# An alternate view of the twentieth century



## Guest (Oct 30, 2012)

I thought it might be interesting to have a list of important figures from the twentieth century from someone who has lived and breathed that era for over forty years now. (March, 1972)

I'm not presenting this so much as an authoritative list (though if you want to take it that way--for good or for ill--you're welcome to) but as an alternative.

First here's neo's two twentieth century lists combined and alphabetized:

Bartok
Berg
Britten
Cage
Debussy
Elgar
Faure
Ives 
Hindemith 
Janacek
Ligeti
Mahler 
Messiaen
Poulenc
Prokofiev
Rachmaninov
Ravel
Satie
Schnittke
Schoenberg
Scriabin
Shostakovich
Sibelius 
Strauss
Stravinsky
Takemitsu 
Vaughan Williams
Villa-Lobos
Webern
Xenakis

Probably everyone here will see a glaring omission or two. As I was alphabetizing, the first omission I noticed was Edgard Varèse. And then the omissions began to accumulate, hot and heavy. So here is an alternate view of the past century, by someone who loves it well. You will doubtless find some omissions here, too. Hopefully they are all errors of commission. You will also think, I am sure, that not all these people are on the same level of importance or influence or whatever. I am sure that that is so. That was a feature of neoshredder's lists as well.

There are also quite a lot of people whose careers have spanned the century change. Some of those are on this list, some are not. People whose careers started in the last century but have flourished most significantly in this century are not on this list by and large, though they probably should be. I think the most recent century mark was completely insignificant musically.

I would say that the first piece of the first era of the twentieth century was Ives' _Unanswered Question_ and the first piece of the second era of the twentieth century, the one we're still in, was Cage's _Imaginary Landscape No. 1._ (I think WWI dealt music a serious blow, which took about a generation to recover from. WWII, for some reason, did nothing of the sort.) I would argue with neither _Credo in Us_ or _Music of Changes_ being considered the first piece of the second era. You can tell from those picks what kind of list to expect:

Maryanne Amacher
Robert Ashley
Bela Bartók
Alban Berg
Luciano Berio
Pierre Boulez
Ludger Brümmer
Sylvano Bussotti
John Cage
Cornelius Cardew
Barney Childs
Tod Dockstader
Francis Dhomont
Morton Feldman
Luc Ferrari
Fluxus*
Roberto Gerhard
Pierre Henry
Dick Higgens
Charles Ives
Leoš Janáček
Mauricio Kagel
Alison Knowles
Christina Kubisch
Helmut Lachenmann
György Ligeti
Annea Lockwood
Alvin Lucier
Witold Lutosławski
Bruno Maderna
Walter Marchetti
Christian Marclay
Olivier Messiaen
Gordon Mumma
Phill Niblock
Carl Nielsen
Luigi Nono
Arne Nordheim
Pauline Oliveros
Nam June Paik
Harry Partch
Krzysztof Penderecki (early works)
Eliane Radigue
Steve Reich
Terry Riley
Giacinto Scelsi
F. Murray Schafer
Arnold Schoenberg
Humphrey Searle
Roger Sessions
Karlheinz Stockhausen
Igor Stravinsky
James Tenney
Yasunao Tone
Davie Tudor
Edgard Varèse
Anton Webern
Christian Wolff
Iannis Xenakis
LaMonte Young
B.A. Zimmermann

Honorary mention to Kurt Schwitters. (Oh, and happy listening.)

*The only association on the list, a very loosely knit one, but very influencial and also just good clean fun. Some of the players were George Maciunas, who founded it, George Brecht, Philip Corner, Yoko Ono, and the above mentioned Young, Higgens, Knowles, and Paik. There were many more. I did say "loosely," you'll recall.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Interesting list of names. Some I recognise, some I don't. No doubt an enormous soundscape of differences. By way of illustration, I do not know the first name, Maryanne Amacher but I do know the last name, B.A. Zimmermann. I have listened to Zimmermann's opera _*Die Soldaten*_; in particular, this production. I would like to recommend it to listeners who might enjoy contemporary opera.






As for the first name, whom I do not recognise, I randomly picked a clip from Youtube. So far, it has been ... awful. It reminded me of a refridgerator or some machine humming. I'm afraid I do not consider it as engaging music. Yes, I do think _Living Sound_ is crap.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Arthur Honegger
Albert Roussel

I think both deserve a rather central place among composers of the WWI-II era. Their symphonies should be part or the standard repertoire. Roussel is interesting in his evolution from impressionism to neoclassicism in the aftermath of WWI. And Honegger's symphonies nos. 2 and 3, written during or immediately after WWII are also quite significant in my opinion.


----------



## Praeludium (Oct 9, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting list of names. Some I recognise, some I don't. No doubt an enormous soundscape of differences. By way of illustration, I do not know the first name, Maryanne Amacher but I do know the last name, B.A. Zimmermann. I have listened to Zimmermann's opera _*Die Soldaten*_; in particular, this production. I would like to recommend it to listeners who might enjoy contemporary opera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow I really loved the Maryanne Amacher video.

I wouldn't dare to do a list of XXth century composers I like, because : 
a) I have a very partial knowledge of them 
b) I can't say I really know the few composers I could quote. eg. I've never heard any piece from Murail live, and only about 5 or 6 recordings of different pieces. Moreover, apart from reading a few essays from Grisey, I have never really analysed/understood spectral music. Of course, I enjoy it.
But making a list of composer ATM would be quite meaningless to me, since it'd be more like a list of what composers get mentionned frequently enough on TC.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I'm interested in your periodization, with an Ives era and a later Cage era, or at least those are the beginnings of the two eras. What do you think are the features of the two era? You obviously must miss out lots of composers in such a list but Gorecki was the first that occurred to me, particularly as he is probably one of the most famous of late 20thC among the general public. Too romantic anachronism to fit in either era or too filmic? I suppose Glass could be considered filmic too.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

some guy said:


> Honorary mention to Kurt Schwitters.


Two thumbs up for the mention! Honorary is a good title. And I suppose Duchamp's music would fall under dishonorable mention.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting list of names. Some I recognise, some I don't. No doubt an enormous soundscape of differences. By way of illustration, I do not know the first name, Maryanne Amacher but I do know the last name, B.A. Zimmermann. I have listened to Zimmermann's opera _*Die Soldaten*_; in particular, this production. I would like to recommend it to listeners who might enjoy contemporary opera.
> 
> As for the first name, whom I do not recognise, I randomly picked a clip from Youtube. So far, it has been ... awful. It reminded me of a refridgerator or some machine humming. I'm afraid I do not consider it as engaging music. Yes, I do think _Living Sound_ is crap.


Instant reaction to these clips..._Die Soldaten_ looked like it might be interesting theatre, but the music did not appeal. _Living Sound_ was more 'interesting' - though perhaps in the same way that some ambient music is 'interesting'.

As a pedant, I'm interested in the idea that we are still in


> the second era of the twentieth century,


. Of course, musical periods do not match calendar periods, are somewhat arbitrary, and overlap. I wonder which of the 20thC composers might actually be regarded as the forerunners of 21stC music (if such a period can yet be defined).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I'll contribute the names of a few composers who I think are the most significant of the 20th Century...

Duke Ellington
Fats Waller
Irving Berlin
Hank Williams
Johnny Mercer
Cole Porter
Lennon and McCartney
Nino Rota
Rogers and Hammerstein
Henry Mancini
Miklos Rozsa
Max Steiner
A P Carter

I could go on and on. The 20th Century was a golden age of creativity. All of the arts flourished and flowered. The best part is that the arts came out of the salons and concert halls and became a part of popular culture. It wouldn't be hard to do that again. It just means that technology and society would need to encourage creativity again.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> Two thumbs up for the mention! Honorary is a good title. And I suppose Duchamp's music would fall under dishonorable mention.


:lol::lol::lol:

:tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I'll contribute the names of a few composers who I think are the most significant of the 20th Century...


A good century for lieder! A couple of minor but excellent composers in that form that might make your list: Donovan Lietch (Donovan) and Yusuf Islam, born Steven Demetre Georgiou (Cat Stevens).


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2012)

quack said:


> I'm interested in your periodization, with an Ives era and a later Cage era, or at least those are the beginnings of the two eras. What do you think are the features of the two era? You obviously must miss out lots of composers in such a list but Gorecki was the first that occurred to me, particularly as he is probably one of the most famous of late 20thC among the general public. Too romantic anachronism to fit in either era or too filmic? I suppose Glass could be considered filmic too.


I put the Ives at the beginning of the first era because it's the first piece (that I know of) that really pushes past the practices of the 19th century. Conceptually, it's a new way of making music. Non-narrative*, separate strands that go their separate ways, minimal, little sense of pitch being all important (no "tunes," really), very little drama but very ostentatiously theatrical.

I start the next era with the Cage, because that, too, is the first piece (that I know of) that uses non-pitched and pitched instruments equally. That uses ordinary items in a central musical role, not as sound effects (as in Satie's _Parade_) or as evocative (as in Mahler's sixth and seventh symphonies) but simply as sound producers. There's no continuity of line, either. The _order_ of events does not present as being crucial. It's the first glimmer, I think, of what was to grow into indeterminacy. The central choice of the twentieth century was not between tonal and atonal (though that's certainly the central discussion among online music forum posters) nor between noise and music (as Cage thought in 1939) but between determinacy and indeterminacy. For the first time in musical history since the idea arose of individual creators writing unique works controlled by explicit and detailed instructions (not that long, really, but still--coupla centuries anyway), composers were faced with a serious choice between control and acceptance, between exclusion and inclusion.

http://asymmetrymusicmagazine.com/interviews/ricardo-mandolini/

You have to read down a bit to find Mandolini's comments about Cage and indeterminacy (and narcissism, interestingly enough), but you like reading, don't you?

*Yes, I know there's a little program that goes with it.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Interesting & nice to read something that specifying.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Praeludium said:


> Wow I really loved the Maryanne Amacher video.
> 
> I wouldn't dare to do a list of XXth century composers I like, because :
> a) I have a very partial knowledge of them
> ...


The Amacher piece is just noise to me even though there might be musical elements as far as composition is concerned. But I can see why some folks might find it interesting. It's only seven minutes long, not quite as substantial compared with say _Die Soldaten_, which as an opera, actually conveyed something at least about the human condition (instead of about machines and their hummings  ), though good for you that you enjoyed it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> I start the next era with the Cage ...


Have you listened to his "operas"? What do you think? Have you spoken to him about them? This one is #5 out of the series. You already know what I think.


----------



## Praeludium (Oct 9, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The Amacher piece is just noise to me even though there might be musical elements as far as composition is concerned. But I can see why some folks might find it interesting. It's only seven minutes long, not quite as substantial compared with say _Die Soldaten_, which as an opera, actually conveyed something at least about the human condition (instead of about machines and their hummings  ), though good for you that you enjoyed it.


Yes it's noise. What's wrong with it ? Those are some incredible noises  And I'm not even into noise music yet.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Have you listened to his "operas"?


Yes.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> What do you think?


I like 'em all right. Not my favorite Cage, but who am I?



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Have you spoken to him about them?


No. We talked about his stuff at first, because that's what interested me in talking to him in the first place. Afterwards, we mostly talked about other things, other people's music, painting, other people--you know, idle chit chat.

The piece of his we spent most of our time talking about in our first conversation was _Child of Tree,_ because that's what _he_ was most interesting in talking about.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

bigshot said:


> I'll contribute the names of a few composers who I think are the most significant of the 20th Century...
> 
> Duke Ellington
> Fats Waller
> ...


I would add to that list the likes of John Williams (the film composer, not the guitarist), Howard Shore, Mikis Theodorakis (who did the score for _Zorba the Greek_, but also much 'serious' music - he's a good 'couterpoint' to Xenakis, who I also like), Vangelis, Leonard Bernstein, Andrew Lloyd Webber, a number of other composers of musicals who where more than 'one hit wonders' (eg. John Kander and Fred Ebb who did_ Cabaret _and _Chicago_), also people like Edith Piaf & Charles Trenet, and so on.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

some guy said:


> You have to read down a bit to find Mandolini's comments about Cage and indeterminacy (and narcissism, interestingly enough), but you like reading, don't you?


Sure, I love reading, thanks!

I never knew determinacy / indeterminacy was regarded as so central to 20thC music, although I never really thought tonal / atonal was an especially key dichotomy either.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2012)

For composers, certainly, who since 1950 have had an option they never had before, who have had to face a questioning of their most fundamental premise as a composer for the first time in at least two hundred years--for those people it's definitely been the key dichotomy.

(I probably shouldn't have said "have had to." As everyone knows, you can just ignore things. And many composers have ignored that threat to artistic integrity, to the hegemonic status of the composer.)

For listeners, not so much. It's not a thing you can hear, necessarily, and if a performance of an indeterminate composition is recorded, that recording sounds the same every time you play it. And, being human, you can start to hear themes and development and such.

Funny that emphasis on sound--unstructured, unfettered, uncontextual sound--should be one big "thing"* about twentieth century thinking about music AND that at the same time so many philosophical "things"* about twentieth century music are not aurally perceptible should be another.

*I love high-powered technical talk....


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Why you call the list an "alternate view" about twentieth century?. I would say it's rather conventional and even objective.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

20th century and serialism are almost synonymous. Pierre Boulez tops it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Rapide said:


> 20th century and serialism are almost synonymous. Pierre Boulez tops it.


??? Serialism is a musical movement that is just about extinct. Certainly, you can quote a list of composers "influenced" by serialism, but for the most part people have never heard of them or else will soon forget.

Bigshot's list is a lot better start on 20th century music that will be remembered.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2012)

*@HarpschordConcerto.* 
Well Maryanne Amacher to my unsympathetic ear sounded like Bats in the London underground at 3am.
Not being an avid fan of modern opera I found Die Soldaten was much worse and made the former more acceptable ……then again I am but a lost soul wandering in the forest of vibrating worm holes and cacophony.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

some guy said:


> The piece of his we spent most of our time talking about in our first conversation was _Child of Tree,_ because that's what _he_ was most interesting in talking about.


omg, I love Child of Tree ^^ I'm not a huge fan of Cage's total chance stuff (I tend to prefer his music from the 40s, I like being able to really hear his personality in the music), but Child of Tree, along with some other pieces like Inlets, exudes this beautiful charm about it, and is a shining example of his imagination. Also, I'm so jelly that you got to meet John Cage, AND talk with him about his music. O_O Seriously, I would loved to have met him (though I don't know how well we'd get along XD I have pretty different views on music).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Andante said:


> *@HarpschordConcerto.*
> Well Maryanne Amacher to my unsympathetic ear sounded like Bats in the London underground at 3am.
> Not being an avid fan of modern opera I found Die Soldaten was much worse and made the former more acceptable ……then again I am but a lost soul wandering in the forest of vibrating worm holes and cacophony.


No problem. Your words were perfectly understandable and I share your concerns.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Why you call the list an "alternate view" about twentieth century?. I would say it's rather conventional and even objective.


It's different from any other view that's appeared on any online forum on classical music that I've ever seen.

Are you telling me I've been going to the wrong forums all this time???

D)


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

some guy said:


> It's different from any other view that's appeared on any online forum on classical music that I've ever seen.
> 
> Are you telling me I've been going to the wrong forums all this time???
> 
> D)


Well, although there are some names with which I'm not familiar, you seem to have eliminated, in general, most of the composers for whom it's not possible to see, even in the most subtle way, a direct reminiscence to previous music. In that sense, these composers will be authentic products of the 20th century. I mean, in average, your list has a clear arrow towards 20th century in the most fundamental aspects or the main changes that music from this century has introduced.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Thank you for mentioning Roger Sessions, his music is some of the most stimulating I have heard amongst the American 20th century. Hopefully someday history will give him his due, as through my conviction he is deserving of it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2012)

aleazk said:


> I mean, in average, your list has a clear arrow towards 20th century in the most fundamental aspects or the main changes that music from this century has introduced.


That was certainly my intent.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Rapide said:


> 20th century and serialism are almost synonymous. Pierre Boulez tops it.


and that's exactly why classical music is not popular anymore.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

norman bates said:


> and that's exactly why classical music is not popular anymore.


Oh sure it is! The radio stations and concert halls are featuring Mozart and Beethoven continuously. What isn't popular anymore is most contemporary music of substance or accomplishment. Unless you include the Black Eyed Peas or Justin Bieber in that category.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Oh sure it is! The radio stations and concert halls are featuring Mozart and Beethoven continuously.


i was talking of contemporary musicians (and especially of serialism), Mozart and Beethoven aren't contemporary for sure.



starthrower said:


> What isn't popular anymore is most contemporary music of substance or accomplishment. Unless you include the Black Eyed Peas or Justin Bieber in that category.


after the reductio ad hitlerum we have the reductio ad bibierum.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

norman bates said:


> and that's exactly why classical music is not popular anymore.


Boulez's 'hard core' Modernist dogmas in his younger years certainly didn't help. I'm generally a fan of new/newer music (incl. some things by Boulez), but not that kind of polarising attitude. It's basically as if he saw the audience as an enemy. But Boulez has for many decades since changed and toned down the rhetoric though (but so has the world around him, maybe he'd look like a dinosaur if he didn't?) and of course he has contributed a lot to music in a tangible way, in terms of wider exposure/acceptance with his conducting.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Oh sure it is! The radio stations and concert halls are featuring Mozart and Beethoven continuously. What isn't popular anymore is most contemporary music of substance or accomplishment. Unless you include the Black Eyed Peas or Justin Bieber in that category.


Substance is in the ear of the beholder.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2012)

I would say, rather, that substance is in the engagement.

When a pair of ears engages with sound waves, then you get something.

The sound waves on their own? Nothing. The ears on their own? Nothing.

Only when you put them together do you get anything.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

norman bates said:


> i was talking of contemporary musicians (and especially of serialism), Mozart and Beethoven aren't contemporary for sure.


That's right! But you said classical music wasn't popular anymore. I disagree. Mozart and Beethoven are as popular as they can be in modern society with all its distractions.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

@Someguy You can have it your way and I can have it my way. I just don't get why this matters so much to you.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

Neo, apparently you care yourself--enough to snap at me, anyway. I'll tell you, though what I care about.

History. The story told in your list(s), and in all the lists that it mimics, is different from the story told in the list I presented.

Music. Just for curiosity's sake, how many of the people on your lists do you know at all well? Is this music you love? Music you care about? Music that you think is important for the development of music in the twentieth century? (I know, you say that you're just doing this for fun. But I'm still curious. How much do you know about the music you're having fun with? I could do a poll about Baroque music, but I can't imagine that being much fun, for me or for anyone else. Different ideas about "fun," I guess.)

OK, back to the lists (and the music).

Here's neo's way.-------------Here's mine. We share nineteen out of sixty. (Mine is 61 or 62.)

Adams(3)----------------------Maryanne Amacher
Barber(4)----------------------Robert Ashley
Bartok-------------------------*Bartók*
Berg---------------------------*Berg*
Berio(3)-----------------------*Berio*
Britten-------------------------Pierre Boulez
--------------------------------Ludger Brümmer
--------------------------------Sylvano Bussotti
Cage---------------------------*Cage*
Carter(3)----------------------Cornelius Cardew
Copland(3)--------------------Barney Childs
Crumb(3)
Debussy-----------------------Francis Dhomont
Delius(3)----------------------Tod Dockstader
Dutilleux(3)
Elgar
Faure
Feldman(3)-------------------*Feldman*
Gershwin(3)-------------------Luc Ferrari
Ginastera(3)------------------Fluxus*
Glass(4)-----------------------Roberto Gerhard
Glazunov(3--------------------Pierre Henry
Gorecki(3)
Granados(3)
Gubaidulina(3)
Hovhaness(3)-----------------Dick Higgens
Ives---------------------------*Ives*
Hindemith
Janacek-----------------------*Janáček*
Khachaturian(4)--------------Mauricio Kagel
--------------------------------Alison Knowles
--------------------------------Christina Kubisch
--------------------------------Helmut Lachenmann
Ligeti-------------------------*Ligeti*
-------------------------------Annea Lockwood
-------------------------------Alvin Lucier
Lutoslawski(4)---------------*Lutosławski*
Mahler------------------------Bruno Maderna
-------------------------------Walter Marchetti
Martinu(4)-------------------Christian Marclay
Messiaen---------------------*Messiaen*
-------------------------------Gordon Mumma
-------------------------------Phill Niblock
Nielsen(4)-------------------*Nielsen*
Nono(4)---------------------*Nono*
Nyman(4)-------------------Arne Nordheim
Orff(4)-----------------------Pauline Oliveros
Part(4)-----------------------Nam June Paik
-------------------------------Harry Partch
Penderecki(4)---------------*Penderecki* (early works)
Poulenc
Prokofiev
Rachmaninov----------------Eliane Radigue
Ravel
Reich(4)---------------------*Reich*
Respighi(4-------------------Terry Riley
Rodrigo(4)
Satie-------------------------Giacinto Scelsi
Schnittke--------------------F. Murray Schafer
Schoenberg-----------------*Schoenberg*
Scriabin----------------------Humphrey Searle
Shostakovich----------------Roger Sessions
Sibelius----------------------Karlheinz Stockhausen
Strauss
Stravinsky------------------*Stravinsky*
Takemitsu-------------------James Tenney
------------------------------Yasunao Tone
------------------------------David Tudor
Varese(4)-------------------*Varèse*
Vaughan Williams
Villa-Lobos
Webern---------------------*Webern*
------------------------------Christian Wolff
Xenakis---------------------*Xenakis*
------------------------------LaMonte Young
------------------------------B.A. Zimmermann
------------------------------Honorary mention to Kurt Schwitters.

Probably the first difference you notice is that neo's list has no women on it. There are more women in the twentieth century than in any other time in music. Not on neo's list. Only six on mine. Probably should be more. But 1/10 is more than 0/10.

You might also notice some inconsistencies. I have Boulez but no Carter. Neo has Reich and Glass but no Riley (and no minimalists other than the pattern/repetition type). Neo has Cage but no Stockhausen or Boulez. I have Sessions but no Crumb or Copland.

The biggest difference is that the list I presented is by a person who has been immersed in the music of the last century for forty years now while the one(s) by neoshredder is by someone who has never pretended to be all that keen on modern music and has often been quite antagonistic towards much of it.

I guess I care because I don't understand why a person with neoshredder's outlook or knowledge would make a twentieth century poll at all, except maybe to reinforce the notion that quite a lot of music in the twentieth century followed the forms and practices and sounds of the previous century.

Not really a notion that needs reinforcing.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I like 20th Century Music. I'm listening to Debussy right now. I just like different 20th Century music than you do. Your music taste isn't superior just because you know more about 20th Century music. And yes I'm deeply rooted into Baroque and looking to expand my collection based on it. Also, I never claimed I was an expert on 20th Century. I just know what are the most popular Composers during this time. And no Schnittke? Whatever. You can enjoy your parts of the 20th Century and I'll enjoy mine. It's still part of the 20th Century whether groundbreaking or not.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

Hmmm. If you already know who are the most popular twentieth century composers, then why do a poll to find out the most popular twentieth century composers?

I could do a top ten right now.

Adams
Bartok
Debussy
Faure
Mahler
Part
Ravel
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Stravinsky

Sid likes betting. We could bet on how close this list I just made is to the official TC list after all the voting is done.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> I could do a top ten right now.
> 
> Adams
> Bartok
> ...


From another place, 1900-1979:
1 - Shostakovich
2 - Bartok
3 - Mahler
4 - Stravinsky
5 - Sibelius
6 - Prokofiev
7 - Messiaen
8 - Lutoslawski
9 - Ravel
10 - Poulenc


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Hmmm. If you already know who are the most popular twentieth century composers, then why do a poll to find out the most popular twentieth century composers?
> 
> I could do a top ten right now.
> 
> ...


How about let me do the polls the way I like it.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> I would say, rather, that substance is in the engagement.
> 
> When a pair of ears engages with sound waves, then you get something.
> 
> ...


Well of course sound waves are just the compression and rarefaction of air molecules. Music and indeed all sound only actually exists if there are ears to hear it.
That fact probably would have been better placed in your 'subject or object' thread.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not one music has more (intellectual?) substance than another.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Btw it wasn't me that rated this thread 1 star. I don't like to do that to other peoples threads. Disrespectful imo.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Btw it wasn't me that rated this thread 1 star. I don't like to do that to other peoples threads. Disrespectful imo.


We are agreed on that point, for sure.:tiphat:



Petwhac said:


> Well of course sound waves are just the compression and rarefaction of air molecules. Music and indeed all sound only actually exists if there are ears to hear it.
> That fact probably would have been better placed in your 'subject or object' thread.
> 
> None of this has anything to do with whether or not one music has more (intellectual?) substance than another.


Well, that fact is certainly the foundation of the subject/object thread. But I don't know why it is any better there than anywhere else. And the comment of yours I was responding to placed the burden squarely on the ear, which also has nothing to do with whether or not one music has more substance than another.

My point--there, here, wherever--is that we have become accustomed to looking in the wrong places. And that so long as we continue to look in the wrong places, we will not find whatever it is we're looking for.

Substance, intellectual or otherwise, is what happens when engagement takes place. No engagement, no substance.

Locating substance (or greatness or any other value) in either the object or in the perceiver is what misses the point. That's not where value resides. Value resides in the activity, in the experience.


----------

