# Composers of Today still seen among the "Greats" 100 Years from Now



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

In the thread asking for ideas as to what music would look like 200 years from now, member emiellucifuge posted the following:

_This is quite interesting:

"In 1935, a survey made by CBS of its radio audience asking the question 'Who, in your opinion, of contemporary composers will remain among the world's great in 100 years?' placed Myaskovsky in the top ten along with Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Ravel, de Falla and Fritz Kreisler."

How accurate has this been? Certainly at least 7 of those are still considered great. Falla has been relegated to the 2nd ranks as far as I can perceive. Myaskovsky and Kreisler have fallen into obscurity. Still, I would consider that the audience was fairly accurate._

So what 10 living (or recently deceased) composers do you imagine will still be recognized among the "great" composers of 100 years from now?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Boulez
Stockhausen
John Adams
Glass
Carter
Rihm
Berio
Henze
Penderecki
Gorecki

Im really actually surprised at how certain I was about some of these.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2012)

The time for giving listeners of today pleasure, however, is now, not a hundred years from now.

Right now there are lots of composers of today who give me pleasure. They will not give me any pleasure a hundred years from now as I'll be dead by then. (I'm pretty sure of that.)

Who are composers who give me pleasure now? Well, too many to list. But here are a mere twenty of my favorites. (Alive and recently deceased.)

Luc Ferrari
Ludger Brümmer
Bronius Kutavičius
Maryanne Amacher
Eliane Radigue
Michèle Bokanowski
Beatriz Ferreyra
Jon Christopher Nelson
eRikm
Zbigniew Karkowski
Francisco López
Sachiko M
Otomo Yoshihide
Helmut Lachenmann
Mark André
Andrea Neumann
Simon Steen-Anderson
Michael Boyd
Anna Clyne
Dan Senn

Now is good. Now is enough.


----------



## chee_zee (Aug 16, 2010)

I've literally only ever heard of one of those people, anna clyne, and that's from me being so close to chicago.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

If we limit the choices to composers still living... or deceased since 2000 the choices might include, but in no ways be limited to:

Hans Werner Henze
György Kurtág
Einojuhani Rautavaara
George Crumb
Sofia Gubaidulina
Henryk Górecki
Krzysztof Penderecki
Arvo Pärt
Alfred Schnittke
Valentin Silvestrov
Philip Glass
William Bolcom
John Corigliano
Joan Tower
Charles Wuorinen
Louis Andriessen
David Del Tredici
Keiko Abe
Terry Riley
Harrison Birtwistle
Per Nørgård
Wojciech Kilar
Peter Sculthorpe
Karlheinz Stockhausen
Ennio Morricone
Luciano Berio
Pierre Boulez
Ned Rorem
György Ligeti
Iannis Xenakis
George Rochberg
Henri Dutilleux
Milton Babbitt
Akira Ifukube
Gian Carlo Menotti
Alan Hovhaness
Horaţiu Rădulescu
Gavin Bryars
Brian Ferneyhough
Joseph Schwantner
Michael Nyman
Pēteris Vasks
Tristan Murail
Kalevi Aho
Wolfgang Rihm
Kaija Saariaho
John Adams
David Diamond
Takashi Yoshimatsu
Ludovico Einaudi
Toshio Hosokawa
Vladimír Godár
David Lang
Tan Dun
Paul Moravec
Magnus Lindberg
Esa-Pekka Salonen
James MacMillan
Erkki-Sven Tüür
Osvaldo Golijov
Mark-Anthony Turnage
Jake Heggie
Unsuk Chin
Michael Torke
Thomas Adès
Eric Whitacre
Steve Reich
John Rutter 
Veljo Tormis
Morten Lauridsen
John Tavener


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I've literally only ever heard of one of those people, anna clyne, and that's from me being so close to chicago.

Don't worry... almost no one's heard of any of them... excepting perhaps Lachenmann and Ferrari... and eRikm (and only because someguy has mentioned him repeatedly).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

100 years from now, the classical music that is remembered from recent times will be The Beatles and Michael Jackson.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

100 years from now, the classical music that is remembered from recent times will be The Beatles and Michael Jackson.

Well... I also suspect that just as the field of literature is open to the consideration of comic books and other popular literary forms, "classical music" will increasingly be open to the finest achievements of popular music, whether it be Jazz, Broadway, Hollywood, Blues, Rock, etc... Limiting our choices, however, to those composers writing within what is today recognized as the "classical tradition" I think I would select the following composers:

Henri Dutilleux
Tristan Murail
Osvaldo Golijov
Per Nørgård
Krzysztof Penderecki
Hans Werner Henze
Philip Glass
Ned Rorem
Jake Heggie
Einojuhani Rautavaara

Were I to chose a second ten, I'd probably add:

Steve Reich
John Adams
George Crumb
György Ligeti
Kaija Saariaho
James MacMillan
Henryk Górecki
Valentin Silvestrov
Alan Hovhaness
John Tavener


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Recognised by whom?

Perhaps if you mean recognised by music 'educators' who were the the receivers of wisdom from their own 'educators' then you will get one set of names. If you mean the teenager next door you'll get a very different set. My Aunt Ethel has her own ideas as do my kids and my bank manager.
We, all of us with an internet connection, are in the unprecedented position of having nearly everything ever written and recorded instantly available. Some like this, some like that.
The era of the 'canon' is indeed over. 
Composers such as Ferneyhough, Birtwhstle, Knussen, Ades have and will continue to have their champions and their devoted, even devout, audiences. As will Ludovico Einaudi, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Arvo Part. As will Elton John, Jessie Jay, The Red Hot Chilli Peppers. Now, and many years into the future.

There is no longer (if there ever really was) a shared musical culture. 

Some professors in their ivory towers plug a particular 'aesthetic' or 'philosophy' while other professors plug a different one. The producers of 'cultural' programmes have their own 'flavour of the decade' favourite composers as do the critics and arbiters of taste. 
The public have their own ideas. Sometimes there is a large consensus, sometimes not.

Discover what you like and hang out with others who share your enthusiasm. The rest can take hike.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Penderecki
Ligeti
Schnittke Would be my choices.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

I have noticed that with most Baroque, Classical music, etc., you can say something like, "This era of music can be described as having _X_ list of characteristics." Of course, there are some deviations, but in general, Baroque/Classical/Romantic music seems to follow a common thread. Not so in the Twentieth Century. We now have fellows ranging from Schoenberg through Glass to Pärt. It is my prediction (but not conclusion) that in one hundred years we will only remember one school of thought. Right now, I think it will be Schoenberg's, but that is just a guess-we may see a return to Pärt's tonality, or an expansion on the Minimalist technique. Perhaps Messiaen will be remembered the most. Perhaps (I hope not, but perhaps) rock music will be the continuing style, with a return to lead sheets and improvisation-similar to the improvisation and Basso Continuo of the Baroque style. Perhaps the whole world will worship John Cage. Like I said, one can only guess.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Andrew Lloyd Webber - deal with it!
John Tavener - deal with it some more!

Adams
Reich
Tan Dun
Dutilleux
Sciarrino
Gorecki
Feldman
Norgard
Kancheli
Carter
Kurtag
Murail
Chin
Aho
Monk
Knussen
Vasks
Eotvos
Lam Bun-Ching


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Back in the 1930's, the composers who made the top ten in that CBS survey, would have been played on radio, so they got on the list (this is not rocket science).

Today's radio schedules are dominated by dead composers plus maybe a few things like Arvo Part or maybe Penderecki or Philip Glass if you're lucky. So it's those kinds of composers who would be on today's lists. Hardly representative of what variety of new or newer classical music is out there.

& science, forget Andrew Lloyd Webber (or guys like Andre Rieu), they are disdained by highbrows. But in any case, they are in a separate group, even though they're classically trained. But not acceptable for those who like to build barriers and fences between various genres. Eg. the highbrows.

So basically, if you did a poll to current radio listeners here, you'd get a list similar to that done in the 1930's (seriously). Maybe with some add ons like I said, Part, Glass, & maybe streching it Penderecki, and of course film composers like Howard Shore and John Williams.

That's talking of radio listeners, not of the people on this forum, which I think is quite different.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James, I'm aware that Webber is disdained by today's highbrows, but what I predict is that about a decade or two after his death, he will be reevaluated by a younger generation. Sondheim as well. 

We may be seeing that happening already with Kern, Oscar, Hammerstein, Porter, and so on. EMI GROC put out "Show Boat." Increasingly "Porgy and Bess," "Kiss Me, Kate," and "West Side Story" are taken increasingly seriously by highbrows. 

We'll see!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> The time for giving listeners of today pleasure, however, is now, not a hundred years from now.
> 
> Right now there are lots of composers of today who give me pleasure. They will not give me any pleasure a hundred years from now as I'll be dead by then. (I'm pretty sure of that.)
> 
> ...


You forgot to include Merzbow. He would be the greatest still in 1,000 years to come.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> If we limit the choices to composers still living... or deceased since 2000 the choices might include, but in no ways be limited to:


You listed about 71 composers (I copied and paste the names onto an Excel spreadsheet, filling up 71 cells consecutively). Chances are maybe less than 10 at most might be regarded as "great", in the sense that the majority of us here regard Mozart and Beethoven as "great", unless we are living in an era where composers of genuis are popping out like they like did a few centuries ago. But, so long as you love their music, why the hell do we care? I mean, I just listened Tan Dun's (born 1957), opera, _Marco Polo_ (premiered 1996). Fine contemporary opera, but is it "great" in the sense that we consider _Don Giovanni_ as "great"? I very much doubt that. I also very much doubt Tan Dun would be considered as a great composer but likely to be better remembered in the short to medium term as the composer of film scores for movies like _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_ (2000) that appeal to regular music listening folks.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But, so long as you love their music, why the hell do we care?


The most sensible thing I've ever heard you say.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Have not read the whole thread yet. Have I been mentioned?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

You listed about 71 composers (I copied and paste the names onto an Excel spreadsheet, filling up 71 cells consecutively). Chances are maybe less than 10 at most might be regarded as "great", in the sense that the majority of us here regard Mozart and Beethoven as "great"...

My list was not intended to suggest all the great composers but rather to offer some possibilities of the most recognized living and recently deceased composers from which we might choose our favorites. Neither did I intend to suggest that these were the only possibilities.

As for what composers of today might be considered "Great" on the same level as we consider "Bach", "Beethoven", or "Mozart" great... well I'll admit I can think of no such composer on that level... but neither can I think of too many on that level from the whole of known musical history. I do suspect, however, that there are more than a few living composers who might just be recognized in the future as in no way inferior to Saint-Saëns, Faure, Mussorgsky, or a great many other composers who I consider "great" in their own way. I would also state that I fully believe there is no reason that we should not again come across a composer of the likes of Mozart... but I doubt that we would fully recognize his genius any more than most of Mozart's peers recognized his.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ... but I doubt that we would fully recognize his genius any more than most of Mozart's peers recognized his.


Except for those of us with the most delectable tastes in music, take me for example ...  I recognise Tan Dun as fine but not great.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> As for what composers of today might be considered "Great" on the same level as we consider "Bach", "Beethoven", or "Mozart" great... well I'll admit I can think of no such composer on that level...


There's a very simple explanation for that, simple but fairly unconvincing. I haven't convinced anyone by it, anyway.:lol: But I still think it's true for all that.

We have had several generations of people saying that these three are the greatest. There's decades if not centuries of inertia there to contend with. (I mention "if not centuries" because it's possible to argue that Mozart has only been considered by everyone as one of the greats since early in the last century. I don't find that argument terribly convincing myself, but I've heard it made.)

There's also the idea that "that level" has very little if any content. The notion of greatness has always been problematic, principally because while it relies on a consensus among many people, it pretty much disregards those subjective responses in order to locate the greatness objectively in the composer himself (or, rarely, herself) or as an intrinsic quality of the work itself. How one establishes that intrinsic-ness is usually side-stepped.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I fully believe there is no reason that we should not again come across a composer of the likes of Mozart... but I doubt that we would fully recognize his genius any more than most of Mozart's peers recognized his.


Well, I think Mozart's _peers_ fully recognized his genius. And my impression, subject to correction, is that his reputation only grew after his death. At least for awhile. But point taken, regardless.

There's another point, though, which should also be considered, and that is that in any time, any composer's peers will have a pretty good idea of what they're dealing with. Not the audiences at large, which, being large and thus full of variety--of opinions, of knowledge, of skill--lags behind, rather. Variously numbers have been put to this lag, but certainly a lag there is. And naturally enough, I'd say, since many composers (_most_ or _all_ up to the twentieth century) are looking to push beyond what was done in the past--once you have recordings and thus a real market (a real commodity) along with the growing sense that "modern" is bad (dating from around the beginning of the second decade of the 19th century), then mimicking the sounds of the past can have a real market value. (In the eighteenth century, no one thought mimicking the sounds of the past was a good idea. The few who tried it on in the nineteenth century failed miserably. Audiences didn't go for it. In the next century, and in this one so far, audiences it seems are going for it in a big way.)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

...................................


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

1. John Williams
2. Hans Zimmer
3. Another Movie composer
4. A video Game composer
5. Another video Game composer
6. No more available...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> 1. John Williams
> 2. Hans Zimmer
> 3. Another Movie composer
> 4. A video Game composer
> ...


Very limited.  I would definitely say Glass. He is probably the most famous living composer.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

science said:


> Sid James, I'm aware that Webber is disdained by today's highbrows, but what I predict is that about a decade or two after his death, he will be reevaluated by a younger generation. Sondheim as well.
> 
> We may be seeing that happening already with Kern, Oscar, Hammerstein, Porter, and so on. EMI GROC put out "Show Boat." Increasingly "Porgy and Bess," "Kiss Me, Kate," and "West Side Story" are taken increasingly seriously by highbrows.
> 
> We'll see!


The 'ancient' and august body of the Johannesburg Musical Society (now 110 years old and the oldest music society in South Africa) had a crossover group playing GERSHWIN in May. The concert hall was nearly full - a rare thing for their recitals.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Very limited.  I would definitely say Glass. He is probably the most famous living composer.


Thats a tricky thing to use though. Many composers who were 'most famous' at the time are relegated below others in posterity.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> Thats a tricky thing to use though. Many composers who were 'most famous' at the time are relegated below others in posterity.


How about Elliott Carter then?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Haydn recognised Mozart's greatness - and I think others did too and he had a bigger following than any modern day composer. 
He had many operas commissioned for the greatest opera houses.
During his lifetime he was a celebrated composer in Vienna and he could draw big crowds - and Prague was mad for him.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Here in England we have been having Diamond Jubilee celebrations. Last night we had a concert featuring many artists regarded as pop 'royalty' including Sir Elton and Sir Paul. Also a giant among popular musicians -Stevie Wonder and an assortment of lesser but talented performers. We were also subjected to an 'official' song that was 'composed' by Gary Barlow (Take That ) and Lord Lloyd Webber. The song was as artless, mediocre and banal as could be imagined but I dare say it will sell millions of copies when released.
I noted, not for the first time, that when the occasion demanded BIG music, as it did for the firework finale, big music that everyone could get behind, who did we get?
Handel, Holst, Elgar and Beethoven.
Why is this? Why not Xenakis, Ferneyhough, Scelsi, Glass, Kagel etc etc.? Why not 
Robert Ashley, Nono, or any one of the dozen's of contemporaries mentioned in this thread? For heaven's sake why not THE MASTER OF THE QUEEN'S MUSIC, Sir Peter Maxwell Davies?
Is it because of a 'lag' between those who know what is great and those who have yet to 'catch up'? I think not.
In a hundred years, will a similar occasion be marked with the music of Stockhausen, Ades or Colin Mathews? I think not.
Why is this?
Who are the 'appraisers' now and in the future? The academics? Scholars? Critics? Broadcasters? Fellow composers?
Will Lloyd Webber be re-appraised in the future and be found to be a 'great' in the same way that Beethoven is? That is a laughable idea in spite of his his undoubted competence as a composer of mainstream popular musical theatre.

This is a complex question indeed.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

So let me understand your post correctly Petwhac. 

You are criticisng contemporary composers for not having written music, which is suitable to be appreciated upon first listening, by a massive collection of people, from all backgrounds and educations, to accompany an outdoor fireworks display which will last a few moments and then be forgotten.

I think the composers you named have rather higher artistic aspirations.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

“Why don’t you listen to something really classical, like Mozart, Mendelssohn, or Motörhead?” 
(Rimmer, Red Dwarf, Balance of Power)


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

On a more serious note, here are my 10 candidates, living or recently deceased:

Adams
Aho
Corigliano
Glass
Gorecki
Gubaidulina
Ligeti
MacMillan
Part
Rautavaara


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

No he is not - he is saying that no modern composer has written anything remotely good enough for that event.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

emiellucifuge said:


> So let me understand your post correctly Petwhac.
> 
> You are criticisng contemporary composers for not having written music, which is suitable to be appreciated upon first listening, by a massive collection of people, from all backgrounds and educations, to accompany an outdoor fireworks display which will last a few moments and then be forgotten.
> 
> I think the composers you named have rather higher artistic aspirations.


He's not saying that. Great occasions demand great inspirational music which is widely recognised as such and no contemporary music can deliver that as far as I know.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

stomanek said:


> ...as far as I know.


OK, I'll bite.

How far do you know?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Joan Tower


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> So let me understand your post correctly Petwhac.
> 
> You are criticisng contemporary composers for not having written music, which is suitable to be appreciated upon first listening, by a massive collection of people, from all backgrounds and educations, to accompany an outdoor fireworks display which will last a few moments and then be forgotten.
> 
> *I think the composers you named have rather higher artistic aspirations*.


Much higher aspirations than Handel (Music for the Royal Fireworks, Water Music, Zadok The Priest)? Bach (a cantata a month for his employer)?
Brahms (Academic Festival Overture)
William Walton (Crown Imperial for the coronation of George VI)?
Throughout history composers have written for public occasions. Great composers of high artistic aspirations.

I am not criticising any contemporary composers. People must write in the manner they feel compelled to do. And whatever style or vision they have, there will be an audience of some kind, big or small.

I am merely pointing out that the language of non-tonal music, of much post war and even pre war 'art' music whether it be Babbit's, Stockhausen's, Murail's or Berio's or Penerecki's is incapable, yes incapable of expressing certain feelings. Now perhaps expressing feelings is not what is important to the composers or their particular public. But if that is the case there is absolutely no point in anyone moaning about the fact that the public are 'lagging' behind or that contemporary classical music is so marginalised. The fact is that the eliciting of feelings is what most people listen to music for.
Now, there are fine works of Berio and Ligeti that are full of glorious sonorities, fascinating textures, thrilling instrumental effects and subtle architecture. Schoenberg and his disciples found a substitute for tonality and there have been many innovations since- the use of magic squares, spectral analysis, electronic manipulation and many more. Composers have found a substitute for the role of tonality in music but not an equivalent. Not an adequate replacement for manipulating the emotions of the listener. At least not to the degree of subtleness and nuance that you might find in a Mahler symphony or a Stravinsky ballet.

Since the middle ages until the birth of modernism there has been a connection between 'art' music and the language, specifically the harmonic language of 'every day' music ( folk, devotional, popular or whatever).

I am not advocating that composers should trot out banal tonal pastiche reminiscent of a bygone era. Far from it. There is too much music written today that sounds as if it is stuck in the 60s and 70s music conservatoire and avant garde. 
And film music composers with their derivative unoriginal rip offs of The Planets or anything by R. Strauss are not going to be hailed as the great 'art' music creators of their time because they are writing background wallpaper that can't stand up to serious scrutiny though they might do a wonderful job at supporting the pictures.

I'm afraid the age of the 'great' composer is over for the simple fact that there is no shared musical culture. Every strand of musical activity will have it's own 'greats'. Minimalism, Serialism, Tonalism, New Complexity, Concrete, Noise, Musical Theatre, Pop, Jazz, Fusion, World, Dance, Hip Hop, ad infinitum.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I understand your point perfectly now, thank you for the explanation.

I just cant help but feel that you have made one great assumption which I dont see to be true. 

"The eliciting of these feelings is what people listen to music for"

To me this is a very 'romantic-oriented' view of art. We can go back past the romantic 19th century, and, at least in my opinion, find that art hasnt always served this purpose in society. The classical era was short, and is dominated now by the more progressive composers who moved on into romanticism such as Mozart and Beethoven. But in the music of composers such as Haydn, Dittersdorf etc.. I find that structural clarity and other 'classical' considerations take more focus than the eliciting of feelings. In the Baroque this is even more so, where that mystical quality induced through counterpoint is the goal in at least the German. And I dont feel anything like joy or grief when I listen to the music of Palestrina. Rather, an other-worldy sense of holiness and spirituality fit for the praise of any god.

Now in the same way, modern music may not give me joy or grief but does provide incredible states-of-mind and awareness of myself and the world.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> So let me understand your post correctly Petwhac.
> 
> You are criticisng contemporary composers for not having written music, which is suitable to be appreciated upon first listening, by a massive collection of people, from all backgrounds and educations, to accompany an outdoor fireworks display which will last a few moments and then be forgotten.
> 
> I think the composers you named have rather higher artistic aspirations.


I see your point to an extent, but I don't see why any 'great' composer wouldn't be able to compose music for such an event. Great composers in the past did. Why should composers nowadays see themselves as being above such things? It seems like many modern composers are almost scared of writing something that is easily accessible to a wide audience, something that I think to do _well_ is just as difficult as writing a loftier art piece. I think this is true even if it includes some rehashing which as far as I can tell has always been a part of music to some extent. If the end goal is simply to create the best quality sounds possible, I don't see why constantly being wholly original is so important anyway. The whole idea of staying novel above all else, seems to me a rather egotistical idea related more to an artist trying to achieve some kind of 'greatness' more so than trying to simply create good music.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Yes there has been progress, good and bad, experimentation and change as there always has been. Wagner was a revolutionary, Beethoven greatly opened the way for further structural and harmonic freedom and greater expression. Certain composers began to use music outside of a religious setting. Monteverdi was also a revolutionary. Indeed most of the composers we consider as great from any age innovated and revolutionised the art in some aspect.

So, too, have composers been evolving their art over the last century, but as always there are clear streams and 'schools' within which composers write. This last fact in itself disproves the concept of there being 'total revolution' as opposed to the creation of good art. In the same way really every composer mentioned seriously in this thread has a very distinct voice, and style consistent throughout their life's work. This would be impossible if innovation were the sole aim. Really the aim of musicians today, i believe, is to stay true to their own artistic ideals and language, as it always has been, and this may include not deigning to write a rehashed piece of music for such a superficial event.

Edit: i cant seem to get a normal letter size!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> I am merely pointing out that the language of non-tonal music, of much post war and even pre war 'art' music whether it be Babbit's, Stockhausen's, Murail's or Berio's or Penerecki's is incapable, yes incapable of expressing certain feelings. The fact is that the eliciting of feelings is what most people listen to music for.


I don't really know what _most_ people "listen to music for". I suspect that many certainly want to have the music evoke feelings of beauty, grandeur, sadness, etc. I do think emiellucifuge is correct that many want or enjoy other things from music.

I have read several people state that non-tonal music cannot express feelings/emotions. I personally have struggled with non-tonal music, but recently I came to find parts of Berg's violin concerto beautiful and/or sad. In fact the last time I listened I was called away for something by my wife, but I felt compelled to listen to the last several minutes because it was so beautiful. Some may argue that much/some of Berg's work is not actually non-tonal, but that argument is true in some sense of much (not all) non-tonal music.

I also know there are many who consider many non-tonal works beautiful. They are moved by the music and definitely feel emotional towards it. If some or even many cannot find the music emotional, that does not imply that the music is incapable of eliciting feelings. Maybe one can say that non-tonal music does not _presently_ elicit feelings for _some percentage of people_.



Petwhac said:


> I'm afraid the age of the 'great' composer is over for the simple fact that there is no shared musical culture. Every strand of musical activity will have it's own 'greats'. Minimalism, Serialism, Tonalism, New Complexity, Concrete, Noise, Musical Theatre, Pop, Jazz, Fusion, World, Dance, Hip Hop, ad infinitum.


This I think is an interesting point. I have felt that modern music fits into many more genres or categories than ever before. Composers of the Baroque, CLassical, and Romantic eras basically composed in a style that was rather similar; hence, we designate the music in one style. There were exceptions, but nothing like the modern era where, as you note, there are _many_ more styles. Maybe there is too diverse a musical culture to produce consensus on what "great" music is.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Much higher aspirations than Handel (Music for the Royal Fireworks, Water Music, Zadok The Priest)? Bach (a cantata a month for his employer)?
> Brahms (Academic Festival Overture)
> William Walton (Crown Imperial for the coronation of George VI)?
> Throughout history composers have written for public occasions. Great composers of high artistic aspirations.
> ...


I agree entirely except for the point you made on there not bein any "great composers" anymore.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

put it another way - do you have any recommendations for me?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Much higher aspirations than Handel (Music for the Royal Fireworks, Water Music, Zadok The Priest)?
> 
> I'm afraid the age of the 'great' composer is over for the simple fact that there is no shared musical culture. Every strand of musical activity will have it's own 'greats'. Minimalism, Serialism, Tonalism, New Complexity, Concrete, Noise, Musical Theatre, Pop, Jazz, Fusion, World, Dance, Hip Hop, ad infinitum.


Yes, I can agree. "Great" in the sense that we might describe JS Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Mahler; unlikely. Great in a casual sense that we think Tom Jones has a great voice, yes. Speaking of whom, and you mentioning Handel, I couldn't help by comparing the state of great musical celebrations today versus the past. Handel was naturally England's leading composer of his day and was naturally called upon to contribute to national (or royal) musical occasions, but what about today? Queen Elisabeth II celebrated her Diamond Jubilee as sovereign. Where is her leading "great" composer to write new music to celebrate the occasion? Is there simply none? And why? Is there no use for music (not true, as public concerts were held)?

P.S. I completely disagree about the so called "Noise" being a genre of music. It is not.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> This I think is an interesting point. I have felt that modern music fits into many more genres or categories than ever before. Composers of the Baroque, CLassical, and Romantic eras basically composed in a style that was rather similar; hence, we designate the music in one style. There were exceptions, but nothing like the modern era where, as you note, there are _many_ more styles. Maybe there is too diverse a musical culture to produce consensus on what "great" music is.


I can agree with this.



stomanek said:


> put it another way - do you have any recommendations for me?


Yes, and many of us do. To help us- What do you like?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I agree entirely except for the point you made on there not bein any "great composers" anymore.


Let me clarify if I can. It's not that there are no 'great' composers anymore but I think that no composer writing in recent decades will attain the elevated position among the general public (classical music loving public) the critics, the scholars and the performers that is held by the likes of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, Puccini, and on. 
Remember the sort of Readers Digest collections of 'Favourites' that used to be found in many homes? Records with little magazine biographies of each composer. Do you think there would or could be an equivalent in 2112 with Boulez, Xenakis and Harrison Birtwistle? Bartok, Janecek, Benjamin Britten and Shostakovich, probably yes. Maybe even Glass, Gorecki and Adams but not those composers who abandoned all or nearly all links with the music that fills peoples everyday lives from the nursery onwards.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Let me clarify if I can. It's not that there are no 'great' composers anymore but I think that no composer writing in recent decades will attain the elevated position among the general public (classical music loving public) the critics, the scholars and the performers that is held by the likes of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, Puccini, and on.
> Remember the sort of Readers Digest collections of 'Favourites' that used to be found in many homes? Records with little magazine biographies of each composer. Do you think there would or could be an equivalent in 2112 with Boulez, Xenakis and Harrison Birtwistle? Bartok, Janecek, Benjamin Britten and Shostakovich, probably yes. Maybe even Glass, Gorecki and Adams but not those composers who abandoned all or nearly all links with the music that fills peoples everyday lives from the nursery onwards.


I see what your saying, although it is possible that people of the future will come to appreciate these composers more than they are now. From what I have observed, avant-garde classical music seems to be celebrated more by younger generations, the older people being more conservative in their approach to classical music. In even 50 years time I think that the composers you have mentioned will have more recognition with general classical music listeners.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I think that "non-tonal" music can bring emotions of the same level of tonal music (although I find the comparison of the two as meaningless, since "tonal" and "non-tonal" are simply small characteristics of a whole, which is _music_; in the XXI century, "atonalism" is no more an _end_, but rather a standard _tool_ for composing music).


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> From what I have observed, avant-garde classical music seems to be celebrated more by younger generations, the older people being more conservative in their approach to classical music.


This isn't what I've seen. Even here on TC, the anti-moderns are all ages, as are the pro-moderns. I get more radical in my listening habits as I get older, not less. And I don't see that changing any time soon.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I wish I had more time to eally get into this debate/discussion. As it is I am a family man and just get to snatch 5 minutes here and there.
I can tell you what I like from the 20th C and then maybe you can help me find a way into more modern stuff. I heard V-Williams symphony no 4 recently and thought it a major discovery for me - as I hitherto had not rated V-Williams. I think Shostakovich no 5 is marvellous - but hate no 1. I heard the Schnittke viola concerto and hated that. There was a Maxwell davies piece that featured a bagpipe at the end and I liked that a lot. I adore Debussy's La Mer - wish there was more of that calibre in 20th C music - maybe there is. I like Charles Ives sy no 1 and I like Elgar 1 but not Elgar 2. Gorecki no 3 - the popular piece that was raved about - I liked initially but disgarded it after a few listenings. I have heard various modern tone poems and symphonies in the UK over the years and have not been impressed. Maybe I was just unlucky. I heard King Priam by Tippet and walked out at the interval. Britten I do not like at all. Well that's about it


----------



## Rangstrom (Sep 24, 2010)

I keep going back to:

Holmboe
W. Schuman
Maw
Rzewski
Simpson
Penderecki
Zwilich
Weinberg/Vainberg


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

stomanek said:


> Great occasions demand great inspirational music which is widely recognised as such and no contemporary music can deliver that as far as I know.


In 1971 in the ruins of Persepolis, the Shah of Iran hosted the 2500th anniversary of the founding of Iran. For the arts festival held that year, also in Persepolis as a part of the celebrations, the Shah commissioned this piece, broadcast over 59 speakers scattered throughout the audience:






Great enough occasion?

Inspirational enough music?

(We may have to wrangle about "widely." The Shah certainly thought he was important enough to give him several commissions.)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

stomanek said:


> ...I can tell you what I like from the 20th C and then maybe you can help me find a way into more modern stuff...it


I can just recommend to keep on exploring modern/contemporary music as you have. If you hear a work by a composer you don't like, you may still like other works by theirs.

Eg. Tippett's _King Priam _is one of his more challenging scores. Even he described it as "a bit hard to take." But he wrote other works that are more 'approachable,' eg. his string quartets, esp. the first three (the 3rd being my favourite), his _Piano Concerto_, the _Concerto for Double String Orchestra_, the _Fantasia Concertante on a Theme of Corelli,_ and so on. A darker work, but more melodic than _King Priam_, is the oratorio _A CHild of Our Time_.

So just keep exploring, keep up being exposed to these things. The big names are all like this, they all I think produced something that will appeal (or has a potential to) to appeal to any listener.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> In 1971 in the ruins of Persepolis, the Shah of Iran hosted the 2500th anniversary of the founding of Iran. For the arts festival held that year, also in Persepolis as a part of the celebrations, the Shah commissioned this piece, broadcast over 59 speakers scattered throughout the audience:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe in it's original setting and premiere but apart from a CD of remixes, how many subsequent performances has it had?

Interesting but not inspirational to me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

some guy said:


> This isn't what I've seen. Even here on TC, the anti-moderns are all ages, as are the pro-moderns. I get more radical in my listening habits as I get older, not less. And I don't see that changing any time soon.


I'm not talking about the age, I'm talking about the generation.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

Ah. New rule. It has to keep delivering it over and over again. And recordings don't count.

Heads you win, tails I lose. Hmmm. If my mom were still alive, she would doubtless advise me not to play with you any more.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> This isn't what I've seen. Even here on TC, the anti-moderns are all ages, as are the pro-moderns. I get more radical in my listening habits as I get older, not less. And I don't see that changing any time soon.


I know you attend a wide variety of concerts. Would you say the audience tends to be roughly the same (i.e in age) for all types of concerts or is there a difference between say avant-garde music and more conventional symphonies? My experience has been that pretty much all the concerts I go to are attended by predominantly much older people (lots of grey hair). While I do regularly see a group that plays a reasonable amount of modern music, they generally play "more conventional" modern music.

It would be interesting to know if younger people have a different focus in their musical taste than the older generation.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I'm not talking about the age, I'm talking about the generation.


? What's the dif? (Younger and older refer to age. An older generation from yours would consist of people whose ages are numerically larger than yours. Or?)

Added to take in mmsbls' question: I do attend a lot of concerts of new music. The ones in the US do tend a bit to pull in more younger people than the ones in Europe. But then age is a much bigger deal over here generally than it is over there. But there are older people at them, too. When I was going to new music concerts in the 70s, I was in my twenties. And the music was from the seventies. I still go to new music concerts, and the music is from the 21st century.

The few symphony concerts I've attended over the past decade show a similar pattern. The ones in the US tend to pull in more older people than the ones in Europe. In Europe, the mix of audience ages is not as different between concerts of old music and concerts of new music.

For performers, there's probably no difference. The performers of new music span fifty or sixty years in age, for both old music and new.

Otherwise, the most vociferously rabid anti-modernists that I've met, who tend to cluster in the US and in Australia, are mostly young people. (That was true before the internet, too. I don't know if those people, who are now older--things keep changing, don't they? Why, I was only twenty a dozen or so lines back!--are still as rabid. Possibly so. I don't usually keep current with people with rabies.)

Anyway, my point was more about generalizing according to generation: there are individuals who are interested in new music in every generation, and there are individuals in every generation who despise new music. I can see the same trends you do, but everywhere I go, there are people of every generation attending new music concerts. After all, many of these concerts, as has been pointed out sneeringly many time before, are attended largely by fellow composers. And quite a few members of the "avant garde" are now in their seventies and eighties!!


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

I don't know about you guys, but I think John Adams is pretty securely in the list of all-time great composers and easily is on the list for this discussion.

Outside of Adams, I think you can get into the debate a little more thoroughly. Elliot Carter probably is another lock. Ligeti is up there too. Crumb and Kurtag have an outside shot.

I'm not so sold on Glass. Personally, I'd put Reich above him (and few have mentioned him thus far). Part probably should be, but I think he'll be forgotten eventually.

As far as the people saying Berio, Varese, Stockhausen, etc. They're already there. They died quite a while ago and their popularity (and recognition of importance) hasn't waned at all. 

I'd say anyone not in the list above probably doesn't have much of a shot. Although some are still very much living and still very much writing music. I haven't heard Joan Tower yet, but I've only heard great things. Some day...


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> Ah. New rule. It has to keep delivering it over and over again. And recordings don't count.
> 
> Heads you win, tails I lose. Hmmm. If my mom were still alive, she would doubtless advise me not to play with you any more.


Firstly, it is only your opinion that it 'delivered' in the first place.
Secondly, I would have thought that multiple performances by public demand would be the very least criterion for estimating a works 'greatness'. I don't think it's a "new rule" but a rather obvious measure.
Thirdly, and this relates to your subsequent comments, it is rather disconcerting that one is not allowed to have aesthetic, philosophical or hell, even musical reservations about certain trends or schools in composition without being labeled "rabid" or "sneering". The words black, kettle and pot come to mind.
Lastly, if that Xenakis piece is the best, or perhaps only example you can muster then you seem to have proven my point for me. 
Thank you.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> _t is rather disconcerting that one is not allowed to have aesthetic, philosophical or hell, even musical reservations about certain trends or schools in composition without being labeled "rabid" or "sneering"._


_This is probably just your guilty conscience talking.

I was not referring to you. But if you made a rabid comment or if you sneered, I would like to be "allowed" to say so if I so desired. (Nowhere in any of my posts ever will you ever find that I have conflated "reservations" with "rabid-ness" as you have made me out to have done.)

Jeez Petwhac, you kettle, you, can't a guy make a focussed remark about a certain group of people without being called a pot?_


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The average listener of classical music in one hundred years is probably going to be East Asian, and the late-20th and early-21st century composers s/he will regard as "great" are likely to include a few like Harrison, Takemitsu, Tan Dun, Chin Unsuk, Lam Bunching, Ge Gan-ru.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Thanks - forgot to mention Bliss - I like his music for strings.
A lot of 20thC English composers I have heard on Lyrita - Bax etc - but could not find much worth listening to again I'm afraid.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> This is probably just your guilty conscience talking.
> 
> I was not referring to you. But if you made a rabid comment or if you sneered, I would like to be "allowed" to say so if I so desired. (Nowhere in any of my posts ever will you ever find that I have conflated "reservations" with "rabid-ness" as you have made me out to have done.)
> 
> Jeez Petwhac, you kettle, you, can't a guy make a focussed remark about a certain group of people without being called a pot?


Fair enough.
But...I have noticed in this forum that those who do not necessarily embrace all the weird and (occasionally) wonderful experiments and aesthetic tastes of 'modernism', tend to be labeled 'conservative' with the implication that they are somehow 'narrow minded' or even deficient in their ability to understand. Whereas perhaps they are just discerning.

Anyways, my conscience is as clear of guilt as Persepolis is clear of a rousing and joyful ending (or beginning or middle).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Fair enough.
> But...I have noticed in this forum that those who do not necessarily embrace all the weird and (occasionally) wonderful experiments and aesthetic tastes of 'modernism', tend to be labeled 'conservative' with the implication that they are somehow 'narrow minded' or even deficient in their ability to understand. Whereas perhaps they are just discerning.
> 
> Anyways, my conscience is as clear of guilt as Persepolis is clear of a rousing and joyful ending (or beginning or middle).


Nah that's only what I label them.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I ignored those who died in 80s till 2000s. Still I don't know many alive composers. Minimalist music is boring and Expressionist music is 'ugly' 

So I stick to Romantic music, Classic, Baroque and earlier. Also few minimalist and Neo-classic compositions alongside some movie composers.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Double post


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> I ignored those who died in 80s till 2000s. Still I don't know many alive composers. Minimalist music is boring and Expressionist music is 'ugly'
> 
> So I stick to Romantic music, Classic, Baroque and earlier. Also few minimalist and Neo-classic compositions alongside some movie composers.






Ach! Webern! Ugly music! HELP ME!!!!





 Most boring piece of crap I've ever heard in my life.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Fair enough.
> But...I have noticed in this forum that those who do not necessarily embrace all the weird and (occasionally) wonderful experiments and aesthetic tastes of 'modernism', tend to be labeled 'conservative' with the implication that they are somehow 'narrow minded' or even deficient in their ability to understand. Whereas perhaps they are just discerning.
> 
> Anyways, my conscience is as clear of guilt as Persepolis is clear of a rousing and joyful ending (or beginning or middle).


Its a tricky distinction.
Such people are conservative by definition as they resist the recent changes in art and hold onto the style dominant in the 19th century as an ideal.
They may be discerning, but I am also discerning and I very much like modern music.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Its a tricky distinction.
> Such people are conservative by definition as they resist the recent changes in art and hold onto the style dominant in the 19th century as an ideal.
> They may be discerning, but I am also discerning and I very much like modern music.


19th century?
No no, 18th century surely! Those decadent, ego maniacal, heart-on-sleeve degeneraters of poise, balance and harmony that are the ghastly 'romantics' have a lot to answer for. With them it's all about me,me,me!

Seriously though. Change for change's sake is not _necessarily _ always for the better is it? Do you like _all_ modern music? Do you like Ligeti _and_ Adams? Ferneyhough _and_ Part? Birtwistle _and_ Glass? For that matter do you also like Fats Waller _and_ Ornette Coleman? Stan Getz _and_ Archie Shepp? Or even Cole Porter _and_ Emimem?

Surley you can't like _everything_ written since 1900. Aren't we _all_ a teeny weeny bit conservative sometimes?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I agree with you on the matter of change, and Ive addressed this issue in one of my previous posts in this thread. Change for its own sake isnt necessarily good, but artists today are just as much trying to find their own voice as ever and some change is always necessary.

I dont like all modern music, just as I dont like all 18th century music. BUT there is a lot of modern music that I do like. I am discerning.


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

High school wind bands will be playing G-spot Tornado and a handful of percussion arrangements by Zappa.


----------



## Jaws (Jun 4, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Recognised by whom?
> 
> Perhaps if you mean recognised by music 'educators' who were the the receivers of wisdom from their own 'educators' then you will get one set of names. If you mean the teenager next door you'll get a very different set. My Aunt Ethel has her own ideas as do my kids and my bank manager.
> We, all of us with an internet connection, are in the unprecedented position of having nearly everything ever written and recorded instantly available. Some like this, some like that.
> ...


I agree with all of this.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Jaws said:


> I agree with all of this.


"Discover what you like and hang out with others who share your enthusiasm. The rest can take hike."

I like *Discover*, but associating with only backpatters contradicts.


----------



## Jaws (Jun 4, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Let me clarify if I can. It's not that there are no 'great' composers anymore but I think that no composer writing in recent decades will attain the elevated position among the general public (classical music loving public) the critics, the scholars and the performers that is held by the likes of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, Puccini, and on.
> Remember the sort of Readers Digest collections of 'Favourites' that used to be found in many homes? Records with little magazine biographies of each composer. Do you think there would or could be an equivalent in 2112 with Boulez, Xenakis and Harrison Birtwistle? Bartok, Janecek, Benjamin Britten and Shostakovich, probably yes. Maybe even Glass, Gorecki and Adams but not those composers who abandoned all or nearly all links with the music that fills peoples everyday lives from the nursery onwards.


Do you think that in the UK this has anything to do with the fact that the Art's Council isn't strict enough when it commissions new music? The Art's Council's budget comes from the taxes. It doesn't just come from the tax of the fans of squeaky gate music. Do you think that the Art's Council would be better to concentrate its efforts on commissioning music that the majority of the population will enjoy, rather than a very small minority.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

@ComposerOfAvantGarde

I cannot access opened video files here. Direct links will be appreciated.

I assume they are contradictory examples. Some Generalizations are strong and cannot be broken easily with this kind of examples 


I agree with some posters here that change for the change's sake has no merit, unless it's to open new ways to create perfect works.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Jaws said:


> Do you think that in the UK this has anything to do with the fact that the Art's Council isn't strict enough when it commissions new music? The Art's Council's budget comes from the taxes. It doesn't just come from the tax of the fans of squeaky gate music. Do you think that the Art's Council would be better to concentrate its efforts on commissioning music that the majority of the population will enjoy, rather than a very small minority.


Well that's a good question and a very tricky issue. I would hate Radio 3 to turn into Classic FM that's for sure. Classical music, even Mozart and Ravel is a minority interest. What might the Art's Council spend it's money on? The majority of the population would probably like more X Factor and The Voice if ratings are anything to go by. I suppose the thing about public funding is that it relies on someone making a judgement, someone who may not know good music from bad. A good friend of mine, a composer, thinks the whole of British musical landscape would be different if the BBC and I suppose The Art's Council didn't have their 'darlings', their 'go to' names (Ades, Mathews, McMillan et al) who they promote at every given opportunity. He doesn't rate those three very highly needless to say.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Do you like Ligeti _and_ Adams? Ferneyhough _and_ Part? Birtwistle _and_ Glass? For that matter do you also like Fats Waller _and_ Ornette Coleman? Stan Getz _and_ Archie Shepp? Or even Cole Porter _and_ Emimem?


I think so. Don't know Birtwistle or Ferneyhough though.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I think I can add *Hovhaness* to the list.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> The average listener of classical music in one hundred years is probably going to be East Asian...


Well if I see any young people at concerts here - eg. in the 'youth' bracket, say late teens to mid twenties (or even up to their thirties, beyond 'youth') - many of them are East Asian. & sometimes they're with their parents.

In Asian countries like China, even if a fraction of the population like classical music, say 5-10 per cent, that's a huge amount of people.

Regarding the word _conservative_, I try not to use it now (esp. on this forum). I use the phrase _people who value tradition._ It's more objective and less labelling. But if I use the 'c' word, I say _hard core conservatives_, listeners I think are not just conservative but beyond that, eg. people who don't like any music beyond say 1900.

I like most of modern and contemporary classical, but it doesn't mean I like the ideologies that went along with it. Try reading what Boulez said in the 1950's and your jaw will drop. This guy alienated people by calling composers who did not go atonal or serial - or just partly incorporated those techniques into their music, didn't _go all the way _- to be _useless_. He even said Shostakovich was like Mahler rehash at the third pressing. What rubbish. I actually like Boulez's music, or some of it, but no thanks to his (former) ideology, it's just rubbish. Music, or musical techniques, are just that. Music is not ideology, or not at least extreme ideology.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I will be using _the c word_ (as in c*nservative) a lot more often from now.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Try reading what Boulez said in the 1950's and your jaw will drop. This guy alienated people by calling composers who did not go atonal or serial - or just partly incorporated those techniques into their music, didn't _go all the way _- to be _useless_.


If you have indeed read what Boulez wrote in the 50's, then you already know that your paraphrase is not what he said.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I will be using _the c word_ (as in c*nservative) a lot more often from now.


Good on you. Just don't become a _Hard Core Conservative_!:lol:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Good on you. Just don't become a _Hard Core Conservative_!:lol:


I don't think I'll ever be one of those, but I defintiely know a number of people who are.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Conservatism, in both the arts and in politics, can be a good thing. It's good for us to hold onto tradition and to value the past, just as it's good for us to move forward. What is needed is moderation. 

That is what we have too little of on this board and in US politics (I don't know about Australian politics). It's either "some guy" or "HarpsichordConcerto," and they cannot allow each other to exist. For some reason one person can't just like the music she likes and let the other guy like the music he likes: one has to get the other to like her music, and if he doesn't, then it gets personal; the other can't let the other guy enjoy his music, she has to recognize her music's inferiority, and if she won't, then it gets personal. 

So it's always personal, all the time, relentlessly, for ever and ever and ever, HC et. al. vs. SG et. al. on Monday, HC et. al. vs. SG et. al. on Tuesday, HC et. al. vs. SG et. al. on Wednesday, HC et. al. vs. SG et. al. on Thursday, HC et. al. vs. SG et. al. on Friday, HC et. al. vs. SG et. al. on Saturday, HC et. al. vs. SG et. al. on Sunday, 24/7/365: "Your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but your music isn't as good as my music," "but you're a bad person for not liking my music," "but ...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

But I have to admit, at least we don't suffer the interminable Wagner debate much.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with you re moderation, science.

But to answer the OP, his question here -



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> So what 10 living (or recently deceased) composers do you imagine will still be recognized among the "great" composers of 100 years from now?


I would just offer living composers from the ABC Classic FM top 100 20th century countdown last year. Here are all the living & recently deceased (I put recently at 1990 and after) composers on that list, voted from by listeners across Australia of our national classical music radio station. I have left the works voted for and their place in the countdown attached as well, for completeness. Also, I've noted if they've died.

I would say that the minimalist composers, and the film composers, and those that did musical theatre would be recognised by not only classical listeners but most people, eg. the 'common man' in the street. A lot of people have a copy of Gorecki tucked away, but they probably haven't listened to it since the 1990's, when it was a big fad/hit thing. As for the Aussies, all of these would be known by classical listeners here (esp. more 'serious' or just regular classical listeners). Not sure about the 'man in the street' for those, though.

This is what I said earlier in this thread. Listeners to radio, or even concert goers, generally have exposure to more mainstream contemporary composers than say most members of this forum. Well at least they value mainstream more - eg. Carter is not here, neither are 'easy' or more 'approachable' post-1945 guys like Lutoslawski. It's not a judgement, just an observation.

100. ADAMS - Nixon in China

99, RAMIREZ - Misa Criolla

95, TAVENER - Song for Athene

91, LLOYD WEBBER - A Requiem: Pie Jesu

90, SHORE - Lord of the Rings

87, O'BOYLE - Concerto for Didgeridoo

82, GLASS - Akhnaten

81, MESSIAEN - Turangalila-Symphonie (died early 1990's)

76, BERNSTEIN - Candide (died 1990)

68, JENKINS - The Armed Man: A Mass for Peace

56, PART - Cantus in Memory of Benjamin Britten

51, SCULTHORPE - Kakadu

49, EDWARDS - Dawn Mantras

46, SCULTHORPE - Small Town

45, EDWARDS - Violin Concerto 'Maninyas'

43, GLASS - Violin Concerto No.1

41, MESSIAEN - Quatuor Pour Le Fin Du Temps

39, KATS-CHERNIN - Wild Swans

36, MORRICONE - The Mission

32, COPLAND - Fanfare for the Common Man

29, WESTLAKE - Antarctica Suite

18, COPLAND - Appalachian Spring (died 1990)

16, PART - Spiegel Im Spiegel

14, GORECKI - Symphony No.3 Op.36, 'Symphony of Sorrowful Songs' (died in recent years)

13, BERNSTEIN - West Side Story (died 1990)


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> I would say that the minimalist composers, and the film composers, and those that did musical theatre would be recognised by not only classical listeners but most people, eg. the 'common man' in the street.


No Sondheim on your list?

I think the OP was referring to 'art' music but perhaps I am wrong about that so....

If we are going to include film and musical theatre composers why not jazz and pop/rock?

Here are a few outstanding ones who I think are all still alive.

Paul Simon
Stevie Wonder 
Paul McCartney
Donald Fagen
Burt Bacharach
Wayne Shorter
Dave Brubeck
Pat Metheney
Chick Corea
John Scofield

Dozens more I could mention.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> 99, RAMIREZ - Misa Criolla


Nice to see that. It's been almost forgotten.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Is this strictly for composers that are still alive today? It's kind of hard to predict the impact of some of the younger composers. It's hard to separate my own personal affection for certain composers and my perception of their influence on the whole of music sometimes. Here are some guesses, along with reasons, because names are useless without reasons.

I think Penderecki will be among the greats of tomorrow for his early pioneering work with graphic scoring. 

Toru Takemitsu could possibly be seen as one of the greats of classical music for simply being the first widely acclaimed Asian composer and being one of the composers most talented at getting a sensuous and traditionally beautiful sound out of serial techniques.

Gubaidulina, maybe. It might be just because I like her music a lot. But her style is certainly very unique and personal. Plus, she introduced the Bayan to classical music. I'm not sure how much widespread influence she had in the big picture. It's hard to say. 

I think Boulez definitely will enter the mainstream "greatness" pantheon. Even though people say his techniques were a dead end. He is still a very major figure in a major "movement" in music.

Phillip Glass, Steve Reich and John Adams I think will be seen among the greats and forever be associated and spoken of together as the founders of American Minimalism, much like Schoenberg, Berg and Webern were to 12 tonalism. 

That's all I can think of immediately.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I know that people make the argument that, since composer's popularity in the past didn't necessarily translate to greatness in the long run and composers like Bach had to be brought back from obscurity, the same will be of this era. But I actually have a theory that the composers that are considered "great" today will more or less be the same ones considered great later because information travels a lot faster these days. Everyone is not quite so much in their cultural or local "bubble" like people were back then and thus I think we can have a clearer picture of the influence and power of certain composers music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

violadude said:


> I know that people make the argument that, since composer's popularity in the past didn't necessarily translate to greatness in the long run and composers like Bach had to be brought back from obscurity, the same will be of this era. But I actually have a theory that the composers that are considered "great" today will more or less be the same ones considered great later because information travels a lot faster these days. Everyone is not quite so much in their cultural or local "bubble" like people were back then and thus I think we can have a clearer picture of the influence and power of certain composers music.


That is a very interesting idea.

Another thing to consider is that our retrospective evaluations of composers has a lot to do with later musicians justifying their own projects. If the future of music is ever more complicatedly electronic and technological....


----------



## Sequentia (Nov 23, 2011)

Boulez
Carter
Nørgård
Wuorinen

You can argue about the others, but history will prove me right.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think this kind of thing is very hard to predict, but I'd suggest Schnittke has a good chance, as well as other composers who have mixed avante-garde and traditional techniques in their music. I'd also predict there to be composers from a wide variety of musical genres surviving the test of time.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Time will tell.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> No Sondheim on your list?...


Well Bernstein's _West Side Story _is there, and he did that with Sondheim as lyricist.



> ...
> I think the OP was referring to 'art' music but perhaps I am wrong about that so....
> 
> If we are going to include film and musical theatre composers why not jazz and pop/rock?
> ...


Well what you suggest, and how I think about things, is that the barriers between art music and other types of musics where already breaking down 100 years ago. Even 200 years ago, Beethoven and Schubert incorporated popular musics like _Schrammel-musik _heard in taverns and cafes, into their music. The boundaries between various genres are now very thin in my view, wafer thin. Of course not in everything, but in many things.

For example, Bernstein wrote fluently for musical theatre as well as the concert hall, and even one of the great film scores of the time, _On the Waterfront_. Not to mention being a conductor, pianist and all round musical polymath. I can give other examples but he's the best-known and biggest one.

So I think that if we shut certain things out and only allow in concert hall music or opera, then this kind of talks to an _ivory tower _mentality and a kind of segregation of things. Artificially sealing things off from reality. & kind of classical becoming like a dead museum object, while really its a very diverse thing. Just my opinions.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> Boulez
> Stockhausen
> John Adams
> Glass
> ...


Pierre Boulez for sure.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I know that people make the argument that, since composer's popularity in the past didn't necessarily translate to greatness in the long run and composers like Bach had to be brought back from obscurity, the same will be of this era. But I actually have a theory that the composers that are considered "great" today will more or less be the same ones considered great later because information travels a lot faster these days. Everyone is not quite so much in their cultural or local "bubble" like people were back then and thus I think we can have a clearer picture of the influence and power of certain composers music.

I don't think your theory has the least bit of validity. The survival of a work of art has nothing to do with the dissemination of information or commonality of culture. Survival of a work of art is dependent upon the ability of that work to continue to resonate or speak to subsequent audiences, academics, and artists. I can throw out the name of a dozen painters who were deemed to be the "great" artists of the era when I was in art school who have now faded from the scene, while another dozen artists who were largely ignored have risen to a far more central position. It is virtually impossible to make anything approaching an objective judgment of contemporary artists. There are too many individuals who have much invested in the continued reputation of certain artists. Much that was valued in any given era will fade into obscurity as mere period pieces.

But of course every generation naively believes that they have a better handle on recognizing "true genius" than the generations preceding.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I know that people make the argument that, since composer's popularity in the past didn't necessarily translate to greatness in the long run and composers like Bach had to be brought back from obscurity, the same will be of this era. But I actually have a theory that the composers that are considered "great" today will more or less be the same ones considered great later because information travels a lot faster these days. Everyone is not quite so much in their cultural or local "bubble" like people were back then and thus I think we can have a clearer picture of the influence and power of certain composers music.
> 
> I don't think your theory has the least bit of validity. The survival of a work of art has nothing to do with the dissemination of information or commonality of culture. Survival of a work of art is dependent upon the ability of that work to continue to resonate or speak to subsequent audiences, academics, and artists. I can throw out the name of a dozen painters who were deemed to be the "great" artists of the era when I was in art school who have now faded from the scene, while another dozen artists who were largely ignored have risen to a far more central position. It is virtually impossible to make anything approaching an objective judgment of contemporary artists. There are too many individuals who have much invested in the continued reputation of certain artists. Much that was valued in any given era will fade into obscurity as mere period pieces.
> 
> But of course every generation naively believes that they have a better handle on recognizing "true genius" than the generations preceding.


I wouldn't equate future opinions of art with objectivity.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

I'm not sure how information technology and communication would _not_ influence how past and present composers will be perceived in the future.

I'm fairly certain that various composers will be rediscovered and reinvented at different points in time. Access to scores, recordings and interviews already play a big part in defining a composer's legacy and impact. Everyone has a say now, not scholars exclusively.

That's the main point, i think; Great composers are a dying breed, precisely because their creative bodies are so accessible. Groups of people make their own mind and don't have to follow the dogma of scholars. Fame is also another phenomenon which must be considered. Our communication systems and data infrastructures render the whole concept of achievement and success very chaotic: what information is exposed to whom, and at what time?

Imagine if we had Bach interviews...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I've gone into this a lot on this forum, the fact that there are three main canons: musicological, pedagogical and performance. In THIS post I go into some detail on these. So there is consensus, but from various quarters. Sometimes they overlap & agree, sometimes they don't or there is room for debate (there always is, it seems, even on small details!).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I wouldn't equate future opinions of art with objectivity.

Perhaps the closest we get to objectivity when it comes to the subjective act of judging art is found in the collective opinions over the course of time. Of course that's wholly meaningless to whether you or I like a particular artist or work.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I wouldn't equate future opinions of art with objectivity.
> 
> Perhaps the closest we get to objectivity when it comes to the subjective act of judging art is found in the collective opinions over the course of time. Of course that's wholly meaningless to whether you or I like a particular artist or work.


Well, this is a different direction but

- there is no such thing as objective aesthetics; objectivity means description rather than appreciation.
- if there were objectivity and we were to value it, it would still be no less arbitrary to assert that ONLY an artist's contemporaries could appreciate her work objectively.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

That's the main point, i think; Great composers are a dying breed, precisely because their creative bodies are so accessible. Groups of people make their own mind and don't have to follow the dogma of scholars. Fame is also another phenomenon which must be considered.

I don't think great composers or great artists are a dying breed at all. Again the very idea sounds far too naive. Every generation has imagined that they were unique and wholly different from the past. There's a quote in a book of essays by John Barth is which a writer bemoans the fact that he was born too late. All the great poems have been written. All the great narratives told and retold to the point of exhaustion. The author in question? An Egyptian of some centuries BCE.

Fame is irrelevant... fleeting. As Sid posted here before, Hans Makart was for a time the most well-known, popular artist in Europe. He was an "art star" of his day... beloved by aristocrats, intellectuals, and art critics alike. Today he is known... if at all... as the teacher to Gustav Klimt. We can site similar occurrences of the loss of fame among painters, sculptors, novelists, poets, composers, etc...

It is not fame... but continued relevance of the art over generations, to those who have the most invested in the appreciation of art: professionals and academics, artists, and the serious, well-informed art lover that leads to the survival of this or that artist. In no way does one group (scholars) dictate. The Sherlock Holmes tales by Arthur Conan Doyle and the novels of Alexander Dumas (The Three Musketeers, etc...) are in no way beloved by scholars and critics... but they remain so popular with readers that we cannot but admit that they are indeed "classics". By the same token, a composer like Schoenberg and a writer like James Joyce are far from popular with audiences... even with the more educated of well-informed audience... yet Schoenberg and Joyce remain central figures in the view of many scholars... and subsequent generations of artists to such an extent that again we must acknowledge they are indeed "classics".

Ultimately, a "classic" is simply a work that has withstood the passage of time and continued to be recognized as important and of great merit by a sizable percentage of the audience most concerned with a given art form. There is a certain assumption that a work has survived because it is truly "good"... but truly the judgment of "good" or "bad" remains individual and subjective.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Well, this is a different direction but

- there is no such thing as objective aesthetics;

Yes... I know the mantra: "There is no 'good' nor 'bad'. All opinions and aesthetic judgments are "subjective"... yet some opinions are clearly better than others.

I've never been particularly fond of cultural relativism.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Based on what you guys are conversing about, what stlukes put in his OP, and also what I put in the ABC Classic FM top 100 20th century, these are the people's choice type answers to who is great, or at least popular.

It's similar to back in 1935, if this poll was true (I can't find anything either, but of course many things are not online, they are in books, and not all books are on googlebooks).



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> 
> "In 1935, a survey made by CBS of its radio audience asking the question 'Who, in your opinion, of contemporary composers will remain among the world's great in 100 years?' placed Myaskovsky in the top ten along with Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Ravel, de Falla and Fritz Kreisler."...


Back in 1935, teachers (academics) would have had their pedagogical canon (here in Australia at that time it was very conservative, middle period Beethoven was as far some would go!). & musicologists too. It's a complex issue and I'd say that radio polls like the Australian one are a measure of what listeners think. To go to academics and musicologists, you'd have to look at curricula of music schools and read a range of books with different points of view (respectively).

My barometer is music dictionaries and guides to music, I have a number of them, and it's interesting how performance repertoire has changed since the last 50 years or so. Eg. after his death, Zemlinsky went into obscurity (in the 1940's), but Schoenberg said his time would come (Zemlinsky taught Schoenberg at one stage). Then in the 1970's, and '80's, Zemlinsky's time did kind of come, and that process continues today. Similar thing for many composers, the canon expands and develops as tastes change and old dogmas are shed. It's always evolving and very interesting.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Well, this is a different direction but
> 
> - there is no such thing as objective aesthetics;
> 
> ...


Cultural relativism?

Yes, of course your opinions are objective. Because we can't give up objectivity without surrendering everything good and beautiful in the world. Why did I even bother conversing? I've been here before; if you respected me enough not to treat me like an idiot you'd remember what we said on the subject the last three times and not accuse me of such things. So I shut up now.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I know that people make the argument that, since composer's popularity in the past didn't necessarily translate to greatness in the long run and composers like Bach had to be brought back from obscurity, the same will be of this era. But I actually have a theory that the composers that are considered "great" today will more or less be the same ones considered great later because information travels a lot faster these days. Everyone is not quite so much in their cultural or local "bubble" like people were back then and thus I think we can have a clearer picture of the influence and power of certain composers music.
> 
> I don't think your theory has the least bit of validity. The survival of a work of art has nothing to do with the dissemination of information or commonality of culture. Survival of a work of art is dependent upon the ability of that work to continue to resonate or speak to subsequent audiences, academics, and artists. I can throw out the name of a dozen painters who were deemed to be the "great" artists of the era when I was in art school who have now faded from the scene, while another dozen artists who were largely ignored have risen to a far more central position. It is virtually impossible to make anything approaching an objective judgment of contemporary artists. There are too many individuals who have much invested in the continued reputation of certain artists. Much that was valued in any given era will fade into obscurity as mere period pieces.
> 
> But of course every generation naively believes that they have a better handle on recognizing "true genius" than the generations preceding.


You don't think Bach might have skipped his period of obscurity following his death had his music been available to everyone via youtube? If you don't think so, then doesn't that mean his music is not as trans-generational as everyone says it is?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

violadude said:


> You don't think Bach might have skipped his period of obscurity following his death had his music been available to everyone via youtube? If you don't think so, then doesn't that mean his music is not as trans-generational as everyone says it is?


Well, Mendelssohn was like youtube back then, giving exposure to J.S. Bach's choral music for audiences in mid 19th century. As we well know. Then after Mendelssohn's death, others emerged to continue the _back to Bach_ direction, eg. Widor, Casals, Schweitzer, Landowska, Busoni, and many others. It would really come to fruition after WW1, the neo-classical style. The youtube analogy is good. Of course, Mozart and Beethoven knew Bach's music, those in the music world knew him to some degree, so it was not total obscurity. The musicians where the keepers of the flame, so to speak.

But survival of art in some way - as with J.S. Bach - is vital for it to remain in some way living, so it can be resuscitated and given fresh impetus later. Sadly, with many indigenous cultures - eg. the Aztecs, Mayas, and many Australian Aboriginal tribal groupings - their art, culture, language, music is lost now in the sands of time, as a result of colonialism. It's a related issue I think. Keeping the flame alive is important if we want culture to remain real and not a museum relic.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Well, Mendelssohn was like youtube back then, giving exposure to J.S. Bach's choral music for audiences in mid 19th century. As we well know. Then after Mendelssohn's death, others emerged to continue the _back to Bach_ direction, eg. Widor, Casals, Schweitzer, Landowska, Busoni, and many others. It would really come to fruition after WW1, the neo-classical style. The youtube analogy is good. Of course, Mozart and Beethoven knew Bach's music, those in the music world knew him to some degree, so it was not total obscurity. The musicians where the keepers of the flame, so to speak.
> 
> But survival of art in some way - as with J.S. Bach - is vital for it to remain in some way living, so it can be resuscitated and given fresh impetus later. Sadly, with many indigenous cultures - eg. the Aztecs, Mayas, and many Australian Aboriginal tribal groupings - their art, culture, language, music is lost now in the sands of time, as a result of colonialism. It's a related issue I think. Keeping the flame alive is important if we want culture to remain real and not a museum relic.


I think that's right. There are a number of good points to be made and balanced out:

- We don't want to forget what has been done before us; we want to appreciate it and learn from it. Humility can be a virtue.

- We don't want to limit ourselves entirely to slavish imitation of it; we want to make our own unique expressions. Rebellion can be a virtue.

- We often judge the artists of the past by how they have influenced us (this would be true for teachers, composers, and performers: all the canonwrights), sometimes even trying to legitimize our own art as at least in part a continuation of past masters' projects (as Schoenberg did with Brahms; as Cage and Eno do with Satie; etc.).

- The artists of today will be judged and manipulated in the same way by the artists and teachers of tomorrow as they modify the canon.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I don't think great composers or great artists are a dying breed at all.


I meant "Great" composers, not great composers. There are plenty of great artists, i'm simply noting that the dynamics of recognition and success are not as they used to be. I don't think we will ever see another Mozart, not by a lack of talent, but because the emergence of popular music and art in general is just overwhelming in comparison to the academic arts.

Artists are finding more success outside the academic circles, still, both academic and popular artists are recognized within their own circles. There's an interesting exchange between the disciplines, pop artists are influenced by fellow pop artists, which may be in turn influenced by academics, and so on, creating a complex network of lineages.

Fame is irrelevant? Wouldn't Schoenberg be considered famous within the scholar circles? What is irrelevant, to me, is accounting for the fame and acclaim of an individual where he has no reach; Schoenberg is very famous where he is understood, because the premise of his music originates from academia.

We will probably see "Greats" in the fields of science, for example, where education is required to attain any sort of achievement. However, the distinction between academic and popular music, given their respective levels of popularity, in my opinion, will make it very difficult for any composer to achieve universal excellence, as our beloved classical composers once did.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Oh! And one more: 

- There is no accounting for trends or "herd behavior." As an example: tomorrow's "highbrows" may decide that film music was one of the cultural highlights of the 20th century, and just like that Rosenmann, Hermann, Morricone, Mancini, Rósza, and/or Williams could join the ranks of the great composers. Or, tomorrow's highbrows might decide that smooth jazz was a great thing, and there'll be a big Spyro Gyra revival....


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> I think that's right. There are a number of good points to be made and balanced out:
> 
> - We don't want to forget what has been done before us; we want to appreciate it and learn from it. Humility can be a virtue.
> 
> ...


Yes, it's passing the baton type of thing, as in a relay race. But as with things like Harry Partch, the baton could be lost thousands of years ago and found like today. Eg. him building instruments that had not been heard since Ancient Greek times (& reinventing them, adding more strings, more microtones, & inventing other instruments). This really fascinates me. WE may never truly know how it sounded, Ancient Greek music, for example. But we have it embedded in things like Partch (& possibly in a kind of oblique way in Xenakis, his music used microtones as well, plus with him we've got the Greek connection).

So what you say may be contradictory to some, but to me art is often synthesizing the past in the here and now, with a composer's unique vision. There are probably true radicals and true conservatives, but I think that most composers are not at either extreme, they are combination of both. Look at Schoenberg's famous quote, _I was a conservative who was forced to become radical._


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Yes, it's passing the baton type of thing, as in a relay race. But as with things like Harry Partch, the baton could be lost thousands of years ago and found like today. Eg. him building instruments that had not been heard since Ancient Greek times (& reinventing them, adding more strings, more microtones, & inventing other instruments). This really fascinates me. WE may never truly know how it sounded, Ancient Greek music, for example. But we have it embedded in things like Partch (& possibly in a kind of oblique way in Xenakis, his music used microtones as well, plus with him we've got the Greek connection).
> 
> So what you say may be contradictory to some, but to me art is often synthesizing the past in the here and now, with a composer's unique vision. There are probably true radicals and true conservatives, but I think that most composers are not at either extreme, they are combination of both. Look at Schoenberg's famous quote, _I was a conservative who was forced to become radical._


It may even _be_ contradictory, but great art is often born of such dialectical tensions. When things are easy, maybe nothing great can be done.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> Oh! And one more:
> 
> - There is no accounting for trends or "herd behavior." As an example: tomorrow's "highbrows" may decide that film music was one of the cultural highlights of the 20th century, and just like that Rosenmann, Hermann, Morricone, Mancini, Rósza, and/or Williams could join the ranks of the great composers. Or, tomorrow's highbrows might decide that smooth jazz was a great thing, and there'll be a big Spyro Gyra revival....


WEll when Morricone and John Williams came to the fore in about the 1960's, at that time some where predicting that tonal film music was a thing of the past. You had some great atonal leaning scores from guys like Jerry Goldsmith - eg. the original _Planet of the Apes_ film, amazing score - and also Bernard Hermann who you mention, he always gave me this Mahler and Berg flavour & more than a hint of atonality in _Psycho_(again, the original not the remake!). But Morricone and Williams proved that you could do modern tonal music, that the tradition has lived on. Of course, there's a hint of atonality in their music too, those unique harmonies are in some of their scores, but not dominating overall.

So I think predicting things like the death of tonality, or the death of anything, it speaks often to a certain ideology or dogma. The only constant thing is change, a cycle of death and renewal, in music as in life itself.

Now we're really getting philosophical :lol:...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Philip said:


> I meant "Great" composers, not great composers. There are plenty of great artists, i'm simply noting that the dynamics of recognition and success are not as they used to be. I don't think we will ever see another Mozart, not by a lack of talent, but because the emergence of popular music and art in general is just overwhelming in comparison to the academic arts.
> 
> Artists are finding more success outside the academic circles, still, both academic and popular artists are recognized within their own circles. There's an interesting exchange between the disciplines, pop artists are influenced by fellow pop artists, which may be in turn influenced by academics, and so on, creating a complex network of lineages.
> 
> ...


I don't understand your POV. Can you elaborate or clarify for me? Especially, I've never thought of differentiating between "academic arts" and "popular arts." It's an interesting, potentially very fertile idea. Is it a thing you thought of yourself, or a thing that people out there in the world talk about that I happen not to have noticed before?

I personally distinguish between "popular" and "elite" arts according to how effectively they reward scrutiny. If a work (novel, symphony, sculpture, film, whatever) rewards intense scrutiny, it is inherently elitist because most people don't have the leisure time to acquire the education needed for the scrutiny. (I don't mean academic education, just extensive familiarity with an art form or tradition.) But if a work is intended to be very easily appreciated and does not reward scrutiny, it is inherently populist.

This distinction is easy for me to see: free jazz is obviously elitist, Tennessee Ernie Ford is obviously populist.

Is this distinction different from what you meant by academic/popular?

Edit: And how did it relate to "great" vs. "Great?"


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> WEll when Morricone and John Williams came to the fore in about the 1960's, at that time some where predicting that tonal film music was a thing of the past. You had some great atonal leaning scores from guys like Jerry Goldsmith - eg. *the original Planet of the Apes film, amazing score *- and also Bernard Hermann who you mention, he always gave me this Mahler and Berg flavour & more than a hint of atonality in _Psycho_(again, the original not the remake!). But Morricone and Williams proved that you could do modern tonal music, that the tradition has lived on. Of course, there's a hint of atonality in their music too, those unique harmonies are in some of their scores, but not dominating overall.
> 
> So I think predicting things like the death of tonality, or the death of anything, it speaks often to a certain ideology or dogma. *The only constant thing is change, a cycle of death and renewal, in music as in life itself.*
> 
> Now we're really getting philosophical :lol:...


I will check it out.

That philosophy there, that is the point. The root problem we've been scratching at may well be the notion of a static canon (or even static canons).


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> WEll when Morricone and John Williams came to the fore in about the 1960's, at that time some where predicting that tonal film music was a thing of the past. You had some great atonal leaning scores from guys like Jerry Goldsmith - eg. the original _Planet of the Apes_ film, amazing score - and also Bernard Hermann who you mention, he always gave me this Mahler and Berg flavour & more than a hint of atonality in _Psycho_(again, the original not the remake!). But Morricone and Williams proved that you could do modern tonal music, that the tradition has lived on. Of course, there's a hint of atonality in their music too, those unique harmonies are in some of their scores, but not dominating overall.
> 
> So I think predicting things like the death of tonality, or the death of anything, it speaks often to a certain ideology or dogma. The only constant thing is change, a cycle of death and renewal, in music as in life itself.
> 
> Now we're really getting philosophical :lol:...


Film music is 'applied' music. It can only exist in relation to the pictures it serves to enhance. I don't believe it belongs anywhere near the 'classical' canon, contemporary or otherwise. I'm not saying this out of some kind of snobbery but just as a fact of life as I see it. This doesn't mean there are not 'greater' or 'lesser' film composers although I'm not sure by what criteria that would be measured.
There is a very good reason why film music is _on the whole_ tonal. It is because that is the only idiom or language capable of the _range_ of expression required. 
To convey 'moods' or 'emotions' that help portray a sense of for eg. 'homecoming', 'triumph over adversity', 'regret','happy-go-lucky' 'laughter' etc. I think tonality is the only indispensable tool. There is also the fact that the film composer answers to the director and producer and ultimately the audience and not to a higher artistic ideal or philosophy.
It may well all be down to the fact that we have been _conditioned_ into responding to music in certain ways which doesn't allow us to find music that sounds like Xenakis or Penderecki very useful in conveying the moods I mentioned above, but that is where we are. 
Therefore as I said in an earlier post. There will be the Musical Theatre composers' canon, the Art Music composers' canon, the Pop, Concrete, Country and Western, and Jazz canon etc. Each will have their own 'Greats'.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Film music is 'applied' music. It can only exist in relation to the pictures it serves to enhance. I don't believe it belongs anywhere near the 'classical' canon, contemporary or otherwise.


in the case of Michael Nyman I entirely disagree.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

science said:


> I don't understand your POV. Can you elaborate or clarify for me? Especially, I've never thought of differentiating between "academic arts" and "popular arts." It's an interesting, potentially very fertile idea. Is it a thing you thought of yourself, or a thing that people out there in the world talk about that I happen not to have noticed before?
> 
> I personally distinguish between "popular" and "elite" arts according to how effectively they reward scrutiny. If a work (novel, symphony, sculpture, film, whatever) rewards intense scrutiny, it is inherently elitist because most people don't have the leisure time to acquire the education needed for the scrutiny. (I don't mean academic education, just extensive familiarity with an art form or tradition.) But if a work is intended to be very easily appreciated and does not reward scrutiny, it is inherently populist.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if my point of view holds any water, this is just how i 'orthogonalize' artists. Composers who follow the classical tradition are academics, eg. students of composition. I could spend many lines describing popular music, but i just think of it as all non-academic music (not to be confused with Pop music, which is a genre of popular music).

Personally, i've always thought of "elite" art in a pejorative way... In sports, the elite are the best of the best, but in music, i don't know... I tend not to scrutinize music too much, and if i do, i like to believe that i don't spend more time to it than the artists themselves did... I do however examine on what level music affects me, this is probably analog to your concept of scrutiny.

I guess being great is being better than good...? Being "Great" is being better than good, in addition to being recognized for having highly contributed to the field. With so many artists from different backgrounds nowadays, in conjunction with the accessibility of music, it's hard to imagine that a composer could single-handedly revolutionize music over again. I predict we will see an increasing number of semi-Great composers, instead of few full-fledged Great ones.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2012)

History is an interesting beast, the lessons to be learned from it are many and contradictory--everyone uses history for their own ends.

Here's some more questions to consider for this conversation:

How many of the composers we now consider "Great" were considered "Great" (as opposed to "great" or "influential" or "highly esteemed") in their own time? (Many composers were highly esteemed who subsequently dropped off the map.)

When did the concept of "Greatness" enter into the conversation in music? (How does that concept steer conversations? Imagine a conversation without that concept, what would that be like? Is it even be possible any more?)

If "Greatness" is a function of time passing, as several people have already proposed, then no one today (whenever "today" happens to be) will be as "Great" as Mozart, simply because of the way we've defined "Great." Only a contemporary of Mozart's could legitimately be compared to him. Otherwise, we're putting today's thirty year olds up against the whole weight of tradition, of hundreds and thousands of people repeating the "Mozart is Great" mantra. That's not quite the thing, is it?

Mozart himself (this is obviously just a guess--I never knew the guy) would probably have been quite amused to be considered an academic composer. He never went to the "academy" to learn music. And academicians didn't get around to him until long after his death. That's a least one pretty important lesson of history that gets pretty consistently ignored in conversations like this. (Not entirely consistently.) And that is that applying the ideals of one age to another age--in either direction--is a chump's game. It's interesting that items from one age manage to survive with equal or greater value to when they were current, but it's more interesting for consumers than for creative artists, by and large.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> History is an interesting beast, the lessons to be learned from it are many and contradictory--everyone uses history for their own ends.
> 
> Here's some more questions to consider for this conversation:
> 
> ...


If you are saying what I think you are then I agree. But Mozart and Beethoven were renowned throughout Europe in their lifetimes. Bearing in mind of course that means mostly in the great courts of the nobility who were their patrons and to a lesser extent with the 'general' public. However I think the story goes that 20,000 Viennese lined the streets for Beethoven's funeral. A large proportion of the population.
It's hard to imagine a contemporary composer today getting such a send off. Maybe because there are so many more of them.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> ...
> That philosophy there, that is the point. The root problem we've been scratching at may well be the notion of a static canon (or even static canons).


I don't think anyone is arguing for a static canon. Well, I certainly am not. It is ever evolving, it's in a constant state of flux.



Petwhac said:


> Film music is 'applied' music. It can only exist in relation to the pictures it serves to enhance. I don't believe it belongs anywhere near the 'classical' canon, contemporary or otherwise. ...


I think it is applied but then so is incidental music to plays. Think of Greig's _Peer Gynt _or Mendelssohn's _Midsummer Night's Dream_. Easily among their finest works they're no lesser than their purely concert hall works, and indeed, in the case of Grieg, two suites where drawn from them by the composer, so they have become staples of the concert repertoire. Here, you'd have more of a chance hearing it live in a concert, not theatrical, setting. So too, film scores are now played live in concert alongside symphonies and concertos, esp. concert suites drawn from popular films of the past (see below).



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> in the case of Michael Nyman I entirely disagree.


To Nyman I would add guys like Philp Glass and John Corioglano. Also, Australians such as Carl Vine and Nigel Westlake have done great film scores. So too, composers of the past, like Walton, Georges Auric, and others like Bernard Hermann and Miklos Rozsa (the last two's _day job _was composing, they did concert hall music on the side so to speak). Gone are the days, I think, when composers had to be ashamed of doing film scores. Eg. for Korngold, it kind of sealed the coffin on his career, critics didn't take him seriously. Ironically, Stravinsky avoided doing Hollywood film scores, maybe not to be called lowbrow like Korngold, but Schoenberg tried to convince studio exectuves to allow him to do a film. Nearly happened, but Arnie wanted an orchestra with massive brass section, which was economically unviable. This is all in _The Rest is Noise _by Alex Ross.

In the former Soviet Union, many composers who were not darlings of the regime did film scores as their main (or large part of their) income. Eg. Shostakovich, Gubaidulina, Schnittke, Arvo Part. Despite it being like sent to the salt mines, some fine works came out of this, eg. Shostakovich's _Gadfly_ and others like _Hamlet_, and also Prokofiev's _Alexander Nevsky_.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

In general, I think we listeners worry far too much about "greatness". Isn't it possible to admit that we individually prefer certain composers without also insisting that those composers must be labeled among the "greatest"? 

Elgar and Nielsen will always be among my own favorite composers, but I would never begin to try to argue that either of them was equal to or greater than Beethoven or Bach.

With regard to modern-day composers, I think the real question is, which ones will still be attracting some attention long after their deaths? I'm sorry I can't get very excited about this. It's hard to think that it matters very much, really. If things go on as they are with the world (which I don't believe they will), I can imagine the same arguments then as now - "Doesn't anybody listen to current music? Why all these dead composers on the program?"

Technology has created the environment within which most of us can satisfy our particular inclinations without having to care a lot about popularity. Why not take advantage of it and just chill on the whole "greatness" issue?


----------

