# Alive, prolific and great composers - suggestions please!



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

hello people,
i would really appreciate if you could give me a couple of suggestions of classical composers of our times, who you like and are still releasing compositions in a prolific way.
I did some search, but I think I could have a really nice start with you, OH AMAZING CONOISSEURS OF MUSIC, to bring this light to me!


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

If the goal is to simply listen to great music, then you may try avoiding this less competitive and visionary period. However if the goal is to listen to modern composers for arbitrary reasons, then the forum's top suggestions from the last 15 years are (In Order):

_1. Abrahamsen_​

Mostly Intermediate Listening
_2. Gubaidulina
3. Boulez
4. Pärt
5. Reich
6. J. Williams
7. Penderecki_Mostly Advanced Listening
_2. G. F. Haas
3. Chin
4. Furrer
5. Saariaho
6. M. Richter
7. Adams
8. Beppe
9. Norman_

However, one could hypothetically question the tastes of a forum that specializes in older music. Not saying one should, but one can easily gather other opinions too.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Still very much a field I’m in the process of exploring, but some favorites of mine so far include Kaija Saariaho, James MacMillan, Gyorgy Kurtag, and Sofia Gubaidulina. You may want to join in on thr 1980-2000 listening group if you’re interested in exploring further; several living composers have been and will be featured.


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> If the goal is to simply listen to great music, then you may try avoiding this less competitive and visionary period. However if the goal is to listen to modern composers for arbitrary reasons, then the forum's top suggestions from the last 15 years are (In Order):
> 
> _1. Abrahamsen_​
> 
> ...


 Wonderful post, Ethereality. Thanks a lot! Listening to some Abrahamsen right now.

Allegro Con Brio, thanks a lot too. I'll also check the group you mentioned!


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

I would also recommend Franck Bedrossian; his music is like nothing else I have ever heard. I also like Tristan Murail and Kris Defoort. But Saariaho and Abrahamsen are two amazing recommendations as well.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Caroline Shaw, Nico Muhly
Thomas Adès, Mason Bates, Anna Thorvaldsdottir, Fazil Say, Donnacha Dennehy, Eriks Esenvalds, Lera Auerbach
Max Richter, Mark-Anthony Turnage, Unsuk Chin, Jake Heggie, Aaron Jay Kernis, Marc Mellits, Derek Bermel, Jennifer Higdon, Brett Dean
James MacMillan, Julia Wolfe, David Lang, Michael Gordon, Michael Daugherty, Kaija Saariaho, Jonathan Dove, John Luther Adams, Wolfgang Rihm, Sally Beamish, Judith Weir
John Adams, Michael Nyman, Meredith Monk, Peteris Vasks, Gavin Bryars
Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Arvo Pärt, Per Nørgård, Sofia Gubaidulina, Joan Tower


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I have an interest in born and bred American composers, many of which I've come to know by way of the NAXOS _American Classics_ series. Joseph Schwantner, Adolphus Hailstork, Ellen Taffe Zwilich, Jennifer Higdon, and Ned Rorem; are all among the living, and are composers of tonal music that is very listenable, and at age 96 Rorem is one of the last human links to the heyday of when the great American composers such as Copland, Barber and Bernstein were active. Philip Glass is a contraversial name in that his music is polarizing.While it can be argued that Glass came up with something entirely new that revived the general public's interest in classical music, others see Glass as someone who just discovered something of a gimmick. Even so, Glass' place and influence in contempory music can't be ignored.

America's Huang Ruo and Canada's Vivian Fung are two young and active composers who have composed interested works that are a little far-out but at least fall in the realm of something new and different.

If you do some digging around on your own, and especially with YouTube, as your window to the world, you're bound to discover lots of living and active composers on your own ranging from tonal, atonal, to mimimalist, fusion, to pop-art style, and so on.

When I started listening to classical music in the 1980s, there were lots of great composers who were still alive and well such as Copland, Bernstein, Sessions, William Schuman, Hovhaness, Orff, Messiaen who's music I could sample on records. But by that time, they were all by-and-large long past composing their most important works. That was when the distribution of classical music was dependent on just a few major record labels and outlets. Now because of NAXOS and some other labels, YouTube, online shopping, and so forth, there are more opportunities to hear interesting pieces by contemporary composers ranging from tonal, to atonal, to all other varieties along the spectrum.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

I’m not very knowledgeable about this topic and I think other contributors have made plenty of good suggestions, but I’d like to add a name: Gabriela Lena Frank. One of her works is currently under discussion over on the weekly string quartet thread. My favorite way to discover working composers is to attend local concerts, especially at colleges and universities. A lot of new music of all kinds gets performed at these, and I’ve learned of several young composers whose work I like in this way.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I won't repeat many of the good ones already mentioned.

I have taken to a lot of the work of conductor Esa Pekka Salonen. His LA Variations is terrific. He really knows how to write for orchestra.

Christopher Rouse is recently deceased; his symphonies really deserve wider exposure.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Lots of important names mentioned, but I'd like to add two more Finnish composers: Aho and Sallinen.

ETA: and American Corigliano.


----------



## Mifek (Jul 28, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> 7. Penderecki


He passed away three months ago, so although he was indeed a great and prolific composer, he is no longer alive.

EDIT: And Boulez is even _less alive_ than Penderecki.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

James MacMillan, Sally Beamish, John Adams, Jennifer Higdon, Michael Daugherty, Arvo Part, John Luther Adams.
Sorry....I’m not up on much of it, but I enjoy these few immensely.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Wolfgang Rihm is unbelievably, dauntingly, prolific and much of it is interesting music.


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

I'm really loving this topic, and i am really thankful for all these suggestions, people! 
One of the great things about Spotify is that we can readily find most of those composers and their vast array of recordings.
I didn't know almost any of those you suggested, only Arvo Part and Kaija. 
I am really curious to discover more of the recommended music here, it will be interesting and fun, thanks!


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Mifek said:


> He passed away three months ago, so although he was indeed a great and prolific composer, he is no longer alive.
> 
> EDIT: And Boulez is even _less alive_ than Penderecki.


So Boulez is deader than dead?


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

If you love Mahler, then please check out *Peng Peng Gong* he is currently writing new symphonies and they are genuinely epic and enjoyable. Here's the incredible ending of his 3rd piano concerto just to convince you.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Oh there’s another one who is amazingly prolific, John Zorn. I don’t know the music well, but the quartet called Momento Mori is quite distinctive.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

aioriacont said:


> hello people,
> i would really appreciate if you could give me a couple of suggestions of classical composers of our times, who you like and are still releasing compositions in a prolific way.
> I did some search, but I think I could have a really nice start with you, OH AMAZING CONOISSEURS OF MUSIC, to bring this light to me!


You should tell us a little more about what kind of music you like or what you're looking for in music, because the field is huge.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

The works of Valentin Silvestrov (1937) have been recorded on ECM, BIS, Naxos and other labels. Also, he has been releasing a lot of albums (so far 90 releases of CD-R & download) of his short piano pieces, songs, some live recordings of orchestral works on his bandcamp page. Many of them are home recordings played by the composer. His music is sometimes very sentimental and melancholic, sometimes deeply bleak.
https://silvestrov.bandcamp.com/


----------



## Rania (Jun 23, 2009)

I was immediately gripped by the music of Thierry Escaich (b. 1965) when I first heard excerpts of it in an interview with members of the Tchalik quartet, a wonderful ensemble made of siblings. He is an important, prolific French composer, also famous for his organ improvisations. The Tchaliks have recorded several of his works, including "la Ronde" for piano quintet. David Grimal, the leader of the exceptional orchestra "Les Dissonances", has also recorded Escaich's violin concerto.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I wonder who really deserves to be called a "great" composer nowadays. Dozens of composers are mentioned, but I suspect the music of some of them is merely a "very good" or "ok" experience, if even that, based on those I checked.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Fabulin said:


> I wonder who really deserves to be called a "great" composer nowadays. Dozens of composers are mentioned, but I suspect the music of some of them is merely a "very good" or "ok" experience, if even that, based on those I checked.


It really depends on what we call a "great" composer to begin with. Social and historical conditions of "classical music" are really different today compared to what they were in the XIXth century, or until the second world war. It would be difficult to find a composer who write something that wear the same historial significance as what Beethoven or Debussy wrote in their time, because the world has changed.
That being said, I think there are nowadays composers who are "greater" (in their technical skill, in their artistic accomplishment, in the sheer power of their works) than a lot of composers who have their place in the repertoire.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Kilgore Trout said:


> That being said, I think there are nowadays composers who are "greater" (in their technical skill, in their artistic accomplishment, in the sheer power of their works) than a lot of composers who have their place in the repertoire.


Could you make, just for the sake of an argument, a few favourable comparisons? Pick a historical big name, pick a big work, pick a modern composer, and a superior work...


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

Rania said:


> I was immediately gripped by the music of Thierry Escaich (b. 1965) when I first heard excerpts of it in an interview with members of the Tchalik quartet, a wonderful ensemble made of siblings. He is an important, prolific French composer, also famous for his organ improvisations. The Tchaliks have recorded several of his works, including "la Ronde" for piano quintet. David Grimal, the leader of the exceptional orchestra "Les Dissonances", has also recorded Escaich's violin concerto.


Not a name I've come across before, but was very drawn into _La Ronde_ above. Will have a poke around, including the organ improvisations mentioned. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> Could you make, just for the sake of an argument, a few favourable comparisons? Pick a historical big name, pick a big work, pick a modern composer, and a superior work...


I don't think comparisons between today's music and historical music make much sense because they can be so very different. I always like to say that Steve Reich couldn't possibly write anything as good as Beethoven's _Eroica_, but that Beethoven couldn't possibly have written anything as good as Reich's _Music for 18 Musicians_. (And, by the way, I'd apply a similar logic to comparing Beethoven with, say, Monteverdi.)

As for who are today's "great" composers, I agree with Kilgore Trout's point about how you define the word "great". How many "great" composers have there already been? Three? Twenty? Fifty? Five hundred? The lower the number you pick, the less likely there'll be any modern composer who would qualify.

(Edited to add: I'm not a big fan of the label "great" anyway, unless it means something banal like "has a lot of appeal for a lot of people who like that sort of thing")


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> . . . As for who are today's "great" composers, I agree with Kilgore Trout's point about how you define the word "great". How many "great" composers have there already been? Three? Twenty? Fifty? Five hundred? The lower the number you pick, the less likely there'll be any modern composer who would qualify. . . .


Your statement is valid, but without specifics, the value of such statements as made by Kilgore Trout becomes meaningless. What I presume that Fabulin was looking for was context from the person who made the statement, precisely because it requires context to be useful.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I do think a allegedly great piece should be given at least 50 years before calling it great. History is filled with stories of composers who are now nearly forgotten but were once considered great - and, indeed, greater than the ones we actually do remember and value now. But I feel convinced that many pieces from the last 30 years will come to be seen as great and that we have been living in something of a golden age for classical music. 

One of the problems with recommendations of music from this period is the huge variety of what is available. I don't know how one approaches the music of our time from scratch. I guess it might partly depend on what earlier music you have liked. Among my favourites from among the living and the relatively recently deceased are Lachenmann, Boulez, Nono, Carter, Birtwistle, Xenakis, Berio, Ligeti, Benjamin, Grisey, Eotvos, Gubaidulina, Feldman, Furrer, Kurtag, Murail ... and others. And before them there are a large number of other (probably) greats who may also be not so familiar yet. 

Personally I don't care for the minimalists (although the early experiments were interesting) or composers like Adams and MacMillan.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

JAS said:


> Your statement is valid, but without specifics, the value of such statements as made by Kilgore Trout becomes meaningless.


Well, it's kind of my point that even _with_ specifics such comparisons might prove to be meaningless! (And hence my added comment about what I think of the term "great").

KT said: "I think there are nowadays composers who are "greater" (in their technical skill, in their artistic accomplishment, in the sheer power of their works) than a lot of composers who have their place in the repertoire." But how do you even compare these qualities? If I want to argue that, say, Glass or Stockhausen are "greater" than Dvorak or Grieg (I don't, but...) then how do we compare their technical skill when their compositions are utterly different? Artistic accomplishment? Maybe the modern composers can be argued to be more innovative than the older ones, but if you don't like their innovations, do they count?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I do think a allegedly great piece should be given at least 50 years before calling it great. History is filled with stories of composers who are now nearly forgotten but were once considered great - and, indeed, greater than the ones we actually do remember and value now.


It's also filled with the music of Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and so on, that was valued as great much quicker than decades after the first performance, often almost as soon as people heard it (multiple encores at the premieres).



Enthusiast said:


> But I feel convinced that many pieces from the last 30 years will come to be seen as great and that we have been living in something of a golden age for classical music.


I kind of agree with the first one, if you mean the music of John Williams and Howard Shore. I disagree with the second one strongly. To quote the former, modern composers are a bit... "thin-chested".



Enthusiast said:


> One of the problems with recommendations of music from this period is the huge variety of what is available. I don't know how one approaches the music of our time from scratch.


I don't get it. How about the first five great works starting from the top of some list of yours?



Enthusiast said:


> I guess it might partly depend on what earlier music you have liked.


"Liking" is too moderate when we are talking great composers. Let's say I love the music of Mozart, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, and Korngold.



Enthusiast said:


> Among my favourites from among the living and the relatively recently deceased are *Lachenmann, Boulez, Nono, Carter, Birtwistle, Xenakis, Berio, Ligeti, Benjamin, Grisey, Eotvos, Gubaidulina, Feldman, Furrer, Kurtag, Murail* ... and others. And before them there are a large number of other (probably) greats who may also be not so familiar yet.
> 
> Personally I don't care for the minimalists (although the early experiments were interesting) or composers like Adams and MacMillan.


Let's hear their superiority then! Please give some impressive examples.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

I am fascinated by the deeply evocative music of Glaswegian James Dillon. One of his recent works is the _String Quartet No. 9_ (2018). A good introduction to his sound world is _La Femme Invisible_ for chamber ensemble, from Dillon's celebrated _Nine Rivers_ cycle. Great stuff!


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Well, it's kind of my point that even _with_ specifics such comparisons might prove to be meaningless! (And hence my added comment about what I think of the term "great").


It would not be meaningless. At most, some might disagree with it, which is not the same thing. It is meaningless as it stands because there is no way to see what is intended, other than a vague boast with no substantiation. And no, if you don't like their innovations, they don't count, at least not to you (or me). But if one does not wish to back up big claims, I suggest not making them in the first place.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

JAS said:


> It would not be meaningless. At most, some might disagree with it, which is not the same thing. And no, if you don't like their innovations, they don't count, at least not to you (or me).


At the risk of being pedantic, what I said was "such comparisons _might prove to be_ meaningless" - I didn't intend to imply that these comparisons are _inherently_ meaningless. If we disagree over whether a given composer's innovations are even valid, how meaningful can a comparison be?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> At the risk of being pedantic, what I said was "such comparisons _might prove to be_ meaningless" - I didn't intend to imply that these comparisons are _inherently_ meaningless. If we disagree over whether a given composer's innovations are even valid, how meaningful can a comparison be?


Perhaps my statement was not clear. The original statement, by Kilgore Trout, was and remains meaningless because no specifics were provided by which it might be judged. Providing such specifics would _rescue_ it from being meaningless. At that point, we might merely have disagreement, but at least there is something being said that can be evaluated.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

The evaluation of contemporary composers is difficult due to the lag time involved. My understanding is the Michael Haydn was more popular than his brother that we all know and love, Franz Joseph Haydn, in their day; and that Hummel and Rubinstein were considered great composers during their own lifetimes. Conversely, Bach wasn't made to be nearly as great as he is considered to be today, until his music was revivied by Mendelssohn. Historians say that the administrations of US Presidents can't really be evaluated fairly until at least twenty or more years after their presidency has ended. Case-in-point: while Harry Truman is now being hailed as being in the top ten (or even top five!) of US Presidents, when historians are asked to take a poll; during his adminstration his popularity was so low that upon his retirement, he probably couldn't have been elected mayor of his own hime town of Independence, Missouri.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

^^^ such is the hope of every person who labors in obscurity during their lifetimes. Of course, while some of the once lauded sink into obscurity, relatively few escape it as the centuries pass.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

JAS said:


> Perhaps my statement was not clear. The original statement, by Kilgore Trout, was and remains meaningless because no specifics were provided by which it might be judged. Providing such specifics would _rescue_ it from being meaningless. At that point, we might merely have disagreement, but at least there is something being said that can be evaluated.


And how the actual original statement by Nereffid ("I wonder who really deserves to be called a "great" composer nowadays.") is less meaningless than mine?

I was ready to provide the "specifics" that you asked, but considering the answers that followed, I don't really see the point. It seems that some people consider that the mere idea that someone might consider that some living composers are as good as the _Great Old Ones_ is some sort of sacrilege.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Kilgore Trout said:


> I was ready to provide the "specifics" that you asked, but considering the answers that followed, I don't really see the point. It seems that some people consider that the mere idea that someone might consider that some living composers are as good as the _Great Old Ones_ is some sort of sacrilege.


Are we even reading the same thread? I see no such posts.

So how about those examples?


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Kilgore Trout said:


> And how the actual original statement by Nereffid ("I wonder who really deserves to be called a "great" composer nowadays.") is less meaningless than mine?
> 
> I was ready to provide the "specifics" that you asked, but considering the answers that followed, I don't really see the point. *It seems that some people consider that the mere idea that someone might consider that some living composers are as good as the Great Old Ones is some sort of sacrilege.*




Well, yeah, because you compete with the dead.Even if you achieve greatness in your own lifetime, it's indeed _sacrilege_ to even idendity that greatness without acknowledging the greatness of someone else who is no longer with us: i.e. The greatest _since_ Picasso, the greatest _since_ Stravinsky, the greatest _since_ Ruth, Mays or Aaron; the greatest _since _Washington, Linclon or FDR...


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Coach G said:


> [/B]Well, yeah, because you compete with the dead.Even if you achieve greatness in your own lifetime, it's indeed _sacrilege_ to even idendity that greatness without acknowledging the greatness of someone else who is no longer with us: i.e. The greatest _since_ Picasso, the greatest _since_ Stravinsky, the greatest _since_ Ruth, Mays or Aaron; the greatest _since _Washington, Linclon or FDR...


The greatest since Joachim Raff!

_Edit_: reference - 12 Tone Commercial


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Coach G said:


> [/B]
> Well, yeah, because you compete with the dead.Even if you achieve greatness in your own lifetime, it's indeed _sacrilege_ to even idendity that greatness without acknowledging the greatness of someone else who is no longer with us: i.e. The greatest _since_ Picasso, the greatest _since_ Stravinsky, the greatest _since_ Ruth, Mays or Aaron; the greatest _since _Washington, Linclon or FDR...


But this stance is proof of how we consider classical music as a museum, and art as something dead. Stravinsky, to take one example, was considered a great composer when he was alive. Nobody waited for him to be dead to consider him as such, or to ask the question of his greatness. Great artists are, first of all, great on their own, not because they deserve to take their place in some museum.
We should get rid of this non sense.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Kilgore Trout said:


> And how the actual original statement by Nereffid ("I wonder who really deserves to be called a "great" composer nowadays.") is less meaningless than mine?
> 
> I was ready to provide the "specifics" that you asked, but considering the answers that followed, I don't really see the point. It seems that some people consider that the mere idea that someone might consider that some living composers are as good as the _Great Old Ones_ is some sort of sacrilege.


That quote was from Fabulin, certainly not me!


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> That quote was from Fabulin, certainly not me!


My bad, sorry! (I need 15 characters)


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Kilgore Trout said:


> And how the actual original statement by Nereffid ("I wonder who really deserves to be called a "great" composer nowadays.") is less meaningless than mine?


It isn't particularly meaningful, but it is generally trickier to substantiate a negative. It would hardly be practical to list all of the composers who one did not think were great.



Kilgore Trout said:


> I was ready to provide the "specifics" that you asked, but considering the answers that followed, I don't really see the point. It seems that some people consider that the mere idea that someone might consider that some living composers are as good as the _Great Old Ones_ is some sort of sacrilege.


Again, it would not be my position, but someone might think so since it is chiefly a matter of opinion. (The value of that opinion to others can be evaluated only if some specifics are provided.) I know that there are people who are fierce advocates of the music of Brian Ferneyhough, and they are entitled to have and share that opinion, and to pursue their interest in his music to their heart's content, even if I would usually pay to avoid hearing anything that he has composed.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Fabulin said:


> It's also filled with the music of Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and so on, that was valued as great much quicker than decades after the first performance, often almost as soon as people heard it (multiple encores at the premieres).


And your point is? The fact remains that many works we now think of as great were not so well received at first and that many works that were very highly thought of when new have vanished into obscurity. That some great works were recognised from the start is neither here nor there. In any case the worlds of Beethoven, Chopin and Wagner were very different worlds: the role of, and audience for, classical music was very different as was the music written for them.



Fabulin said:


> I kind of agree with the first one, if you mean the music of John Williams and Howard Shore. I disagree with the second one strongly. To quote the former, modern composers are a bit... "thin-chested".


:lol: Please, this part of the forum is for classical music.



Fabulin said:


> I don't get it. How about the first five great works starting from the top of some list of yours?
> 
> "Liking" is too moderate when we are talking great composers. Let's say I love the music of Mozart, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, and Korngold.
> 
> Let's hear their superiority then! Please give some impressive examples.


I've played the game of recommending great modern and contemporary music to those who believe there is no such thing a hundred times. I learned that they were not the slightest interested in actually trying the music. If I am wrong in your case there are numerous threads recommending works by the composers I named.

As for "like" and "love", I set the bar low in looking for a possible entry point in answer to the OP's question. Why is that a problem for you? Your lecture on how much you love Mendelssohn and Korngold seems like virtue signalling (if there is virtue in loving them).

I know your intention was to troll me again and I probably should not have replied. Please feel free to ignore the reply I did provide.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Coach G said:


> My understanding is the Michael Haydn was more popular than his brother that we all know and love, Franz Joseph Haydn, in their day;


Michael Haydn _was_ a highly regarded composer during his lifetime, though mostly of church music. However, his music was not widely published and his fame did not extend much beyond Salzburg, where he chose to reside until the end of his life. It seems likely that his obituary from the _Allgemeine Zeitung_ (1806) fairly expresses the musical public's opinion regarding his ability compared to his more celebrated brother: "We never knew [Michael Haydn] to be anything but honest, good-natured, faithful and modest. He was greatly esteemed as an artist, and he will continue to be so esteemed by all who know his better works. It is not his fault that these works have not achieved the popularity which they merit. In this regard his brother may have been a handicap to him, quite unintentionally, for Michael Haydn was forever compared to him. It was inevitable that such a comparison would show Michael to be the loser in all categories but one. He lacked his brother's wealth of ideas, his fire, brilliance, agility, and humor . .. but when it came to seriousness, thoroughness, exactitude, and concise, sustained strength, then he needed not defer to his brother. A good many of his sacred works unquestionably are proof of this. Though their orchestral parts lack the fullness, surprise, and brilliance of Joseph's they remain all the more faithful to the dignity and solemnity of religious gatherings. He hardly was a prolific composer: his temperament never had been particularly lively, and he needed the spur of specific commissions and of encouragement. But these he received rarely if ever. Still we know among his better works several great Masses, several Salve Redemptor, and a number of Salve Reginae which in every respect can be counted among the most exquisite, dignified, and solid examples of their kind produced in recent times. Had he lived in a different age and environment and in general under different conditions he would have become one of the most famous masters who did more than anyone else for the general cultivation of noble taste in the arts."


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I've played the game of recommending great modern and contemporary music to those who believe there is no such thing a hundred times. I learned that they were not the slightest interested in actually trying the music. If I am wrong in your case there are numerous threads recommending works by the composers I named.


You assume that "they were not the slightest interested in actually trying the music." Is it not possible that they did try it, even sincerely made an effort to give it a chance, and simply did not like or appreciate what they heard? I admit that I have heard enough of it to not have very high hopes when another recommendation is made.

But no one really has a motivation to _pretend_ to dislike music, or to dislike it merely out of spite. I would presume that pretty much everyone is looking for more of music that they enjoy. (My meager bank account and diminishing shelf space might sometimes wish otherwise.)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ You may be right but I was remembering all the battles we used to have here between people who loathe modern/atonal/contemporary music. At some point recommendations would be called for by people who had a long history of telling us how much they hate it. They would then come back with "that was horrible" ... and I doubt that they had listened to more than the openings or a few minutes here and there. I tried more than most to get good recommendations for music I loved across but usually without avail. There were also a few who were skeptical but serious and some of them became converts. I think I got quite good at anticipating whether I was dealing with the trolls or the open but apologies to Fabulin if I got him wrong.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> They would then come back with "that was horrible" ... and *I doubt that they had listened to more than the openings or a few minutes here and there*. I tried more than most to get good recommendations for music I loved across but usually without avail. There were also a few who were skeptical but serious and some of them became converts. I think I got quite good at anticipating whether I was dealing with the trolls or the open but apologies to Fabulin if I got him wrong.


Where is the option of open-minded people who honestly listened and still replied that it was a horrible experience for them?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> . . . You may be right but I was remembering all the battles we used to have here between people who loathe modern/atonal/contemporary music. At some point recommendations would be called for by people who had a long history of telling us how much they hate it. They would then come back with "that was horrible" ... and I doubt that they had listened to more than the openings or a few minutes here and there. . . .


And this assumption is based on? How many listens are required to be sure that you don't like a piece?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> Where is the option of open-minded people who honestly listened and still replied that it was a horrible experience for them?


One option is to try to understand.

Let me take an example from an another domain, it is analogous. If you don't speak French and you go to a performance of a play by Racine, it'll just sound like a bunch of people shouting at each other in a foreign language. Horrible. If you take the trouble to learn a bit of the language, learn a bit about the culture or the times, you may come to appreciate Racine more. Whether you like it or not is quite another question.

Now some people who have been brought up on Mozart and Chopin find Schoenberg and Babbitt totally disorienting on first listening. Many just abandon these composers at that point. In doing so they display an unfortunate, contemptible, lack of curiosity. A civilised and cultured person would try to comprehend what Babbitt and Schoenberg were doing and why, and would try to see what others have come to value in the music. This will result in them coming to appreciate the music better, though whether they like it or not depends more on things like what they had for lunch, in my experience.

Of course, some people may never appreciate Babbitt, just as some people may never appreciate Racine, even though they try. They're not built that way.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> One option is to try to understand.
> 
> Let me take an example from an another domain, it is analogous. If you don't speak French and you go to a performance or a play by Racine, it'll just sound like a bunch of people shouting at each other in a foreign language. Horrible. If you take the trouble to learn a bit of the language, learn a bit about the culture or the times, you may come to appreciate Racine more. Whether you like it or not is quite another question.
> 
> ...


No _natural _human language is horrible to hear to me, and my general interests are very broad. In music I can tell quickly if something interests me as a listener, or _at least_ as someone curious about music theory and why this and that works on humans the way it does, including various dissonances. Even the latter reason is already an extremely curious stance compared to most people I've ever met.

I do not believe, however, in Emperor's New Clothes-style cultural shaming. The use of a phrase "contemptible lack of curiosity" concerning what is _already_ an objectively luxurious pastime, is very bizarre.

I am sure there are plenty of goals more worthy than going out of one's way to accomodate works of those who tossed the hot potato of putting effort into communication skills [either the message, or the means can be complex---not both: there is a reason why quantum physics are not taught using the language of James Joyce], and instead took an entitled, myopic primadonna stance of assigning _work _to others.

Imagine a philosopher who insists on being respected for having something to say, while shifting the responsibility for his provocatively convoluted language use onto others. Now imagine that there is actually no deep message whatsoever behind it, because we are talking about an acoustic mood-setting niche of human activity.

Composers should guide listeners, and listeners be willing to follow---but few in their right mind would interpret that as implying a blind obedience and psychological penitence in following even the Caligulas without calling them out on incoherent orders---not to mention comparing them equally or favourably to actual great leaders.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> ...Now some people who have been brought up on Mozart and Chopin find Schoenberg and Babbitt totally disorienting on first listening. Many just abandon these composers at that point. In doing so they display an unfortunate, contemptible, lack of curiosity.


Substitute "eating feces" for "Schoenberg and Babbitt" in this sentence and it will be apparent that it is a non sequitur either way.

"In art, as in everything else, there are some things to which we must not accustom ourselves." --Camille Saint-Saëns


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Has anyone mentioned any of the following yet?

Joseph Schwantner
Joan Tower
Andrew Norman
Thea Musgrave
Erkki-Sven Tüür
Charles Wuorinen (Yes, I know he just died)

As soon as I read the title of this thread, I know it wouldn't take too long for it to devolve into contemporary classical music bashing. Thank you for being so predictable, TC.



Enthusiast said:


> I've played the game of recommending great modern and contemporary music to those who believe there is no such thing a hundred times. I learned that they were not the slightest interested in actually trying the music. If I am wrong in your case there are numerous threads recommending works by the composers I named.


This is so true.

What is the use of recemening great pieces to those who have no interest, or have shown a history of deriding contemporary music?

I know, that I will just not enjoy any classical from before the early 20th century. It bores me and I find it predictable. So, you will never see me on TC posting on a thread about Mahler, Beethoven, etc asking for recommendations, because I know going in, that I will continue to have the same reaction to it.

Which makes me wonder, why do the haters of contemporary music continue to deride the music, on threads they do not even have to open, let alone post on?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Substitute "eating feces" for "Schoenberg and Babbitt" in this sentence and it will be apparent that it is a non sequitur either way.


Sounds about right, Ken. I'm glad that there is a good amount of contemporary music bashing on TC, much of it is deserved, I think. People should not just accept any garbage being offered to them as art, it is too important.

That said there are some living composers who have some music I enjoy:

Brouwer
Saariaho
Gubaidulina
Reich

Among others...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Regardless of whether you like it or not, a lot of contemporary music also has its uses in modern culture. Listen to the soundtrack at 18:00, 18:30 of this documentary. I think it fits the scenes very appropriately. -It does a very good job at creating an atmosphere of grotesque feelings appropriate for the scenes.

*[ 18:00 ]*
*[ 18:30 ]*





It reminds me of Stockhausen's _Gesang der junglinge_, and I can't think of any other pieces of classical music that can do this better. So I think a lot of contemporary music has incidental music-like character in it that it has to be used in some sort of context, such as visual media content, to be relevant to modern society.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> As soon as I read the title of this thread, I know it wouldn't take too long for it to devolve into contemporary classical music bashing. Thank you for being so predictable, TC.


You're correct, but it's just been two members who have gone out of their way to derail the thread, and we know who they are and that they have done it multiple times in the past. So, another informative and congenial thread has been shot to hell.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bulldog said:


> You're correct, but it's just been two members who have gone out of their way to derail the thread, and we know who they are and that they have done it multiple times in the past. So, another informative and congenial thread has been shot to hell.


A very unfair comment. One member wrote that those disliking the works of certain 20th century composers "display an unfortunate, contemptible, lack of curiosity." Such an incendiary comment, of a type too often reflected in the posts of so-called modernists around here, not only requests but requires a strong rejoinder.

But perhaps that sort of thing is what you consider "congenial."


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> :lol: Please, this part of the forum is for classical music.


Speaking of Classical music...

Which composer actually sounds more like Mozart and Beethoven?

_Lachenmann, Boulez... Nono_, or John Williams?

Well ok.. cheap shot. Williams is part of the Neo-Romantic film movement after all, he sounds more like Classical than most modern composers. Even instrumental line-writing music like Uematsu's sounds more like Mozart than many modern composers do, in terms of harmony, melody and meter. Not saying that close though.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

KenOC said:


> A very unfair comment.


Nonsense. The thread was doing fine until post 21 reared its head, and it's been downhill since then.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> :lol: Please, this part of the forum is for classical music.


Are John Williams and Yuhki Kuramoto any less closer to the classical music practice and tradition than the "avant-gardists" are? I seriously doubt it nowadays.

Yuhki Kuramoto - Romance/Virgin Road/Tears For You/Lake Louise
Romancing Time - Yuhki Kuramoto


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I think it's just Mozart who sounds like an adventure film composer, not the other way around 

.
.
.
(



)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> I think it's just Mozart who sounds like an adventure film composer, not the other way around


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

First of all, thread duty: a few other composers whose music I haven't heard much of but I have enjoyed are Florent Ghys, Nicole Lizée, Derek Charke, Kate Moore, Mohammed Fairouz.

As regards the business of liking or disliking modern music, personally I am curious and will continue to make the occasional effort to find something in music I don't like, but I think the word "contemptible" used above is unfortunate. Some people just don't like certain kinds of music, and they never will, and that's the end of it. What's frustrating - and yes, maybe contemptible too - is when those who don't like modern music _keep going on about it_. I don't like the music of, say, Ferneyhough, but I don't insist that those who do like it should prove to me that it's good stuff. I know they like it, I know he's highly regarded in some quarters, I know I don't like it (yet??), and that's all that needs to be said.

One great thing about contemporary music, as I'm sure the OP will have noticed if he/she hasn't been scared away by now - is that there's such a wide variety. We can dislike whole swathes of it, but then we discover a new composer and suddenly there are riches to be heard.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Fabulin said:


> Are we even reading the same thread? I see no such posts.


Considering all the "contemporary music bashing" that followed, I was damn right. There is not point in discussing music with such people.
You can be sure I'm not going to give any "specifs" when there is a pack of trolls waiting to shout how awful is any example I could give.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Obviously I was premature in saying that the TC custom of childish attacks on modern music spoiling threads that invited the opposite was a feature of the past. All the more tiresome, I feel, in that those attacking the new seem unable to come up with a new angle for advancing their agendas. Speaks for itself, I suppose.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Considering all the "contemporary music bashing" that followed, I was damn right. There is not point in discussing music with such people.
> You can be sure I'm not going to give any "specifs" when there is a pack of trolls waiting to shout how awful is any example I could give.


It's hard to take someone seriously when they ignore 3 or 4 polite requests for supporting material, wait for the discussion to heat up around the lack of said material, and then write posts like this.

I see my first question was very well placed, judging by the inability of posters questioned to come up with any answer, and what insecurities and passive-aggressiveness it brought out of them, including a first ad personam shot fired (and more actually).

I find it interesting that one side criticizes the claims of greatness or superiority of some composers, and the other side starts to immediately call them trolls (you are not even the first one to use this word, whatever it means in this context)...

No echo chamber, especially one with feet of clay, likes gadflies. That is not new.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Fabulin said:


> It's hard to take someone seriously when they ignore 3 or 4 polite requests for supporting material, wait for the discussion to heat up around the lack of said material, and then write posts like this.


Do you take into consideration the fact that I was simply not in front of my computer when the discussion heated up, and that I didn't even have the time to give the examples requested before several members showed their anti-modernist colors?
Seriously, I posted my original post, came back several hours later, and there was 15 new answers (mostly of the usual anti-modernist stuff), and my first reaction was "WTF?".


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> What is the use of recemening great pieces to those who have no interest, or have shown a history of deriding contemporary music?


The request was not so much for recommendations, but for setting a context for the (rather outrageous and totally unsubstantiated) claim that was made for it. In a broad comparison of modern classical music to traditional forms, modern loses every time and on almost every ground. (I will grant that modern classical has diversity, but not necessarily in its favor.)


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Regardless of whether you like it or not, a lot of modern music also has its uses in modern culture. Listen to the soundtrack at 18:00, 18:30 of this documentary. I think it fits the scenes very appropriately. -It does a very good job at creating an atmosphere of grotesque feelings appropriate for the scenes.


I think quite a bit of minimalism is extremely effective in tv advertising. It tends to catch your attention and with the short time frame avoids the biggest problem with minimalism, namely that it gets boring or annoying very quickly.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

JAS said:


> The request was not so much for recommendations, but for setting a context for the (rather outrageous and totally unsubstantiated) claim that was made for it.


Wait, what? Saying "*I think* there are nowadays composers who are "greater" than a lot of composers who have their place in the repertoire." is somewhat outrageous?
And then some are surprised one might refuse to discus with such people.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Wait, what? Saying "*I think* there are nowadays composers who are "greater" than a lot of composers who have their place in the repertoire." is somewhat outrageous?
> And then some are surprised one might refuse to discus with such people.


With no substance, yes it is outrageous. Indeed, it would be foolish to make such a claim and not expect to be challenged on it. The introductory phrase "I think" does not help when it is clear that the person posting has _not_ thought about it, but merely stated it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> It's hard to take someone seriously when they ignore 3 or 4 polite requests for supporting material, wait for the discussion to heat up around the lack of said material, and then write posts like this.
> 
> I see my first question was very well placed, judging by the inability of posters questioned to come up with any answer, and what insecurities and passive-aggressiveness it brought out of them, including a first ad personam shot fired (and more actually).


This thread's theme had nothing to do with comparing contemporary music to music of previous eras. I consider your question to be nothing more than an attempt to derail/change the direction of the thread. You did succeed.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

JAS said:


> With no substance, yes it is outrageous.


Again, I refuse to discus any claim who someone who consider "outrageous" a vague opinion. Your attitude has nothing to do with challenging a claim. I read on this messageboard unsubstantiated and downright wrong opinions everyday, yet I don't think they're "outrageous".


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Again, I refuse to discus any claim who someone who consider "outrageous" a vague opinion. Your attitude has nothing to do with challenging a claim.


It has _everything_ to do with challenging a claim, but clearly no further discussion with you is possible, at least not on the subject, and so, having made my point, I move on.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

JAS said:


> It has _everything_ to do with challenging a claim, but clearly no further discussion with you is possible, at least not on the subject, and so I move on.


Discussion is impossible with YOU. You're responsible.
I'll consider answering the original question when you'll be gone.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Discussion is impossible with YOU. You're responsible.
> I'll consider answering the original question when you'll be gone.


Consider me gone now. I will read your response, if you provide one, and I promise not to reply to it. (Unless you ask me a direct question.)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I think the mods should play a joke on us. They could substitute a lot of posts from an old and really very similar thread and save us all the burden of responding to stupidity.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

aioriacont said:


> i would really appreciate if you could give me a couple of suggestions of classical composers of our times, who you like and are still releasing compositions in a prolific way.
> I did some search, but I think I could have a really nice start with you, OH AMAZING CONOISSEURS OF MUSIC, to bring this light to me!


We've certainly done the OP proud.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

About 5 years ago, TC members produced the "Top 200 Recommended Post-1950 Works List". Here's the top 20 works by composers who are still living:

Rzewski: The People United Will Never be Defeated! (1975)
Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1974-6)
Crumb: Black Angels (1971)
Adams: Harmonielehre (1985)
Pärt: Te Deum (1985)
Glass: Einstein on the Beach (1976)
Gubaidulina: Offertorium (1980)
Andriessen: De Staat (1976)
Haas: Limited Approximations (2010)
Saariaho: L' Amour de Loin (2000)
Adès: Concentric Paths (2005)
Rihm: Jagden und Formen (1995/2001)
Vasks: Violin Concerto, 'Distant Light' (1997)
Murail: Gondwana (1980)
Riley: In C (1964)
Sciarrino: Allegoria della Notte (1985)
Chin: Xi (1998)
Kurtag: 2nd String Quartet (12 Microludes) (1977/78)
Ferneyhough: String Quartet No. 6 (2010)
Nørgård: Symphony no. 3 (1975)

So these are all works that are well-liked among people who have an interest in modern music. Not everyone who describes themselves as liking modern music will necessarily like every one of those pieces, of course, but that's hardly any different from expecting someone who likes Chopin's nocturnes to enjoy Verdi's operas. 

The problem now is that you, the hypothetical reader of this post who doesn't like modern music, can go ahead and listen to every one of these works and then say "but they're all garbage! You've failed to demonstrate that modern music can be great!" Because your default setting is that they're garbage. There's no possible demonstration of the greatness of this music for you because your parameters for great music exclude this music by definition.
Whereas the novice listener who's more open to new sounds will probably find themselves blown away by several of these works. For that listener, the greatness of this music will be self-evident.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I have edited or deleted a series of posts that started with a comment on another's avatar. Personal negative comments are against our Terms of Service.

The thread started with a request for suggestions about "composers of our times, who you like and are still releasing compositions in a prolific way." Many people responded with such suggestions. Recently the thread has derailed into a discussion of the merits of contemporary music among other things. If you don't like contemporary music, please don't respond to threads such as these unless you have positive comments. Please let the thread resume a positive discussion of suggested contemporary composers.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

OK, thanks. I didn't mind the avatar comment which was very politely worded and did kind of go to the subject of anti-modernity.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

A quick comment to those who expressed frustration about responding with suggestions to people who seem adamantly opposed to modern/contemporary music. It's true that the member you respond to may not take the suggestions seriously, but there are others who look at these threads and find such suggestions wonderful. I have often gone through threads like this and simply copied all suggestions I did not know to my file for future listening. So perhaps you can continue to make suggestions and ignore the follow up if it seems useless or off-topic.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Is Beethoven contemporary? That guy seems to have a new album out every week.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I've counted the mentions people made about composers in the *"best contemporary composers" thread* some time ago. Although not all composers cited are still alive nor prolific, I think that the below results are relevant to this thread (the poll that appears in this quote may be useful as well):



Allerius said:


> Just in case this may be interesting for you, I took the trouble of listing and actually counting how many times each composer that appeared on this thread was cited. There were almost two hundred entries for "best contemporary composers", but only a few of these received more than one citation by the members. Contrary to my expectations though, there was only a weak convergence of citations toward the name that most appeared (Gubaidulina), what may suggest that there may be many great contemporary composers out there to explore than I though!
> 
> I just started a poll *here* to see if there's a stronger convergence of preference for the fifteen most cited composers in this thread until now (with the exception of Benjamin). Please, feel free to vote, I'm curious to see the results.
> 
> ...


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

People, I was really impressed by Kaija Saariaho. Actually, I still did not manage to check most of the other suggestions since her works really caught my attention. 
This is so gloomy and wonderful, just the mood i was looking for:






this also:






Also, Steve Reich's music seems to be very interesting once you read also what he is attempting in terms of music theory. For example, in his Music for 18 Musicians. Interesting stuff!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

aioriacont said:


> Also, Steve Reich's music seems to be very interesting once you read also what he is attempting in terms of music theory. For example, in his Music for 18 Musicians. Interesting stuff!


Seeing as you've also shown an interest in medieval music, you might like Reich's "Proverb":


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> Michael Haydn _was_ a highly regarded composer during his lifetime, though mostly of church music. However, his music was not widely published and his fame did not extend much beyond Salzburg, where he chose to reside until the end of his life.


I speculate that while Joseph achieved more financial success with the public, (_"My language is understood throughout the world."_ -Jopseh), Michael was also pretty successful as a choral composer in his time. And Joseph said something to the effect that Michael showed more talent in choral writing. Both of them are good in this field, but I also remember hearing the hour-long "cantata mass", _Missa cellensis_ (written by Joseph in his "middle period", 1782) and not being very impressed (there's one movement that he derives entirely from his first cello concerto rather pedantically, but I think the later masses, which he wrote for the Esterhazies are masterpieces). At least I don't feel this way toward Michael's Requiem of 1771. Michael seems more skillful in utilizing various elements of _stile antico_ as well, more than Joseph's _Missa sunt bona mixta malis_.

"Michael Haydn, longtime Kapellmeister in Salzburg, had to borrow money from his more famous brother, and lived his final years "with the spectre of poverty close to him, partly due to the various French invasions but mostly because of growing inflation." Michael Haydn was earning just 600 gulden a year when he died in 1806."
< Beethoven and the Grosse Fuge: Music, Meaning, and Beethoven's Most Difficult Work: Kahn, Robert S., Page 31 >

"In the Missa dolorum B. M. V. (1762) it is set in the style of a harmonized chorale, in the _Missa tempore Quadragesima_ of 1794 note against note, with the Gregorian melody (Credo IV of the Liber Usualis) appearing in the soprano. I have little doubt that Beethoven knew such works of Michael Haydn, at that time the most popular composer of sacred music in Austria." 
< Beethoven, By Michael Spitzer, Page 124 >


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

aioriacont said:


> People, I was really impressed by Kaija Saariaho. Actually, I still did not manage to check most of the other suggestions since her works really caught my attention.
> This is so gloomy and wonderful, just the mood i was looking for:


Thanks for the links. Good stuff.

See everybody? Instead of a tantrum word salad, you should have just given examples.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

JAS said:


> I think quite a bit of minimalism is extremely effective in tv advertising. It tends to catch your attention and with the short time frame avoids the biggest problem with minimalism, namely that it gets boring or annoying very quickly.


This Feldman piano and string quartet piece instills in me a feeling of "having an endless series of questions" and it is suitable as soundtrack for documentaries or films dealing with mysteries. I'm reminded of those eerie, silent scenes of the horror films I've watched where a zombie or a ghost might be hiding somewhere, waiting to ambush the protagonist:






But as a piece of music for regular listening, it's too long and static in terms of development, so I wouldn't want to listen to the whole thing. But the way to create the mood (the "feeling of trepidation") is unique, and it is suited to the modern culture in a way 'music of the previous eras' is not. I think it all comes down to how much you appreciate the modern cultural aesthetics. If you like the artistry of modern entertainment culture, you'll also like its music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> But as a piece of music for regular listening, it's too long and static in terms of development, so I wouldn't want to listen to the whole thing.


Re length, just listen to it when you've got the time and you're in the mood. In that respect it's no different from other pieces of similar length. It's not specially long in classical musical terms.

Re static, that's a good thing. The idea of moving away from a home key is a bit jejune - music has progressed. By the way, is there a home key in Piano and String Quartet? What do you think?

Feldman was great and prolific enough, but he's not alive, so a bit of a distraction in this thread.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> . . . But as a piece of music for regular listening, it's too long and static in terms of development, so I wouldn't want to listen to the whole thing. But the way to create the mood (the "feeling of trepidation") is unique, and it is suited to the modern culture in a way 'music of the previous eras' is not. I think it all comes down to how much you appreciate the modern cultural aesthetics. If you like the artistry of modern entertainment culture, you'll also like its music.


I can see this as being effective in combination with something visual, to establish a sense of tension. On its own, it seems too abstract to me, and yes, it goes on for far too long, I think. There was a TV show in the early 1960s called Thriller. It has music by various composers, including Jerry Goldsmith and Morton Stevens. I have the series on DVD and like a great many of the episodes, especially the horror-related ones, and the music is often distinctive, although some of it was reused in various episodes, almost like library music. Two CDs of the music were issued, featuring scores by Goldsmith, and I have both. I was surprised to find that in this case much of the music that I found appealing on the show was not so appealing listened to in isolation, or perhaps too much of it in that way all at once.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

John Adams is quite listenable and is still writing good music - check out "Harmonielehre" or "Naïve and Sentimental Music". 

Michel Van der Aa is writing contemporary classical music that is a mix of multi-media, electronic, a gentle pop-influence, with a romantic underbelly. Check out "Up Close" or "Hysteresis".

I echo what was said earlier by Mandryka about Wolfgang Rihm. I'm very partial to his piece "Phantom und Eskapade for violin and piano."

Kurtag is interesting but not easily digestable. I also quite like Gubaidulina though it is some murky dark spiritualist music that isn't for everyone.

Hope that helps!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

----------------


----------

