# TC Recommended 20th Century Works



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

This is just an idea a had a while after the String Quartets thread started, so I thought I'd wait until it reached 100 before suggesting this.
There's a Modern Classical Music recommended list, but I assume that excluded neoclassical and film music, and included 21st century. I might be wrong. Even so, with so many new members the results might be quite different.
Just a thought. There might be no interest in it.

(P.S. If we do end up doing this, can we make it the top 433? Please? )


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

At least we wouldn't hear endless grumbling from the Haydn fans.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

I think there would probably be too much overlap with the modern list. I don't think it excluded neoclassical stuff: the Symphony of Psalms made it.

A top film scores list might be different enough, though.
I'm not sure how much community interest there is in film music.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think it is a great idea. In fact, I had been contemplating, recently, of proposing a TC Recommended 21st Century Works list.

I have a lot of ideas for works I think should be on the 20th Century list, so I don't think I need a lot of help there.

I have next to no ideas for works that I feel should be on the 21st Century list, which is why I would like there to be such a list.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> I think it is a great idea. In fact, I had been contemplating, recently, of proposing a TC Recommended 21st Century Works list.
> 
> I have a lot of ideas for works I think should be on the 20th Century list, so I don't think I need a lot of help there.
> 
> I have next to no ideas for works that I feel should be on the 21st Century list, which is why I would like there to be such a list.


Perhaps we could do both? I don't have many 21st century works either.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2015)

Too much overlap with the current thing. I would be VERY interested, on the other hand, in a list of the top works either post-1950 or post-1975.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Post 1975 works (contemporary era) would be great, but I worry that many of those who enjoy voting would not feel adequately knowledgeable.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Too much overlap with the current thing. I would be VERY interested, on the other hand, in a list of the top works either post-1950 or post-1975.


I like that, too. Composers who were active in the '50s that I liked, I have followed up on. That includes most who have died in the '70s to today or who are presently getting pretty old.

It's the composers that were just getting into their composing primes in the '70s and on that I need to have a TC Recommended list of. It would be good to keep it manageable, since the span is such a short period of time, so, perhaps, the 50 _most_ important, or something like that.

I think it is important to avoid listing everyone's favourites and really get to the essence of what was truly of monumental and enduring merit, the same as has been done for the other lists. This would give people wishing to explore the period a place to start. In the past, whenever anyone has started a thread on this period, the number of names given was so excessive, that it was impossible to sift through it to get to the core.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Woh, I'd be up for a film score list!

Somehow I missed the Modern Classical Music recommended list. I'd be interested in trying a latter half of the 20th century one too, though that is an area I am less conversant in.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I didn't participate in the Modern list either; I most probably hadn't joined when the list was made.

A post-1950 list sounds wonderful.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2015)

GreenMamba said:


> At least we wouldn't hear endless grumbling from the Haydn fans.


I love those guys! Relentlessly loyal.

Here's me trying to make a positive post after all the frustration going around.

Really though. I comically envision those fellas meeting in a pub and suddenly one says, "Hey barkeep, another round for us! We're toasting Opus 64/2!"


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I'd probably participate in a post 1950 list building! I can foresee some problems like the absences of commercially recorded material (I fx. don't like listening to YouTube), but on the other hand this kind of project would march ahead in a slower pace as there would be a lot more back ground listening for those who participate, I don't mind a slower pace!

Another hurdle will be how to promote the thing to attract more participants! 

/ptr


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

MoonlightSonata said:


> There's a Modern Classical Music recommended list


Where is this? Could somebody provide a link? Depending on what's in it/how long it is, we might start a "Modern Classical Music Recommended List, Volume 2." That way, we could avoid going over the same repertoire already covered (on this forum, and in countless other places), while digging up must-hear material that doesn't get mentioned very often.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> Where is this? Could somebody provide a link? Depending on what's in it/how long it is, we might start a "Modern Classical Music Recommended List, Volume 2." That way, we could avoid going over the same repertoire already covered (on this forum, and in countless other places), while digging up must-hear material that doesn't get mentioned very often.


The link is here:
http://www.talkclassical.com/17996-compilation-tc-top-recommended.html#post379268

I'm also in favour of a post 1950 list. Most of the works in the existing list are pre-1950, expecially in the high ranking range.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

MoonlightSonata said:


> This is just an idea a had a while after the String Quartets thread started, so I thought I'd wait until it reached 100 before suggesting this...


You'll have to get in line bro.

Some members were planing an "American 100" once the quartets are done.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Post 1975 works (contemporary era) would be great, but I worry that many of those who enjoy voting would not feel adequately knowledgeable.


Never stops me


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

ptr said:


> . . . this kind of project would march ahead in a slower pace as there would be a lot more back ground listening for those who participate, I don't mind a slower pace!
> 
> /ptr


A slower pace might be good for any of these exercises.

I'm curious how the Modern list fared with mixing genres. Would string quartets keep up in popularity with large orchestral works? I'm sure all that was discussed at length at the time.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

ptr said:


> I'd probably participate in a post 1950 list building!
> 
> [...] this kind of project would march ahead in a slower pace as there would be a lot more back ground listening for those who participate [...]


Exactly the point I was going to make, ptr. If I was presented with as many as 5 new post-1950 works a week, I'd struggle to assimilate them, though I'd have a darned good try!

I'd definitely participate in this, btw.

In respect of string quartets, I think we might get a fair few post 1950 works nominated in the next few rounds of the Top 100+ String Quartets list, so that might take care of those, at least, adequately. Other chamber works, solo piano, etc., I don't know how that would fare in a non genre-specific list.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2015)

TurnaboutVox said:


> In respect of string quartets, I think we might get a fair few post 1950 works nominated in the next few rounds of the Top 100+ String Quartets list, so that might take care of those, at least, adequately. Other chamber works, solo piano, etc., I don't know how that would fare in a non genre-specific list.


I think the very nature of contemporary music is often capable of exalting smaller ensembles. I'm not saying it would be the most diverse thing ever, but I think it would easily be more diverse than the Modern Classical list. It would also finally give these lists a bit more of an outlet for electro-acoustic music (though I must applaud TVox for allowing some awesome SQ+electronics works in  ).


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

So... anyone interested in starting?


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

I thought someone was planning to do an American 100 after the String Quartets one was done... I mean, I guess we can have two at the same time, but that's a lot of ranking!


----------



## LancsMan (Oct 28, 2013)

musicrom said:


> I thought someone was planning to do an American 100 after the String Quartets one was done... I mean, I guess we can have two at the same time, but that's a lot of ranking!


Yes that was me suggesting an American 100. After a number of people commented that it would be better to wait till the end of String Quartet list I decided to hold fire. But I am tempted to kick it off very shortly, partly because I have more time in winter to manage the collation of the votes. I don't mind multiple lists being compiled simultaneously, so I'd participate in Moonlight Sonatas list as well.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

This is a little OT in as much as it's a more general question, but I'm curious as to the motives for those who want to be involved in TC lists.
I've enjoyed doing the most recent ones, but only up to a point. Basically I've found that after maybe 7 or 8 rounds the actual list itself seems to become somewhat incidental to the process of musical discovery. I've commented in the current string quartets thread that the later rounds have seemed very arbitrary to me: there's no "obvious" works left to vote for, so it comes down to whims and voting patterns, and what's at #91 could, if the list was compiled a month later with a slightly different group of voters, find itself at #134, or whatever.
So I see the lists as being a handy "beginner's guide", a way of somehow codifying an unspoken consensus that there are certain works that you "should" hear, whereas I think others are more interested in promoting little-known works - itself a good idea but not something that in my mind warrants the "official" status of a "TC recommended list". If it were up to me, lists would be done _before_ the little-known works make an appearance.

As for the specific question of a 20th-century list, I'd certainly be interested in seeing a post-1950 or post-1975 list. Not sure I know enough to be able to contribute but I'm genuinely curious as to what the modern "classics" would be - or even how much of a consensus there is on the topic.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Post 1975 works (contemporary era) would be great, but I worry that many of those who enjoy voting would not feel adequately knowledgeable.


Same here; must say also that I find myself listening to only few post-2000 works.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> This is a little OT in as much as it's a more general question, but I'm curious as to the motives for those who want to be involved in TC lists.
> I've enjoyed doing the most recent ones, but only up to a point. Basically I've found that after maybe 7 or 8 rounds the actual list itself seems to become somewhat incidental to the process of musical discovery. I've commented in the current string quartets thread that the later rounds have seemed very arbitrary to me: there's no "obvious" works left to vote for, so it comes down to whims and voting patterns, and what's at #91 could, if the list was compiled a month later with a slightly different group of voters, find itself at #134, or whatever.
> So I see the lists as being a handy "beginner's guide", a way of somehow codifying an unspoken consensus that there are certain works that you "should" hear, whereas I think others are more interested in promoting little-known works - itself a good idea but not something that in my mind warrants the "official" status of a "TC recommended list". If it were up to me, lists would be done _before_ the little-known works make an appearance.


I agree with this and personally would prefer shorter lists to longer ones. Most TC members don't participate in these things, but the top parts of the lists likely wouldn't change a lot if they did. The bottom parts, on the other hand, become too dependent on the handful who play.

Contemporary will be tough because there is less consensus, which raises the issue of whether it should be pitched less as an ordered ranking than as just a reference list.

I don't know if there's a way to structure it _by composer_ than _by work_. Otherwise, I suspect the contemporary list could really leave itself open to splitting the vote and strategic voting. The string quartet one seems to be (by now) more about composer than work. Any thoughts of putting a limit on works per composer? More along the lines of, if you want to listen to Schnittke, here are 2-3 works to start with.

No big deal, though, as the thing is a bit of a lark either way.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> Post 1975 works (contemporary era) would be great, but I worry that *many of those who enjoy voting would not feel adequately knowledgeable*.


But many of those who enjoy reading, would feel completely adequate to keep doing it


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2015)

I am interested in this.

However, I urge you to wait until the conclusion of the string quartets list. To those of us who use the opportunity to constantly expand our knowledge as the list goes on, two lists is a bit rough. Art songs certainly suffered if I didn't feel up to date on chamber duos one week or another 

I would even consider presiding over the list-making ritual once more, if no volunteers of the worthier nature arise.

Things to discuss:
*1950 vs. 1975?* 1950 would allow for more inclusion of the kind of works that are sorely lacking on TC lists. Not only are the lists very much lacking in contemporary music, but also in Darmstadtian modernism for instance. However, I fear that this would result in the list also being front-loaded with things that are already highly represented (While early Stockhausen, Berio, etc may feel less slighted, Shostakovich can already be found in spades in the modern classical list, for instance). 1975 also carries the innate benefit of actually being the start of a musical era.

Also, *how will non-supporters of LICHT be punished?*


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Also, *how will non-supporters of LICHT be punished?*


By being made to watch it?


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2015)

ahammel said:


> By being made to watch it?


I was going to say that their votes be flagged as "troll votes" and ignored until LICHT is enshrined, but this sounds much more fun and educational!


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

arcaneholocaust said:


> I was going to say that their votes be flagged as "troll votes" and ignored until LICHT is enshrined, but this sounds much more fun and educational!


Better, make them watch it without sound.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

Anyone planning to discuss the more serious query in my post? I am certainly leaning towards 1975.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I would be more inclined towards 1950, since that would mean 25 extra years of music to recommend. I wouldn't mind 1975 if everyone else wanted, though.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

1967 anyone? 


(it's also symbolic, because 1967 is by far the greatest year in rock music)


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Why not 1945? That way Messiaen's Turangalila and some other works can make the list.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

As I said, the only (big) reason I would stray from 1950 (or earlier) is because people would stray from the purpose of the list. The way I see it, the idea is to accommodate composers who didn't exactly get a lot of exposure in previous lists. Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams...these are household names already, and I would be disappointed to see a contemporary-ish list topped with them. Nothing against these composers. Love them both, really. But the idea would be to have a different list than the "Modern Classical" list.

Well...if people really prefer 1950, I will default to that.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

nathanb said:


> As I said, the only (big) reason I would stray from 1950 (or earlier) is because people would stray from the purpose of the list. The way I see it, the idea is to accommodate composers who didn't exactly get a lot of exposure in previous lists. Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams...these are household names already, and I would be disappointed to see a contemporary-ish list topped with them. Nothing against these composers. Love them both, really. But the idea would be to have a different list than the "Modern Classical" list.
> 
> Well...if people really prefer 1950, I will default to that.


I second this opinion, but wouldn't we get the same effect with 1967, plus a bit more music to be recommended?
Or, even better, 1965, so it's "the last 50 years".


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

Stavrogin said:


> I second this opinion, but wouldn't we get the same effect with 1967, plus a bit more music to be recommended?
> Or, even better, 1965, so it's "the last 50 years".


Well, yes - 1975 is only an important year because it is the start of the contemporary era and thus doesn't look so arbitrary 

I would say this should simply be put to a nomination/vote before starting.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

While we're at it, excuse me for the possibly very ignorant question, but why is 1975 the start of the contemporary Era?


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

Stavrogin said:


> While we're at it, excuse me for the possibly very ignorant question, but why is 1975 the start of the contemporary Era?


Because no more Shostakovich.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

musicrom said:


> Because no more Shostakovich.


Nothing to do with that. But yes, when I think of two lists (1950- and 1975-), a list essentially full of composers scarcely mentioned in every other TC list...well, it has a certain appeal, I suppose.

I actually despise that Shostakovich is the prime example here. I don't want to appear anti-Shosty, especially after a couple of recent threads. I quite like the guy. To one extent or another, his quartets simply must be represented in the current ongoing list. But I'd be happy to see fresh names in his place for the same reason I'd be happy to see fresh names in the place of my all-time favorite composers: Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.

(Hint: The reason is the word "fresh")


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Stavrogin said:


> While we're at it, excuse me for the possibly very ignorant question, but why is 1975 the start of the contemporary Era?


Nothing to do with the fact that it's a multiple of 25, I'm sure.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

To me contemporary music is music that was written during my lifetime. It's possibly a weak definition, and especially if I live to be 120 years old. I'm 50 later this year. So I'd go for a list of music written in the last 50 years, that is music written in 1965 and later. 

IMHO


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Should we make a poll for this or something?


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Yeah I guess we should.
Options:
. post-1950 (halfway through the XX century!)
. post-1965 (the last 50 years of music!)
. post-1975 (3/4 into the XX century!)

But go ahead, you're the OP


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

ahammel said:


> Nothing to do with the fact that it's a multiple of 25, I'm sure.


Hopefully, because that would as arbitrary as it can get


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I really love this idea of post 1950's/70's works: Nancarrow, Berio, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, even Ades, not to mention Maxwell Davies, Rautavaara, etc. There are a ton of composers and works we could discuss. I don't pretend to be an expert but I certainly could contribute to the voting process.

Between Spotify and YouTube it is possible to hear most of the landmark works.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

the question I have is what do you do with composers like Malcolm Arnold who lived until 2006 and composed into the 1990's? He seems very much to be of an earlier era but his music occupies the same time frame that we are talking about. Should he be included? If not, how do you exclude a composer like him? Perhaps there should be an initial voting period just for the inclusion of the composer him/herself? That could help to focus the voting. I personally would want the list to focus on those whose musical output really BEGAN in the language of the last 50 years, not those whose output simply managed to occupy that time frame.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I understand the desire to give more attention to composers and works that don't get much attention already in the lists, but that's a very slippery criterion. 20centrfuge makes the very good point about what to do with what you might call "inappropriate" composers, because then the question being begged is _inappropriate to whom?_. If you're going to have arbitrary criteria (which is inevitable no matter how you slice it), then the least prone to argument is an arbitrary chronological cutoff. Otherwise there's going to be so many arguments over who's sufficiently modern.

Also, just thinking about a 1975 cutoff: There go (for example) Ligeti's Cello concerto, Crumb's Black Angels, Berio's Sinfonia, Stockhausen's Stimmung...


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

1965 guys, vote 1965


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

Stavrogin said:


> 1965 guys, vote 1965


Seems like a good date to me 

I was born in 1960, so this would be music of my age...


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I would vote for either a 1950 or 1975 start date. Those might have more authority.

You go with with 1965, and people start to ask, why then? If it's to sneak in works that you like, well, then someone is going to nominate a 1964 piece that they like. or you get stylistic arguments: _this was written in 1948 but sounds more complementary than that other piece_.

I think that's going to be an issue regardless: people nominating works that are a year or two early (_it's just one year, come on!_). And then we hit the slippery slope.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> I would vote for either a 1950 or 1975 start date. Those might have more authority.
> 
> You go with with 1965, and people start to ask, why then? If it's to sneak in works that you like, well, then someone is going to nominate a 1964 piece that they like. or you get stylistic arguments: _this was written in 1948 but sounds more complementary than that other piece_.
> 
> I think that's going to be an issue regardless: people nominating works that are a year or two early (_it's just one year, come on!_). And then we hit the slippery slope.


1965 is 50 years back from now.
It's a "round" number, it that's what gives authority.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Actually my personal "dividing line" is 1957, the year of West Side Story and Shostakovich's 2nd piano concerto - pretty much the last 2 really _popular_ classical works before (as some might have it) everything went all to shi*.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Also, just thinking about a 1975 cutoff: There go (for example) Ligeti's Cello concerto, *Crumb's Black Angels*...


All the better.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Stavrogin said:


> 1965 is 50 years back from now.
> It's a "round" number, it that's what gives authority.


Yes, I suppose so, although this list is supposedly going to survive beyond 2015. So "last 50 years" becomes a moving target.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> Actually my personal "dividing line" is 1957, the year of West Side Story and Shostakovich's 2nd piano concerto - pretty much the last 2 really _popular_ classical works before (as some might have it) everything went all to shi*.


I appreciate that very specific chronological demarcation: BS and AS.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

My vote is for 1950+, otherwise there's going to be an enduring 25-year gap in my knowledge of classical music! I'll never get to know what happened between 1950 and 1975, Shostakovich excepted, of course.

I'm against composers being excluded on the basis of their composing style. I think we should just go with the composers and works which people on this forum are interested in and knowledgeable about. We have respected members interested in Malcolm Arnold here (Sid comes immediately to mind) so why should Arnold not be represented? It would be wrong to suggest that the Darmstadt School was the only game in town.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

I suppose 1950 is where we're headed. I would still think a poll a good idea; design the options not only as a starting year vote, but as a head count. ("I plan to participate actively and vote to start with compositions from the year 1965", etc)


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I would vote for 1975 (or even 1980) so the list could really be celebrating the NEW.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I proposed 1965 because it's my lifetime, so contemporary for me, but also it's music of the last 50 years. But I now agree with GreenMamba that 1965 seems too arbitrary and music of the last 50 years becomes a moving target. So I withdraw my proposal of 1965.

1950 would be an easier list to compile, but it seems less than contemporary. 1975 really does seem more up to date and contemporary. I'd prefer 1975. 

I think it would be problematic if we were to disqualify composers because of their style, I think we need to include all music within the specified time frame. It just wouldn't be fair, and it might be too contentious. We couldn't possibly agree to disqualify someone or something. Then someone could nominate Alma Deutcher if they chose.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Well, look, if some people definitely prefer 1950 and some people definitely prefer 1975 and some people see merits in both arguments...
Why not two lists?
1950-1974 and 1975-present.
(And why not, subsequently, 1900-24 and 1925-49?)


----------

