# Who were the "big 3" of the Modern era?



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Every era in classical music has seen a small handful of composers tower over the rest in innovation, popularity, lasting impact, and arguably transcendence. The Baroque had Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi; the Classical had Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven; the early Romantic Schubert, Schumann, and (Liszt/Chopin/Berlioz... this one is a harder spot to fill). With the late Romantic, this is harder to define, partly because there has not been as much time for history to filter out who was the most important, partly because there were simply many more composers to see wide exposure in this era than in those previous. 

Harder still is the Modern. I hope everyone knows what era I'm talking about when I say Modern, because I'm not in any place to define it, but I'm talking about the era which predominated over about the first half of 20th century classical music. This was a more diverse era than those previous with more competing schools of highly contrasting sounds involved, but in my eyes there are some uniting themes here (embrace of chromaticism, rhythmic experimentation, wide exploration of new forms) that make it worthy of discussing as an era similar to those previous. 

Who were the composers who stood out in this era? Who defined the sounds and influenced the most new developments? Why do you think so?

Personally, it's a really tough call and I struggle to make decisions with any serious conviction. But as of right now I would have to give it to Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Shostakovich. Stravinsky for being perhaps the most widely copied innovator of the times, hugely instrumental in the new focus on new ideas in rhythm, etc. Schoenberg because he created an entirely new paradigm of harmony pretty much by himself (like it or not; I'm still on the fence about his works myself) which influenced pretty much every composer to come after him to varying degrees. Shostakovich was less of a sure choice, but I think his works stand out in quality and transcendence if not in innovation over many of his peers, and he also has a sound that is both entirely his own and Modern to the bone. He is probably my personal favorite composer from the era. 

Just now I realize I've neglected Bartók... he might have to replace Shostakovich. I don't know, what do y'all think?

For the record, the number doesn't have to be 3. Just seemed like a nice round number to deal with here. You all will have to bear with me for a moment, because the basis of this thread deals with huge generalizations and simplifications, but it's all in good fun. If you aren't interested, don't participate. If this thread has been made before in the past, or if I'm breaking any rules, a mod can feel free to delete it.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Shostakovich and Bartok is a pretty good 4tet!!


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Damn, do we count Debussy as modern? I'd put him above the whole 4 of them in influence. Hmmm....


----------



## Schoenberg (Oct 15, 2018)

By the latter half of the 19th century music split into different schools—at first just the conservatives and the new German school but later on into many different schools of music: Serialism, impressionism, nationalism etc.
You cannot say there are three definitive composers of a period because of the varieties of schools of composition.
You can also say the same for the baroque period, Bach, Handel and Vivaldi are by no means the big three, as there were many other schools of baroque music, mostly in relation to nationality.
I guess you could say the same about the classical period.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Stravinsky for sure. Debussy too if we count him as Modern. Schoenberg has to be there as well. If we don't count Debussy, I'd nominate Bartok for the third, but most would probably include Shostakovich.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It seems strange to count as "modern" composers who best-known work was written over a century ago. A century is a long time! A century before the Eroica, Bach had yet to write his first famous works -- and by the Eroica's time his clavier music was remembered only by specialists and enthusiasts, and his vocal and choral music had been forgotten almost completely.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

KenOC said:


> It seems strange to count as "modern" composers who best-known work was written over a century ago. A century is a long time! A century before the Eroica, Bach had yet to write his first famous works -- and by the Eroica's time his clavier music was remembered only by specialists and enthusiasts, and his vocal and choral music had been forgotten almost completely.


I don't mean "modern" as in contemporary. Modern to me was a specific era that has come and gone. As in Modernism.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It may be easier to choose a handful of "greatest composers" (though not necessarily 3) from earlier periods, partly because time has helped us sift through the possible candidates and partly because music was less diverse and composers were more reasonably compared on similar criteria of excellence. I don't think the late Romantic era was much more problematic than previous ones - Wagner and Brahms, at least, are enduring masters representing the radical and conservative poles of the period - but the 20th century was a time when styles diversified to an extent that traditional standards became hard to apply and there might be little or no correlation between (using your criteria) a composer's innovativeness, popularity, lasting impact, and transcendence (which I take to mean absolute excellence). Who you choose will probably be affected by which aspects of 20th-century music you like. Prokofiev and Sibelius mean far more to me than either Schoenberg or Stravinsky and I don't consider them inferior composers, but I acknowledge that they were less innovative and influential. All things considered, I'd probably choose Debussy, Schoenberg, Stravinsky and Bartok as the four most important composers of the period.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I'd probably choose Debussy, Schoenberg, Stravinsky and Bartok as the four most important composers of the period.


This sounds right to me, much as I'd rather include Ravel and Prokofiev over Stravinsky and Schoenberg, I have to agree with Woodduck here.

As far as Shostakovich, he was versatile, very good in many genres, but I'm surprised his name has been mentioned multiple times in this thread already. I don't think one can make a very strong argument for him to replace any of those 4 names.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I hereby argue strenuously for DSCH as the single greatest composer of the last 100 years. My four are Bartok, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, and Prokofiev. Three Russians, no German/Austrians!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I hereby argue strenuously for DSCH as the single greatest composer of the last 100 years. My four are Bartok, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, and Prokofiev. Three Russians, no German/Austrians!


Could you try to be a little more strenuous?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Could you try to be a little more strenuous?


"Any sonofabitch knocks DSCH... I'm not only gonna kill him, I'm gonna kill his wife, all his friends, and burn his damn house down!" -William Munny, _The Unforgiven
_
Strenuous enough?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I hereby argue strenuously for DSCH as the single greatest composer of the last 100 years. My four are Bartok, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, and Prokofiev. Three Russians, no German/Austrians!


With Stravinsky and Schoenberg, although I don't care for much of their music I can still sense the brilliance in their work. DSCH is a blind spot for me. Don't understand the fuss at all, (he has his moments, a certain clarity of texture and excellent orchestration) but I've mostly become convinced he was in fact great just based on how many people here love his music. Some who are professional musicians, and/or have degrees in music, plus he influenced Schnittke so there must be something there.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "Any sonofabitch knocks DSCH... I'm not only gonna kill him, I'm gonna kill his wife, all his friends, and burn his damn house down!" -Courtesy of Clint Eastwood, _The Unforgiven
> _
> Strenuous enough?


I'll tell you when I come to.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I'm talking about the era which predominated over about the first half of 20th century classical music. _

The most influential composer of the first half of the 20th century, by far, was Arnold Schoenberg. He changed music in a way it have never been and was the father of all linear and dissonant music that followed including the serial, avant-garde, electronic and minimalist movements.

I don't know whom would be the second-most influential or important composer after him. Stravinsky, who composed Le Sacre du Printemps (credited with being one of the first two pieces of "modern" music with Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire), and Debussy would be OK choices.

The others following Schoenberg could just as easily have been his counterparts in the Second Viennese School -- Berg, Webern and Hanns Eisler, the latter also a nationalist (and political) composer ahead of Shostakovich, Bartok, the French new wave of Poulenc and others, and the American band of brothers Schuman, Persichetti, Walter Piston or even Jerry Goldsmith.

FYI .. the "First Viennese School" was Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven.

I also wouldn't discount Richard Strauss's role in keeping alive older traditions in the new century. Without him there may never have been Howard Hanson and Samuel Barber or film composers like Rozsa. Strauss's continuing romance and chromaticism even influenced the way Sibelius composed music in a reverse way.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I understand the idea of it but I don't think there's a 20th-century big three like there was Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. IMO, you had highly influential composers but no one dominated. It was a different era fragmented by terrible wars and a noticeable split between the traditional and the modern. I'd only go with those who I view as the major players: Debussy, Mahler, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Ravel, Rachmaninoff, Gershwin, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Bartok, Copland, Vaughan Williams, Glass, and perhaps one or two that I've forgotten at the moment. I consider these composers just as representative of this century as other composers were of theirs. I've greatly enjoyed hearing them all. It's like experiencing the history of the world through their lives and music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I think the question in the OP is timely. Enough time has gone by. The big names from 1910-1945 for me are Bartok and Stravinsky. Schoenberg may also belong alongside them but he was slightly backward-looking. For a slightly later period we need to include Britten. There are, of course, many other great composers from the same period (Ravel, Rachmaninov, Berg, Webern, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Vaughan Williams) but the big 3 or 4 are more than merely great composers - they tower over their period.

And then there are composers who belong to a slightly earlier time but were still active at the beginning of the modernist period - Mahler, Debussy and Sibelius stand out for me - and the composers who seem to have dominated the generation who started serious composing after WW2 .... but it is too early to sift among them with any chance of agreement or consensus. Not that this forum is likely to produce agreement or consensus on much!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

larold said:


> _I'm talking about the era which predominated over about the first half of 20th century classical music. _
> 
> The most influential composer of the first half of the 20th century, by far, was Arnold Schoenberg. He changed music in a way it have never been and was the father of all linear and dissonant music that followed including the serial, avant-garde, electronic and minimalist movements.
> 
> I don't know whom would be the second-most influential or important composer after him. Stravinsky, who composed Le Sacre du Printemps (credited with being one of the first two pieces of "modern" music with Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire), and Debussy would be OK choices.


If we give weight to the degree of a composer's influence on the music that people actually listen to, as opposed to the music that academics tell us is important, it looks to me as if the innovations of Debussy (particularly in harmony) and Stravinsky (in both harmony and rhythm) have been more influential than Schoenberg's atonality and serialism, which were new and striking enough to attract the interest of many composers and cause a general uproar, but have never caught on with a broad listening public. The kinds of sounds made by Debussy and Stravinsky not only found an enthusiastic welcome among a wide spectrum of classical composers but rapidly jumped the fence into popular genres, notably jazz, while serialism, in just a few decades, reached more or less a dead end in the academy. Schoenberg is no doubt one of the most important composers of the "modern" era, but it's hardly impertinent to ask, "important to whom?"


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Debussy
Schoenberg
Stravinsky
Bartok
Varese


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I agree that there's no "big three" the way there could be in earlier eras. Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven were obviously quite different from one another, particularly later Beethoven, but they were all recognizably working in the same Classical style.

By the early 20th century there was no single common style. Like some other people I'd nominate Schoenberg, Debussy, and Stravinsky, but that's because they represent three major strands in music, not because they're the three leading exponents of a common style. I prefer both Berg and Webern to Schoenberg, but it somehow doesn't feel right to put either of them in the "big three." On the other hand, I could understand subbing Bartok for Schoenberg.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> By the early 20th century there was no single common style. Like some other people I'd nominate Schoenberg, Debussy, and Stravinsky, but that's because they represent three major strands in music, not because they're the three leading exponents of a common style. I could understand subbing Bartok for Schoenberg.


Their influence is why they belong on the biggie list. And I can't see leaving Bartok or Schoenberg off the list. And what about Gershwin? Most likely there are more musicians playing his music than any of these others mentioned. Of course we're talking songs, not classical compositions.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

My big three - chosen solely by how much I enjoy their music - are Shostakovich, Sibelius and Bartok.


----------



## StrangeHocusPocus (Mar 8, 2019)

But who is on 4


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Sibelius probably does deserve a spot too, damn it. He definitely represents a completely differing strain of composition that thrived during the modern. His music is a lot more revolutionary than some give him credit for. 3 is definitely not enough. Could we fit it into 5? Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartók, Sibelius? Sounds pretty good to me... Still feel bad for leaving off Shostakovich and Prokofiev, but yeah...


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

flamencosketches said:


> Still feel bad for leaving off Shostakovich and Prokofiev, but yeah...


You should. Shostakovich should be there.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> If we give weight to the degree of a composer's influence on the music that people actually listen to, as opposed to the music that academics tell us is important, it looks to me as if the innovations of Debussy (particularly in harmony) and Stravinsky (in both harmony and rhythm) have been more influential than Schoenberg's atonality and serialism, which were new and striking enough to attract the interest of many composers and cause a general uproar, but have never caught on with a broad listening public. The kinds of sounds made by Debussy and Stravinsky not only found an enthusiastic welcome among a wide spectrum of classical composers but rapidly jumped the fence into popular genres, notably jazz, while serialism, in just a few decades, reached more or less a dead end in the academy. Schoenberg is no doubt one of the most important composers of the "modern" era, but it's hardly impertinent to ask, "important to whom?"


Schoenberg's work transcends serialism-it is that good. In the 21st century he is still held in high regard.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

flamencosketches said:


> Every era in classical music has seen a small handful of composers tower over the rest in innovation, popularity, lasting impact, and arguably transcendence. The Baroque had Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi; the Classical had Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven; the early Romantic Schubert, Schumann, and (Liszt/Chopin/Berlioz... this one is a harder spot to fill). With the late Romantic, this is harder to define, partly because there has not been as much time for history to filter out who was the most important, partly because there were simply many more composers to see wide exposure in this era than in those previous.
> 
> Harder still is the Modern. I hope everyone knows what era I'm talking about when I say Modern, because I'm not in any place to define it, but I'm talking about the era which predominated over about the first half of 20th century classical music. This was a more diverse era than those previous with more competing schools of highly contrasting sounds involved, but in my eyes there are some uniting themes here (embrace of chromaticism, rhythmic experimentation, wide exploration of new forms) that make it worthy of discussing as an era similar to those previous.
> 
> ...


Bartók would most definitely displace Shostakovich. The former created a more significant body of work.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ Oh yes - he's up there are far as importance goes. I relegated him in comparison with Stravinsky and Bartok on the grounds that his music was too backward looking. I actually do think that is true but, of course, he was a great.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

If there must only be three:

Stravinsky
Schönberg
Bartók


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

If we are going to call Debussy a Modernist composer then why not allow Mahler in along with Sibelius. Yes, they all pointed the way to the changes that were coming but they didn't define them or even, to me, exemplify them. There's no doubt that they _were _great great composers. But although they lived and composed into the modern period I don't think they belonged to it. That leaves you with three - probably the three from Red T, above. But then I wonder what about those who were just a little bit later - like Britten and Shostakovich. Certainly, Britten must be seen as a true great - as great as Verdi, say.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> If we are going to call Debussy a Modernist composer then why not allow Mahler in along with Sibelius. Yes, they all pointed the way to the changes that were coming but they didn't define them or even, to me, exemplify them. There's no doubt that they _were _great great composers. But although they lived and composed into the modern period I don't think they belonged to it. That leaves you with three - probably the three from Red T, above. But then I wonder what about those who were just a little bit later - like *Britten and Shostakovich*. Certainly, Britten must be seen as a true great - as great as Verdi, say.


Even the great composers from the past who are considered relatively "conservative" like Bach and Brahms can be shown to have actually been innovative in some way. Can you point to any innovations made by Shostakovich or Britten?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

tdc said:


> Even the great composers from the past who are considered relatively "conservative" like Bach and Brahms can be shown to have actually been innovative in some way. Can you point to any innovations made by Shostakovich or Britten?


Well, they both wrote enormously powerful and moving (in many ways) music and they are instantly recognisable. Britten's music is also consistently rewarding. So, I guess there must be lots of innovation in their music. Or how else would you account for this? But although I am a very experienced listener with a fairly huge "repertoire", I am not musically educated so I can't say anything technical to convince you. I am thinking that for you to ask suggests that you just don't like their music all that much (and that's fine) but it is interesting that you are accepting Bartok, Stravinsky and Schoenberg while rejecting those two.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Red Terror said:


> Schoenberg's work transcends serialism-it is that good. In the 21st century he is still held in high regard.


The whole point of my statement was set up in the opening clause: "If we give weight to the degree of a composer's influence _on the music that people actually listen to_, as opposed to the music that academics tell us is important..." Schoenberg's innovative works (as opposed to his early Romantic works) are his 12-tone works and a couple of works from his "free atonal" period. Atonal and !2-tone music in general, and his in particular, gets "high regard" from certain groups of people interested in music, but it inspires only "yeah, I know he's considered an important composer but I don't care for his music" by most others. That's been the case for nearly a century. It's also the case that the sounds of Debussy and Stravinsky have had enormous appeal, and had a far more extensive impact on music that people _do_ listen to - classical and otherwise - than have the sounds of Schoenberg or the technique of serialism, which since the 1960s has lived on mainly in textbooks.

Schoenberg had a "big idea," but most composers, then and since, have not bought into it or done more than play around with it (e.g., a few late 12-tone experiments of Stravinsky and Copland), and those who adopted it ended up creating stuff that virtually no one listens to. Unless you can support the idea that he is such an intrinsically great composer that the above considerations don't matter, I don't think putting Schoenberg's importance on the level of Debussy's or Stravinsky's makes sense.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> Well, they both wrote enormously powerful and moving (in many ways) music and they are instantly recognisable. Britten's music is also consistently rewarding. So, I guess there must be lots of innovation in their music. Or how else would you account for this? But although I am a very experienced listener with a fairly huge "repertoire", I am not musically educated so I can't say anything technical to convince you. I am thinking that for you to ask suggests that you just don't like their music all that much (and that's fine) but it is interesting that you are accepting Bartok, Stravinsky and Schoenberg while rejecting those two.


No, don't get me wrong, its more legitimate surprise at seeing their names on this thread because although I see them as very skilled, I never considered them as in the 'big 3' or 4 of the Modern era. Sometimes I will ask questions just because I'm curious and think I could learn something from it.

On reflection I think there is some polystylism in Shosty's music that was rather cutting edge and influenced Schnittke and maybe some others. Britten I'm not sure, but there could quite possibly be some innovation there related to Opera. I do like some of Britten's music a lot. Rodrigo is one of my favorite composers of the 20th century and he was quite conservative.

Another thing to consider is that perhaps music has evolved to a point where innovation itself has become less important to listeners. I agree with Woodduck's earlier point that although composers like Sibelius and Prokofiev were relatively conservative, I don't see them as 'lesser' composers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> Even the great composers from the past who are considered relatively "conservative" like Bach and Brahms can be shown to have actually been innovative in some way. Can you point to any innovations made by Shostakovich or Britten?


Britten's music is extraordinarily distinctive in its harmonic, orchestral and melodic mannerisms. I don't know how influential he's been; possibly not very, outside of British musical culture, which tended to be rather insular (or just ignored) in the 20th century.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Schoenberg had a "big idea," but most composers, then and since, have not bought into it or done more than play around with it (e.g., a few late 12-tone experiments of Stravinsky and Copland), and those who adopted it ended up creating stuff that virtually no one listens to. Unless you can support the idea that he is such an intrinsically great composer that the above considerations don't matter, I don't think putting Schoenberg's importance on the level of Debussy's or Stravinsky's makes sense.


You might be right, but outside of academia I think Schoenberg's ideas have caught on to some extent, for example you hear some atonal music in popular television and movies, and I think there are some prog and metal bands that have also adopted some of his ideas. Are they as widely influential as the ideas of Bartok and Stravinsky? Maybe not, but then maybe it is a little too early to tell. I think Debussy deserves more of the credit for influencing jazz or the harmonies in some popular music than Bartok or Stravinsky. Rhythmically Debussy was very advanced, but I think Bartok and Stravinsky certainly did do more in that area that was widely influential and some of it likely did spill into popular music.

Schoenberg's 12 tone ideas represent an area of music I don't care for as much (a hint of it is ok, a piece here or there, or a section of a piece but basing one's entire harmonic structures on it throughout most of one's works diminishes the range of expressivity in my opinion). That said I have noticed it catching on to a small degree outside of academia.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

flamencosketches said:


> Who were the composers who stood out in this era? Who defined the sounds and influenced the most new developments? Why do you think so?
> 
> Personally, it's a really tough call and I struggle to make decisions with any serious conviction. But as of right now I would have to give it to Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Shostakovich. Stravinsky for being perhaps the most widely copied innovator of the times, hugely instrumental in the new focus on new ideas in rhythm, etc. Schoenberg because he created an entirely new paradigm of harmony pretty much by himself (like it or not; I'm still on the fence about his works myself) which influenced pretty much every composer to come after him to varying degrees...
> Just now I realize I've neglected Bartók...I don't know, what do y'all think?
> ...


Schoenberg, Stravinsky and Bartok are my choices because they where at the forefront in explorations of tonality, rhythm (or more accurately, pulse) and sonority, respectively.

Since you're allowing more than three, I can add these:
- Strauss and Debussy immediately spring to mind, contributing to music in so many ways
- Varese for prefiguring electronic music (although his post 1945 pieces did incorporate tape)
- Satie for that element of mindfulness and the absurd which would be picked up by Cage
- National monument composers, who added so much to the musical legacy of their countries, provide the broadest subcategory - e.g. Vaughan Williams, Sibelius, Szymanowski, Janacek, de Falla, Villa-Lobos, Ives (Shostakovich might be included in this group).


----------



## StrangeHocusPocus (Mar 8, 2019)

Varese, Cage & Stockhausen


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

tdc said:


> No, don't get me wrong, its more legitimate surprise at seeing their names on this thread because although I see them as very skilled, I never considered them as in the 'big 3' or 4 of the Modern era. Sometimes I will ask questions just because I'm curious and think I could learn something from it.
> 
> On reflection I think there is some polystylism in Shosty's music that was rather cutting edge and influenced Schnittke and maybe some others. Britten I'm not sure, but there could quite possibly be some innovation there related to Opera. I do like some of Britten's music a lot. Rodrigo is one of my favorite composers of the 20th century and he was quite conservative.
> 
> Another thing to consider is that perhaps music has evolved to a point where innovation itself has become less important to listeners. I agree with Woodduck's earlier point that although composers like Sibelius and Prokofiev were relatively conservative, I don't see them as 'lesser' composers.


I'm fine with most of what you have written but am not fully clear what you mean by innovation. It seems partly wrapped up in influence for you? But influence can be hard to tease out and, anyway, for me the question is about cultural importance more than the merely musical (if that makes sense).

I continue to feel that if a composer's music is rewarding and distinctive then they must be innovating even though I can't name their musical innovations. Britten is to me a very major composer in the same way that Verdi is (and Puccini, I guess) and even (some will be horrified!) Wagner. I don't know whether the insularity of British music is releavnt to his case (as Wooduch has suggested). Britten was always more outward looking than the others and, anyway, was even the apparently more insular Vaughan Williams (a student of Ravel) really that insular? But I do think that Britten did a lot for establishing a British operatic style that you can still hear exerting influence in new and contemporary British operas. I also hear his musical influence strongly on Shostakovich and others of his time.

I am not sure conservatism comes into choosing the big names of the modern period. Stravinsky appeared radical in his young days but his neoclassicism, although very innovative, was fairly conservative and even Bartok was not that radical. Schoenberg can sound radical to anyone who has not cracked the art of listening to his serialism but buried within this is old fashioned late Romanticism. My problem with Sibelius in this thread is simply that he is not really of the modern era even though he survived (composing!) well into its first decade. But this is nothing to do with his alleged conservatism and I'm not sure that we was especially conservative (although he was certainly a very disciplined composer). Perhaps it is perceived conservatism that is leading to our leaving out Strauss? He, also, might have a claim to be one of the modern greats?

As for Prokofiev, I love his music but I just don't hear it as being as "important" (whatever that means) as Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Britten and Shostakovich. It is hard for me to imagine the modern period without those names. But I can imagine the period without Prokofiev. Incidentally, I am not even sure I (personally) like Shostakovich as much as many others of the period. But he was a huge presence.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

There can be innovative composers, but there are also other composers that people might enjoy more. Besides his big three works, the ballets that Stravinsky wrote, how popular is he? Rachmaninoff was probably enjoyed more during the 20th-century than he was. But the innovators such as Stravinsky and Schoenberg have their major place and it could be argued that Schoenberg paid a heavy price for his innovations in rejection and hostility. He did, however, change and liberate music forever to portray the deeply psychological and the new vocabulary has been entirely incorporated into music as a whole, especially in film music where it's been completely accepted. The 19th-century musical vocabulary couldn't have described half of what that took place in the 20th. Something new was needed and Schoenberg did it, and IMO deserves a special place.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> There can be innovative composers, but there are also other composers that people might enjoy more. Besides his big three works, the ballets that Stravinsky wrote, how popular is he? Rachmaninoff was probably enjoyed more during the 20th-century than he was. But the innovators such as Stravinsky and Schoenberg have their major place and it could be argued that Schoenberg paid a heavy price for his innovations in rejection and hostility. He did, however, change and liberate music forever to portray the deeply psychological and the new vocabulary has been entirely incorporated into music as a whole, especially in film music where it's been completely accepted. The 19th-century musical vocabulary couldn't have described half of what that took place in the 20th. Something new was needed and Schoenberg did it, and IMO deserves a special place.


Well, yes, and the same can be found throughout the repertoire. Some works (and composers) are more popular than others which are considered to be "superior". I would not be sure which the big three Stravinsky works you refered to might be were it not for the rest of your argument! He wrote so many works that are major - and possibly more culturally inportant than two of those three - and are certainly holding their place in the repertoire. And this is at a time when his oevre is hardly in tune with the time and current fashions.

I more or less agree with you on Schoenberg. But I do also consider his structures rather backward looking so that, once you have got over the serial method, they clearly belong with much late and post Romantic music. The problem has been that even audiences that are up for much of the music of the first half of the 20th Century are relauctant to engage with serialism. For a long time I was one of them. But, at the same time, you are right - his new language has been hugely important for its influence on the music that came after him.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2019)

stravinsky and bartok are easy choices, because they have shaped a new epoch in music; shostakovich has too many weaknesses and has borrowed too much from mahler IMHO; then i would rather go for schoenberg who has left us with an embarrassing theory but has produced enough masterpieces to be included in the big three


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Debussy, Varese, Cage


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2019)

i am sorry million rainbows, with all the respect i have for your interesting posts, but only varese would qualify for this modern era period; it is a bold and good choice; i am among the ones who love this composer and think he is underrated; he could be the no 3 in our choice after stravinsky and bartok


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2019)

dear woodduck, schoenberg is important to all of us; he makes us think outside of the box; he had pupils like webern and berg who produced fabulous music: i also want to list compositions from schoenberg that belong among the masterpieces of the last century: violin cto, piano cto, transfigured night, pelleas and melisande, variations for orchestra, string quartets 1-4, string trio op 4, fantasy for violin op 47, Gurre-Lieder, Pierrot Lunaire, Erwartung, Suite for piano op 25, 5 Piano Pieces op 23; not so bad for an unimportant composer; i do not mention Moses and Aaron an opera i do not like that much; that being said it is not easy listening; 99 % of our western population still have a tough time with the rite of spring anyway; i still believe most of our members have a hard time making the difference between meaningful, timeless music and vivaldi's easy listening (he qualifies easily in the top 3 of baroque and I sincerely object to that, because there are many better composers in baroque)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marc bollansee said:


> dear woodduck, schoenberg is important to all of us; he makes us think outside of the box; he had pupils like webern and berg who produced fabulous music: i also want to list compositions from schoenberg that belong among the masterpieces of the last century: violin cto, piano cto, transfigured night, pelleas and melisande, variations for orchestra, string quartets 1-4, string trio op 4, fantasy for violin op 47, Gurre-Lieder, Pierrot Lunaire, Erwartung, Suite for piano op 25, 5 Piano Pieces op 23; not so bad for an unimportant composer; i do not mention Moses and Aaron an opera i do not like that much; that being said it is not easy listening; 99 % of our western population still have a tough time with the rite of spring anyway; i still believe most of our members have a hard time making the difference between meaningful, timeless music and vivaldi's easy listening (he qualifies easily in the top 3 of baroque and I sincerely object to that, because there are many better composers in baroque)


You don't need to defend Schoenberg's place as one of the most important composers of his time. If you look at post #8 you will discover that I rank him as one of the four most important, along with Debussy, Stravinsky and Bartok. I have simply made the point - at least twice now - that what is innovative and distinctive in his music has had less effect than the unique qualities of Debussy and Stravinsky on the sound of music that a majority of classical and non-classical music listeners actually listen to.

I do not agree that Schoenberg's serial music is "important to all of us"; most people that I know don't especially care for it, and relatively little of it finds its way onto concert programs (much less opera houses), while, contrary to your assertion, Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ is very popular. (BTW, citing film music as proof of atonality's significance for the general culture, as some here have done, is rather amusing, considering that it's typically used in ways that Schoenberg's fans find annoying: to evoke anxiety, suspense, pain and fear. Atonality isn't much good for birthday parties, weddings, funerals, worship services, vacations in Maui, or sex in the back seat of the car.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

KenOC said:


> It seems strange to count as "modern" composers who best-known work was written over a century ago.


Not really. In anglophone historiography 'modern' history begins around 500 years ago.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Atonality isn't much good for birthday parties, weddings, funerals, worship services, vacations in Maui, *or sex in the back seat of the car.*


Depends on the kind of sex. :devil:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Depends on the kind of sex. :devil:


Say no more. Please.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Brings to mind a possible "Transgender Night." :lol:

Or how about "Five Easy Pieces for Orchestra?"


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm fine with most of what you have written but am not fully clear what you mean by innovation. It seems partly wrapped up in influence for you? But influence can be hard to tease out and, anyway, for me the question is about cultural importance more than the merely musical (if that makes sense).
> 
> I continue to feel that if a composer's music is rewarding and distinctive then they must be innovating even though I can't name their musical innovations. Britten is to me a very major composer in the same way that Verdi is (and Puccini, I guess) and even (some will be horrified!) Wagner. I don't know whether the insularity of British music is releavnt to his case (as Wooduch has suggested). Britten was always more outward looking than the others and, anyway, was even the apparently more insular Vaughan Williams (a student of Ravel) really that insular? But I do think that Britten did a lot for establishing a British operatic style that you can still hear exerting influence in new and contemporary British operas. I also hear his musical influence strongly on Shostakovich and others of his time.
> 
> ...


You have some good points. What I agree with certainly is that a distinctive compositional voice is highly important and to an extent is the same thing as innovation. Equally important is craftsmanship. I'm not sure I agree with the general consensus on Verdi's importance in the canon, but he is a composer I know less about. I don't agree with the downplaying you've done in terms of the innovations of Bartok, Stravinsky and Schoenberg. I think all three were not just distinctive, but highly skilled and continually inventive throughout their lives and that is why they are generally considered so great. I don't think Britten or Shostakovich were as unique or inventive to the same degree as those 3. I think R Strauss was innovative but structurally I think he could get little lazy, I don't think his craftsmanship was consistently on the kind of high level we see in the previously mentioned 3 big names. I disagree with your comment regarding the relative importance of Shostakovich and Prokofiev, I think you are underestimating the uniqueness and "presence" of the latter.

"Arthur Honegger proclaimed that Prokofiev would "remain for us the greatest figure of contemporary music,"[141] and the American scholar Richard Taruskin has recognised Prokofiev's "gift, virtually unparalleled among 20th-century composers, for writing distinctively original diatonic melodies."

"Today Prokofiev may well be the most popular composer of 20th-century music.[145] His orchestral music alone is played more frequently in the United States than that of any other composer of the last hundred years save Richard Strauss,[146] while his operas, ballets, chamber works, and piano music appear regularly throughout major concert halls worldwide."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Prokofiev


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In my "big three" of Varese, Debussy, and Cage, I might change Schoenberg for Debussy, not for the atonality, but for Schoenberg being the apotheosis of tonality. Plus, I get the atonal and serial influence thrown in for free!


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I always saw Cage as more Postmodern than Modern. That's another list for another day, and I wouldn't have a clue where to start there. Varèse too, but I'm less familiar with his music outside of Ionisation, which is awesome. 

Re: Schoenberg being the apotheosis of tonality, that sounds like something he himself would've agreed with (and maybe few others :lol


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> "Arthur Honegger proclaimed that Prokofiev would "remain for us the greatest figure of contemporary music,"[141] and the American scholar Richard Taruskin has recognised Prokofiev's "gift, virtually unparalleled among 20th-century composers, for writing distinctively original diatonic melodies."
> 
> "Today Prokofiev may well be the most popular composer of 20th-century music.[145] His orchestral music alone is played more frequently in the United States than that of any other composer of the last hundred years save Richard Strauss,[146] while his operas, ballets, chamber works, and piano music appear regularly throughout major concert halls worldwide."


Prokofiev is somewhat overlooked or underestimated because his music isn't very controversial and has broad appeal, he didn't compose symphonies loaded with personal and political angst, his premieres didn't cause riots, he didn't write arcane treatises arguing that his new style was a historical necessity, and he didn't found a "school" that produced disciples who went around saying that, no, _their_ new style was the _real_ historical necessity. He didn't change the course of music through his influence on other composers as did some others, but he needn't take a back seat for the quality of his music, which I prefer to almost any other music of its time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

flamencosketches said:


> Re: Schoenberg being the apotheosis of tonality, that sounds like something he himself would've agreed with (and maybe few others :lol


Indeed...............


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Prokofiev is somewhat overlooked or underestimated because his music isn't very controversial and has broad appeal, he didn't compose symphonies loaded with personal and political angst, his premieres didn't cause riots, he didn't write arcane treatises aguing that his new style was a historical necessity, and he didn't found a "school" that produced disciples who went around saying that, no, _their_ new style was the _real_ historical necessity. He didn't change the course of music through his influence on other composers as did some others, but he needn't take a back seat for the quality of his music, which I prefer to almost any other music of its time.


Using this as my criteria, I'll add Ravel, Rachmaninov, and Poulenc to the mix--3 favorites in my book regardless of what the musicologists don't say about them!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> Using this as my criteria, I'll add Ravel, Rachmaninov, and Poulenc to the mix--3 favorites in my book regardless of what the musicologists don't say about them!


Quite so, good sir.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

If we're ranking the composers of the era in terms of favorites, Ravel is right at the top of the list. I would definitely say that I like his music more than any of that of the "big 3" I'd listed earlier.

As far as Rachmaninov, it's hard for me to count him as anything other than late Romantic alongside the slightly older (yet considerably more "Modern", perhaps?) Alexander Scriabin, despite the overlap of their lives well into the Modern period. Romanticism lived on well into the 20th century (and that's another reason I didn't really consider counting Richard Strauss). But yes, Rachmaninov's music is indeed great.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

As for Poulenc, I like what I've heard, which isn't much. What are some of his key works to you, @Blancrocher?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

If we're just ranking favorites it would be Bartok, Ravel, and Messiaen for me.


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2019)

i totally agree that after your ex cathedra post 8 nobody else should be allowed to give his views on the cultural importance of Schoenberg; your arguments are also extremely strong in that post; i also think that your comments about atonality are totally out of place and do not belong in a forum like ours


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

flamencosketches said:


> ...hRomanticism lived on well into the 20th century (and that's another reason I didn't really consider counting Richard Strauss).


I have a different assessment of Strauss, which is why I paired him with Debussy as a runner up to my "big 3."

Strauss influenced so many of the younger generation, including Bartok, Schoenberg, Varese. His explorations of sonority where unprecedented, he took music to the brink of atonality and he prefigured neo-classicism (Stravinsky would have learnt a thing or two from Der Rosenkavalier).

Early on, the establishment saw him no less a threat to music as Debussy. While the Wagner family acknowledged his conducting, they saw his operas as modernist abominations that dishonoured The Master's legacy. Like Debussy though, by the end of his life Strauss became an establishment figure - a familiar career pattern in music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

tdc said:


> You have some good points. What I agree with certainly is that a distinctive compositional voice is highly important and to an extent is the same thing as innovation. Equally important is craftsmanship. I'm not sure I agree with the general consensus on Verdi's importance in the canon, but he is a composer I know less about. I don't agree with the downplaying you've done in terms of the innovations of Bartok, Stravinsky and Schoenberg. I think all three were not just distinctive, but highly skilled and continually inventive throughout their lives and that is why they are generally considered so great. I don't think Britten or Shostakovich were as unique or inventive to the same degree as those 3. I think R Strauss was innovative but structurally I think he could get little lazy, I don't think his craftsmanship was consistently on the kind of high level we see in the previously mentioned 3 big names. I disagree with your comment regarding the relative importance of Shostakovich and Prokofiev, I think you are underestimating the uniqueness and "presence" of the latter.
> 
> "Arthur Honegger proclaimed that Prokofiev would "remain for us the greatest figure of contemporary music,"[141] and the American scholar Richard Taruskin has recognised Prokofiev's "gift, virtually unparalleled among 20th-century composers, for writing distinctively original diatonic melodies."
> 
> ...


We do more or less agree! I agree about Strauss - but remain surprised that I have been one of the only ones to mention him in this thread! - and about Stravinsky and Bartok. I didn't mean to downgrade the innovativeness of these last two but was merely saying that I am not sure they were that radical but then few of the really greats (perhaps excepting Beethoven and Wagner?) were radical. Stravinsky and Bartok were certainly supremely innovative and inventive and did do much of the heavy lifting involved in creating the modern era.

I am never sure how to "rank" opera composers but am sure that, along with Mozart and Wagner, Verdi was one of the very greatest. I see Britten in that company and, in addition, he composed a number of very great non-operatic masterpieces all in an instantly recogniseable voice, beautifully crafted and of exalted invention.

I love Prokofiev and actually greatly prefer him to Shostakovich. He was very a good opera composer, a great ballet composer and produced a number of truly iconic works in a variety of other genres. I'm not convinced that he quite belongs in a list of the few very greatest composers of his time. But it is close and I certainly don't mind him being in other people's lists.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Prokofiev is somewhat overlooked or underestimated because his music isn't very controversial and has broad appeal, he didn't compose symphonies loaded with personal and political angst, his premieres didn't cause riots, he didn't write arcane treatises arguing that his new style was a historical necessity, and he didn't found a "school" that produced disciples who went around saying that, no, _their_ new style was the _real_ historical necessity. He didn't change the course of music through his influence on other composers as did some others, but he needn't take a back seat for the quality of his music, which I prefer to almost any other music of its time.


That is an extraordinary argument, Woodduck, and seems rich in conspiracy theory but is probably just an attempt to shoehorn one of your favourite bugbears into a post about Prokofiev. Firstly, Prokofiev is enormously popular and widely loved and so is hardly overlooked or underestimated. And, then, actually he did compose quite a few fairly angsty symphonies and other works (particularly but not only in the war years). And he did at least _try _to cash in on the controversiality of The Rite but the most obvious result (the ballet "Ala i Lolli" which Diaghilev rejected and then got reworked as the Scythian Suite) is just not particularly great music and did not really play to Prokofiev's strangths. And so what if he didn't produce disciples? Neither did Bartok or Stravinsky - who are in many of the lists, here - or Shostakovich or Britten. In fact, of the greats that are most recognised, you are only referring to Schoenberg. OK - you don't like a lot of his music. For most of my music loving life I have been with you in that (even when I started enjoying later atonal music). But your resentment of most directions taken in modern and contemporary music gets a little tired, I feel.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> As for Poulenc, I like what I've heard, which isn't much. What are some of his key works to you, @Blancrocher?


I love his concertos--if you haven't heard them, you might try albums on spotify with Collard or Le Sage featuring the Concerto for 2 Pianos, Piano Concerto, and Aubade. The sort of disk I'd begin a collection around. The Organ Concerto is a standout piece and has many good recordings.

Pascal Roge has several good albums with the solo piano music.

I most often listen to his chamber works alongside Debussy, Ravel, etc. on compilation cds, but Naxos has a very good series of all-Poulenc chamber music (incidentally, featuring a young Tharaud on piano). Standouts include the Sextet and sonatas for flute, violin, oboe, and clarinet.

Poulenc's vocal works are amazing--the "4 Motets pour le temps de Noel" is a good, short introduction. I really enjoy an album by The Sixteen on which it appears. Dialogues des Carmelites is a major modern opera, though I don't listen to it every day.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I find it impossible to name a Big Three composers of the Modern Era. So much essential (there's that word) music written by the mid-point of the 20th century by so many first-rank (popularity: radio play, CD sales) composers. One can easily name Big Threes for earlier epochs, but for the period 1900-1950 plus-or-minus, it's:

Bartok, Copland, Debussy, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Puccini, Rachmaninoff, Ravel, Respighi, Shostakovich, Stravinsky.

Just my opinion, surely.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

The few albums of Poulenc's recordings that I have include one of Rogé playing solo piano works and the first two volumes of the Naxos set with Tharaud with the chamber music. Glad to see I'm on the right track! :lol: I will look into the concertos which I have not heard at all. As for the vocal works, I'm not at all familiar. I will have to look into those Motets. I didn't realize he was a particularly religious person.

How is his famous ballet "Les biches", worth checking out? 

To avoid derailing my thread further I will mention that Britten was definitely a runner up. I'm not really an opera guy; if I was I'm sure I'd have been more inclined to rate him higher.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> That is an extraordinary argument, Woodduck, and seems rich in conspiracy theory but is probably just an attempt to shoehorn one of your favourite bugbears into a post about Prokofiev. Firstly, Prokofiev is enormously popular and widely loved and so is hardly overlooked or underestimated. And, then, actually he did compose quite a few fairly angsty symphonies and other works (particularly but not only in the war years). And he did at least _try _to cash in on the controversiality of The Rite but the most obvious result (the ballet "Ala i Lolli" which Diaghilev rejected and then got reworked as the Scythian Suite) is just not particularly great music and did not really play to Prokofiev's strangths. And so what if he didn't produce disciples? Neither did Bartok or Stravinsky - who are in many of the lists, here - or Shostakovich or Britten. In fact, of the greats that are most recognised, you are only referring to Schoenberg. OK - you don't like a lot of his music. For most of my music loving life I have been with you in that (even when I started enjoying later atonal music). But your resentment of most directions taken in modern and contemporary music gets a little tired, I feel.


Nothing extraordinary about the argument, if you don't read too much into it.

I said "somewhat" overlooked or underestimated, and meant it only in the context of these discussions of the "greatest" or "most important" this or that. As the rest of my post implies, there have been factors other than intrinsic excellence that get music - and art of all sorts - noticed, talked about, and touted as "important." I'm just offering a modified "man on the street" viewpoint; call it the "educated music lover on the street" viewpoint.

I cheerfully admit to being a bit of an iconoclast when it comes to enormous claims made for music that's still a small part of the repertoire after a hundred years.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ I wouldn't read so much into it were it not for my feeling that you seem to say the same sorts of things a little too regularly and on this occasion seemed to need a shoehorn (perhaps one of the long ones so you don't even need to bend down to use it) to create a fit for your habitual argument. And I feel certain that you do not really think that numbers of performances at the moment is a reliable guide to quality in music. If it were then something like 90% of our favourite music from between 1700 and 1900 would be swept away.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ I wouldn't read so much into it were it not for my feeling that you seem to say the same sorts of things a little too regularly and on this occasion seemed to need a shoehorn (perhaps one of the long ones so you don't even need to bend down to use it) to create a fit for your habitual argument. And I feel certain that you do not really think that numbers of performances at the moment is a reliable guide to quality in music. If it were then something like 90% of our favourite music from between 1700 and 1900 would be swept away.


I don't know what you mean by "number of performances at the moment." I'm not talking about the moment, or any particular moment. Of course air time isn't a reliable guide to music's quality - but it is a factor to be considered, especially if music doesn't get much play or earn much enthusiasm after enough "moments" (say, a century's worth) have passed. And of course quality isn't the only factor in the question of music's importance - but it's not an insignificant factor. I'm not making simplistic arguments, Enthusiast. I'm just pointing out some things that might give pause to those inclined to accept certain received notions about who is a "great" or "important" composer in the larger scheme of things. History has a way of sorting things out, and all we can do in the meantime is say how things are sorting out for us so far.

I dare say many of us have points of view that others get tired of hearing, and that we all repeat ourselves after years on the forum, if not sooner. There's no crime in that, unless what we're going on about is really stupid (though I haven't yet decided what the penalty for stupidity should be ). Live and let live, eh?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I don't know what you mean by "number of performances at the moment." I'm not talking about the moment, or any particular moment. Of course air time isn't a reliable guide to music's quality - but it is a factor to be considered, especially if music doesn't get much play or earn much enthusiasm after enough "moments" (say, a century's worth) have passed. And of course quality isn't the only factor in the question of music's importance - but it's not an insignificant factor.


I think you more or less did get what I meant. I was responding to your



> I cheerfully admit to being a bit of an iconoclast when it comes to enormous claims made for music that's still a small part of the repertoire after a hundred years.





Woodduck said:


> I'm not making simplistic arguments, Enthusiast. I'm just pointing out some things that might give pause to those inclined to accept certain received notions about who is a "great" or "important" composer in the larger scheme of things. History has a way of sorting things out, and all we can do in the meantime is say how things are sorting out for us so far.
> 
> I dare say many of us have points of view that others get tired of hearing, and that we all repeat ourselves after years on the forum, if not sooner. There's no crime in that, unless what we're going on about is really stupid (though I haven't yet decided what the penalty for stupidity should be ). Live and let live, eh?


It is just that this time felt like shoehorning the position we know you hold into a place where it didn't feel that relevant or needed. But, yes, live and let live is more or less what I am saying, too!

As for the case of the importance (or not) of Schoenberg - not an easy case, I'll grant you - so much of his music does seem both seminal and profound. The problem is that it is hard to get to actually hearing those qualities in it. I could stress the importance of his music to understanding much of what came after but my experience is the opposite. I came to enjoy Schoenberg through enjoying some of those who learned things from him.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Sibelius and Shostakovich.

We are still waiting for number three.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Schoenberg, Stravinsky and Webern in my opinion.


----------

