# Your Five Favorite 20th Century Composers?



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Hey, all. I'm new here so I hope this isn't a totally redundant thread but I searched around and didn't find one quite like it so here goes. 

What are your five favorite 20th Century Composers?

My own are:
1. Olivier Messiaen (shocking, I know)
2. Igor Stravinsky
3. Bela Bartok
4. Charles Ives
5. Alfred Schnittke

I was tempted to put Iannis Xenakis in there but I've just recently gotten into him so I don't know where I'm at with him yet other than very intrigued.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Shostakovich
Ravel
Szymanowski 
Rachmaninoff
Mahler? He's mainly XIXth century guy, but he wrote No. 10, which I love, in XXth. 

Some time ago I wouldn't even think that I could have problem with choosing JUST five.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Shostakovich
> Ravel
> Szymanowski
> Rachmaninoff
> Mahler? He's mainly XIXth century guy, but he wrote No. 10, which I love, in XXth.


 So, basically, you only like composers who lived somewhat in the 20th century but wrote music like they were still in the 19th?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> So, basically, you only like composers who lived somewhat in the 20th century but wrote music like they were still in the 19th?


This description does not match first three names on my list. Keep in mind that Ravel and Szymanowski were at their prime while people like Messiaen still sat in the sandbox.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Aramis said:


> This description does not match first three names on my list. Keep in mind that Ravel and Szymanowski were at their prime while people like Messiaen still sat in the sandbox.


 All the people on your list wrote music that was either: impressionistic (in the case of Revel) which was a movement that started in the 19th century, or the others who adopted a neo-classical or neo-romantic style, i.e. all music that was regressive upon earlier century's styles and not idiomatic of the 20th century at all.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> All the people on your list wrote music that was either: impressionistic (in the case of Revel) which was a movement that started in the 19th century, or the others who adopted a neo-classical or neo-romantic style, i.e. all music that was regressive upon earlier century's styles and not idiomatic of the 20th century at all.


Shostakovich was not neo-romantic and neo-classical only in some of his works. He contributed to many styles like modernism, expressionism etc. Ravel was impressionist indeed, but what then? Did impressionism end where it started, at XIXth century? Ravel took it further and developed his own vision without being regressive. The only composer on my list that actually was regressive was Rachmaninoff and yes, that's why I like him so much. Though I enjoy more innovative geezers, my top five list is like I've posted.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Though I enjoy more innovative geezers, my top five list is like I've posted.


Fair enough.


----------



## handlebar (Mar 19, 2009)

If you mean that the composer has to be completely 20th century then this is my list:

Bartok
Rachmaninov
Diamond
Shostakovitch
Ravel

But if the composer was in the very last part of the 19th:

Mahler would be first by a mile!

Jim


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

Tough.

1. Igor Stravinsky
2. Karlheinz Stockhausen
3. Anton Webern 
4. John Cage
5. Iannis Xenakis

Heh. Screw it. I'll stick with a top 5.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Shostakovich
Stravinsky
Schoenberg
Berg
Ravel


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2010)

Five?

Gimme five hundred and then maybe we'll talk!


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

prokofiev
debussy
ravel
lindberg
feldman


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

prokofiev
debussy
ravel
lindberg
feldman


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Stockhausen
Lachenmann
Xenakis
Messiaen
Henze


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Not counting Mahler:

Ravel
Debussy
Scriabin
Bartók
Shostakovich


----------



## andruini (Apr 14, 2009)

Stravinsky
Messiaen
Ligeti
Adams
Reich


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Debussy
Ravel
Bartok
de Falla
Dutilleux


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

*Richard Strauss
Debussy
Rachmaninoff
Puccini
Bartok
*

After that...?

Shostakovitch
Stravinsky
Prokofiev
Britten
Takemitsu...?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

-1 Strauss
-2 Puccini
-3 Prokofiev
-4 Ravel
-5 Bartok

Fave 'tier two' composer: Alfven.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Why five? Starting from a much longer list, I whittled it down to these five:

Ralph Vaughan-Williams
Igor Stravinsky
Gustav Holst
Sergey Prokofiev
Dmitri Shostakovich

But was left with a five more I couldn't bear to delete:

Bernard Hermann
Gyorgi Ligeti
Sergey Rachmaninov
Ottorino Respighi
Joaquín Rodrigo


----------



## motpasm23 (May 30, 2009)

Hmmm

Prokofiev
Ravel
Hindemith
Honegger
Glass


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

Richard Strauss (by a VERY wide margin)
Gustav Mahler
Igor Stravinsky
Claude Debussy
Sergei Prokofiev


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Berg
Boulez
Britten
Ligeti
Xenakis


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

I guess I should have said who are your five favorite 20th century composers that made music ONLY in the 20th century as there are a lot of late 19th century hold-overs in these lists.

Sheesh! No love for the 20th Century, huh? That's too bad. I'm new to these forums but I guess I didn't realize how conservative most classical music fans are. It's eye-opening and a little depressing but it is what it is.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> I guess I should have said who are your five favorite 20th century composers that made music ONLY in the 20th century as there are a lot of late 19th century hold-overs in these lists.
> 
> Sheesh! No love for the 20th Century, huh? That's too bad. I'm new to these forums but I guess I didn't realize how conservative most classical music fans are. It's eye-opening and a little depressing but it is what it is.


But you also have quite a number mentioning Messiaen, Xenakis, Varèse, Ligeti, etc. The glass is not half empty -- it's just twice as big as it needs to be.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

1... Prokofiev
2... Bartok
3... Varèse
4... Stravinsky
5... Villa-Lobos
6... Penderecki
7... Scriabin
8... Ives
9... Ligeti
10... Walton
11... Messaien
12... Roslavets
13... Tippett
14... Hindemith
15... Berg
16... Alwyn
17... Gubaidulina
18... Liebermann
19... Webern
20... Dean


----------



## Bartók (Dec 10, 2009)

1. Bartok (surprise!)
2. Messiaen
3. Ligeti
4. Penderecki
5. Xenakis


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Weston said:


> But you also have quite a number mentioning Messiaen, Xenakis, Varèse, Ligeti, etc. The glass is not half empty -- it's just twice as big as it needs to be.


 Well, the thing that is interesting is the composers that are chosen that are actually 20th century composers are all over the map, there's not any big consensus and I suppose that reflects the disparate nature of 20th century classical music as there was never a century with more varied and different music happening.

(I like that minimoog avatar, by the way. Wakeman fan, I assume?)


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Also interesting to note that people who don't pick Stravinsky so far (eleven) outnumber those who do (seven), I would have figured Stravinsky would make most people's lists here given that he was so high profile and changed the course of classical music with Le Sacre but maybe people don't dig most of his stuff like I would have imagined they would.

It would be interesting to see what 20th century composers still get played in the 22nd century, for instance (assuming classical music is still getting played in the 22nd century, that is  ). Stravinsky is one of the few that get played on a consistent basis nowadays with Le Sacre being a repertoire standard and I would be surprised if he didn't still get played 100 years from now.

It's a biased opinion, but I think Messiaen will still get played as I think since his death in 1992, his music is getting played more and more and music historians' estimation of him place him higher and higher up in the pantheon of 20th century composers.

But who knows.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

Today is the first time I've even heard of Messiaen.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Here they are in order of preference:

1. Scriabin
2. Feinberg
3. Roslavets
4. Berio
5. Ifukube


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Johnny said:


> Today is the first time I've even heard of Messiaen.


Then today is the first day you are truly ALIVE!!!!!


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

Now all I need to do is hear some of his music. Or is just knowing his name enough? Can it really get any better than that?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I guess I should have said who are your five favorite 20th century composers that made music ONLY in the 20th century as there are a lot of late 19th century hold-overs in these lists.

Sheesh! No love for the 20th Century, huh? That's too bad. I'm new to these forums but I guess I didn't realize how conservative most classical music fans are. It's eye-opening and a little depressing but it is what it is.

How exactly is it depressing that more classical music followers prefer Debussy or Ravel or Richard Strauss to Ligetti or Messiaen? It might just be that Debussy and Ravel and Richard Strauss are far greater composers.

Today is the first time I've even heard of Messiaen. 

Hahahahahahaha!

Actually a quite good composer... just not as good as Debussy or Richard Strauss.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

By the way... if I had suggested that my favorite 20th century composers were:

Osvaldo Golijov
Peteris Vasks
Phillip Glass
David Lang
Tristan Murail

would that have made you the conservative old fart stuck in the mid-20th century?


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

Only know some of them:

1.Sibelius ( 20th century ?)
2.Ravel
3.Rachmaninoff
4.Ravel
5.Gershwin


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Johnny said:


> Now all I need to do is hear some of his music. Or is just knowing his name enough? Can it really get any better than that?


Oh, it can, Johnny, my boy!

Some links


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> How exactly is it depressing that more classical music followers prefer Debussy or Ravel or Richard Strauss to Ligetti or Messiaen? It might just be that Debussy and Ravel and Richard Strauss are far greater composers.


 No, that's not it, it's just that here we are in 2010 and the majority of classical music fans (at least on here, it seems) would prefer music that sounded more like music from the 19th century than the 20th, i.e. more conservative, old-fashioned stuff.

One might say, well, what's wrong with liking the older stuff? On its face, nothing. But classical music becomes just a reiteration of dead music from past cultures rather than anything contemporary about our culture today. It's one of the reasons for the decline in orchestral attendance, classical music no longer seems relevant to younger generations who view it as Old Fart music. Without a new audience, classical music is just slowly withering away as its audience grows old and dies off.


----------



## Guest (Mar 26, 2010)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> I guess I should have said who are your five favorite 20th century composers that made music ONLY in the 20th century as there are a lot of late 19th century hold-overs in these lists.
> 
> Sheesh! No love for the 20th Century, huh? That's too bad. I'm new to these forums but I guess I didn't realize how conservative most classical music fans are. It's eye-opening and a little depressing but it is what it is.


It's a lot better now than it was a couple of years ago. A lot better.

I'm still waiting for you to give me my five _hundred,_ though. Why, I couldn't even narrow it down to five if you asked me for favorite women composers whom I know personally.

Natasha Barrett
Francoise Barriere
Michele Bokanowski
Anna Clyne
Beatriz Ferreyra
Christine Groult
Elsa Justel
Cristina Kasem
Grainne Mulvey
Diana Simpson

See what I mean? (I'm assuming that we're still in the twentieth century philosophically, as all of these people are alive, and most of them have written more music in the past ten years than in the twentieth century proper.)

There are other boards less conservative than Talk Classical, but there's at least one that's even more conservative. And, like I said, it's much better here than it was, better than even six months ago. Anyway, there's plenty of love for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, I'd say. But you do have to look in the right places.

[Edit: By the way, I'm pushing 60, and I listen largely to music written in the past ten or fifteen years. And I see plenty of people at new music concerts who are quite a lot older than I am. I mean other than the 60, 70, 80 year old composers in the audience. We may be dying off, as you put it, but we're not dead yet. In fact, if my 57 year old friend who just discovered that he could listen to Bartok with pleasure is any indication, we're getting better!]


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Probably...

Prokofiev
R.Strauss
Rachmaninov
Rubbra
Ginastera

just off the top of my head..
also Ravel, Faure, Elgar, but they seem too 19th cent..

Also Scriabin, he should be there somewhere...although he too is chronologically borderline...


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

some guy said:


> There are other boards less conservative than Talk Classical, but there's at least one that's even more conservative. And, like I said, it's much better here than it was, better than even six months ago. Anyway, there's plenty of love for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, I'd say. But you do have to look in the right places.
> 
> [Edit: By the way, I'm pushing 60, and I listen largely to music written in the past ten or fifteen years. And I see plenty of people at new music concerts who are quite a lot older than I am. I mean other than the 60, 70, 80 year old composers in the audience. We may be dying off, as you put it, but we're not dead yet. In fact, if my 57 year old friend who just discovered that he could listen to Bartok with pleasure is any indication, we're getting better!]


Thanks for the reply. By the way, what classical board would you recommend that are less conservative?

Why do you think it's less conservative here than it was even six months ago as you put it?

I applaud your musical inquisitiveness, I'm sure there are a wide demographic of people going to see newer orchestral works, it's just unfortunate that most orchestras (at least in America) feel the need to only play the same ancient standards over and over. As a composer myself, I wonder what would be the impetus for current composers to write for orchestra when there's very little chance that they can get their music heard or even performed? That is an element that doesn't bode well for the future of classical music.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

some guy said:


> It's a lot better now than it was a couple of years ago. A lot better.


I couldn't agree more.

The number of people who are interested in more recent composers like Messaien, Part, Glass, Gorecki, Penderecki, etc. seem to be growing exponentially (and not only in the classical music community). While a year ago listening to such composers was deemed "elitist" or "taboo" in many forums I frequent, now it is the "non-believers" that are interested and "converting" to the music of this time period because they believe that there is something to get out of the music of this time period. Dare I say it, it's an unbelievable movement - just look around on some of the major forums, and contemporary music seems to have (at least, perhaps more of) its share of the discussions.

While many do not, I hold an optimistic view for the future of classical music. There are many, many good composers out there who I have yet to seek. Even someguy, with his broad experience of contemporary music, can say this about himself. Stravinsky's popularity 100 years later is no different than Beethoven's popularity was 100 years later, and before that... well, it was a little different, I'll admit. Just the fact that Bartok, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Stravinsky are played so frequently is a good thing - at least we know that there is no such thing as being "stuck" in old music - instead, it builds.

Glass, Penderecki, and Ligeti forever doomed to films? I don't think so. There are many, many people out there who idolize these composers, us included, and as for the public... perceptions on contemporary classical music are changing. There are countless listeners who "get" into the genre through Glass, Cage (if not just from curiosity), Ligeti, Gorecki (just think about the popularity of his Third Symphony), etc. And heck, I even know a listener on another board who was introduced to the classical genre by composers like Luc Ferrari and his gang. This listener, one may also note, used to think that listening to Sibelius was in some way "uncool", but now he digs composers as far back as Beethoven. To paraphrase his words, he believes that the reason why he dug the more contemporary composers at first was because he did not understand the "signifiers" that a well-versed classical listener would pick up subliminally. (I'm not sure if I completely understand this, but the idea is pretty clear) In addition, his obsession with timbre immediately attracted him to the composers who explored in this area of music. Though this may not be true with everyone, it is nevertheless a great testimony and refutation to the idea that modern music can only be attractive to those who already have experience with other classical music.

_@MessaienIsGod_:

Your first question, I'm afraid, cannot be answered on this forum - but you could do a search on Google which should bring you to at least 2 of these major forums someguy is talking about.

As for your second question... well, it makes me chuckle to think of those fine days. For your amusement, I urge you to look through some posts from that time period (and you will most certainly understand)...


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

I agree that contemporary music is (and must) as good as their classic predesessor. The simple problem now is, one usually take time to build his pre-20th century music repertoire before go to more modern one. Like myself I still take time to listen most pre 20th because they are MANY, but I am sure in next year ahead I will be familiar with many 20th piece. Life is just not enough to listen to Mozart only. I am happy to see more composer like Messiaen. Also if you read magazine like Gramophone they have balance writing about modern and classical pieces, or maybe that because of they need to promote new piece to the audiens.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Air said:


> The number of people who are interested in more recent composers like Messaien, Part, Glass, Gorecki, Penderecki, etc. seem to be growing exponentially (and not only in the classical music community). While a year ago listening to such composers was deemed "elitist" or "taboo" in many forums I frequent, now it is the "non-believers" that are interested and "converting" to the music of this time period because they believe that there is something to get out of the music of this time period. Dare I say it, it's an unbelievable movement - just look around on some of the major forums, and contemporary music seems to have (at least, perhaps more of) its share of the discussions.


 Is there a reason why you think this has happened just over the last year or so? What has brought on this sudden attention or re-estimation of 20th century composers?


----------



## JAKE WYB (May 28, 2009)

post romanticism , late impressinism etc.. has every right to be part of purely 20th century music as modernism, serialism...etc..

1. SIBELIUS - his 19th century style early work like symphony, 1,2,3 Lemminkainen, 
Kullervo, En Saga, etc is one thing, but Luonnotar, Symphony 4, 5, 6, 7, The Oceanides, Tapiola etc are my faviourites and are very much 
20th century
2. Bartok
3. VW
4. BAX
5. Janacek
6. Scriabin

late 20th C..

7.Ligeti
8. Schnittke- Faust Cantata masterpiece of late 20th century


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> I guess I should have said who are your five favorite 20th century composers that made music ONLY in the 20th century as there are a lot of late 19th century hold-overs in these lists.


Yeah, well, if there would be a "your five favorite 19th century composers" thread and I would include the likes of Strauss and Puccini on my list people would argue that they don't qualify because they are mostly 20th century.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> I guess I should have said who are your five favorite 20th century composers that made music ONLY in the 20th century as there are a lot of late 19th century hold-overs in these lists.
> 
> Sheesh! No love for the 20th Century, huh? That's too bad. I'm new to these forums but I guess I didn't realize how conservative most classical music fans are. It's eye-opening and a little depressing but it is what it is.


Wouldn't "don't count 19th century works when making the choice" be a better rule? For example, though I think I overall like Sibelius actually more than Shostakovich, too much of my favourite works of him are written in the 19th century so I would choose Shostakovich instead.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> No, that's not it, it's just that here we are in 2010 and the majority of classical music fans (at least on here, it seems) would prefer music that sounded more like music from the 19th century than the 20th, i.e. more conservative, old-fashioned stuff.
> 
> One might say, well, what's wrong with liking the older stuff? On its face, nothing. But classical music becomes just a reiteration of dead music from past cultures rather than anything contemporary about our culture today. It's one of the reasons for the decline in orchestral attendance, classical music no longer seems relevant to younger generations who view it as Old Fart music. Without a new audience, classical music is just slowly withering away as its audience grows old and dies off.


Wrong. For a start, Messiaen is far from being "God" and is much of a relative nobody in the classical music world as a whole. Just because you like him shouldn't be the basis for casting aside all earlier music as "dead". It's mainly in the 18th and 19th Century and early part of the 20th C, where very clearly the primary interest of classical music fans resides. That period produced far greater composers than Messiaen will ever be. People like you who apparently prefer all this recent material are very much in a minority, a minority which sweeps to an asymptotic virtual zero by the time we reach 2000 et seq. I wouldn't normally comment in this way but I find your remarks condescending and way off track in terms of describing older stuff being "old fart music".


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> No, that's not it, it's just that here we are in 2010 and the majority of classical music fans (at least on here, it seems) would prefer music that sounded more like music from the 19th century than the 20th, i.e. more conservative, old-fashioned stuff.
> 
> One might say, well, what's wrong with liking the older stuff? On its face, nothing. But classical music becomes just a reiteration of dead music from past cultures rather than anything contemporary about our culture today. It's one of the reasons for the decline in orchestral attendance, classical music no longer seems relevant to younger generations who view it as Old Fart music. Without a new audience, classical music is just slowly withering away as its audience grows old and dies off.


While it's true that a lot of young people view classical music as "old fart" music and that it seems irrelevant to them, I think they are even less likely to care about contemporary art music, which resembles modern popular music even less than baroque-classical-romantic music does. It is very likely to seem too intellectual and academic to them.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Dim7 said:


> While it's true that a lot of young people view classical music as "old fart" music


Yeah, but they view the Stones or the Beatles also as old fart music. Come to think of it, they refer to any tune over six months old as "an oldie."


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> Yeah, but they view the Stones or the Beatles also as old fart music....."


That is fantastically true and hits the nail on the head. The more things change, the more they stay the same - and teen culture always has - and always will - find its way in its own time. Just because classical music (of any variety) isnt sweeping over the 15-24 crowd does not mean it is dead or dying. That is a classic example of confusing celebrity with stature/influence... something cultures do far too often in tv-pop age. The people that I know that are _serious_ about music - even relatively young people - enjoy music of all kinds once they start thinking about it and branching out.

Actually - sorry for going off topic (isnt this about 20th century composers?) but I couldnt resist commenting.


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

Andy Loochazee said:


> ...shouldn't be the basis for casting aside all earlier music as "dead".


Absolutely.


----------



## Guest (Mar 26, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> Yeah, well, if there would be a "your five favorite 19th century composers" thread and I would include the likes of Strauss and Puccini on my list people would argue that they don't qualify because they are mostly 20th century.


Well, "people" do all sorts of things. So what?

I guess you could always give this a try and see what actually happens, eh?

Andy, I think you'll find that MessiaenIsGod did not call anything "old fart music." (Among many composers working today, Messiaen is very highly regarded. Of course, so is Cage for that matter, which won't keep anyone on these boards from their favorite pastime!)

MIG, I go to very few orchestra concerts. Even in Europe, that's not the best place to hear new music. The last trip I took (from August to November last year), I did go to a lot of concerts of recently written orchestral music. Most of that, unfortunately, sounded like it could have been written in the 70s. Or even earlier. (Check out some Saygun, who's relatively easy to find. Some of that sounds straight out of the teens or twenties.) Of course, a lot of orchestral music written in the 80s sounded like stuff written in the 70s, with good cause. But this is 2010, forties years on.

Anyway, most of the people I listen to nowadays are not writing for orchestra (though one of the composers on the list I gave still does, and she's one of my favorites). And another of my favorites, Helmut Lachenmann, writes extensively for orchestra. eRikm and Goeringer, though? Not at all. Which is only to say that if you confine yourself to orchestral music, you will miss a lot of what many people are doing now.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> Yeah, but they view the Stones or the Beatles also as old fart music. Come to think of it, they refer to any tune over six months old as "an oldie."


I think the preferred nomenclature is 'old skool', as in 'that's a bangin' old skool tune from the late 90's', 70's and 80's songs are 'retro' classics, the Beatles and Stones are 'dinosaur rock' and anything before Elvis is pre-historic.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

You know, it's interesting. In popular music it's widely understood that the most popular artists aren't nearly the _best_ all the time or even often; that the artists on the top 40 charts sell the most albums because they satisfy the lowest common denominator and appeal to the broadest spectrum of society. If you're looking for popular musicians with greater artistic merit, you don't necessarily turn on the radio or watch MTV.

In classical music, 20th century composers who don't appeal (as well as being unknown) to a wide audience are considered lesser or fringe composers. They aren't established in the standard repertoire, so there's no way a composers born past the year 1900 and don't have their works displayed by major orchestras around the world year after year after year are as talented as those composers of centuries past. Fascinating. I guess Bach wasn't any good either because he wasn't known to the listening public at large until a century after his death.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

I must say though, that much of Messiaen's music is not to be dismissed lightly. I gain zero spiritual nourishment from it, but as a soundworld it can often be truly extraordinary.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

MessiaenisGod- It's one of the reasons for the decline in orchestral attendance, classical music no longer seems relevant to younger generations who view it as Old Fart music. Without a new audience, classical music is just slowly withering away as its audience grows old and dies off.

I see this claim made all the time... but I wonder if the facts actually support it. How many major orchestras are there in the world now in comparison to 50 or 100 years ago? How many people are aware of composers such as Phillip Glass, Arvo Pärt, Penderecki, George Crumb or John Cage vs how many actually ever heard anything by Bach or Mozart or even Beethoven during their own lifespans? By the way... how is Messiaen not one of the old farts as well? He died almost 20 years ago and his composition had tapered off by the 1970s.

Some guy- I go to very few orchestra concerts. Even in Europe, that's not the best place to hear new music.

Translation: The orchestras don't play the new music which I like.

Poppin' Fresh- In classical music, 20th century composers who don't appeal (as well as being unknown) to a wide audience are considered lesser or fringe composers. They aren't established in the standard repertoire, so there's no way a composers born past the year 1900 and don't have their works displayed by major orchestras around the world year after year after year are as talented as those composers of centuries past. Fascinating. I guess Bach wasn't any good either because he wasn't known to the listening public at large until a century after his death. 

Isn't this argument rooted an an extreme assumption? Composer X is unpopular thus... he must be an unrecognized genius. My studio mate justifies his own lack of success as a painter through this assumption: "my work is largely ignored because it is too cutting edge and advanced for the simple-minded public to recognize it for what it is." The possibility that it really isn't that good is quite circumvented that way. For every example of the composer like Bach whose work was unrecognized or under-appreciated in spite of its genius how many composers produced work that faded into obscurity for the simple reason that it really wasn't that good?


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Andy Loochazee said:


> Wrong. For a start, Messiaen is far from being "God" and is much of a relative nobody in the classical music world as a whole. Just because you like him shouldn't be the basis for casting aside all earlier music as "dead". It's mainly in the 18th and 19th Century and early part of the 20th C, where very clearly the primary interest of classical music fans resides. That period produced far greater composers than Messiaen will ever be. People like you who apparently prefer all this recent material are very much in a minority, a minority which sweeps to an asymptotic virtual zero by the time we reach 2000 et seq. I wouldn't normally comment in this way but I find your remarks condescending and way off track in terms of describing older stuff being "old fart music".


Well, you totally misinterpreted what I said. I listen to plenty of "old fart music" myself, with Mozart, Bach, and renaissance music being among my favorites. I was speaking instead of what the common public thinks of classical music concerts, and I think this perception is unfortunate.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

So are you then assuming that because some of us elected Strauss or Mahler or Debussy as being greater composers than Glass or Ligeti or Bartok that this proves that they are uninformed or dismissive of Modern and Contemporary music? personally I listen to a lot of living composers... but I don't imagine any of them surpasses Bach or Mozart. I probably know and even admire as many Modern and Contemporary artists as Some Guy knows and admires Modern/Contemporary composers... but I don't imagine any of them surpasses Matisse or Picasso... to say nothing of Rembrandt or Michelangelo.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So are you then assuming that because some of us elected Strauss or Mahler or Debussy as being greater composers than Glass or Ligeti or Bartok that this proves that they are uninformed or dismissive of Modern and Contemporary music?


 No, I'm not assuming that, especially when the question is what are people's FAVORITE, not "greatest", 20th century composers. If the question was that I would have a completely different list myself as these are two totally different questions.

I just don't think of guys like Mahler or Debussy as 20th century composers, they are 19th century composers that certainly lived the later part of their lives in the 20th century and composed in them but still did so in a style and aesthetic that was consistent with their 19th century compositions.

"proves they are uninformed or dismissive"? No, doesn't prove anything. This is all just subjective opinion but it is interesting to me how conservative some of the tastes on here are. That's all. To each their own.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> By the way... how is Messiaen not one of the old farts as well? He died almost 20 years ago and his composition had tapered off by the 1970s.


 Well, once again I was never calling anyone an old fart, I was just talking about people's common perception of classical music, the "old farts" being the only one's who are listening, so to speak. I'm 40, so maybe I qualify as one of these old farts listening to this music! There's very few people that I know my age or younger that listen to classical music (I live in America) and that's one of the problems for orchestras and their attendance across the country.

Just to correct something you said about Messiaen, his composing didn't taper off at all even at his death at age 84. From the 1970s on he wrote some of his most major pieces, Des Canyons aux etoiles, two major organ cycles in Meditations sur le mystere de la Sainte Trinite and Livre du Saint Sacrement, the mammoth 4 and half hour opera, Saint Francois d'Assise, and his final symphony Eclairs sur l'au-dela. And these are just the major pieces that he wrote from the 1970's on.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> Oh, it can, Johnny, my boy!
> 
> Some links


Thanks for these, but I didn't like any of them.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

His composing didn't taper off even at his death!?


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Andy Loochazee said:


> Wrong. For a start, Messiaen is far from being "God" and is much of a relative nobody in the classical music world as a whole.


 If I could ever be the "relative nobody" that Messiaen was, a composer who has had his works performed and recorded on hundreds of CD's, a composer who's 100th birthday was celebrated in England by having every composition of his performed in England during that year (2008), a composer who sees his works performed more and more frequently all over the world a mere 18 years after his death, a teacher of music composition and analysis who taught many of the vanguard of the later 20th century including Boulez, Xennakis, and Stockhausen, a nobody who held the chair as organist of the Sainte Trinite church for over 60 years.....

Well, if I could be a nobody like that, I'd be a happy man! I won't ever achieve that much in my life, of this I'm certain, but I can look to a life and a career like Messiaen's and gain inspiration from it for music or whatever I do in life.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Johnny said:


> Thanks for these, but I didn't like any of them.


Oh well, thanks for checking them out. Now get on that Stravinsky!


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

Listening to "Le Sacre - Bernstein 1958" right now actually.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Johnny said:


> His composing didn't taper off even at his death!?


 It did, quite dramatically! I guess I should have said "his composing didn't taper off until his death", sorry! Although his last symphony, Eclairs sur l'au-dela, premiered several months after his death.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Johnny said:


> Listening to "Le Sacre - Bernstein 1958" right now actually.


 Coolness. There are some great youtube vids of Bernstein rehearsing Le Sacre with a German youth orchestra. First part is here:






Look at the right under "More from gab1279" for the other parts.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Isn't this argument rooted an an extreme assumption? Composer X is unpopular thus... he must be an unrecognized genius. My studio mate justifies his own lack of success as a painter through this assumption: "my work is largely ignored because it is too cutting edge and advanced for the simple-minded public to recognize it for what it is." The possibility that it really isn't that good is quite circumvented that way. For every example of the composer like Bach whose work was unrecognized or under-appreciated in spite of its genius how many composers produced work that faded into obscurity for the simple reason that it really wasn't that good?


I wasn't really making an argument, just an observation. The more discerning listeners of popular music understand that assuming an artist isn't as good because they aren't as well known as the best selling acts is ridiculous. There's no rhyme or reason many times to why one band gains massive exposure and another doesn't, and the actual quality of the music is often rather unimportant in the big picture. An artist has to have the right image, have a certain accessibility, have the right sound for the current trend, etc. Frankly a lot of it is pure luck. And many of the most innovative and riveting popular musicians of the past 40 years are likely to never be heard or noticed by the general public. Ever.

In classical music fans seem to need for a composer to be established by major concert halls, heard on the radio, and placed on top 50 lists by fellas like Phil Goulding before they can even be _considered_ among the upper echelon of composers. And it's a lot more complicated and a maybe bit naive to think that the best current composers will rise to the top and gain the exposure necessary to enter the standard repertoire. At least anytime soon. But even so, out of the thousands of composers that made music in the 20th century, time has already whittled them down to an extent as there are certain names that keep popping up and are widely recognized as the most influential and important. At his death Messiaen was definitely considered France's most illustrious composer, and along with Lutoslawski probably one of the most famous. In the future maybe these names will be whittled down even more. That's a luxury we have when considering composers of centuries past, the lesser ones have pretty much faded into obscurity as you noted. However with more recent and current composers we don't have the aid of that same kind of historical perspective. I just don't think that should stop classical music fans from listening to more current composers who don't garner as wide an audience, or *gasp* ruling out the possibility that they might be as amazing as some of the giants of the past. That they aren't well known doesn't mean they aren't absolutely outstanding, but it's something we as listeners have to decide for ourselves instead of having the classical music history books tell us.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> Coolness. There are some great youtube vids of Bernstein rehearsing Le Sacre with a German youth orchestra. First part is here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, but I saw that recently.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Poppin' Fresh said:


> I wasn't really making an argument, just an observation. The more discerning listeners of popular music understand that assuming an artist isn't as good because they aren't as well known as the best selling acts is ridiculous. There's no rhyme or reason many times to why one band gains massive exposure and another doesn't, and the actual quality of the music is often rather unimportant in the big picture. An artist has to have the right image, have a certain accessibility, have the right sound for the current trend, etc. Frankly a lot of it is pure luck. And many of the most innovative and riveting popular musicians of the past 40 years are likely to never be heard or noticed by the general public. Ever.
> 
> In classical music fans seem to need for a composer to be established by major concert halls, heard on the radio, and placed on top 50 lists by fellas like Phil Goulding before they can even be _considered_ among the upper echelon of composers. And it's a lot more complicated and a maybe bit naive to think that the best current composers will rise to the top and gain the exposure necessary to enter the standard repertoire. At least anytime soon. But even so, out of the thousands of composers that made music in the 20th century, time has already whittled them down to an extent as there are certain names that keep popping up and are widely recognized as the most influential and important. At his death Messiaen was definitely considered France's most illustrious composer, and along with Lutoslawski probably one of the most famous. In the future maybe these names will be whittled down even more. That's a luxury we have when considering composers of centuries past, the lesser ones have pretty much faded into obscurity as you noted. However with more recent and current composers we don't have the aid of that same kind of historical perspective. I just don't think that should stop classical music fans from listening to more current composers who don't garner as wide an audience, or *gasp* ruling out the possibility that they might be as amazing as some of the giants of the past. That they aren't well known doesn't mean they aren't absolutely outstanding, but it's something we as listeners have to decide for ourselves instead of having the classical music history books tell us.


 Excellent post. There does seem to be this sort of snobby elitism (at least I'm seeing it in several of the posters on this forum!) that older equals "better" or more popular equals better which is laughable and a little bit sad. Both of those viewpoints stem from a kind of conformity: "if a lot of other people think this way then I must be right for thinking it too." An all too human failing.

Fortunately we have people who don't think this way, and all art and science are because of them.

The point I made far earlier on this thread (a point which has been misinterpreted and if the fault is mine for not being more articulate I apologize) is that in order for any art-from to still be a growing and existing art-form, it needs new works and new creativity. If classical music sees a continued shuttling away of newer music (and I guess in relative terms that would mean anything in the last 100 years or so) over older music then it becomes a dead art-from, something of which nothing new or creative is being expressed, a museum piece. 
An inert or dead art-form like that, that only exists in the past, has a very marginalized future.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

No, I'm not assuming that, especially when the question is what are people's FAVORITE, not "greatest", 20th century composers. If the question was that I would have a completely different list myself as these are two totally different questions.

OK "favorite" not "greatest"... I still stick with my choices.

I just don't think of guys like Mahler or Debussy as 20th century composers, they are 19th century composers that certainly lived the later part of their lives in the 20th century and composed in them but still did so in a style and aesthetic that was consistent with their 19th century compositions.

How is Debussy a 19th century composer? His first mature works date from the 1890s, while middle and late period works date from the 20th century. Nearly all of Strauss' operas date from the 20th century as well as his _Four Last Songs_, the _Alpine Symphony_, the _Metamorphoses_, and numerous other works. Puccini's _Tosca, Madame Butterfly, La rondine, Il trittico, Suor Angelica,_ and _Turandot_ all date from the 20th century. If you were to ask for a list of my favorite 20th century writers a vast majority would come from the earliest years of the century as well (Kafka, Rilke, Yeats, Eliot, Proust...) and the same would hold true of my favorite 20th century artists (Picasso, Matisse, Beckmann, Klee, Bonnard, Modigliani...).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I wasn't really making an argument, just an observation. The more discerning listeners of popular music understand that assuming an artist isn't as good because they aren't as well known as the best selling acts is ridiculous. There's no rhyme or reason many times to why one band gains massive exposure and another doesn't, and the actual quality of the music is often rather unimportant in the big picture.

I quite agree. Where we may disagree is upon who qualifies as one of these "more discerning listeners" and which composers are the strongest voices of our time.

In classical music fans seem to need for a composer to be established by major concert halls, heard on the radio, and placed on top 50 lists by fellas like Phil Goulding before they can even be considered among the upper echelon of composers. 

Considering that Phil Goulding's book on music was really intended as an introduction to the history of classical music I doubt that his opinions had the least influence in the consideration of contemporary music. Certainly the critics, periodicals, orchestras, and record companies all have an impact, but one might argue that this can be positive as well as negative. I have no problem finding recordings o music by a great many later Modern and Contemporary composers.

And it's a lot more complicated and a maybe bit naive to think that the best current composers will rise to the top and gain the exposure necessary to enter the standard repertoire. At least anytime soon. 

And thus, by the same logic, it may be too soon to be offering up a judgment suggesting that composer X (whom I like) is clearly one of the best contemporary composers, while composer Y (whom I dislike... or merely like a lot less) is clearly a lesser composer.

But even so, out of the thousands of composers that made music in the 20th century, time has already whittled them down to an extent as there are certain names that keep popping up and are widely recognized as the most influential and important. 

Yes... and I would have no problem with admitting that Messiaen, Stravinsky, Penderecki, Bartok, etc... rank among the major figures of 20th century music. But so too do Richard Strauss, Debussy, Puccini, and Rachmaninoff. I will even acknowledge that Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern are major figures within the history of art... but I'll add to this that the jury still seems to be out as to just how well their music will survive. I'm not saying that I doubt the merits of the music... but when one considers that ultimately it is the opinion of the audience over an extended period of time that matters most, Schoenberg etc... are far from being accepted to a degree equivalent to the acceptance of Stravinsky or Strauss or Debussy.

At his death Messiaen was definitely considered France's most illustrious composer, and along with Lutoslawski probably one of the most famous.

Again... I quite agree. I have a number of works by Messiaen that I quite enjoy... along with the music of Dutilleux. I can quite enjoy this music and yet still enjoy Richard Strauss, Rachmaninoff, and Stravinsky (to say nothing of Bach) even more.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Excellent post. There does seem to be this sort of snobby elitism (at least I'm seeing it in several of the posters on this forum!) that older equals "better" or more popular equals better which is laughable and a little bit sad.

All too often "elitism" is used merely as a term to denigrate the standards of another... if they don't concur with our own. If I were asked to name the 5 greatest artists in history, Picasso would clearly rank among these. If I were asked to name my 10 favorite artists, there would certainly be at least two 20th century painters. There are books and paintings and works of music from the last century which I have little doubt stand among the greatest works of art of all time. Seriously, I've probably bought more works of music from composers of the 20th and 21st century over the last couple of years than from any other era. In spite of this I would be hard pressed to argue that there has been any composer (of whom I am aware) to rival Wagner over the last 100 years... let alone Bach or Mozart. I love Proust, Kafka, and J.L. Borges but I don't think they rival Shakespeare, Dante, or Tolstoy. In the visual arts, however, I do think that Picasso clearly stands along side of Rembrandt, Rubens, and Michelangelo as one of the absolute Titans.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I will even acknowledge that Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern are major figures within the history of art... but I'll add to this that the jury still seems to be out as to just how well their music will survive. I'm not saying that I doubt the merits of the music... but when one considers that ultimately it is the opinion of the audience over an extended period of time that matters most, Schoenberg etc... are far from being accepted to a degree equivalent to the acceptance of Stravinsky or Strauss or Debussy.


 This is true and I would posit that the serialists you named won't be accepted to the same degree as others in the 20th century because serialism is kind of a dead end. It was an interesting experiment, an inevitable one you might say given the increasing chromaticism in classical music throughout the centuries, but a bit of a musical dead end. It hand-cuffed the music when it was ironically supposed to liberate it.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> In spite of this I would be hard pressed to argue that there has been any composer (of whom I am aware) to rival Wagner over the last 100 years... let alone Bach or Mozart. I love Proust, Kafka, and J.L. Borges but I don't think they rival Shakespeare, Dante, or Tolstoy. In the visual arts, however, I do think that Picasso clearly stands along side of Rembrandt, Rubens, and Michelangelo as one of the absolute Titans.


 Well, and this is all just subjectivity anyway. Who is "the greatest". I think such terminology is silly considering we are talking about a non-quantifiable subject like the arts.

Also, comparing composers from different time periods is comparing apples to oranges. If Mozart or Bach was born in 1908 and grew up hearing The Rite of Spring and all the harmonic and rhythmic changes that had happened in classical music, you can bet dollars to doughnuts they wouldn't have composed the same kind of music that they did centuries earlier when aesthetics for music (and most importantly, RULES for acceptable music) where markedly different.

I would even wager that the music of this time-displaced contemporary Mozart and Bach would not be nearly as popular as the music they wrote from long ago. Would that mean that they are less of a genius or less talented? Of course not. But they would be writing music in the vernacular of the present time which is much more sophisticated and complex then the music that they wrote long ago, a vernacular in tonal music that went unchanged for centuries and western ears were much more used to.

Reminds me of the story when Ravi Shankar, the famous Indian musician, first came over to America and was brought to a classical concert with some old standards like Mozart and Bach. They asked him what he thought of it and he said "I liked the short bit at the beginning the best" and of course he meant when all the musicians were just randomly playing through bits and pieces as they were filing in rather than the actual compositions itself! Ha! To him that sounded much more like the music he was used to, Indian karnatik music.

So a lot of what we hear and accept as music is what are brains are used to hearing over and over again, and the previous centuries of simple tonal harmony and rhythms are much easier for the western ear and brain to deal with than with the "anything goes" vernacular of the twentieth century. My point is, comparing composers from these eras is really apples to oranges as they were writing under completely different musical vernaculars.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Some guy- I go to very few orchestra concerts. Even in Europe, that's not the best place to hear new music.
> 
> Translation: The orchestras don't play the new music which I like.


Thanks for following me around on all the forums, "translating" everything I say for all the poor people who, like yourself, cannot read.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I probably know and even admire as many Modern and Contemporary artists as Some Guy knows and admires Modern/Contemporary composers...


Be interesting to test this.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

T like those "Liturgies de la Présence Divine" and "Turangalilia symphony" youtubes. I have the "Turangalilia" (and the "Quatuor Pour le Fin du Temps") on cd already, but I had never heard "Liturgies de la Présence Divine" before.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> T like those "Liturgies de la Présence Divine" and "Turangalilia symphony" youtubes. I have the "Turangalilia" (and the "Quatuor Pour le Fin du Temps") on cd already, but I had never heard "Liturgies de la Présence Divine" before.


Glad you liked them. Liturgies is a really lovely piece, one of the first CD's of Messiaen I ever got. The simplicity of the orchestration, female choir mostly singing in unison, string orchestra and percussion, and the ethereal ondes martenot adding to the melody lines; makes for a really accessible and straightforward composition from him. Messiaen's serene and majestic aesthetic is well represented in this piece. It's worth picking up!


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> ... There does seem to be this sort of snobby elitism (at least I'm seeing it in several of the posters on this forum!) that older equals "better" or more popular equals better which is laughable and a little bit sad. Both of those viewpoints stem from a kind of conformity: "if a lot of other people think this way then I must be right for thinking it too." An all too human failing.
> 
> Fortunately we have people who don't think this way, and all art and science are because of them.
> 
> ...


It seems strange to ascribe "snobby elitism" to people who generally prefer music from the 18th, 19th Centuries and early 20th Centuries to the kind of music written by the likes of Messiaen and later composers. I would have thought that this description more aptly describes people who regard with disdain those who have less modern tastes than yours, whom you see as risking being viewed as backward-looking old farts.

It is also odd to argue that modern/contemporary classical music is of potential interest to anyone (anyone broadly interested in classical music, that is) provided they are sufficiently open-minded and not stubbornly wedded to the music of the past. It seems clear to me that classical music is not a unitary whole, but rather a series of separate sub-markets in which a person's liking for one or possibly only a few of them should not imply any lack of sophistication if they do not happen to like (or like as much) what's on offer from any of the others, including more modern styles.

Fascinating too is the fact that criticism of the type you make always comes from supporters of modern/contemporary classical music, and seldom if ever from people who like 18th and 19th Century music against those who have a preference for Renaissance or 17th Century baroque. It makes me wonder whether some of these modern/contemporary classical music fans ever really became all that interested in music from previous periods. I suspect they may not, despite the lip service they may pay towards it.

I admit this last point is pure conjecture, and I guess it would be difficult to find out the truth, but I have never seen any of the ardent proponents of contemporary music classical material ever talk passionately about their interest in any 18th or 19th Century masters. Whether it's T-C or another forum, they are always plugging away on the same themes, most often against outright hostility or at best lukewarm support from a minority. Wouldn't it be funny if, in fact, it turned out that these ardent contemporary music fans are as biased against music from former eras as they claim is the case in reverse vis-à-vis contemporary music?


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Andy Loochazee said:


> It seems strange to ascribe "snobby elitism" to people who generally prefer music from the 18th, 19th Centuries and early 20th Centuries to the kind of music written by the likes of Messiaen and later composers. I would have thought that this description more aptly describes people who regard with disdain those who have less modern tastes than yours, whom you see as risking being viewed as backward-looking old farts.
> 
> It is also odd to argue that modern/contemporary classical music is of potential interest to anyone (anyone broadly interested in classical music, that is) provided they are sufficiently open-minded and not stubbornly wedded to the music of the past. It seems clear to me that classical music is not a unitary whole, but rather a series of separate sub-markets in which a person's liking for one or possibly only a few of them should not imply any lack of sophistication if they do not happen to like (or like as much) what's on offer from any of the others, including more modern styles.
> 
> ...


 I will say that your ability to misquote and misinterpret is stunning. That being said, I'm not sure why you seem so threatened by anyone that might like 20th century classical music or even prefer it over earlier music. What does it matter? Different strokes for different folks, no?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*I come to praise "some"*

I don't want to make this too personal- but hopefully this will be deemed as falling into the "unmistakably positive" category concerning a member's person.


Andy Loochazee said:


> I admit this last point is pure conjecture, and I guess it would be difficult to find out the truth, but I have never seen any of the ardent proponents of contemporary music classical material ever talk passionately about their interest in any 18th or 19th Century masters.


I'm not the most careful reader of the bulk of the message boards, but I like to think I do better than most. I think there have been multiple times where there has been one passage or other from the 19th Century presented in the "Identifying Music" sub-forum (or its equivalents in other forums) and *some guy* was the first on the scene with the correct answer. My memory is that this is especially true with passages from Berlioz.

If (improbably) I was a contestant on "Millionaire" and the question hinged around identifying a passage from Berlioz, I think *some* would be a potentially efficacious "lifeline!" I don't think he acquired that knowledge by being anything other than a fan of the compositions...


Andy Loochazee said:


> Whether it's T-C or another forum, they are always plugging away on the same themes, most often against outright hostility or at best lukewarm support from a minority.


As a Wagnerian, I have some experience at defending music against outright hostility- let me tell you...

Interesting sociological question- why are there more Wagner Societies than Beethoven Societies? Big essay question- I know- you could probably write a book on it. _I'm_ not gonna say Wagner is better than Beethoven- I don't believe that, myself. I can let you in on one of the little window-views of the dynamic...

(If I can speak for Wagnerians as a whole) we Wagnerians believe that Wagner is subjected to more _unreasoning_ criticism than any other composer. The unreasoning criticism unites us, in a way- steels our resolve... energizes us in our desire to dispell the mistruths and the myths. I suspect something like this goes on when viewed from the perspective of Contemporary Music advocacy. They believe that the music they enjoy is subjected to a torrent of _unreasoning_ criticism. [Whether they are correct in every instance of their perception of unreasoning criticism is not an issue worth taking up here. Wagner, too, can be criticized on some legitimate grounds, in certain areas.]

But the energy that they bring to the discourse is something that I understand... empathize with, even... and bless 'em for it-


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> I will say that your ability to misquote and misinterpret is stunning. That being said, I'm not sure why you seem so threatened by anyone that might like 20th century classical music or even prefer it over earlier music. What does it matter? Different strokes for different folks, no?


As you beat a hasty retreat with the typical "_that's not what I meant" _...

I think I summarised your position reasonably well. I was just letting you know that some people are willing and capable of replying to the type of innuendo contained in your posts that we're all old farts unless we make the effort to appreciate more modern strands of classical music. That proposition doesn't follow, however much you try to pretend that it wasn't what you said or meant. To me it is very clear that you were saying that or something very similar, and your posts are there for anyone to see.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I don't want to make this too personal- but hopefully this will be deemed as falling into the "unmistakably positive" category concerning a member's person.I'm not the most careful reader of the bulk of the message boards, but I like to think I do better than most. I think there have been multiple times where there has been one passage or other from the 19th Century presented in the "Identifying Music" sub-forum (or its equivalents in other forums) and *some guy* was the first on the scene with the correct answer. My memory is that this is especially true with passages from Berlioz.


"Some guy" is perfectly used to people coming back at him on issues relating to his interest in, and persistent advocacy of, contemporary music. The kind of comment I have made is extremely low key compared with many I have seen on other Boards.

My comment was not, in any event, restricted to "some guy". It was meant as a general comment about people who rave about modern music, especially the latest styles. There aren't that many of these people, I admit, but I have noticed that they tend to be typified by the traits I identified: (i) they don't appear to have much interest in older periods of music, or if they one were once interested that has largely subsided in favour of newer music; and (ii) they usually adopt a far more proselytising approach than others who are interested mainly in earlier periods, sometimes making condescending remarks implying that people who don't like what they are interested in are somehow deficient.

In reply to all this, I was simply noting that classical music is made up of several loosely connected markets, and there is no reason to believe that a person's lack of interest in the latest style(s) is in any way peculiar or indicative of being an old fart, and nor does it necessarily threaten the future existence of classical music, as suggested by some in this thread.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Thanks for following me around on all the forums, "translating" everything I say for all the poor people who, like yourself, cannot read.

And this is from the guy who is quick to cry about rudeness in others.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Reminds me of the story when Ravi Shankar, the famous Indian musician, first came over to America and was brought to a classical concert with some old standards like Mozart and Bach. They asked him what he thought of it and he said "I liked the short bit at the beginning the best" and of course he meant when all the musicians were just randomly playing through bits and pieces as they were filing in rather than the actual compositions itself! Ha! To him that sounded much more like the music he was used to, Indian karnatik music.

I've heard an equally spurious anecdote about Shankar in which the audience began clapping after he and his fellow musicians had spent some minutes tuning up their instruments. I somewhat doubt Shankar's total unfamiliarity with Bach considering especially his relationship with Yehudi Menuhin.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

So a lot of what we hear and accept as music is what are brains are used to hearing over and over again, and the previous centuries of simple tonal harmony and rhythms are much easier for the western ear and brain to deal with than with the "anything goes" vernacular of the twentieth century. My point is, comparing composers from these eras is really apples to oranges as they were writing under completely different musical vernaculars.

I agree with this in part... in the sense that the art which most survives and is most revered is that which has been best absorbed into the culture of art lovers. The difficulty of modern or contemporary art is always that it has not been so absorbed... it often employs a language or vocabulary that is quite unfamiliar. It is for this reason that it is far more difficult to be certain of the merits of this or that work of modern/contemporary art. We can only embrace that which we admire... that which gives us pleasure. This is where I have difficulty with the presumption of some that they represent the most discerning audience and others who have a different taste in contemporary music are but close-minded.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I probably know and even admire as many Modern and Contemporary artists as Some Guy knows and admires Modern/Contemporary composers...

Be interesting to test this.

But it would probably take forever and certainly bore those with little interest in hat is happening in the visual arts from the last half century to the last half week.


----------



## TWhite (Feb 23, 2010)

Being somewhat still new here, I just came onto this thread. 

Though my musical tastes generally lie in the Late and Post-Romantic era, I do like a number of 'contemporary' composers, and bringing it down to five is a little tricky for me. 

So I'll do the best I can: 
Berg
Shostakovich
Barber
Copland
Stravinsky

This of course, doesn't count the many late 19th-early to mid 20th Century Post-Romanticists who make up a great portion of my listening and performing pleasure.

Tom


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It is also odd to argue that modern/contemporary classical music is of potential interest to anyone (anyone broadly interested in classical music, that is) provided they are sufficiently open-minded and not stubbornly wedded to the music of the past. It seems clear to me that classical music is not a unitary whole, but rather a series of separate sub-markets in which a person's liking for one or possibly only a few of them should not imply any lack of sophistication if they do not happen to like (or like as much) what's on offer from any of the others, including more modern styles. 

Exactly! It would seem to me that there is no single monolithic "music world" or even a single homogeneous contemporary music world. Rather, there is an endless array of individual artists with different intentions and different approaches, and while I may say _Vive Le Difference!_ I must also admit that I like some of this music more than others... and some I just don't like at all. I agree that the continual assertions that those who don't particularly appreciate a certain composer or a certain musical style or form are inherently lacking in sophistication or close-minded is pretentious in the extreme. I also agree that it is something I have rarely heard espoused by supporters of other musical eras. I am quite enamored of medieval music, but I can't recall ever reading another medievalist dismissing those who have never given Perotin or Leonin or Hildegard of Bingen or the whole of plainchant much effort as close-minded or lacking in sophistication... nor have I ever heard the Baroque specialists bemoaning the fact that so few people ever get around to exploring the music of the Baroque beyond Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi (and possibly Telemann).


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I quite agree. Where we may disagree is upon who qualifies as one of these "more discerning listeners" and which composers are the strongest voices of our time.


True. I think it's a healthy debate to have, and one that will probably never completely end. There are still debates about composers of the past and which were the strongest voices of their time.

I guess what I was getting at though was that the really passionate listeners of popular music have no problems digging beyond the mainstream outlets, regularly seeking out unfamiliar and forgotten artists, declaring their favorites as masters of their craft, and sticking to their convictions even without the support of a wide audience or radio play or record sales backing them up. Not to mention without a concern of whether the music of their favorite artists lives on amongst the larger popular music listening public, because in all honesty a lot of it won't.



> Considering that Phil Goulding's book on music was really intended as an introduction to the history of classical music I doubt that his opinions had the least influence in the consideration of contemporary music.


Heh, I know, it was a bit of a cheap shot at ol' Phil. I actually have nothing against him or his book. But while his opinions may not have any widespread impact, I think it points to a kind of underlying tendency. The emphasis is clearly placed on composers who have been established as significant and well-known for long periods of time. More contemporary composers are generally kind of...roped off because there is no clear consensus among classical music fans and critics. This kind of historical reverence certainly has it's place, but I also think it can be taken too far. Ideally listeners should be able to consider modern composers right alongside giants of the past without worrying about their relative popularity amongst a wide audience, or their significance in the present and/or future. Experience the music and let history sort out the other stuff.



> Certainly the critics, periodicals, orchestras, and record companies all have an impact, but one might argue that this can be positive as well as negative. I have no problem finding recordings o music by a great many later Modern and Contemporary composers.


Sure. But you'll agree they don't receive the same exposure as composers established in the past. That lack of the same amount of exposure and conditioning (I don't mean this in a negative way) shouldn't be a deal breaker in considering their music as great. That's all I'm saying.



> And thus, by the same logic, it may be too soon to be offering up a judgment suggesting that composer X (whom I like) is clearly one of the best contemporary composers, while composer Y (whom I dislike... or merely like a lot less) is clearly a lesser composer.


I don't think it's ever too soon. People should listen to modern compositions and decide what are the best without having to be assured they are listening to the best or most historically relevant. That's how history is made, and that's how composers Beethoven and Mozart were established in the standard repertoire. Listeners considering their music on it's own merits and deciding they are greater composers than X, Y, and Z over there.



> Yes... and I would have no problem with admitting that Messiaen, Stravinsky, Penderecki, Bartok, etc... rank among the major figures of 20th century music. But so too do Richard Strauss, Debussy, Puccini, and Rachmaninoff.


Oh absolutely. I love the music of both Debussy and Strauss particularly. When considering my favorite composers of the 20th century however, I noted that a good portion of my favorite works by each of them were written in the 19th century. They had less works for me to consider than many of my other favorite 20th century composers.



> I will even acknowledge that Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern are major figures within the history of art... but I'll add to this that the jury still seems to be out as to just how well their music will survive. I'm not saying that I doubt the merits of the music... but when one considers that ultimately it is the opinion of the audience over an extended period of time that matters most, Schoenberg etc... are far from being accepted to a degree equivalent to the acceptance of Stravinsky or Strauss or Debussy.


I think the Second Viennese School are at the heart of modernism. Because of the lack of consistent stylistic trends in the 20th century, with composers going off in their own distinct directions and a general atmosphere of exploring new means of musical organization, it's difficult to gauge the influence and popularity of modern and contemporary composers against Romantic or Baroque composers. Not to mention the much larger array of options that listeners 20th and 21st centuries have to choose from, encompassing wider expanses of time, places, periods, pop music to art music. But from what I can tell, although the fans of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern may not be as large a constituency as fans of Beethoven or Wagner, most I have come across are extremely passionate for their music. So while I don't think they'll rule over modernism like Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven ruled their time (probably no one will ever be seen as ruling over the 20th century for that matter), I think they'll always have their place and their followers.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> Well, and this is all just subjectivity anyway. Who is "the greatest". I think such terminology is silly considering we are talking about a non-quantifiable subject like the arts.
> 
> Also, comparing composers from different time periods is comparing apples to oranges. If Mozart or Bach was born in 1908 and grew up hearing The Rite of Spring and all the harmonic and rhythmic changes that had happened in classical music, you can bet dollars to doughnuts they wouldn't have composed the same kind of music that they did centuries earlier when aesthetics for music (and most importantly, RULES for acceptable music) where markedly different.
> 
> ...


Yeah, good post. Pretty much spot on.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2010)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I don't want to make this too personal- but hopefully this will be deemed as falling into the "unmistakably positive" category concerning a member's person.I'm not the most careful reader of the bulk of the message boards, but I like to think I do better than most. I think there have been multiple times where there has been one passage or other from the 19th Century presented in the "Identifying Music" sub-forum (or its equivalents in other forums) and *some guy* was the first on the scene with the correct answer. My memory is that this is especially true with passages from Berlioz.
> 
> If (improbably) I was a contestant on "Millionaire" and the question hinged around identifying a passage from Berlioz, I think *some* would be a potentially efficacious "lifeline!" I don't think he acquired that knowledge by being anything other than a fan of the compositions...As a Wagnerian, I have some experience at defending music against outright hostility- let me tell you...


Very encouraging post, Chi_townPhilly! Thanks for this. It's true that I enjoy a lot of music from all eras. I don't spend much time advocating for older music; it doesn't really need it. New music does. And, uniquely so for our time, so does a lot of music that's already over a hundred years old.

This captures my feeling about the matter perfectly:


Chi_townPhilly said:


> (If I can speak for Wagnerians as a whole) we Wagnerians believe that Wagner is subjected to more unreasoning criticism than any other composer. The unreasoning criticism unites us, in a way- steels our resolve... energizes us in our desire to dispell the mistruths and the myths. I suspect something like this goes on when viewed from the perspective of Contemporary Music advocacy. They believe that the music they enjoy is subjected to a torrent of unreasoning criticism.


And this is what I would like most to see:


Poppin' Fresh said:


> Ideally listeners should be able to consider modern composers right alongside giants of the past without worrying about their relative popularity amongst a wide audience, or their significance in the present and/or future. Experience the music....


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> Well, and this is all just subjectivity anyway. Who is "the greatest". I think such terminology is silly considering we are talking about a non-quantifiable subject like the arts.
> 
> ......
> 
> ...


If you do not believe it is possible to compare greatness between composers from different time periods, are you suggesting that it is possible to do so between composers within any given time period?

If so, how do you go about it? If not, are you really saying that you have no way of comparing the relative worth of different composers operating in the same time frame as each other?


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Poppin' Fresh said:


> People should listen to modern compositions and decide what are the best without having to be assured they are listening to the best or most historically relevant. That's how history is made, and that's how composers Beethoven and Mozart were established in the standard repertoire. Listeners considering their music on it's own merits and deciding they are greater composers than X, Y, and Z over there.


I have singled out just one of your comments above for consideration, but I couldn't disagree more with anything you say in the post from which this is drawn.

Your comments above typical arty-farty, head-up-in-the-clouds kind of talk. It is completely the non-business way of tackling any decision which involves allocating one's scarce resources (time, money and intellectual effort) between alternative ends.

The point is that there is generally far too much junk music out there to warrant most peoples' efforts sifting through it all of it, or any significant portion of it, on the off-chance they may find something of interest. Obviously, if you like doing that sort of thing - as some on this Forum clearly do - then fine, carry on. However, as general advice applicable to all, it's bonkers. It's far more efficient to allow markets to sift out all the crap, and to focus on those which remain well regarded through a competitive process of natural selection.

Alternatively, if the market mechanism is too thin or otherwise insufficiently established, it is better to consult expert opinion (from someone who has studied the form and knows more this market about than you do) and take advice, while you get on with other activities in your life that are likely to generate a greater benefit to your well-being.

I re-iterate, a DIY approach to finding the best in classical music is not the most efficient to proceed, especially in new territory which is largely virgin territory to the listener. It would be rather like going to Florence with little or no knowledge of Art and wandering around aimlessly with no guide to assist you. You might get lucky by talking a random walk around the museums and churches, but generally speaking you would be far better off following a proper guide on the best sites to see.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2010)

Andy Loochazee said:


> Your comments above typical arty-farty, head-up-in-the-clouds kind of talk.


Ah civility, sweet sweet civility!



Andy Loochazee said:


> It is completely the non-business way of tackling any decision which involves allocating one's scarce resources (time, money and intellectual effort) between alternative ends.
> 
> The point is that there is generally far too much junk music out there to warrant most peoples' efforts sifting through it all of it, or any significant portion of it, on the off-chance they may find something of interest.


Is this indeed the point? I took Poppin' to be talking philosophically. Listen and decide for yourself what you like. Sounds like something you might say yourself whenever you sense that a pro-modern is trying to get you to try something you're sure you'll hate.

As for junk music, whether far too much or not, isn't that a bit previous? You're going into this situation assuming ahead of time that most of what's out there is junk? Now there's positive, for ya!! Sounds like you don't need any sifting at all, by anyone or anything. Which is probably just as well, as your advice to "allow markets to sift out all the crap" or to "consult expert opinion" seems naive in the extreme. And contradictory as well, I'd say, as I take "markets" to mean "the collective 'wisdom' of masses of people, none of whom you'd ever take any advice from individually. As for the opposite, "expert opinion," good luck finding one. You've had several experts on this thread already, giving you advice, and you've rejected it all. How do you suppose a naive listener is going to choose an expert? DIY? Hmmm. Maybe best to listen, widely, promiscuously, fearlessly--become actively involved. There would be a lot less random and blinkered attacking of new music if more people did just that.

Business models are all well and good, in their place. I don't think this is the place.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

some guy said:


> As for junk music, whether far too much or not, isn't that a bit previous? You're going into this situation assuming ahead of time that most of what's out there is junk? Now there's positive, for ya!! Sounds like you don't need any sifting at all, by anyone or anything. Which is probably just as well, as your advice to "allow markets to sift out all the crap" or to "consult expert opinion" seems naive in the extreme. And contradictory as well, I'd say, as I take "markets" to mean "the collective 'wisdom' of masses of people, none of whom you'd ever take any advice from individually. As for the opposite, "expert opinion," good luck finding one. You've had several experts on this thread already, giving you advice, and you've rejected it all. How do you suppose a naive listener is going to choose an expert? DIY? Hmmm. Maybe best to listen, widely, promiscuously, fearlessly--become actively involved. There would be a lot less random and blinkered attacking of new music if more people did just that.
> 
> Business models are all well and good, in their place. I don't think this is the place.


It's an easily plainly proven fact that most of the classical music ever written in the past has fallen by the wayside and forgotten. Why should it be any different with contemporary music, especially since big chunks of it are written, so I gather, by composers who work in publicly funded academic institutions and are therefore remote from the normal market place of public opinion?

It's also a fact that the bulk of contemporary classical is incomprehensible to the vast majority of classical music fans, and people like you form an extremely tiny minority of people who enjoy it. Some of this music one day may make the grade and become part of the canon, but I doubt that a lot will.

Picking out the future successful music from all the rest is like searching for a needle in a haystack. Simply listening to the whole lot is, for most people, impracticable for reasons I gave earlier. Nor do I trust anyone on this Board, or any other Board, to advise me. This in no way implies that I consider them to be incompetent or insincere, but from what I have seen they are far too gung-ho in advocating all manner of material that both my instinct and limited experience of this kind of material tell me I would not enjoy.

In this situation, I would prefer to base my purchasing decisions on market successes, which I accept may take time to filter through.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Ppppin' Fresh- The emphasis is clearly placed on composers who have been established as significant and well-known for long periods of time. More contemporary composers are generally kind of...roped off because there is no clear consensus among classical music fans and critics. This kind of historical reverence certainly has it's place, but I also think it can be taken too far. Ideally listeners should be able to consider modern composers right alongside giants of the past without worrying about their relative popularity amongst a wide audience, or their significance in the present and/or future. Experience the music and let history sort out the other stuff.

Of course, the nearest thing we may have to an objective fact concerning the merits of a given artist or art work is the larger communal opinion. When someone challenges the generally-held opinion concerning a given artist (ie. "Mozart sucks") they are asking that their personal opinion be given a greater degree of weight than the wealth of opinions to the contrary... including opinions of the educated and interested... even the opinions of other artists of considerable merit. Having said this much, I assume we don't listen to music (or turn to the arts in general) in search of an objective standing. In other words, it is the experience itself which counts... the pleasure wrought by the work... not the ultimate judgment of others and of history itself. Of course the same would seemingly apply to those who find greater pleasure in the music of the Baroque, the Classical era, the Romantic/Post-Romantic era... or in the work of Modern and Contemporary composers who have shown the least interest in atonal music or other more esoteric, conceptual approaches to music.

SLG- Certainly the critics, periodicals, orchestras, and record companies all have an impact, but one might argue that this can be positive as well as negative. I have no problem finding recordings o music by a great many later Modern and Contemporary composers.


Sure. But you'll agree they don't receive the same exposure as composers established in the past. That lack of the same amount of exposure and conditioning (I don't mean this in a negative way) shouldn't be a deal breaker in considering their music as great. That's all I'm saying.

Of course... but to a certain extent the art of the present will always receive less recognition or acknowledgment than the art of the past. Time has largely sorted out which of the artists of the past are the most important, where the art world/art worlds of today are a vast cornucopia of works or varying merit and opinions... even of those most interested and passionate... vary greatly.

And thus, by the same logic, it may be too soon to be offering up a judgment suggesting that composer X (whom I like) is clearly one of the best contemporary composers, while composer Y (whom I dislike... or merely like a lot less) is clearly a lesser composer.

I don't think it's ever too soon. People should listen to modern compositions and decide what are the best without having to be assured they are listening to the best or most historically relevant. That's how history is made, and that's how composers Beethoven and Mozart were established in the standard repertoire. Listeners considering their music on it's own merits and deciding they are greater composers than X, Y, and Z over there.

Well certainly we must always make our own value judgments... unless we take the absurd relativistic position of some and assume that there is no good nor bad in which we might just as well listen to Lady Gaga or the Partridge Family as Beethoven. The music I listen too and prefer the most among the crop of Modern/Contemporary composers is largely that which I consider to be among the best music of our time. This undoubtedly leads to the degree of frustration when others take the pretentious stance of declaring (in so many words) that their own opinions on this matter are superior and if someone does not agree it is because of their inherent ignorance, lack of experience, or close-mindedness.

Yes... and I would have no problem with admitting that Messiaen, Stravinsky, Penderecki, Bartok, etc... rank among the major figures of 20th century music. But so too do Richard Strauss, Debussy, Puccini, and Rachmaninoff.

Oh absolutely. I love the music of both Debussy and Strauss particularly. When considering my favorite composers of the 20th century however, I noted that a good portion of my favorite works by each of them were written in the 19th century. They had less works for me to consider than many of my other favorite 20th century composers.

It is for that reason that I did not consider Mahler among my choices. With Puccini, Strauss, and Debussy, on the other hand, I felt that the body of work that they produced in the 20th century clearly outweighed the body of work of many other composers who worked solely within the century.

I will even acknowledge that Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern are major figures within the history of art... but I'll add to this that the jury still seems to be out as to just how well their music will survive. I'm not saying that I doubt the merits of the music... but when one considers that ultimately it is the opinion of the audience over an extended period of time that matters most, Schoenberg etc... are far from being accepted to a degree equivalent to the acceptance of Stravinsky or Strauss or Debussy.

I think the Second Viennese School are at the heart of modernism. Because of the lack of consistent stylistic trends in the 20th century, with composers going off in their own distinct directions and a general atmosphere of exploring new means of musical organization, it's difficult to gauge the influence and popularity of modern and contemporary composers against Romantic or Baroque composers. Not to mention the much larger array of options that listeners 20th and 21st centuries have to choose from, encompassing wider expanses of time, places, periods, pop music to art music. But from what I can tell, although the fans of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern may not be as large a constituency as fans of Beethoven or Wagner, most I have come across are extremely passionate for their music. So while I don't think they'll rule over modernism like Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven ruled their time (probably no one will ever be seen as ruling over the 20th century for that matter), I think they'll always have their place and their followers.

Again, I agree that they will almost certainly maintain a historical importance... if only for opening up music to other possibilities. There is often an analogy made between what was wrought by Schoenberg and what was achieved by Picasso. Personally, I don't think the comparison holds. Picasso's innovations have been wholly absorbed into the artistic culture... to the point that exhibitions of Picasso's work are great blockbusters. Rather, a greater comparison with Schoenberg would seem to be Mondrian or Duchamp... the founding figures of abstract or conceptual art. The influence of both artists seem to greatly outweigh the actual merits of the work itself. (By the way... I spent some time today giving Schoenberg still another try... listening to a disc from the Boulez Sony box set: not horrible... intriguing at times... but it has yet to grab me like the Bach cantatas I played after that.)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Picking out the future successful music from all the rest is like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Perhaps... but is that your goal? Mine is merely to seek out that which brings me a degree of pleasure. Sometimes, such pleasure is to be found in work that is new or challenges our preconceived notions. Of course I am open to any assistance offered in navigating through this chaotic wealth of sounds. I will consider the opinions of critics... some with whom I have agreed in the past... more than others. I think there is a good amount of truly inspired music being composed and performed and recorded today... music which speaks of today. Where I may disagree with others is in my opinion upon just which composers this entails. Where I take offense is with others who assert that anyone whose opinions do not concur with their own is inherently ignorant, inexperienced, or close-minded.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Andy Loochazee said:


> If you do not believe it is possible to compare greatness between composers from different time periods, are you suggesting that it is possible to do so between composers within any given time period?
> 
> If so, how do you go about it? If not, are you really saying that you have no way of comparing the relative worth of different composers operating in the same time frame as each other?


 I'm saying that there is no such thing as an objective standard of aesthetics, it's all subjective, therefore it is impossible to quantify something qualitative like "greatness" of an artist.

By what standards could one measure this greatness? Popularity? Then Lennon and McCartney are greater composers than Mozart or Beethoven. Longest lasting? Then renaissance music is "greater" than classical or romantic or 20th century.

Talking about "who's the greatest" is just monkeys flinging poo at each other. That's why I put the thread in as "favorite" because that is something that is un-debatable and interesting without being spurious and silly.


----------



## MessiaenIsGod (Mar 25, 2010)

Andy Loochazee said:


> In this situation, I would prefer to base my purchasing decisions on market successes, which I accept may take time to filter through.


 Out of all the inane things you have said in this thread, this one cracks me up the most.

It's good to know that you are incapable of forming an opinion or even figuring out what you like until you have deduced how many people have bought a particular product or item.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> I'm saying that there is no such thing as an objective standard of aesthetics, it's all subjective, therefore it is impossible to quantify something qualitative like "greatness" of an artist.
> 
> By what standards could one measure this greatness? Popularity? Then Lennon and McCartney are greater composers than Mozart or Beethoven. Longest lasting? Then renaissance music is "greater" than classical or romantic or 20th century.
> 
> Talking about "who's the greatest" is just monkeys flinging poo at each other. That's why I put the thread in as "favorite" because that is something that is un-debatable and interesting without being spurious and silly.


So your real point is that you consider it is not possible to rank the greatness of composers (or anything else in the artistic world) from either within or between any period in history?

Why therefore did you only talk about the impossibility of doing so between different periods?

If you do not believe it is possible to rank composers for greatness, I assume you believe that it is perfectly reasonable to argue that Beethoven (for example) was not a great composer, but a hopeless incompetent? Or would you accept that such a view is not sensible, and that he was indeed great in some sense?

Now apply this same test to some other composer (whether from the Late Classical period or some other period) who was never at any time noteworthy, hardly composed anything of significance according to popular opinion, and who is now virtually completely forgotten. How would you regard that composer in terms if his greatness?

If however you accept that this latter guy is not as great as Beethoven, would you not accept that it is possible to compare greatness?

It would interesting to hear your reactions.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

MessiaenIsGod said:


> Out of all the inane things you have said in this thread, this one cracks me up the most.
> 
> It's good to know that you are incapable of forming an opinion or even figuring out what you like until you have deduced how many people have bought a particular product or item.


I think you are guilty of more than a little mischief here. It is clear from the thread from which you selectively draw your quotation that the subject matter was not classical music in general but contemporary classical music. I cannot why it might "crack you up" that someone who has expressed a general lack of interest in this area might say that they have no wish to make random selections from the wide range of material available but instead prefer to await the emergence of some useful market information showing some of the successes.

I am also highly bemused by your stated belief that you do not consider that the term "greatness" has any useful meaning in the context of comparing classical composers, and yet you proclaim: "MessiaenIsGoD".

I trust you can see the ambiguity of your position.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Thread temporarily closed for repair and review...


----------

