# Critique and standing of contemporary composers



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

When we look back at history, we see that of the composers that were famous in their time, less than 1% remain popular or frequently heard by posterity. So, Beethoven had many famous contemporaries but they're forgotten for the most part. They're now criticized for being derivative or unoriginal. Ries being an example.

Jumping to the present, when I read reviews of composers of our time I hear them being praised but never with declarations like 'a new voice' or being written off as derivative. 

Am I only listening to the top tier of composers - that would be many more than in the past then. Do we have more quality composers?

Am I comparing apples to oranges? Is the situation different than it was in the 19th century?


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

In my view, many of the contemporary composers of choral music today have achieved a level of excellence which I believe their predecessors would be proud of. However they are viewed by critics, composers like René Clausen, Karl Jenkins, James MacMillan, Morten Lauridsen, Arvo Pärt, John Rutter, Paul Mealor, Will Todd, John Tavener, and Eric Whitacre are all writing beautiful choral works. How they are viewed in the future is literally up in the air, and frankly, I don't care what their staying power is in a historical perspective. With 7.6 billion people on the planet, being one in a million means there are 7,600 people just like you. That's 7.6 times as many as in the 19th century. It's getting pretty difficult to be a "new voice".

"*Do we have more quality composers?*" I believe chances are probably pretty good that we do. But I don't think their chances of making it in the music industry the way it is going now will ever get them to the point where they are viewed with the same adulation as composers who lived in a time when live performances were the only way music was heard by the general public.

"*Is the situation different than it was in the 19th century?*" I'd have to say yes.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> composers who lived in a time when live performances were the only way music was heard by the general public.


Critical acceptance has nothing to do with the medium of how music is to be heard by the general public. In classical ages, those who were interested in music must learn music themself and had sufficient means to sustain their own musical interests. Chances of hearing a public performmance were rare, and major repertoirs like motets, missa, hymns were sung in church services, or in private concerts of wealthy people. The common people could only rely on wandering troupes of dancers and musicians. Good music herself never penetrated into the common class people, except for those had accepted classical education and participated in city festivals.

Industrial concept in music is strictly a modern invention, profit is the key word of modernism. Commons never venerate good musicians, never, or exactly common people venerate nothing at all, including bad musicians. Commons lack both passion and reason, all they have is following the crowd instincts which are best manipulated by modern scientific authorities. Those who are being over-hyped by commons are rather unfortunate. Industrialism is mean to explore the taste of the commons, otherwise there will be no profit. Therefore, there is indeed a trend of industrialism within modern musical production, where scientific arguments decorate the vulgarism, so that vulgar works can pass of as educated tastes and continue to thrive. Common tastes are always vulgar, no matter it was in ancient times or is in our times.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> "Is the situation different than it was in the 19th century?" I'd have to say yes.


I would say, no, in terms of critical tastes, it is the same, though we have new medium to propagate music. The tastes for the good or bad music remain the same, loyal to people of different education upbrings. Under the context of materialistic, scientific hegemonies over society, it is no suprising to see industrialism taking over classical idioms.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

@Joe B,
I think that modern composers have it harder than their colleagues in the past, but not because of the number of people on the planet, but because of the easy availability of music. Tons and tons of excellent music from the past are just a couple of clicks away. It is like a sea of music. And one more drop, however excellent, gets lost.
When speaking of current composers of choral music, I wonder why you forgot Ola Gjeilo. His Song of the Universal or Sunrise Mass are divine.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Joe B said:


> In my view, many of the contemporary composers of choral music today have achieved a level of excellence which I believe their predecessors would be proud of. However they are viewed by critics, composers like René Clausen, Karl Jenkins, James MacMillan, Morten Lauridsen, Arvo Pärt, John Rutter, Paul Mealor, Will Todd, John Tavener, and Eric Whitacre are all writing beautiful choral works. How they are viewed in the future is literally up in the air, and frankly, I don't care what their staying power is in a historical perspective. With 7.6 billion people on the planet, being one in a million means there are 7,600 people just like you. That's 7.6 times as many as in the 19th century. It's getting pretty difficult to be a "new voice".
> 
> "*Do we have more quality composers?*" I believe chances are probably pretty good that we do. But I don't think their chances of making it in the music industry the way it is going now will ever get them to the point where they are viewed with the same adulation as composers who lived in a time when live performances were the only way music was heard by the general public.
> 
> "*Is the situation different than it was in the 19th century?*" I'd have to say yes.


It isn't solely about standing out, is it? It's even about the quality of the music itself. When I read up on Beethoven's contemporaries, they're all rated below him. Ries, Hummel, Dussek, Crusell, Onslow. I suppose JC Bach stands up to Beethoven. They aren't contemporaries though - they share an era. One doesn't find a true-blue composer who could stand shoulder to shoulder with Beethoven.

If we were to move on to Romantic, there are _many_ composers but they are considered 'second-tier'. Bruch for example (except of course for a few of his works.)

What I find interesting is that if the composers we value highly held some of their contemporaries in high-esteem, there must be a reason, no? Beethoven or Mozart were no fools after all. We don't.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

> It isn't solely about standing out, is it? It's even about the quality of the music itself. When I read up on Beethoven's contemporaries, they're all rated below him


Please, how do you measure the quality of the music? I come from an exact discipline (physics) and would like to know. I have rather the feeling, that popularity is a matter of luck, of fashion, of what the authorities proclaim to be quality etc. 
How would you prove to me, that Beethovens Eroica symphony is a better music than Johann Baptist Vanhals Symphony in G minor? (they both were contemporaries)


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Jacck said:


> Please, how do you measure the quality of the music? I come from an exact discipline (physics) and would like to know. I have rather the feeling, that popularity is a matter of luck, of fashion, of what the authorities proclaim to be quality etc.
> How would you prove to me, that Beethovens Eroica symphony is a better music than Johann Baptist Vanhals Symphony in G minor? (they both were contemporaries)


Among Beethoven's contemporaries, whom do you think stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him (aside from Vanhal)?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> Please, how do you measure the quality of the music? I come from an exact discipline (physics) and would like to know. I have rather the feeling, that popularity is a matter of luck, of fashion, of what the authorities proclaim to be quality etc.
> How would you prove to me, that Beethovens Eroica symphony is a better music than Johann Baptist Vanhals Symphony in G minor? (they both were contemporaries)


I doubt that the answers to such questions are easier with respect to physicists--who gets that prestigious professorship, research position, or prize, when there are hundreds (or thousands) of competitors? I doubt that those involved would say it all came down to fashion, even if you couldn't put a monetary value on their previous contributions to research.

All questions of value require diverse and imaginative uses of evidence, as well as a basic assumption that such forms of evaluation are meaningful.

All that said, the answer to your final question, I'm afraid, is "it's obvious!" :lol:


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

> I doubt that the answers to such questions are easier with respect to physicists--who gets that prestigious professorship, research position, or prize, when there are hundreds (or thousands) of competitors? I doubt that those involved would say it all came down to fashion, even if you couldn't put a monetary value on their previous contributions to research. All questions of value require diverse and imaginative uses of evidence, as well as a basic assumption that such forms of evaluation are meaningful.


You are of course right. The whole process of research even in physics is remarkably irrational and based on what is fashionable and just like the musicians worship their "gods" (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart), so the physicists worship their "gods" (Newton, Einstein, Feynman etc). The only difference is that the monumental symphonies of physics have to agree with experiment. And no matter how beautiful your theory is, if it does not agree, it will be discarded. But in music there is no such criterion.

_It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Richard P. Feynman_


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Jacck said:


> @Joe B,
> I think that modern composers have it harder than their colleagues in the past, but not because of the number of people on the planet, but because of the easy availability of music. Tons and tons of excellent music from the past are just a couple of clicks away. It is like a sea of music. And one more drop, however excellent, gets lost.
> When speaking of current composers of choral music, I wonder why you forgot Ola Gjeilo. His Song of the Universal or Sunrise Mass are divine.


Not mentioning Ola Gjeilo was just a slip....I love his music. It was late when I wrote the post and I just rattled off the first names that came into my head.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

"Among Beethoven's contemporaries, whom do you think stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him (aside from Vanhal)? "
I have no idea. I know neither enough of Beethoven nor Vanhal nor any other composers to judge. I find it hard to compare music and say which one is better. It is like asking if an orange is better than an apple. Sometimes I feel like orange, and sometimes like apple. I could not tell if Bruckner is better than Prokofiev because they are so different and I love both.


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> Industrial concept in music is strictly a modern invention, profit is the key word of modernism. Commons never venerate good musicians, never, or exactly common people venerate nothing at all, including bad musicians. Commons lack both passion and reason, all they have is following the crowd instincts which are best manipulated by modern scientific authorities. Those who are being over-hyped by commons are rather unfortunate. Industrialism is mean to explore the taste of the commons, otherwise there will be no profit. Therefore, there is indeed a trend of industrialism within modern musical production, where scientific arguments decorate the vulgarism, so that vulgar works can pass of as educated tastes and continue to thrive. Common tastes are always vulgar, no matter it was in ancient times or is in our times.


I would love to see this paragraph translated into English.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I'm sure years from now only a handful of composers will be left "standing." Who knows, maybe we are ignoring someone that will be famous in a hundred years, or perhaps we are gaga over someone who will be totally forgotten. 

I of course have my favorites, but who knows, right?


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Jacck said:


> "Among Beethoven's contemporaries, whom do you think stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him (aside from Vanhal)? "
> I have no idea. I know neither enough of Beethoven nor Vanhal nor any other composers to judge. I find it hard to compare music and say which one is better. It is like asking if an orange is better than an apple. Sometimes I feel like orange, and sometimes like apple. I could not tell if Bruckner is better than Prokofiev because they are so different and I love both.


But then, Jack, Bruckner and Prokofiev are stylistically very different. Can you say the same of Hummel and Beethoven/Mozart? Or of Hummel to Onslow?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

It's impossible to say who the great masters of today are. Only time can tell. Even Beethoven himself had no clue about who the greatest of his contemporaries were - his money was on Cherubini. Schumann was somewhat notorious for announcing his discovery of the next great thing every week or two (and with this scattershot technique had to be right now and then, as he turned out to be with Brahms).

So it goes in the arts. None of Van Gogh's contemporaries could begin to predict his future success. No publishing company has any clue which books will turn out to be bestsellers. 

And thus, I take with a generous measure of salt any claim that this or that contemporary composer is the one that is still going to be popular two hundred years from now.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

brianvds said:


> It's impossible to say who the great masters of today are. Only time can tell. Even Beethoven himself had no clue about who the greatest of his contemporaries were...


 But Beethoven had no doubt at all who the greatest composer of his time was. :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Jacck said:


> Please, how do you measure the quality of the music? I come from an exact discipline (physics) and would like to know. I have rather the feeling, that popularity is a matter of luck, of fashion, of what the authorities proclaim to be quality etc.
> How would you prove to me, that Beethovens Eroica symphony is a better music than Johann Baptist Vanhals Symphony in G minor? (they both were contemporaries)


This must be The Question in critical discussion of music. For composers of the past, we have a kind of consensus of knowledgeable people and they can describe the reasons behind their judgements. For contemporary music, it is more guess work but why not have a go?

But for the less well educated - like me - there is still "what the music does to them". On the basis of the extent to which a piece of music transports me to another state and how reliably it can do that as the years roll by, I believe I can arrive at knowledge of which music is the most worthwhile. But I do need to put in the work, more for some composers than others and there are still a few acknowledged greats who I do not yet relate to. So I seem for the most part to be happy to be guided by the critical consensus - it seems to work for me - and I am often surprised when I see posts here about not liking Mozart or Brahms (or whoever) or lists of the greatest that include many names of composers who are considered minor while leaving out some critically acknowledged greats.

I wonder if we are supposed to know which contemporary composers are going to be remembered with reverence a hundred years from now? I suppose some composers believe they write for posterity but for the most part contemporary music is for now. Some seek to navigate through this by asking which composers seem to draw from and continue the great tradition but there are now so many viable strands that I don't think this works: diversity of styles has been the main feature of classical music since early in the 20th century. Contemporary music is very important to me but I don't think I care that much about which contemporary composers will survive as acknowledged greats.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

The "quality" question is always the most difficult to answer in a broad sense but fairly easy to answer in a narrow sense.

Do you watch television? Film? Do you watch film on cable or dish television with hundreds of channels. If so you probably have one or more "classic" film channels that show movies back to the 1920s or earlier. I notice the classic channels typically show films that are better than what is broadcast on the "modern" outlets like HBO and Showtime. I think there is a reason for that.

Anything that is labeled a "classic" has stood the test of time over decades and has had it worthiness proven and preserved by hundreds or thousands or millions of viewers/followers. I think it is the same with music. Anything we label classical music has stood a test of time and has survived over millennia to remain relevant today. This gives it an edge over most of what is created today that is competing with everything else created today.

There is an old cliché about music and musicians: there used to be hundreds of musicians creating millions of albums. Now there are millions of musicians creating hundreds of albums. This used to mean we once heard fewer musicians of higher quality than we do today. Now, I think it means we only hear the musicians (and composers) who are of any quality since the rest fall by the wayside. In today's world, with the once so-called "major" labels all in retreat and trying to survive themselves, chances of having the cornucopia of recordings and musicians available we had in what some call the "golden age" of classical recordings after World War II and into the 1980s is quite small.

All this considered, I think it very difficult to tell if there are great composers out there today we don't know about, like perhaps a Mahler to musically involved people in Nebraska during the 1910s who had never heard anything he composed. Mahler's music wouldn't really explode into the popular consciousness for another half-century -- after creation of the long playing record. Also recall Mendelssohn, in the 19th century, finally staged Bach's St. Matthew Passion which had not been heard in his day. Bach died 1750.

And, still then, the potential audience for any of this wasn't fractured by swing, Elvis, rap, punk, jazz, metal, disco or other new forms of popular music of their times. It's unlikely Bach or Beethoven or Tchaikovsky had to compete with the numerous forms of music available to any musically-interested person of the 21st century, not to mention the other art forms available that weren't available then.

In this sense, it is classical music composition itself that is subject of the cliché there were once hundreds of compositions being heard by millions of people and now there are millions of creations being heard by somewhat fewer people. Where once that great classical composition may have been one in a thousand, today it might be the needle in the haystack.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2018)

Joe B said:


> I would love to see this paragraph translated into English.


I like it as it is. You must be commons.


----------

