# Worst 20th+ century composers/pieces



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

So a lot of people don't like most 20th century music. I'm not talking to those people for the most part (though anybody can of course jump in with their opinion). I've seen the claim made that you can't tell any difference between a good modern piece and a bad modern piece because it all sounds so random/atonal/bad and that it takes no talent to make this kind of music. Basically you just put notes in any order and if music critics say it's good for whatever reason, then people consider it good.

Now I don't think like that. I enjoy second Viennese stuff, boulez, and others-- though I'm definitely not the most knowledgeable about CM 20th century included.

BUT if it's true that there is a difference between good 20th century stuff, there must be bad examples too. And to be clear I'm talking about the kind of 20th century music that people call atonal or random or barely music, not stuff like Shostakovich.

Maybe this is a silly post, but does anybody have any thoughts or opinions on this?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

It's a good line of inquiry and I get where you are coming from. Unfortunately, I've yet to feel that I have anywhere near reliable discernment with good and bad in the more edgy of the modern era. Webern is something I still try to understand, not something I readily think to enjoy, though I am open to it when it comes, if it comes.

But yes, there are certainly people here on these boards who have strong preferences of like and dislike in these kinds of music, lots of experience and insight into this matter. Some guy is one such person, but I haven't seen him around lately. 

And I was thinking, the minimalism movement only confounds things further. I suppose my ears just aren't open enough as they are now for knowing anything about this.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Not bad, just ill conceived: Bug Piece by Yehuda Yannay. An aleatory work. A plexglas box with areas marked on it and random insects placed inside, was placed on an overhead projector and projected on a screen behind the performers, who played composed figurations according to which insect moved into what area. In the performance I saw/heard many years ago it was somewhat grisly. Some of the insects were sluggish and wilted in the heat. One began to eat another. Never to be forgotten.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

MarkW that's just too funny. And... Pretty bizarre for a musical piece, definitely. Sounds entertaining regardless.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Eddie r u kidding Varese


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Yes, I think the so called stochastic music by Xenakis is deeply flawed because music is not random. Music is an artistic composition inspired and aspiring to beauty not a random mathematical process. Pure and simple.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

But what if the result-- even if entirely by chance-- is actually good? Is it not music? What is it?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Dedalus said:


> But what if the result-- even if entirely by chance-- is actually good? Is it not music? What is it?


A hypothetical situation, which reality has never been realized, simply because the chances are so slim, it's like finding another planet earth in the vastness of space. But if music is genuinely good, it is almost certainly the skill of a master, not by chance. That was what Antonio Salieri declared in the movie "Amadeus", that Mozart's music was not chance. Pure and simple.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> A hypothetical situation, which reality has never been realized, simply because the chances are so slim, it's like finding another planet earth in the vastness of space. But if music is genuinely good, it is almost certainly the skill of a master, not by chance. That was what Antonio Salieri declared in the movie "Amadeus", that Mozart's music was not chance. Pure and simple.


Hypothetical as it may be, if a computer made, say, a trillion random pieces, and just a single one of those you find to be just an awesome piece of music. What would that piece be? Music? If so are the rest not music? Bad music? If the one piece you like isn't music then what the heck is it?

This sounds science fiction, but it's probably something achievable in the future and there is nothing logically impossible about it.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Dedalus said:


> Hypothetical as it may be, if a computer made, say, a trillion random pieces, and just a single one of those you find to be just an awesome piece of music. What would that piece be? Music? If so are the rest not music? Bad music? If the one piece you like isn't music then what the heck is it?


If nothing else, it points to the notion that we should talk about "music I like" or "music lots of people like" rather than "good music".


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> If nothing else, it points to the notion that we should talk about "music I like" or "music lots of people like" rather than "good music".


Although it kind of undermines the entire point of my op I have a hard time not agreeing with you.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, I think the so called stochastic music by Xenakis is deeply flawed because music is not random. Music is an artistic composition inspired and aspiring to beauty not a random mathematical process. Pure and simple.


His music isn't random it's as far from random that you can get. Don't take the term stochastic literally, it was a technique he used especially in some of his works in the 50s to give aid to his really large sound masses, such as Pithoprarakta.

I'm in no way going to defend him when there are more resources you could dream about through just a simple mouse click. 
I will add that it'd be a waste my time giving examples to Kylo Ren, when the audible structure is more obvious then even Schoenberg or Webern, solely from LISTENING to it.

You can hate Xenakis with all your being, but there has and always will be obvious structure in his music.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

Now Dream Theater guy, the thing is your question in the OP is the kind of question that will only get subjective responses, what else could you expect??


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Xenakiboy said:


> Now Dream Theater guy, the thing is your question in the OP is the kind of question that will only get subjective responses, what else could you expect??


Hey you recognize the avatar! Well yes, you are of course right. I did say the thread might be silly after all. But sometimes I just get an idea and like to throw it out on TC just to see what happens. Maybe some interesting posts will result and maybe not. Eh, nothing to lose either way.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

Dedalus said:


> Hey you recognize the avatar! Well yes, you are of course right. I did say the thread might be silly after all. But sometimes I just get an idea and like to throw it out on TC just to see what happens. Maybe some interesting posts will result and maybe not. Eh, nothing to lose either way.


So are you an IAW, Awake, SFAM, SDOIT or 8V guy? And did you migrate from DTF at some point?


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Almost all of the non-soundtrack 'music' by Philip Glass.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Xenakiboy said:


> So are you an IAW, Awake, SFAM, SDOIT or 8V guy? And did you migrate from DTF at some point?


Unpopular opinion: I remember really enjoying TOT.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

We need a DT thread now aye man? :lol:

HTF and ITNOG where alright but that I never really enjoyed the post-SDOIT albums much....though there are songs here and there


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Xenakiboy said:


> So are you an IAW, Awake, SFAM, SDOIT or 8V guy? And did you migrate from DTF at some point?


I'm actually a WDaDU up through the astonishing fan. Of course I like some albums more than others, but I pretty much don't think they've ever made a dud album. A few dud songs maybe (burning my soul).... But over all I think they are just fantastic. I'm aware that this makes me look like a fanboy. Well the shoe fits I guess.

I didn't come to TC from DTF actually. I've actually never been active on DTF although I've read many many threads on it. I literally just decided to listen to classical music on a whim, thinking it would have qualities I enjoyed in music. Theory awareness, high degrees of musicality from a compositional and performing standpoint and stuff like that. At first even simple stuff like bach and Mozart just confused me, i think because I was very unused to the idiom. I googled around to find out how to get into CM and found TC, particularly the tops list. At this point I was still iffy about CM and knew almost nothing. Well basically I found Mahler's 2nd symphony atop the symphony list and just fell madly in love with that piece which sealed my fate in a way. If there was one piece I could love that much there must be others. So I kept exploring and have never stopped. Stuff that was confusing to me like Mozart now isn't, though I still don't care much for Bach.

Ok that was kind of a long story. I'm pretty sure it answered your question somewhere in there.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

Dedalus said:


> I'm actually a WDaDU up through the astonishing fan. Of course I like some albums more than others, but I pretty much don't think they've ever made a dud album. A few dud songs maybe (burning my soul).... But over all I think they are just fantastic. I'm aware that this makes me look like a fanboy. Well the shoe fits I guess.
> 
> I didn't come to TC from DTF actually. I've actually never been active on DTF although I've read many many threads on it. I literally just decided to listen to classical music on a whim, thinking it would have qualities I enjoyed in music. Theory awareness, high degrees of musicality from a compositional and performing standpoint and stuff like that. At first even simple stuff like bach and Mozart just confused me, i think because I was very unused to the idiom. I googled around to find out how to get into CM and found TC, particularly the tops list. At this point I was still iffy about CM and knew almost nothing. Well basically I found Mahler's 2nd symphony atop the symphony list and just fell madly in love with that piece which sealed my fate in a way. If there was one piece I could love that much there must be others. So I kept exploring and have never stopped. Stuff that was confusing to me like Mozart now isn't, though I still don't care much for Bach.
> 
> Ok that was kind of a long story. I'm pretty sure it answered your question somewhere in there.


Interesting indeed man! I liked them a fair bit in my teens, I have heard everything they've currently released, though I don't relate to half of their stuff anymore. Awake is probably my favourite album of there's, I could still enjoy it. Should we retreat discussion to a new thread?


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

I'm at work on my phone right now (i work nights) and I think I'd have way too much to say about them to type with my phone. I will likely make a thread on them in non classical section when I get off later in the morning.

But yeah, back in topic. Are there any composers for example that just thought hey I can just use a tone row and my music will be modern and good, but that it's clear they had no idea how to make it interesting?


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2016)

Dedalus said:


> I'm at work on my phone right now (i work nights) and I think I'd have way too much to say about them to type with my phone. I will likely make a thread on them in non classical section when I get off later in the morning.
> 
> But yeah, back in topic. Are there any composers for example that just thought hey I can just use a tone row and my music will be modern and good, but that it's clear they had no idea how to make it interesting?


I wouldn't have thought anyone would waste their time like that. What's the point in endeavour if you're not going to be authentic (i.e. true to yourself)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Xenakiboy said:


> We need a DT thread now aye man? :lol:
> 
> HTF and ITNOG where alright but that I never really enjoyed the post-SDOIT albums much....though there are songs here and there


I prefer ERUKV but sometimes I don't


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

dogen said:


> I wouldn't have thought anyone would waste their time like that. What's the point in endeavour if you're not going to be authentic (i.e. true to yourself)


I don't know why. It's possible there's somebody who was just just cynical, at some period in the last century, and wanted to use 12 tone just to be fashionable and didn't understand how to use it effectively and sucked (in some people's opinion). Alternatively a person could be entirely earnest and want to use 12 tone for whatever reason. They find it fascinating, and maybe they enjoy other works they've heard in any of these kinds of 20th century styles, but who just don't know how to use them and so also make crappy music in this style/method/idiom. There just has to be somebody out there for some reason tried to make music in some 20th century style and just wasn't good at it.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I prefer ERUKV but sometimes I don't


I really don't know this acronym. I know people on DTF use them all the time, and I even get confused. I don't tend to use them that much, especially not when actually talking. It's funny to look back at previous posts and see how many people used acronyms, and it is almost a particular DT jargon. Knowing some of them, especially the album names does speed things up in conversation as a shorthand. DT has tons of long named songs I guess and people are lazy.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Dedalus said:


> I really don't know this acronym. I know people on DTF use them all the time, and I even get confused. I don't tend to use them that much, especially not when actually talking. It's funny to look back at previous posts and see how many people used acronyms, and it is almost a particular DT jargon. Knowing some of them, especially the album names does speed things up in conversation as a shorthand. DT has tons of long named songs I guess and people are lazy.


Really, I think others may have got it 
Cheers
Eddie R U Kidding Varese


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Really, I think others may have got it
> Cheers
> Eddie R U Kidding Varese


Ah doh. Yeah I didn't get it, but I do now.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Back on topic or at least toward it. There is music I like and music I don't like. That doesn't really reflect its merit (except that I am always correct of course).

What I don't like is the overuse of "extended techniques." So if you find a composition that saws a guitar in half with a chainsaw and calls itself a guitar concerto, that's juvenile to me. Banging your bow on the cello is old hat.

Having said all that sometimes these things can be incorporated tastefully. While looking for examples of the above I dislike, I've only found pieces that I do like at times throughout, such as this one:






But then at about the 5:00 mark I think it gets _really_ silly. So I both like and dislike it. It's probably not going to go down in history as advancing music very much.


----------



## Mahlerite555 (Aug 27, 2016)

Everything after 1945.


----------



## micro (Jun 18, 2016)

Mahlerite555 said:


> Everything after 1945.


lol, pretty much truth in this.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

micro said:


> lol, pretty much truth in this.


Lol forget the pretty


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Mahlerite555 said:


> Everything after 1945.


As good an opinion as any other. OK, what's for lunch?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

MarkW said:


> Not bad, just ill conceived: Bug Piece by Yehuda Yannay. An aleatory work. A plexglas box with areas marked on it and random insects placed inside, was placed on an overhead projector and projected on a screen behind the performers, who played composed figurations according to which insect moved into what area. In the performance I saw/heard many years ago it was somewhat grisly. Some of the insects were sluggish and wilted in the heat. One began to eat another. Never to be forgotten.


Dim7, are you taking notes? I feel like you'd be really good at coming up with ideas like this.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Dedalus said:


> Hypothetical as it may be, if a computer made, say, a trillion random pieces, and just a single one of those you find to be just an awesome piece of music. What would that piece be? Music? If so are the rest not music? Bad music? If the one piece you like isn't music then what the heck is it?
> 
> This sounds science fiction, but it's probably something achievable in the future and there is nothing logically impossible about it.


Yikes, that would be a lot of listening for any number of listeners to filter through... You'd have to have some million super listeners. We need to start training people... To write the algorithms for detecting amongst the heap of trillions what is good.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Pretty much anything by Peter Maxwell Davies. Awful!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Merl said:


> Pretty much anything by Peter Maxwell Davies. Awful!


I must give him a listen!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Mahlerite555 said:


> Everything after 1945.


What does this eliminate?

4 of Vaughan Williams symphonies
Most of Benjamin Britten and Michael Tippet
Jennifer Higdon
10 of George Lloyd's 12 symphonies
7 of Shostakovich's 15 symphonies

...not to mention much by Rubbra, Tubin, Copland, Stravinsky, Bernstein, Prokofiev and many, many more


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

I nominate Eric Whitacre and Alma Deutscher.


----------



## Mahlerite555 (Aug 27, 2016)

Becca said:


> What does this eliminate?
> 
> 4 of Vaughan Williams symphonies
> Most of Benjamin Britten and Michael Tippet
> ...


All of that is crap. Case in point.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Mahlerite555 said:


> Everything after 1945.





Mahlerite555 said:


> All of that is crap. Case in point.


Lol. Ok. :lol:


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Mahlerite555 said:


> Everything after 1945.


What specifically happened in 1945 (the War maybe?) that eliminates everything after, by default?

Since, the second half of the 20th century, through to present day, is the period in which most of my favorite music was composed, I'd be interested to hear what is the common thread that eliminates it all, unheard.

As someone else pointed out, many of the best pre 1945 composers were still composing after 1945. What happened to them in 1945?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Simon Moon said:


> What specifically happened in 1945 (the War maybe?) that eliminates everything after, by default?


Pietro Mascagni died.
That is the only thing I can think of that would end something related to music.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Unlike most of the 20th century and Contemporary bashing threads around here, I am actually interested in this one.

It seems to me, that a large majority of bashing is done by picking out the most extreme examples of avant garde experimentation, and using those examples as a proxy for all modern music.

I noticed this in the previous Contemporary bashing thread, "What do you HATE most about contemporary music?".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sloe said:


> Pietro Mascagni died.
> That is the only thing I can think of related to music.


Among the more significant works composed in 1945:

Samuel Barber: Cello Concerto
Béla Bartók: Piano Concerto No. 3, Viola Concerto
Erich W. Korngold: Violin Concerto
Sergei Prokofiev: Ivan the Terrible
Dmitri Shostakovich: Symphony No. 9
Richard Strauss: Metamorphosen for 23 solo strings, Oboe Concerto
Igor Stravinsky: Ebony Concerto, Symphony in Three Movements

Oh, and Peter Grimes of course!

Born in 1945:

Jacqueline du Pré
Keith Jarrett
Itzhak Perlman
John Rutter
"Pigpen" of the Grateful Dead (can't leave him out)


----------



## Mahlerite555 (Aug 27, 2016)

I was of course joking about my 1945 comment. This post-1945 piece never fails to make me cry, it is what I turn to in moments of need and desperation:


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Mahlerite555 said:


> I was of course joking about my 1945 comment. This post-1945 piece never fails to make me cry, it is what I turn to in moments of need and desperation:


Unless music has conspicuous repetition, I find it hard to enjoy it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2016)

I think Shakespeare said it best: "Why, then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." 
--Hamlet


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Kontrapunctus said:


> I think Shakespeare said it best: "Why, then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
> --Hamlet


But Shakespeare never had to listen to 20th+ century music...


----------



## Poodle (Aug 7, 2016)

All 20th ccentury musik make me ears sore


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Even within a genre that one feels he/she is totally in-sync with, there will be times of discrimination, for preference. It's not necessary to have a worst or best designation. Just go with what you like at that moment, which could result in a good, bad, or indifferent feeling in someone else exposed to the same thing. That's life, as life goes on.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Xenakiboy said:


> His music isn't random it's as far from random that you can get. Don't take the term stochastic literally, it was a technique he used especially in some of his works in the 50s to give aid to his really large sound masses, such as Pithoprarakta.


I think stochastic music while not entirely random, relies a large part to chance.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Kontrapunctus said:


> I think Shakespeare said it best: "Why, then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
> --Hamlet


Whatever you happen to believe, Shakespeare said it best.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

All pre-20th ccentury musik make me ears sore


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2016)

Contrary to popular belief, stockastic music is actually highly dependent on the stock market rather than anything else. Some changes to the stock market happen by chance but in reality everything about it is so complex that to compose a piece of true stockastic music a composer would have to be an absolute genius.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

All this discussion of Xenakis and Varese is irrelevant. The worst piece of "classical" music written in the 20th century is Richard Addinsell's Warsaw Concerto by a country mile. For supportive evidence, try to bear more than a minute of this clip of Lisitsa wasting her talent:


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Pat Fairlea said:


> All this discussion of Xenakis and Varese is irrelevant. The worst piece of "classical" music written in the 20th century is Richard Addinsell's Warsaw Concerto by a country mile. For supportive evidence, try to bear more than a minute of this clip of Lisitsa wasting her talent:



It's no more unbearable than Rachmaninov.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Dedalus said:


> I enjoy second Viennese stuff, boulez, and others-- though I'm definitely not the most knowledgeable about CM 20th century included.
> 
> BUT if it's true that there is a difference between good 20th century stuff, there must be bad examples too. And to be clear I'm talking about the kind of 20th century music that people call atonal or random or barely music, not stuff like Shostakovich.
> 
> Maybe this is a silly post, but does anybody have any thoughts or opinions on this?


You answered your own question.

Good 20th century music = music I like. Example : Shostakovich

Bad 20th century music = music I don't like. Example : That stuff people call atonal, random, barely music.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Weston said:


> It's no more unbearable than Rachmaninov.


Ooooohhhh..... that's fighting talk!


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I don't keep a list of music I hate, but I saw this last year and unfortunately still remember it:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> I don't keep a list of music I hate, but I saw this last year and unfortunately still remember it:


Well, it gave me a good laugh, so it's not totally without value.

I'd be interested in hearing the composer/performers idea behind the piece.


----------



## jonatan (May 6, 2016)

I started to go to concerts and to listen to the classical music on youtube some 2 years ago and initially I was abhorred as well by contemporary classical music. But now I love it and I experience it more intensely than century old pieces. Contemporary music is far more interesting because time changes and everything changes and it is so exciting to listen to other experiences and thoughts. I have come to conclusion that the biggest trouble in listening to the music arises from the disonance between that we know, expect and what we actually hear. If we are prepared for atonal music and if we give the composer and performers the space for their work then the dissonance disappears and many discoveries come.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> I don't keep a list of music I hate, but I saw this last year and unfortunately still remember it:


Wow. Thanks.

The original ideal of the _Gesamtkunstwerk_ is realized here: music, words and action perfectly integrated. Had Wagner stuck to his program and not been seduced by Schopenhauer into thinking that music should dominate any collaboration with the other arts, he might have left us this snappy vision of "les crimes d'amour" instead of Tristan and Isolde's overwrought affair, and then music could have skipped right over the breakdown of tonality, the invention of serialism, and Milton Babbitt. This is _so_ much more fun than Moses and Aron - and without a wasted note.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

jonatan said:


> ...If we are prepared for atonal music and if we give the composer and performers the space for their work then the dissonance disappears and many discoveries come.


Not always, no matter how much one prepares.


----------



## James Mann (Sep 6, 2016)

I don't think people give 20th century music enough of a chance. Beethoven isn't the last of the great composers after all


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

James Mann said:


> I don't think people give 20th century music enough of a chance. Beethoven isn't the last of the great composers after all


Well, actually...


----------



## James Mann (Sep 6, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> I think stochastic music while not entirely random, relies a large part to chance.


I've just been reading this thread ArtMusic and I saw your post. I think you have may gotten confused with an English chap Brian Ferneyhough, who's music exploits the reality that a piece will never be perfectly or accuracy performed. I actually met Brian ten years ago, he's a wonderful fellow


----------

