# on tonal composers post-1960s



## korea (Apr 7, 2014)

Hello there. First of all, I guess I must apologize for my English. Anyways, I was going to ask for this on that “Identifying Music” thread, but since I’m not looking for a particular piece, I’ve figured it would be more appropriate to start a new thread. So, I’m huge fan of classical music (specially the romantic era), despite my utter lack of technical knowledge about it, and I’m really puzzled by the lack of good composers during the latter part of the 20th century. Reading through Wikipedia articles, I find that the only preeminent composers of the tonal tradition of this era are Shostakovich and Britten (and I love them both). What I was naturally wondering is, are there any more I’m not aware of? I mean, by the middle of the seventies, both Shostakovich and Britten were dead, and from then on seemingly only the hacks remained (Glass, Cage, Ligeti...). 

So it’d be a huge help if any of you guys could point out some great tonal composers who happened to have the better part of their careers post-1960s.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

It would be a shame to dismiss Glass along with the hacks like Cage. Glass composed some wonderful music in a tonal idiom such as the Violin Concerto and the 'Glassworks.' Indeed there are several other excellent modern composers of minimalist music; Arvo Pärt is a particular favourite of mine, e.g. his composition 'Tabula Rasa.'


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

Check out Spain's Lorenzo Palomo, someone I've been championing a lot lately.

Welcome to the forum.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2014)

It's deja vu all over again!!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

korea said:


> Hello there. First of all, I guess I must apologize for my English. Anyways, I was going to ask for this on that "Identifying Music" thread, but since I'm not looking for a particular piece, I've figured it would be more appropriate to start a new thread. So, I'm huge fan of classical music (specially the romantic era), despite my utter lack of technical knowledge about it, and I'm really puzzled by the lack of good composers during the latter part of the 20th century. Reading through Wikipedia articles, I find that the only preeminent composers of the tonal tradition of this era are Shostakovich and Britten (and I love them both). What I was naturally wondering is, are there any more I'm not aware of? I mean, by the middle of the seventies, both Shostakovich and Britten were dead, and from then on seemingly only the hacks remained (Glass, Cage, Ligeti...).
> 
> So it'd be a huge help if any of you guys could point out some great tonal composers who happened to have the better part of their careers post-1960s.


Maybe you're not familiar with this place yet, but it's never a good idea to say that anything is crap. (You can get away with rap and country music. For now they have no defenders here that I know of.)

Anyway, check out the minimalists: Glass has been mentioned, and it's fair to say he wasn't a hack (have you listened to his music?), also Pärt, Adams, Reich, Riley, and so on.

But there are lots of others without so much street cred - Golijov, Piazzolla, all the choral guys like Tavener, Whitacre.... the film score guys like Williams, Thomas Newman, Michael Nyman, Morricone, what's his name from Adiemus...

Ok, so they're there and there are lots of them.

But I guess what I wonder about questions like this is, if what you want is old-fashioned music, why not just listen to old music? Have you actually exhausted the romantic era? Even if you're all finished with Schubert, Liszt, Wagner, Verdi, Brahms, there's still Rubinstein, Alkan, Spohr, Ries.... Gouvy, Tyberg, Dreyschock...


----------



## korea (Apr 7, 2014)

I see what you mean, Mitchell and “some guy”. I had no intention of hating on composers some of you might like with this thread, it’s just, I had a question, and I wanted to filter the answers. So I made very clear what I was looking for. 

By the way, “Winterreisender”, thanks for the heads up -- had no idea Glass did compose tonal music. Indeed, there’s some good stuff. Actually, I only briefly tried “Einstein on the Beach” some two months ago and was about to give up on him altogether.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Raff & Fibich & Ries*



science said:


> But I guess what I wonder about questions like this is, if what you want is old-fashioned music, why not just listen to old music? Have you actually exhausted the romantic era? Even if you're all finished with Schubert, Liszt, Wagner, Verdi, Brahms, there's still Rubinstein, Alkan, Spohr, Ries.... Gouvy, Tyberg, Dreyschock...


You make an excellent point that I do not recall anyone has made before. If a person hates contemporary music there is still a mountain of great pre-20th century music out there.

Two outstanding 19th century composers I have discovered over the past few years that you did not mention are Raff and Fibich. Our orchestra will be performing a Ries _Piano Concerto_ in our June concert. I look forward to the experience.

Edit: I just thought of Anton Reicha. He invented the woodwind quintet and they are still among the best. One of the best contemporary of Beethoven out there.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

korea said:


> Hello there. First of all, I guess I must apologize for my English. Anyways, I was going to ask for this on that "Identifying Music" thread, but since I'm not looking for a particular piece, I've figured it would be more appropriate to start a new thread. So, I'm huge fan of classical music (specially the romantic era), despite my utter lack of technical knowledge about it, and I'm really puzzled by the lack of good composers during the latter part of the 20th century. Reading through Wikipedia articles, I find that the only preeminent composers of the tonal tradition of this era are Shostakovich and Britten (and I love them both). What I was naturally wondering is, are there any more I'm not aware of? I mean, by the middle of the seventies, both Shostakovich and Britten were dead, and from then on seemingly only the hacks remained (Glass, Cage, Ligeti...).
> 
> So it'd be a huge help if any of you guys could point out some great tonal composers who happened to have the better part of their careers post-1960s.


Check out William Schuman's and Peter Mennin's (died in 1992 and 1983, respectively) Symphonies. Also John Corigliano of Red Violin fame. Very much alive.

Hope you are not confusing dissonance with tonality.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Tonal music from that hack, Ligeti.






For a consistently "tonal" 20th/21st century composer I can highly recommend Lowell Liebermann.


----------



## peterb (Mar 7, 2014)

Yeah, my suspicion here is that you are misusing the word "Tonal". For example, most of Einstein on the Beach is not just tonal, but aggressively tonal.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Try this:

Arturo Márquez, _Danzón #2_ (composed in 1994), playing on Mexican folk traditions. This is performed by Gustavo Dudamel conducting the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra of Venezuela at the Proms in 2007:






John Adams, _China Gates_ (composed in 1975), from his early "minimalist" phase. Attention was drawn to this piece when it was performed last summer by Vadym Kholodenko, the Ukranian pianist and eventual winner of the Van Cliburn piano competition -- as his opening piece in the preliminary. I can't find a YouTube with him performing it (only a later round is available, but you can see it on the Van Cliburn website. In the meantime, this is another fine one:






If you are looking for fine "tonal" composers after 1960s, I could suggest dozens and dozens more. I'm curious what your reaction is to these very different works.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

If you haven't left or did but then come back, try: *Aaron Jay Kernis*


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Steve Reich and Arvo Part are two of my favorites


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Jennifer Higdon seems to be popular and tonal and somewhat well thought of. But then what would I know - I wallow in atonal crap all day long


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

Weston said:


> For a consistently "tonal" 20th/21st century composer I can highly recommend Lowell Liebermann.


Yes! His concertos for piano are great. Check out the Stephen Hough recording. Wow, I've been talking about Stephen Hough a lot lately.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Oh, also: a "hack" is someone who turns out easy populist pieces for a quick buck, ignoring or wasting their talent and never challenging themselves (or their audience).

John Cage may be many things, but he's about as far from fitting that definition as anyone can be.


----------



## korea (Apr 7, 2014)

Let me clarify a few points here, guys. If this leads to another kind of discussion, well so be it. I'm joyfully open to any kind of debate. Some people think otherwise, though. For them, it's just the good ole "different strokes for different folks" nihilism. First, as I hopefully made clear on my first post, I do not have a degree in music, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that I can't differentiate between "atonal" and "dissonant" or something like that. However, I trust that what I meant came across soundly, and you're all aware of it-I like music that's coherent, I like music that has structure, I like pleasurable music. And while I wouldn't waste my time extensively badmouthing music I don't like, I do not take _anything_ of what I said back. Some of you may think "but on what authority does this bloke figures he can criticize anyone, having no knowledge on how to create music?" Well, I recon my thoughts wouldn't be as valuable as that of a true scholar, and that's why I'm asking you good people of this forum for a few suggestions. But what in the hell is a true scholar? How can I tell the good guys from the pretentious snobs? Let's just say I have, say, the moral upper hand compared to anyone who values anything other than what some émigré writer would call "aesthetic bliss", that is, more and more complex worlds of pleasure. The problem with some (most, really) of the "modern" music (which would be more fittingly described as "primitive" music) is that, while it sometimes has an amazing number of "stuff" in it, is that it has no coherent structure (no depth) like that of the old masters, therefore depriving it of any real value, and indeed making it abominable, nonsensical. Which brings me to what some people here said, "oh, just go back to the old stuff". When I'm talking classical, yeah, normally I do go back to the old composers, but I'm not a guy who takes pride in enjoying excessively old stuff. If anyone should ask me what is the golden age of any artform, I would say that's starting today and it only gets better from here on out. The problem is, on the same proportion that our means have evolved, allowing us to make amazing things that were impossible before (for instance, the possibility of using electronic tools is a quantum leap in the artform), also grows the possibility of making atrocious things. Complex tools create greater successes and greater failures. Bearing in mind this state of affairs, it's hard to find who were the great artists, and harder still to find the true connosseiurs. Forgive my rudeness, but that's my way to find them. That said, would like to express my gratitude to those who contributed their recommendations, I will try everything over the next few days.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

korea said:


> I like music that's coherent, I like music that has structure, I like pleasurable music.


The music you so readily bashed and trashed _has exactly those same qualities_, whether you hear them or not. It does not take a degree in music, as many a member here will readily testify, to find the music you bashed, "coherent, structured, and pleasurable."

It does not take any upper educational degree to politely ask for that which you seek without taking a bilious dump on other genres, or the many people who care for them.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Listen to Mycenae Alpha by Xenakis, and then you will find that atonal music is so soothing for the ears.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Go listen to Morton Feldman's _String Quartet 2_. Don't come back until you've given it a few good listens. I think it's just for you.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The thread concerns tonal composers after 1960. Please keep comments focused on the topic and _not on other members or their posting style_.

NOTE: While bashing certain music is not against out Terms of Service, repeatedly bashing such music could be considered trolling, which is against the Terms of Service.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Go listen to Morton Feldman's _String Quartet 2_. Don't come back until you've given it a few good listens. I think it's just for you.


Brilliant! Probably even more accessible than For Philip Guston.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

Not quite post-1960, but Alfred Hill died in 1960, and his works are mostly tonal. He's not too well-known, but I've heard a little bit, and I liked most of it. The two pieces of his that I've heard were his Viola Concerto and his String Quartet No. 3, and there's a bunch of other music by him on Youtube which I hope to eventually explore.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> The thread concerns tonal composers after 1960. Please keep comments focused on the topic and _not on other members or their posting style_.




I'm going to need the official word on this: are OPs worded like the one we see here (and have seen elsewhere recently) perfectly acceptable according to the current ToS?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> NOTE: While bashing certain music is not against our Terms of Service....


Pity, that... and so simple to change.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

I'd like to add: if OPs like this are accepted as the seeds of the conversation, then why are the mods so surprised at what grows?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

korea said:


> I'm joyfully open to any kind of debate.


Okay.



korea said:


> However, I trust that what I meant came across soundly, and you're all aware of it-I like music that's coherent, I like music that has structure, I like pleasurable music.


This didn't come across, actually. I too like all of these things: coherence, structure, pleasure...how could I not? But then you turned around and said much of this music that I love, that I love the coherence and structure and simply the sound of, is utterly without redeeming qualities. So if that was intended to be your point, it was utterly lost.



korea said:


> And while I wouldn't waste my time extensively badmouthing music I don't like, I do not take _anything_ of what I said back. Some of you may think "but on what authority does this bloke figures he can criticize anyone, having no knowledge on how to create music?" Well, I recon my thoughts wouldn't be as valuable as that of a true scholar, and that's why I'm asking you good people of this forum for a few suggestions. But what in the hell is a true scholar? How can I tell the good guys from the pretentious snobs?


I think snobbery is claiming that one is better than another because they have better taste.



korea said:


> Let's just say *I have, say, the moral upper hand* compared to anyone who values anything other than what some émigré writer would call "aesthetic bliss", that is, more and more complex worlds of pleasure.


...

And as for the debate on whether or not Philip Glass's music is "tonal", it is not. Not in the traditional sense. Is it consonant? Aggressively so, as above. Is it triadic? Yes, to the point of absurdity at times. Is it written in anything resembling the rules of the common practice period, what we think of as key-based tonality? No. If tonality is based on a hierarchy of dissonance and consonance, music that ignores that hierarchy is not tonal, whether or not it sounds good to you.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

korea said:


> Hello there. First of all, I guess I must apologize for my English. Anyways, I was going to ask for this on that "Identifying Music" thread, but since I'm not looking for a particular piece, I've figured it would be more appropriate to start a new thread. So, I'm huge fan of classical music (specially the romantic era), despite my utter lack of technical knowledge about it, and I'm really puzzled by the lack of good composers during the latter part of the 20th century. Reading through Wikipedia articles, I find that the only preeminent composers of the tonal tradition of this era are Shostakovich and Britten (and I love them both). What I was naturally wondering is, are there any more I'm not aware of? I mean, by the middle of the seventies, both Shostakovich and Britten were dead, and from then on seemingly only the hacks remained (Glass, Cage, Ligeti...).
> 
> So it'd be a huge help if any of you guys could point out some great tonal composers who happened to have the better part of their careers post-1960s.


Hmm, well I thought about clutching my pearls and gasping at how... _uncouth_... you are, but I thought, no, so many others are better at taking umbrage than I am, so why don't I offer you some composer suggestions instead.

But you've created a problem there, too, because the "hacks" you mention - Glass, Cage, Ligeti - are so very different from each other that it's much harder to think what might interest you. Those are some very _broad_ dislikes there. If I suggest fairly popular composers like Vasks, Rautavaara, MacMillan, are they hack-y to you?
If you'd only give us _one_ still-living composer as an example of what you might like, that would be really helpful.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Hey, korea. I hope you stay. Try William Schuman's 6th Symphony, even though it was composed in 1948. Tonal and profound.
Also fine are Schuman's 9th (1967) and 10th (1976).


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2014)

hpowders said:


> William Schuman's 6th Symphony. Tonal and profound.


Well, about profound we will probably never agree. I say that profound is a word that describes what happens when an object and a subject get together, not a description of an object.

About tonal, however, well, tonality does have certain qualities, ones one can see on the page and hear in the air. Except fleetingly, Schuman's music generally does not have those qualities. It certainly shares qualities with tonal music that have nothing to do with the tonal system per se. But so do all the works by Schoenberg and Berg and Gerhard and Skalkottas. Not to mention. (Oh, OK, I will. Or all the works by Humphrey Searle and Roger Sessions as well.)


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Inappropriate posts or portions of posts have been deleted. Also some posts that responded to deleted portions of quoted posts were deleted.


----------

