# Elliott Carter



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I have a special interest in the rich and prolific classical music native to the United States. One great American composer who I'm just coming around to is Elliott Carter who lived from 1908-2012. He studied under Walter Piston, Gustav Holst, and Nadia Boulanger. His influences include Igor Stravinsky, Arnold Schoenberg, Charles Ives, and Henry Cowell. He remained active as a composer from the 1930s on through to the 2000s, composing many works well into his 90s and some even after the age of 100. Carter went through many stylistic changes. I heard an early symphony that almost sounds as if it belongs in the same category as the popular works of Aaron Copland or Virgil Thomson. But there are other works such as _Symphony for Three Orchestras_ or the _Symphonia: Sun Fluxae Pretium Spei_ where Carter is, if not seriel in his approach, very close to it. As a side note, Carter stayed married to the same lady for over 63 years, in itself a lifetime achievement.

I find Carter to be a very interesting composer.

What say you?

What is your opinion of this composer?

Do you have any use for his music?

Suggested listening?

Below: 1st row: Carter w/Igor Stravinsky; w/Aaron Copland; 2nd row: Carter w/John Cage; w/his wife Helen; 3rd row: Carter at his piano


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

His greatest work is his symphony no.1 (first performed in 1944, revised 1954, dedicated to his wife). Unfortunately he chose to abandon this style and proceeded with atonality/modernism. Had he continued with the rich tonality style of Copland, he would be a greater composer.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Tough nut to crack. For me still the toughest. He's different than other atonalists, who avoid consonance, and have more regularity. His music has some consonance mixed in which makes it tough. Some works even the rhythms clash, and do not coincide.

For example.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Tough nut to crack.


That reminds of the time I was in a class (maybe orchestration, but maybe not) that was taught by a fairly well-respected composer. One day, he asked the class if there was any composer they'd like us to study. So I said "_Yes!, I'd like to learn more about Elliot Carter. I find his music difficult to grasp_". To which he replied "_Me too_!"


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Coach G said:


> I find Carter to be a very interesting composer.
> 
> What say you?
> 
> ...


I agree, Elliott Carter is one of the most important composers of the 20th century, and thankfully he remained vibrant and working right up to the end of his long life. In fact some of his best work was done in his last two decades.

Like _Interventions_






And this recording of some late chamber music.






It goes without saying one of his major achievements were his five string quartets.






Thanks for the thread.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Tough nut to crack. For me still the toughest.
> ...


Upon reading Coach G's initial post on this thread, my immediate thought was, quote, "Tough nut to crack." I'm glad to see someone else tunes in on this same frequency.

Checking my Discogs catalogue I see a total of 21 hits for Elliott Carter in my collection, including some seven discs devoted exclusively to his music. This is hardly extensive, compared to some other contemporary composers represented by several dozen discs.

I've heard many of his major works over the years (the symphonies; the concertos for oboe, clarinet, violin, piano, cello; the _Three Occasions For Orchestra_; _The Minotaur_; the Variations For Orchestra; the Concerto for Orchestra.... The only piece of his that in any way still resounds in my mind is the Piano Sonata, which I first heard by way of the recording by Gilbert Kalish. The piece made an immediate impression, and it has resided with me for years. It is, frankly, the work which keeps me in the game with composer Carter. I'm still adventuring, still hoping to connect with something else by Carter, still optimistic. But, as the man said, he's a tough nut to crack.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Just a tip Coach G : If you use the search function on the front page

Type Elliot Carter, plenty of older threads for more info.:tiphat:


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Incredible composer. His Piano Sonata is one of his greatest (and most accessible) works.








ArtMusic said:


> His greatest work is his symphony no.1 (first performed in 1944, revised 1954, dedicated to his wife). Unfortunately he chose to abandon this style and proceeded with atonality/modernism. Had he continued with the rich tonality style of Copland, he would be a greater composer.


Hm, I wonder what leads all of these obviously masterful composers to embrace modernism. It could not be that they enjoy it and feel restricted by the older styles. No, it must be that they have been corrupted by "liberalism" and "egalitarianism".


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Listening to his tonal works one can hear he was a composer of considerable skill, sometimes in his non-tonal works his style veers too close to serialism for my tastes, but I don't find him an especially hard nut to crack relative to other big names of the post-modern era, personally. He was influenced by American classical composers that I enjoy, his music has strong elements of neo classicism at times, something I also enjoy. Further his music often displays impressive counterpoint. 

So ultimately he is a composer I respect and, I do enjoy a fair amount of his music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

His music sounds to me old fashioned, it’s the musical equivalent of grandad’s trousers. 

The last time I played Carter it was the 5th quartet.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Elliot Carter thread*

Isn't there already an Elliott Carter Thread?

For the record my favorite non-tonal composer.

Note: Found it: Elliott Carter

Check it out. Many interesting posts.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Rogerx said:


> Just a tip Coach G : If you use the search function on the front page
> 
> Type Elliot Carter, plenty of older threads for more info.:tiphat:


Carter was a major composer. There are plenty of threads for each of the many other major composers!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> I agree, Elliott Carter is one of the most important composers of the 20th century, and thankfully he remained vibrant and working right up to the end of his long life. In fact some of his best work was done in his last two decades.
> 
> Like _Interventions_
> 
> ...


I love Carter's music. There are too many pieces to mention but the whole CD set that the above link comes from is a treasure trove (his late work was a little more mellow even if it retained his trademark rigour). The quartets are also wonderful (and perhaps an easier route into Carter's oeuvre than much of his mature works). The Clarinet Concerto is also a good introduction.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

tdc said:


> Listening to his tonal works one can hear he was a composer of considerable skill, sometimes in his non-tonal works his style veers too close to serialism for my tastes, but I don't find him an especially hard nut to crack relative to other big names of the post-modern era, personally. He was influenced by American classical composers that I enjoy, his music has strong elements of neo classicism at times, something I also enjoy. Further his music often displays impressive counterpoint.
> 
> So ultimately he is a composer I respect and, I do enjoy a fair amount of his music.


I'm curious what others think, but I think in his middle period he was more complex (or difficult) than Ferneyhough, Lachenmann, Chin, Rihm and others. I think Ferneyhough's 6th quartet is nothing in terms of complexity compared to Carter's 3rd, except in notation. Not that complexity really should be a contest. Or who knows, maybe it is with some composers.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Great suggested listening! I started collecting classical records as a teenager in the 1980s, and about two to three years into it, I discovered the serial composers: Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Messiaen, Dallapiccolla, Boulez, Sessions, Carter etc. For years (or decades) the music mostly mystified me. But I kept purchasing serial or close-to-serial music (perhaps not technically serial, but how would I know anyway?). My objective was to have a comprehensive classical music library and I figured that what I don't understand today, I might just be able to understand and even enjoy tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, or a week later, a year later, or even twenty year later.

For years I only had two Carter recordings in my collection and I purchased those CDs because of the other recordings that were also programmed with those CDs: Varese: _Deserts, Equatorial & Hyperprism_/Carter: _A Symphony for Three Orchestras_ by Pierre Boulez; and Ives: _Holidays Symphony_/Carter: _Concerto for Orchestra_. While I knew that Boulez was an dedicated proponent of the Ultra-Modern music, it seemed that Bernstein's recording was practically obligatory, or done just to show that he was aware of Carter's work, as Bernstein barely touched serial music in his hundreds of recordings. If I judged Bernstein accurately, then I was pretty much the same, and two recordings of Carter's music that I had no intention of listening to, was good enough for me.

So now I've discovered some of Carter's music on Youtube, and as I've recently begun to find those other above mentioned composers that mystified me for many years almost listenable, a new interest in Carter's music has emerged with it.

I liked what Phil said about the _String Quartet #3_ and it is a work of amazing complexity. The musicians at times come together and at other times don't seem to be playing together at all; almost as if two toddlers were playing with toys on a blanket. They may appear to playing together and at times they are, but at other times they are engaging in what child psychologists call "parallel play" where they are actually doing completely different things as when the violin and viola are doing one thing and the other violin and cello are doing something else. And think about how difficult it must have been for the musicians to train themselves to NOT listen to one another?

Thank you all for you contributions and for being so erudite.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm curious what others think, but I think in his middle period he was more complex (or difficult) than Ferneyhough, Lachenmann, Chin, Rihm and others. I think Ferneyhough's 6th quartet is nothing in terms of complexity compared to Carter's 3rd, except in notation. Not that complexity really should be a contest. Or who knows, maybe it is with some composers.


except that Carter's music is all standard equal-tempered 12 notes - Ferney's SQs are microtonal. BF's rhythms are more complex, but also more flexible - Carter's need to be played more or less perfect


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Bwv 1080 said:


> except that Carter's music is all standard equal-tempered 12 notes - Ferney's SQs are microtonal. BF's rhythms are more complex, but also more flexible - Carter's need to be played more or less perfect


Agree Ferneyhough's rhythms are more flexible. But I doubt more complex. I feel the rhythms 'reset' often, while in Carter, they are allowed to run longer unsynchronized. I think some of the consonances hidden within parts in Carter make the harmony more complex, and the microtones in Ferneyhough don't necessarily make the pitch organization more complex overall.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Here are a couple of good videos for a background into Carter's melodic and harmonic language. Its aimed guitarists relative to his two solo pieces, but EC uses the all-interval tetrachord and/or the all-triad hexachord in most of his music


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Carter is one if my favorite composers.

I like so much of his output, it's tough to narrow down what I would recommend.

Variations for Orchestra
Concerto for Orchestra
Piano Concerto 
Three Occasions for Orchestra
All his string quartets



ArtMusic said:


> His greatest work is his symphony no.1 (first performed in 1944, revised 1954, dedicated to his wife). Unfortunately he chose to abandon this style and proceeded with atonality/modernism. Had he continued with the rich tonality style of Copland, he would be a greater composer.


His greatest works began when he chose to abandon his early style, and embrace atonality. His innovative style after he found his own voice, made him a greater composer.

See, we can all state our opinions as if it is objective truth.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Some more works by Elliott Carter that I like a lot

Piano Quintet






The Cello Concerto






Luimen






Clarinet Quintet


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I think one of the most interesting comments on Carter's music was made by a friend of mine who was sort of interest din classical music but not really knowledgeable about it . When I played a piece by Carter for her , I don't recall which one, she said " There's no tempo ! I can't figure out whether the music is slow or fast ! " I told her that this is the whole point of the music !


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I'm no fan of Carter. The First Symphony was a good start -- then he went all mathematical. Just look at the opening of the string quartet mentioned above:








Ridiculous. I defy anyone to play it exactly as written. The complexity of the rhythm is mind boggling. How long would it take to work out with mathematical precision how to play it? The whole work is like this. Did Carter really have this complex rhythm in his head, or did it just look good on paper? Is it worth learning, knowing that you'll never get it exactly right?

Then look at this opening bar from the piano sonata:









I defy anyone to play this as written. It's impossible. As soon as you hit the key on the piano the sound decays, yet he asks for a crescendo to FF? Was he incompetent or having a joke at the player's expense? Ridiculous.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> Then look at this opening bar from the piano sonata:
> 
> View attachment 154204
> 
> ...


It's not practical, but it holds the abstract meaning of "get louder on the second note".

Anyways, apart from impossibilities, the Piano Sonata is an incredible work.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> I'm no fan of Carter. The First Symphony was a good start -- then he went all mathematical. Just look at the opening of the string quartet mentioned above:
> View attachment 154203
> 
> 
> ...


Tell it to Beethoven who marked a crescendo under two tied quarter notes in his Sonata in e Minor, op. 90. Schumann also marked accent marks under tied whole notes in his Abegg Variations.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> I'm no fan of Carter. The First Symphony was a good start -- then he went all mathematical...
> Ridiculous. I defy anyone to play it exactly as written. The complexity of the rhythm is mind boggling. How long would it take to work out with mathematical precision how to play it? The whole work is like this. Did Carter really have this complex rhythm in his head, or did it just look good on paper? Is it worth learning, knowing that you'll never get it exactly right?
> ...


Harold Schonberg wrote about how the post World War II age in classical music was taking something of a dark turn where composers such as Babbitt, Berio, Xenakis, (and while Schonberg didn't say it, we could probably throw Carter in there too), when music was becoming so abstract that Gunther Schuller wrote an article that pretty much said "ENOUGH". Schuller suggested that if composers of the day needed a sound that could not be played on acoustic instruments that they should turn to electronic means to do so, and not force the musician to play music that cannot be played. Schuller went on to point out examples by then contemporary musicians where he said the music can't be played as written. Harold Schonberg also discussed something called "eye music", and while my level of the inner workings of music is far too limited to appreciate it, I guess that someone well-trained and fluent in music theory, counterpoint, harmony, ect, can appreciate and enjoy a very complicated piece of music on _paper_ just because of the clever and innovative ways that the composer solves arranges and serializes the elements of a work. I guess at this point, it almost becomes a mathematical game, or maybe it's like chess where highly advanced chess players would try to work out a really hard chess problem "How does black get a mate in three?"


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> I'm no fan of Carter. The First Symphony was a good start -- then he went all mathematical. Just look at the opening of the string quartet mentioned above:
> View attachment 154203
> 
> 
> Ridiculous. I defy anyone to play it exactly as written. The complexity of the rhythm is mind boggling. How long would it take to work out with mathematical precision how to play it? The whole work is like this. Did Carter really have this complex rhythm in his head, or did it just look good on paper? Is it worth learning, knowing that you'll never get it exactly right?


If you do not know the answers to those questions, then maybe educate yourself before spouting off. Evidently many great musicians deem Carter's music worth the trouble, and they do get the rhythms correct


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Coach G said:


> Harold Schonberg wrote about how the post World War II age in classical music was taking something of a dark turn where composers such as Babbitt, Berio, Xenakis, (and while Schonberg didn't say it, we could probably throw Carter in there too), when music was becoming so abstract that Gunther Schuller wrote an article that pretty much said "ENOUGH". Schuller suggested that if composers of the day needed a sound that could not be played on acoustic instruments that they should turn to electronic means to do so, and not force the musician to play music that cannot be played. Schuller went on to point out examples by then contemporary musicians where he said the music can't be played as written.


All of Carter's music can be played as written


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> ...
> Hm, I wonder what leads all of these obviously masterful composers to embrace modernism. It could not be that they enjoy it and feel restricted by the older styles. No, it must be that they have been corrupted by "liberalism" and "egalitarianism".


Many, like Pärt and Rautavaara, went the other direction.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> Many, like Pärt and Rautavaara, went the other direction.


Yup. Perhaps it shows that music is subjective and even the most highly learned individuals can have different tastes and preferences to express their feelings.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Yup. Perhaps it shows that music is subjective and even the most highly learned individuals can have different tastes and preferences to express their feelings.


It also shows that many felt atonality is a dead end.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

consuono said:


> Many, like Pärt and Rautavaara, went the other direction.


There hasn't been a single other direction. There hasn't even been a crossroads. Quite the contrary: there has been a whole web and it may not be possible to even identify a distinct direction in any of the threads. But, I do sometimes wonder if things will look different when we (well, not we but some people) can look back 100 years. When I look at the first half of the 20th century now it seems to me that the music of many of those very different composers - Bartok, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Webern, (some) Strauss, Shostakovich, Prokofiev and many others - all sound in some way to be distinctively the music of their time. Fifty years ago such a feeling seemed most unlikely.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> There hasn't been a single other direction. There hasn't even been a crossroads. Quite the contrary: there has been a whole web and it may not be possible to even identify a distinct direction in any of the threads.


Oh I'm sure I could identify distinct threads - American minimalism (and I'd include Part and there probably), Darmstadt, Post-Feldman, post-Cage (extended techniques, experimental music), post-Schaeffer (field recordings, turntableism), frameworks for improvisation . . . I think that's about it!

If I'm right the real important composers of the last century post war have been Reich, Stockhausen, Feldman, Cage, Schaeffer, Cardew. That feels not implausible to me.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Oh I'm sure I could identify distinct threads - American minimalism (and I'd include Part and there probably), Darmstadt, Post-Feldman, post-Cage (extended techniques, experimental music), post-Schaefer (field recordings, turntableism), frameworks for improvisation . . . I think that's about it!
> 
> If I'm right the real important composers of the last century post war have been Reich, Stockhausen, Feldman, Cage, Schaefer, Cardew. That feels not implausible to me.


Reich? Your list is heavy with electronic music, but your names are old guys. What about Ferrari, Dhomont, Parmegiani, Basinski.

There have been a few other styles - Neo-Romanticism, (Rochberg, Kernis); Academic (the university composers); the Italian Avant-Garde, (Berio, Nono, Dallapiccola, Sciarrino), the post-moderns (Lachenmann, Rihm, Kurtag, Abrahamsen)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Reich? Your list is heavy with electronic music, but your names are old guys. What about Ferrari, Dhomont, Parmegiani, Basinski.


I was trying to pick the oldest.



SanAntone said:


> There have been a few other styles - Neo-Romanticism, (Rochberg, Kernis); Academic (the university composers); the Italian Avant-Garde, (Berio, Nono, Dallapiccola, Sciarrino), the post-moderns (Lachenmann, Rihm, Kurtag, Abrahamsen)


I think the Italian avant garde is just part of the Damstadt tradition, my choice for leader of the band is Stockhausen. Not sure what to say about grouping Lachenmann and Kurtag together like that. Rihm's just part of the evolution of Damstadt modernism.

But this is to quibble. In fact I now I think that all music post war begins and ends with Stockhausen probably.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> Some more works by Elliott Carter that I like a lot
> 
> Clarinet Quintet


I thoroughly enjoyed the clarity and expression in this work, one I hadn't heard before. This is a good introduction for anyone wondering if they should make an effort to get to know Carter imv.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

The 20th century gave rise to more stylistic avenues than any time prior to it. Even we took 19th century composers who were contemporaries but very different from one another, say: Wagner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Verdi. They still have more in common with another than, say, Britten, Barber, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Copland, Carter, and Cage.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> I'm no fan of Carter. The First Symphony was a good start -- then he went all mathematical. Just look at the opening of the string quartet mentioned above:
> 
> Ridiculous. I defy anyone to play it exactly as written. The complexity of the rhythm is mind boggling. How long would it take to work out with mathematical precision how to play it? The whole work is like this. Did Carter really have this complex rhythm in his head, or did it just look good on paper? Is it worth learning, knowing that you'll never get it exactly right?


You've pointed out just one reasons why I like Carter so much.

I won't claim I understand how he came up with such complex rhythms, but I am glad he did. And complexity of rhythms is just one of the many reasons why I like contemporary classical so much, and earlier eras now sound so predictable to me.

I own a couple of different performances of Carter's string quartets, and have watched performances on YT of, and to my ears, it sure seems like the musicians are playing them pretty darn close to right.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Carter's rhythm is 'polyphonic' - parts play at different tempos from one another. He writes about avoiding the 'tyranny of the barline'. How is whining about this rhythmic complexity any different from complaining about the melodic complexity of a Bach fugue?

Maybe letting him speak for himself is best -



> I'm very concerned with the performer, but I'm not too concerned with the listener. It seems to me that if you can interest the performer and make him feel that he's done something really valuable, his playing will convince the audience just that. To write for the audience is just too uncertain. You never know what your audience may be like, but you can usually know what your performers will be like. A good musician has the training to appreciate all sorts of things you might try to do in a piece. A performer will also recognize whether a piece is skillfully written or original -- an audience might not always be so sure.
> 
> People call my music complex because I will have instruments playing at their own paces, as if the other instruments weren't even there. It doesn't march along in the same way that most older music does. But to me, I honestly don't think that a work like Debussy's La Mer is any less complex than my work. It's full of all sorts of sounds and textures going on at once, yet we still look at is as beautiful, structured and fluid. That's all I'm trying to do; I'm not out to compose for complexity's sake.
> 
> I think more audiences would like contemporary music if they were presented with it, told about it. It's just a matter of familiarity, I think. Then one begins to look back at old music as stuffy, or even tiresome. It's funny -- I'm beginning to like older music more than I used to, but it's like I'm going into a museum and contemplating a Rembrandt. It just feels like its part of the aristocratic class system of kings and queens and dukes which just doesn't exist anymore.


From American Gothic: An Interview with Elliott Carter (1993) by Andy Carvin.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> I own a couple of different performances of Carter's string quartets, and have watched performances on YT of, and to my ears, it sure seems like the musicians are playing them pretty darn close to right.


You'd be surprised what great musicians can get right nowadays! Especially now that there are recordings of all 10 of Ben Johnston's string quartets.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Coach G said:


> The 20th century gave rise to more stylistic avenues than any time prior to it. Even we took 19th century composers who were contemporaries but very different from one another, say: Wagner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Verdi. They still have more in common with another than, say, Britten, Barber, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Copland, Carter, and Cage.


Take 1850-1950, so including Britten, Barber, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Copland. And Harry Partch, Giancinto Scelsi, George Antheil and Charles Ives, Debussy and Wagner. Plenty of stylistic adventures there.

Then take 1950 to the present.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Since there's a thread for Carter, what do you think about his opera What Next? I listened to it today for the first time because of this thread and because I like quite a lot of Carter's output. The opera struck me as a mixture of Britten with Schoenberg. I liked it, but will have to listen to it again to really make sense of it.


----------

