thumb and forefinger? And if our languages are obsolete do we need art?


I would say the internet is the greatest lever for intellectual pursuits ever created. And as with every lever, the fools will use it to decrese their muscles as close to zero as possible, and the wiser ones will use it to move mountains. Mountains are being moved in all technical and scientific disciplines as we speak. Why doesn't it happen in culture is a bit of a conundrum to me...


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Why doesn't it happen in culture is a bit of a conundrum to me..._

Science and technology come from great need, search, trial and discovery.

Great art via classical music often is more the product of great despair or deprivation.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

larold, regarding your post on art, in general:

I am not a student of cinema, but I can easily see that the general quality of works has been in decline over the past few decades. Movie studios are more likely to go after the sure thing (a sequel, a reboot, etc). They are only caring about the bottom line $$$ and that usually translates to appealing to the least common denominator. This is certainly also the case with musicals recently (Mamma Mia, Aida, Wicked). 

Classical music hasn't followed this trend. I don't think this is universally the case, but I think it is more true now than with previous generations.

Visual art seems alive and well, albeit very commercialized now. Galleries are making plenty of money. Maybe because their product doesn't have to appeal over and over again to different groups of people. Each painting just has to appeal ENOUGH to one buyer.

It's a very complex world now in terms of consumerism, the arts, money, demand, quality, and taste.

Lastly I will generally agree with you in that the world needs all forms of art more in times of distress than in times of abundance. With things as they are now, who knows, we could be seeing a lot more great cinema, music, and visual art.

Thank you for your perceptive observations, larold.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I don't know if DG, London/Decca, EMI/Angel and other giants of the past that brought most classical music to the public were just interested in the bottom line but I know they were interested in not taking on unacceptable losses in pursuit of art.

I don't know what you mean about music theater; yes the ones you mention were all hits. Don't you think the companies above would still be giants if today's Beethoven, Brahms and Bach were still writing hits? Or that downloads and streams would be more expensive?

As to cinema, studios have always been interested in the bottom line more than art. However, they once allowed art productions either in exchange for sure hits or because the two happened to coincide. I know the first condition hasn't changed and I don't believe the second one has changed.

George Clooney said he was able to make the art film about Edward R. Murrow, *Good Night, and Good Luck,* in exchange for acting and producing an *Ocean's 11* remake. Paul Muni, an actor in much older times, wanted to make a film about someone famous. The studio agreed he could make one about Louis Pasteur if he agreed to more commercial fare. It's gone on forever.


----------



## strawa (Apr 1, 2020)

Since names like Messiaen, Feldman, Britten, Berio, Saariaho and Adams already appeared here, I would like to point these:

Stravinsky - Agon (1957)
Guarnieri - Piano Concerto nº 3 (1964)
Schnittke - Concerto Grosso n° 1 (1976-77)
Franssens - Harmony of the Spheres (1994-2001)
Dusapin - Aufgang (2011)


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Portamento said:


> Exactly.
> 
> On a side note, I hate the term "art music" as it implies other music is not art. "Concert-hall" or "non-vernacular music" are much better terms.


I agree, although the way I see it is art music does not refer to all music that is art but rather music which is entirely focused on art rather than music where there are other factors are heavily involved such as marketability in pop music and so-on. However there are plenty of works from various genres I would consider "art music".


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

strawa said:


> Franssens - Harmony of the Spheres (1994-2001)


New to me! Thanks for posting!


----------



## lucrescu (Nov 22, 2016)

@larold - It just happens that these days I listened some interview with Sergiu Celibidache. He was against music recordings and especially hated digital recordings, saying that, on a record, music gets altered and finally destroyed. He didn’t want to record his concerts also. I find some of your ideas sharing the same spirit with his. I don’t necessarily agree, but I think there is some true in these ideas and it’s a lot to think about in the relation and influence between recordings and music. Good posts!


----------



## lucrescu (Nov 22, 2016)

Maybe not masterpieces, but some of the modern post ’45 works I like are:
Ligeti – Violin Concerto
Gorecki – Symphony no 3
Lutoslawsky – Concerto for Orchestra
Xenakis – Tetras (I like all the quartets as played by Jack Quartet)
Messiaen – Turangalila-Symphonie 

On the other hand, another list could be:
Shostakovich – Symphony no 10
Prokofiev – Symphony no 6
Stravinsky – Ebony Concerto
Bartok – Concerto for Orchestra (I know, I cheated a little)
(And at this moment I can’t find the fifth name to match the others, for me.)


----------



## sstucky (Apr 4, 2020)

Mennin Symphony 3
Diamond Symphony 4
Holmboe Symphonies 6-8
Shostakovich Symphony 10
Braga Santos Symphonies 1-4


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

After taking a few moments to confirm dates etc., my list (chronologically):

*Strauss*, _Metamorphosen _- His neglected masterpiece. Difficult to find recordings, to get it played on radio, to see live (ever). It's his characteristically grand epic distilled into sustained, prolonged drawls of passion and pain. The music radiates strangeness and constantly reaches upward toward an end that seems to simply fade away -- like this was a glimpse. It was, it seems. The piece continues to grow with each listening. Tremendous on too many levels.

*Korngold*, _Symphonic Serenade_ - Another rarely heard, rarely played magical construction of chamber music. Korngold is known for his film music, the concerto, the songs -- all the pizzazz, the grandiose with the beautiful colors. But here is a thing he's writing in late age, illness, and its pared down to the essential elements. Like not a single note here is spared. _Lento religioso_ sounding like a Mahler late symphony. Cannot support this one enough.

*Britten*, _String Quartet 3_ - Sounds like Britten's life work distilled into a few final breaths -- a several final pangs. Absolutely perfect work.

*Reich*, _Different Trains_ - Between this and his _Six Pianos_. Both prototypical Reich, but _Trains_ is certainly of its era. Such an accessible work despite its unique approach. One cannot help but tag along for the listen...again...and again...and

*Rautavaara*, _Symphony No. 7_ - Admittedly, the _Seventh_ is a bit tempered than his other works. But between this and _Gift of Dreams_, it sounds like the skies finally opened up and listened to all his prior ant-level, base cries of help down here on Earth, and so then he let loose, patiently and with great forethought, this meditative, lucid contemplation on sound, or life, or whatever else is here worth writing about.

(Shostakovich Symphony No. 10 and Quartet No. 8 admittedly cut from my consideration simply because others acknowledged the greatness.)

Enjoyed seeing all the unique and obvious mentions so far. So much great music out there -- yesterday, today, tomorrow.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Avey said:


> After taking a few moments to confirm dates etc., my list (chronologically):
> 
> *Strauss*, _Metamorphosen _- His neglected masterpiece. Difficult to find recordings, to get it played on radio, to see live (ever). It's his characteristically grand epic distilled into sustained, prolonged drawls of passion and pain. The music radiates strangeness and constantly reaches upward toward an end that seems to simply fade away -- like this was a glimpse. It was, it seems. The piece continues to grow with each listening. Tremendous on too many levels.
> 
> ...


A couple of works on there I don't know! Thanks, I'll give em a listen!


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

@larold brought up some interesting points. Since I listen predominantly to 'classical' music and experimental jazz-two decidedly non-commercial genres-I think about these things a lot.

First off, I disagree that classical music has declined in the production of masterpieces. Masterpieces are very rarely regarded as such on the day of their premiere, and it takes time for history to 'sift' the good from the bad. We live in the present, so of course we are going to run into more duds than if we were to listen to music from the Romantic era; this is because no one _remembers_ the bad music from then. With every Beethoven, there were hundreds of other composers writing derivative works. Classical music was noncommercial long before the '80s. There are many reasons for this, but it's not because composers just stopped writing good music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Portamento said:


> @larold brought up some interesting points. Since I listen predominantly to 'classical' music and experimental jazz-two decidedly non-commercial genres-I think about these things a lot.
> 
> First off, I disagree that classical music has declined in the production of masterpieces. Masterpieces are very rarely regarded as such on the day of their premiere, and it takes time for history to 'sift' the good from the bad. We live in the present, so of course we are going to run into more duds than if we were to listen to music from the Romantic era; this is because no one _remembers_ the bad music from then. With every Beethoven, there were hundreds of other composers writing derivative works. Classical music was noncommercial long before the '80s. There are many reasons for this, but it's not because composers just stopped writing good music.


But don't you think we've learned collectively as listeners since those earlier times? And what is really new these days, that we're not yet able to get a grip on with repeated listening on music media that were unavailable until the early 20th century?

I think the quality of writing is very high, and is probably more competitive than ever in the field, but it's hard to make anything stand out, anything that is especially memorable without resorting to tuneful stuff, which is not considered in vogue by the music establishment.

i don't think composers are any worse than before, just not duplicating what's been done before and coming up with something really new and memorable is increasingly hard I suspect.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> But don't you think we've learned collectively as listeners since those earlier times? And what is really new these days, that we're not yet able to get a grip on with repeated listening on music media that were unavailable until the early 20th century?


By learning collectively as listeners do you mean the ability to discern a "masterpiece" at first listen? If so, I do not think that this is possible.

In short, throughout the 20th century the composer lost touch with their audience. Works like Stravinsky's _Le Sacre du printemps_ were accepted within a generation while serialism continues to scare people off. There had been a schism growing between "high" classical music and "low" popular music since the late 1800s which has a strong sense of elitism. (The bourgeoisie class has a lot to do with this.) The audience was no longer engaged with and shocked by a barrage of dissonance. Musicians were becoming isolated as well; today, children with talent are shipped off to conservatoires with little time left to experience other areas of life. A strict division of labor meant that music education disappeared from schools, and musicians were left to express themselves in a language that the audience cannot fully comprehend. There have been fleeting periods of revolution where this barrier between composer, musician, and audience was breached-think of the '60s, where it became harder to differentiate between popular music and musique concrète and the Beatles were infatuated with Stockhausen. Since then, however, there has not been such a breakthrough.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I agree with you on the growing barrier between the high and low. And the middle is probably film music. But we don't need to discern a masterpiece on first listen now, with media readily available for repeated listening. 

I think why it's hard to tell a masterpiece now is a combination of the wider variety, higher degree of eclecticism, lower sense of inevitability, and less originality. The last one may be a sticking point for fans of contemporary, but it's not the composers' fault that there isn't much else to explore that hasn't been done before. There is nothing new in harmony, so they can play around with timbres, and rhythms to higher degrees, but it only alienates the mainstream listeners, and doesn't add anything more in real terms (last part is my opinion). I can admire the skill and technique, but it can't resonate more than what was done before such as with the Rite of Spring. I think it's this resonance with a specific work that is missing, which is why there is no accepted undisputed masterpiece now or more recently (even though the media try to promote certain works as them).

The qualities i find in this work which I like, I can find in others. There isn't anything that separates it above the heap. That's a testament to how competitive it is, and not a knock down. I wouldn't doubt there are geniuses at Beethoven's level now, just that the material and means (without duplicating what's been done before and being relevant to our time) are not there.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_In short, throughout the 20th century the composer lost touch with their audience._

That was the major change in classical music after World War II with development of the LP: composers no longer needed audiences for their compositions; they could have them recorded.

This led to a whole bunch of trends -- avant-garde, serialism, electronic -- which never developed an audience, largely was not played in concert throughout the world, and tried to replace music audiences liked.

It's no surprise all these forms are now out of fashion and no longer practiced. The latest, repetition AKA miminalism, is on its way out also. Meanwhile, classical music seems to have lost its way.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

larold said:


> _In short, throughout the 20th century the composer lost touch with their audience._
> 
> That was the major change in classical music after World War II with development of the LP: composers no longer needed audiences for their compositions; they could have them recorded.
> 
> ...


Oh larold, always the optimist! :lol:


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

larold said:


> That was the major change in classical music after World War II with development of the LP: composers no longer needed audiences for their compositions; they could have them recorded.


Maybe this accelerated the process, but the alienation between composer, performer, and audience had already been taking place since the mid-19th century.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Maybe this accelerated the process, but the alienation between composer, performer, and audience had already been taking place since the mid-19th century._

Some examples of this being...?


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

larold said:


> Some examples of this being...?


I agree that the recording industry has been a corrupting influence on classical music. However, it has been a struggle for composers to maintain autonomy from commercialism without sacrificing accessibility to a mass audience ever since Beethoven. Beethoven was an early bourgeoisie composer who competed with others for the patronage of royalty; thus, he had to make his music unique, a trend towards abstraction which continued into the 20th century. Here is a contemporary review of Brahms' _Symphony No. 1_:

Brahms "seems to favor too one-sidedly the great and the serious, the difficult and the complex, and at the expense of sensuous beauty. We would often give the finest contrapuntal device (and they lie bedded away in the symphony by the dozen) for a moment of warm, heart-quickening sunshine" (Brodbeck 82).​
So, struggles with accessibility are not new. It's just that by the post-WWII era, divisions between composer and audience were so set in stone that they (other than the revolutionary '60s) have not been mended to this day. Let me add that it _is_ possible to achieve mass appeal without sacrificing artistic integrity -- look to Shostakovich's _Symphony No. 5_ and Schnittke's polystylistic works, among others.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Schnittke: Symphony 3
Xenakis: Eonta
Shostakovich: Symphony 10, String Quartet 9
Rorem: Symphony 3


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

ORigel said:


> Schnittke: Symphony 3
> Xenakis: Eonta
> Shostakovich: Symphony 10, String Quartet 9
> Rorem: Symphony 3


didn't know Rorem wrote symphonies. I'll have to check it out


----------



## sqorda (Aug 9, 2013)

Based on the longer list that I posted in this thread.

And yes, I cheated again.

But I did apply rules this time (I had to): composers born in the 1920s or later and only one piece per composer.

The selection is pretty predictable and for that reason perhaps a bit boring. But I thought to myself: Which pieces stick in the mind? Which pieces have that feeling of being inevitable yet somehow always manage to come across as fresh and startling and absolutely unique and, well, new? Stuff that’s just DANG! So to speak. The way the St Matthew Passion and Haydn's Op 20 and Beethoven's Op 131 and Tristan and Debussy's Nocturnes are still DANG!

And how can you not end a list like this with La lontananza nostalgica utopica futura?

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2wbs9A4umIw6tLuVvyOtY4?si=76b4116c80a945e2

Stockhausen: Gruppen (1955–1957)
Boulez: Pli selon pli (1962)
Ligeti: Lontano (1967)
Xenakis: Jonchaies (1977)
Lachenmann: Mouvement (1982–1984)
Nono: La lontananza nostalgica utopica futura (1988/1989)


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

György Ligeti: Continuum
György Ligeti: Trio for Horn, Violin and Piano
Joonas Kokkonen: 3rd Symphony
Joonas Kokkonen: Durch einen Spiegel
Esa-Pekka Salonen: LA Variations

Yeah, I tend to repeat myself. But why did I choose those? Maybe because all of the works reflect the stylistic isms and techniques of their times, but build on musical principles surpassing their times. They are bold statements and reject all criticism -- like water off the duck´s back. These masterpieces need no explanations, they just sound so damn good, are extremely well crafted, and the strong musical personalities of the composers shine through.

Should someone tell me that modern music is bad, I would point them towards the direction of the five works above.


----------



## Lisztianwagner (2 mo ago)

I'll try to choose one work per composer:

Schönberg: String Trio Op. 45
Strauss: Vier letzte Lieder Op. 150
Vaughan Williams: Symphony No. 7 'Antartica' 
Shostakovich: Symphony No. 13 'Babi Yar' 
Schnittke: Symphony No. 3


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

No particular order: 

Reich - Music for 18 Musicians
Xenakis - Tetras
Feldman - Triadic Memories
Rzewski - The People United...
Messiaen: Turangalîla-Symphonie


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

Sofia Gubaidulina: The Wrath of God 2020 Orchestral
Kaija Saariaho: Innocence 2018 Opera
Anna Thorvaldsdottir: Enigma 2019 Chamber
Zibuokle Martinaityte: Sielunmaisema 2019 Concertante
Juste Janulyte: Apnea 2021 Orchestral


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Lutoslawski - cello concerto
Schnittke - requiem 
Messiaen - Et Exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum 
Dutilleux - Les Citations 
Penderecki - Polymorphia


----------



## Nawdry (Dec 27, 2020)

starthrower said:


> I am in no way qualified to judge whether a particular work is a masterpiece but I'll play for fun.
> 
> Bartok - Concerto For Orchestra


I'm pleased to find this monumental work of Bartok added to the list of modern masterpieces in this thread. The Concerto for Orchestra had a galvanic influence on my own musical development in my youth.

In light of the ongoing discussion, in various threads of this forum, of avant-garde influences in classical composition, it's of interest to note that in his own time Bartok was regarded as quite avant-garde for his innovations in terms of the disruption of diatonic harmony, the use of polymodal chromaticism, and the use of an unusually wide variety of resources including, according to Wikipedia, "the equal tempered twelve tone aggregate, octatonic scale (and alpha chord), the diatonic and _heptatonia secunda_ seven-note scales, and less often the whole tone scale and the primary pentatonic collection." 

In regard to the Concerto for Orchestra itself, Wikipedia also recounts an occurrence that's both curious and rather alarming. Preparing for a recording in 1980 with the Chicago Symphony, the great Georg Solti found a major discrepancy in the tempo marking for the second movement in the published score dated 1946. Solti remarked that he was "determined that the tempi should be exactly as Bartók wrote", but the printed metronome marking for the movement of quarter note (crochet) = 74 seemed extremely slow. "When we rehearsed I could see that the musicians didn't like it at all ..." Solti later related, noting that in a break the side drum player told him that his own part indicated "crotchet equals 94". This led Solti to track down and examine Bartok's original manuscript, which confirmed that the original metronome figure was indeed 94, not 74. Moreover, Solti found that Bartok's original tempo instruction was Allegro scherzando, not Allegretto scherzando as printed; and Bartok's title for the second movement was originally "Presentando le coppie" (Presentation of the couples), not "Giuoco delle coppie" (Game of the couples) as then appeared in the published version.

Those errors have since been corrected, of course; but it makes one wonder if other great masterpieces have suffered similar publishing afflictions.

References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Béla_Bartók
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto_for_Orchestra_(Bartók)


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Arvo Pärt -Tabula Rasa
Britten - String Quartet 3
Shostakovich - String Quartet 6
Shostakovich - String Quartet 8
Walton - String Quartet 2


----------



## Nawdry (Dec 27, 2020)

ORigel said:


> ...
> Rorem: Symphony 3


Ned Rorem's Symphony #3 (1958) is another magnificent work of the 20th Century period that I'm pleased to see recognized as a masterpiece. 

A few months ago, in a thread commemorating Rorem's death at the age of 99, I posted the following comments:



> I'm quite saddened to learn of the passing of Ned Rorem, whom I regard as ranking among the greatest of modern-era composers. His Symphony #3, incorporating his wistful and joyful memories of his life in Paris, has had the greatest influence on me of all his orchestral works. While taking music courses at the University of Texas decades ago, I had the opportunity to attend a small seminar taught by Rorem. His high assessment of the musical ingenuity of the Beatles, which he discussed at length, greatly impressed me. His point was to underscore the importance of a fine sense and mastery of melody. And in this regard he was, of course, a great master.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Nawdry said:


> I'm pleased to find this monumental work of Bartok added to the list of modern masterpieces in this thread. The Concerto for Orchestra had a galvanic influence on my own musical development in my youth.
> 
> In light of the ongoing discussion, in various threads of this forum, of avant-garde influences in classical composition, it's of interest to note that in his own time Bartok was regarded as quite avant-garde for his innovations in terms of the disruption of diatonic harmony, the use of polymodal chromaticism, and the use of an unusually wide variety of resources including, according to Wikipedia, "the equal tempered twelve tone aggregate, octatonic scale (and alpha chord), the diatonic and _heptatonia secunda_ seven-note scales, and less often the whole tone scale and the primary pentatonic collection."
> 
> ...



A few more concertos for orchestra that I think are excellent pieces:

Lindberg's Concerto for Orchestra
Lutosławski's Concerto for Orchestra
Carter's Concerto for Orchestra
G. Benjamin's Concerto for Orchestra
Bacewicz's Concerto for Orchestra


----------



## Doublestring (Sep 3, 2014)

Limiting myself to one work per composer this is my top 15:


Ligeti - Atmosphères
Xenakis - Metastaseis
Saariaho - Du cristal
Stockhausen - Gesang der Jünglinge
Boulez - Le Marteau sans maître
Shostakovich - Piano Concerto No. 2 in F major
Lutosławski - Symphony No. 3
Penderecki - Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima
Gubaidulina - Stimmen... Verstummen...
Dyens - Hommage à Villa-Lobos
Schnittke - String Quartet No. 3
Ustvolskaya - Piano Sonata No. 5
Brouwer - Elogio de la Danza
Cage - Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano
Villa-Lobos - Guitar Concerto


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I am in no position to claim any specific piece is a masterpiece or not.

All I can do is make a list of my favorite pieces, that I think are real standouts. But, 5 is not enough to list the pieces that I place at equal levels.

One per composer:

Elliott Carter - Concerto for Orchestra
Charles Wuorinen - 4th Piano Concerto
Samuel Barber - Piano Concerto
Joan Tower - Concerto for Orchestra
Bruno Maderna - 3rd Oboe Concerto
Gyorgy Ligeti - Lontano
Krzysztof Penderecki - Violin Concerto No. 2: _Metamorphosen_ 
Ernst Krenek - Static and Ecstatic for chamber orchestra


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Barber: Piano Concerto
Shostakovich: 2nd Piano Concerto
Vaughan Williams: 9th Symphony
.......
...........I'll have to think about the other two.
.......
Rautavaara: Cantus Arcticus?


----------

