# Classical Colossi



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

There are undoubtedly some names in classical music that have come to dominate a particular time period. It seems to be roughly 1 name in each half a century.

This is what I would consider the chronological list (starting with Bach):

1700-1750 - Bach
1750-1800 - Mozart
1800-1850 - Beethoven
1850-1900 - Wagner
1900-1950 - Schoenberg
1950-2000 - Cage
2000-2050 - ?

So, I have two questions and two questions only.

1) Do you agree with this list and that these composers represent and also greatly influenced those periods more than any other?

2) Who is next in line? Are they known to the public or are they yet to come into the spotlight?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I disagree with Cage. He only seems to have influenced a small niche of composers during that time, and is far from generally accepted. Candidates that appear more likely to me include Boulez and Stockhausen

The rest seems fair enough. There are a few who are possible contenders for Schoenberg's slot; Stravinsky being one.

The next in line is possibly not even active given the 40 years remaining in that slot. Otherwise I dont think (s)hes widely known.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> I disagree with Cage. He only seems to have influenced a small niche of composers during that time, and is far from generally accepted. Candidates that appear more likely to me include Boulez and Stockhausen
> 
> The rest seems fair enough. There are a few who are possible contenders for Schoenberg's slot; Stravinsky being one.
> 
> The next in line is possibly not even active given the 40 years remaining in that slot. Otherwise I dont think (s)hes widely known.


I thought about Stravinsky but his turn to neo-classical and subsequent conversion to Schoenberg's 12-tone system later in life ruled him out. 7 & 5 doesn't beat 12 outright.

You're wrong about Cage. Boulez didn't venture as far as Cage into unknown territory. He was against chance procedures and stuck too much to traditional musical formats. Stockhausen has a case as being close to as influential as Cage with his uptake of electronic composition but I think he trailed Cage slightly by being too Eurocentric and resistant to outside influences.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I was thinking about this just the other day - it's interesting that you should bring it up.

The reason I didn't post a topic about it myself was because I increasingly thought that, from the 1850 slot onwards, it just seems too blinkard to assign a _single_ name to the period - from then on, there is so much increasing antithesis; so much debate on what art and music is, that it only seems reasonable to choose a select few composers for each period, with each one representing generic movements of that time.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Who is this Cage figure that you are speaking of? If I remember correctly, and I think that I do, I’ve honestly tried to listen to a so called "work" of his but I just couldn’t hear anything! The classical music must have sunken real low in that time period…


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Ok maybe I do agree with you about Schoenberg.

Boulez was possibly the most important proponent of serialism which was arguably the most important musical school during this time period. Secondly, his later mature style also exemplifies much of what music in that period is about imo. (Derives...)
For all the experimentation Cage did with chance and other things, it seems he hardly left a body of work worth much note.

I also agree with Polednice. Music in the 20th century is too pluralistic to assign the position to a single person.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I love Cage's percussion compositions. So far I've yet to hear anything else by him thats really connected with me. I think your list probably works in classical music only (as you mentioned) on the basis of innovation/influence. But it doesn't work so well when looking at influence in music as a whole (outside of just 'classical'). Whether we like it or not after 1950 'classical music' kind of fell out of favor with the masses, so in fairness the composers name that belongs from 1950 - 2000 should _probably_ (but not necessarily) be a non-classical music artist. I also think its too early to really say that for sure though. It could be a more 'conservative' composer right under our noses. Thats what happened with Bach, and he wasn't revived until a century or so later. I suppose its also possible maybe in a similar way Cage or Boulez will be ressurected in a big way later on as well.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Well if we extend it to all music then it becomes increasingly difficult as we progress through the 20th century, but if we focus on one genre it becomes simpler.

1950-2000

Jazz - Miles Davis
Pop - The Beatles
Rock - Led Zeppelin
Country - Johnny Cash
Metal - Black Sabbath
Reggae - Bob Marley
Dub - Lee Perry
Afrobeat - Fela Kuti
Funk - James Brown
Hindustani - Ravi Shankar
Indie - The Smiths
Ambient - Brian Eno
American Folk - Bob Dylan
Noise - Merzbow

You can even do this within the different subdivisions of classical:

Musique Concrete - Pierre Schaeffer
Minimalism - Philip Glass
Spectralism - Gerard Grisey
Serialism - Pierre Boulez
Electroacoustic - Karlheinz Stockhausen
Indeterminancy - John Cage

I'm not saying these are the best, as that is purely subjective, or even the first, just that these artists represent those categories better than any other. I would say John Cage represents post 1950 classical music more consummately than any of the other candidates (just ahead of Stockhausen).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Argus said:


> 1950-2000 - Cage
> 2000-2050 - ?
> 
> So, I have two questions and two questions only.
> ...


Is John Cage that big a name for 1950-2000? I'm not necessarily disagreeing because I think that period spanned a such a big heterogeneity of the weird electronic fart variety that to single out Cage might not be fitting. I don't know. As for the next 50 years, it's all fun and games speculating. Personally, I don't really care that much, relatively speaking.

P.S.
Even assigning Bach to the first half of the 18th century for example, doesn't seem fit. He didn't write any operas (which I am ware that member Argus hates with a passion), which was such a big genre that was well on its way to further important development, as evidently the other composers you listed following Bach contributed in. Other important genres like the chamber symphony, too.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

1700-1750 - Bach
1750-1800 - Mozart
1800-1850 - Beethoven
1850-1900 - Wagner & Brahms
1900-1950 - Stravinsky
1950-2000 - The Beatles
2000-2050 - Lady Gaga


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Couchie said:


> 1700-1750 - Bach
> 1750-1800 - Mozart
> 1800-1850 - Beethoven
> 1850-1900 - Wagner
> ...


Oh boy. Now it _really_ looks like music is going on a downhill trend.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

> 1) Do you agree with this list and that these composers represent and also greatly influenced those periods more than any other?


- I disagree with only Wagner, as if there was nothing else going on outside of progressive opera. Brahms' instrumental music and conservatism seem the logical compensation to truly represent this period. 
- Schoenberg hardly dominated anything beyond his own school. Overall, music was more dissonant, daring, and modern during this period, but not necessarily serial - and Stravinsky deserves the credit with the seminal Rite of Spring.
- Classical Music post 1950's is so irrelevant I went with The Beatles, clearly the dominant influence on music for the 30 years following their breakup.



> 2) Who is next in line? Are they known to the public or are they yet to come into the spotlight?


- I unfortunately went with Lady Gaga, as it seems music can no longer be made without incorporating all sorts of off-the-wall psuedo-fashion and psuedo-artistry, and this idiot is certainly at the forefront.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I agree with the choices up until 1900. Unfortunately there is an entire period (impressionist for lack of a better word) that doesn't fit neatly into the 50 year periods. Debussy would have far more influence than Schoenberg if this is taken into account. 

Edgard Varese might be said to have had as much influence as Cage, though he overlapped the two halves of c20. And if you take minimalist music into account, Steve Reich might have more influence.

For the next slot, I vote for Penderecki if not Autechre.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I mostly agree with Argus that Cage was a defining figure in post-1950 classical music - he influenced a whole variety of composers from Boulez, Stockhausen to Lutoslawski & even Hovhaness (the last two often used "controlled chance" techniques). The prepared piano, which was basically Cage's invention, has been incorporated into the music of guys as diverse as Arvo Part, Schnittke and Crumb. Cage's use of turntables, radios, taped and electronic elements also opened up a whole new world of exploration for many many composers. A lot of today's cutting edge classical music also uses chance and improvisation, but that isn't only a result of the pioneering work of people like Cage, but also the influence of other styles like rock and jazz on classical. In any case, the boundaries between the styles have been breaking down for decades - a lot of what non-classical musicians such as Eric Dolphy, Ornette Coleman, Frank Zappa and John Zorn have done comes across as being just as complex and technically sophisticated as textbook classical music.

BTW - *I'd also include the period 1550-1700*, which produced many great composers, it was the period which saw the development of the Baroque style out of the Renaissance style. A colossus in this era was *Claudio Monteverdi*, who pioneered many of the techniques which are as relevant today as they were 500 or so years ago...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The discussion on this thread has raised several questions for me. 

1) The consensus for the period 1900 - 1950 seems to be Schoenberg with some feeling that Stravinsky may be the more representative or influential. If Schoenberg is the choice, what does it say that the individual who is the most "representative and/or influential" composer of this period is hardly ever played for classical music listeners more than 100 years after his first important works and 60 years after his death? (If the choice were Stravinsky, this question of course would not apply.)

2) For the period just past (1950- 2000) there is significantly less consensus. This may not be so unexpected since there has not been time for the musical community to "select" the great works and composers. Another reason seems to be that classical music is so much more varied with many more compositional styles. This variation in music styles seems to be paralleled in popular music as well with many more styles than existed in the period before (1900-1950). Since I am not as knowledgeable as others here, I am curious if everyone agrees that the number of distinct styles has greatly expanded for classical music in the past 50 years. If so, are there clear reasons why this has happened? 

I wonder if for whatever reason, musical experimentation flourished, and that after some period, composers will begin weeding less successful (interesting, useful, compelling?) styles out focusing on a small number of styles that have "won". The 2000-2050 period may then be dominated by one or two types of classical music similar to what was seen in past centuries. 

I can see reasons why the variety would not lessen. People do not have to listen to concerts in central locations as before. Individuals can listen to more variety through the mass media available today. There is less need for a composer to focus on one basic style to reach listeners.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Argus said:


> Well if we extend it to all music then it becomes increasingly difficult as we progress through the 20th century, but if we focus on one genre it becomes simpler.
> 
> 1950-2000
> 
> ...


Honestly, I'd say thats a pretty good list. :tiphat:


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I think it's been established that the concept of 'classical colossi' does not work for 20th century composers. For example, while nearly every musician alive during the time of Wagner and Beethoven listened to them, took their music seriously and reacted for or against it, there were many 20th musicians who couldn't give a flying **** about Schoenberg or Cage's music. Too many divergent practices, no unity of thought. 

It would be more helpful to divide these 20th century composers into their respective musical practice (impressionism, neoclassicism, serialism, aleatoric, minimalism, and so on) and go from there. 

EDIT: Looks like Argus already did that. Bravo!


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Those who dispute Wagner's placement under-estimate his impact on music in general. His revolution extended far beyond opera.


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

If you want to argue that Bach is the composer from 1700-50 that has been the most influential over music history as a whole, I think maybe that could be done, but if the point is that he was the composer who influenced his contemporaries more than any other, (in the actual time period 1700-50) I'm not so sure. But I welcome "proof" to the contrary.

As for Mozart, he is more known as a great "assimilator of styles", than a great innovator, (relax, I'm not saying he did nothing new). Haydn is considered extremely important in the development of the string quartet and the classical symphony, and is also considered by some historians to be the world's first actual "super celebrity", because of how incredibly widespread his fame was. (Sounds weird, I know) I'm not saying Mozart is wrong, but I don't think it's perfectly clear that he's right. I think it could be argued that Mozart's main influence was in opera. I believe his most famous operas were performed throughout the entire 19th century. (And Haydn's were not  ) I welcome opinions on this.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Andre said:


> BTW - *I'd also include the period 1550-1700*, which produced many great composers, it was the period which saw the development of the Baroque style out of the Renaissance style. A colossus in this era was *Claudio Monteverdi*, who pioneered many of the techniques which are as relevant today as they were 500 or so years ago...


I thought about going back to 1550 like this:

1550-1600 - Palestrina
1600-1650 - Monteverdi
1650-1700 - Here's why I left this out and started with Bach. I guess maybe Lully, Purcell or Charpentier, I'm not sure, there isn't a real standout in my mind. There was a glut of composers born late 17thC, Bach, Handel, Rameau, Vivaldi, Telemann but I think Bach stands out.



Weston said:


> I agree with the choices up until 1900. Unfortunately there is an entire period (impressionist for lack of a better word) that doesn't fit neatly into the 50 year periods. Debussy would have far more influence than Schoenberg if this is taken into account.
> 
> Edgard Varese might be said to have had as much influence as Cage, though he overlapped the two halves of c20. And if you take minimalist music into account, Steve Reich might have more influence.


Maybe it's just me but when I think of early 20th I think of Modernism, atonality, a blending of classical forms with harsh industrialised harmonies. Debussy is too pretty and dream-like to represent the whole period in classical music. Schoenberg's spirit of progress with reverence of the old composers segues nicely into Cage's extreme radicalism and contempt for many of the old composers.

I'll agree that Varese was a big influence on a lot of composers but he was only slightly prior to Cage and I don't think he galvanised the vanguard as well as Cage.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Those who dispute Wagner's placement under-estimate his impact on music in general. His revolution extended far beyond opera.


Yeah, I don't like opera and can't really omit Wagner. Most of the later Germans copped a lot of ideas from him and his influence spread around the whole of Europe.

I actually thought the only name that would get contested would be Cage because he has a lot of detractors and many aren't as familiar with contemporary classical. I also think people underestimate his influence outside of the classical world as well, along with Stockhausen, the Darmsadt school and IRCAM in general. The production techniques and special effects on late Beatles albums come direct from some of these guys experiments in those primitive studios. The use of early synthesizers which took root in the mainstream in the 70's. Even guys like David Bowie and Brian Eno used chance procedures in their writings, like writing a song then cutting up the lyrics a la Burroughs. The free improv/free jazz scenes of the 60's/70's surely owe some debt to Cage even if he himself was against the 'Jazz' view of improvisation.

Anyway, divergence of opinion is good.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*A Praxis*

This is an interesting other way to look at the issue of Great Composers. I continue in the understanding that any attempt to modify what's been originally constructed as a list of singularities runs the risk of devaluing the currency, so to speak- but I press on, regardless, because I think the strata we form will prove more durable:


Argus said:


> 1700-1750 - Bach


If listing ONE name, this is the one- but I'd guess that there's less distance between Bach and Handel than there is between the next figure one would asssociate with this span. (Vivaldi.) And maybe more space STILL between Vivaldi & Telemann.


Argus said:


> 1750-1800 - Mozart


Again, the obvious choice for listing one- but in this period, I'd argue Mozart for Gold, Haydn for Silver, and no Bronze medal will be awarded.


Argus said:


> 1800-1850 - Beethoven


Now here is the one place I would readily accept a suzerain singularity. I happen to be among those who feel as though we might be talking about Schubert in the same breath if the latter hadn't been felled by spirochetes (and really, a big reason why Beethoven wasn't so afflicted is that he was afforded fewer 'opportunities' in that regard) but the Schubert arc, magnificent though it was, leaves us with the feeling of 'woulda coulda shoulda.'


Argus said:


> 1850-1900 - Wagner


The fan in me would readily agree with this, if for no other reason than influence both inside AND outside the world of music. Though I'll admit that the influence was sometimes malign (though not for the reasons that most Wagner-haters say), I'll still go along with this. If naming a second figure, the Brahms advocates would add his name to the list. I'd be more inclined to go with Tchaikovsky. 


Argus said:


> 1900-1950 - Schoenberg


Now this is the most interesting span to contemplate. I'm left feeling that I don't have enough perspective- though isn't 60+ years after a time-span's end enough perspective?

I could be wrong, but I'd assert that this block of time will be known as the half-cycle of the great Russian-born Titans- Stravinsky-- Prokofiev-- Shostakovich-- (maybe Rachmaninoff). Am I giving too little consideration to Schoenberg? Maybe. Will any of the three names I mentioned break away from the pack further, in esteem? [Seems like Stravinsky carries the earlier edge, as his compositions are enjoyed by both the punters and the academicians. (However, they ain't necessarily the SAME compositions!)] Hey, I don't know. I just know if I live long enough, the picture will be clearer before I die. 


Argus said:


> 1950-2000 - Cage


Pass. I'll leave it to those who know this 50 year span better to discuss this one...


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Cage is multifaceted.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Couchie said:


> 1700-1750 - Bach
> 1750-1800 - Mozart
> 1800-1850 - Beethoven
> 1850-1900 - Wagner & Brahms
> ...


I think it might be a little divisive to start mixing genres, otherwise we would have to possibly come up with whole new lists of names. So, I shall stick to 'classical' composers. I'd like to extend the timeline somewhat, as starting from 1700 only tells half the story, surely.

1100-1150 - Hildegard von Bingen
1150-1200 - tie between Léonin and Pérotin
1200-1250 - Philippe de Vitry
1250-1300 - Adam de la Halle
1300-1350 - Machaut
1350-1400 - Jacopo da Bologna
1400-1450 - Dufay
1450-1500 - Josquin Desprez
1500-1550 - Ockeghem
1550-1600 - Palestrina 
1600-1650 - Monteverdi
1650-1700 - Corelli
1700-1750 - Bach
1750-1800 - Mozart
1800-1850 - Beethoven
1850-1900 - Wagner & Brahms
1900-1950 - Stravinsky
1950-2000 - Shostakovich (I hesitated, but couldn't think of a more dominant figure at this time)
2000-2050 - Well, we'll have to see, won't we?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Delicious Manager said:


> ... I'd like to extend the timeline somewhat, as starting from 1700 only tells half the story, surely.


Agreed. Composers that you list between Hildegard and Monteverdi had a huge influence on later generations of composers. My knowledge of this period is not great, especially in terms of listening (but I have read a number of histories of classical music which mention the very names that you list in early music). Recently I've started exploring Monteverdi, next will be Palestrina & then I will go back to as far as Hildegard and maybe even before. Of course, I'm not pedantic about this, so it's going to take a long time as I also want to listen to many things up to 1800, most of which I'm pretty clueless about (my main focus of listening up till recently has been mostly post-1800 stuff). I basically think that it's just as important to appreciate the music of earlier periods as it is to do the same regarding music that came after Beethoven. Of course, all of these periods were linked in many ways. Classical music for me boils down to discovering and hearing the connections and traditions that are passed from one age to another. It's fascinating...


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Andre said:


> Agreed. Composers that you list between Hildegard and Monteverdi had a huge influence on later generations of composers. My knowledge of this period is not great, especially in terms of listening (but I have read a number of histories of classical music which mention the very names that you list in early music). Recently I've started exploring Monteverdi, next will be Palestrina & then I will go back to as far as Hildegard and maybe even before. Of course, I'm not pedantic about this, so it's going to take a long time as I also want to listen to many things up to 1800, most of which I'm pretty clueless about (my main focus of listening up till recently has been mostly post-1800 stuff). I basically think that it's just as important to appreciate the music of earlier periods as it is to do the same regarding music that came after Beethoven. Of course, all of these periods were linked in many ways. Classical music for me boils down to discovering and hearing the connections and traditions that are passed from one age to another. It's fascinating...


This was really my point. I always argue that, to fully appreciate the music of ANY period, one gains a lot from understanding where that music has come from. There has never been a composer who has not been influenced by another composer from an earlier period. Fans of JS Bach might be interested to know that his strongest influences were Buxtehude (whom he walked hundreds of miles to hear play and improvise), Frescobaldi, Pachelbel (no, NOT the _Canon_!), Schütz and Vivaldi.

No composer is (or ever has been) an island.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Hmm... two people have mentioned Shostakovich. I think of him as more of a Sibelius or Brahms type of composer. i.e. not especially representative of the period he was composing in or at least nowhere near the cutting edge of the time.

For a more conservative shout than Cage or Stockhausen, I would have thought Ligeti would be the obvious choice, or like Weston mentioned, someone like Penderecki or Reich. I think people are letting their taste dictate their choices, I don't like Wagner, Mozart and Schoenberg outside of choice cuts but I can still perceive their importance and impact during those periods.

Also, Ockeghem was dead by 1500 so I don't think he qualifies for the 1500-1550 category. Outside of the big names, however, I don't have much knowledge on pre-Rennaisance composers so I don't know who their competition was.


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

Agreed about Shostakovich. He's a popular composer, but not exactly someone who drives the development of music forwards in the post 1950's era. But I also think this kind of "who's famous and popular now" thinking could be used to argue against for instance Bach. To me he doesn't seem so much as someone who "pushes the envelope" and is highly influential in his own time, but someone who comes back because of the quality of his music to inspire both some romantics and neo-classicists. (Mozart and Beethoven knew some Bach, too) It depends on what criteria is to be used for selecting someone. In the opening post, it says "influenced those periods" not "influenced later periods".


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Argus said:


> I think people are letting their taste dictate their choices, I don't like Wagner, Mozart and Schoenberg outside of choice cuts but I can still perceive their importance and impact during those periods.
> 
> Also, Ockeghem was dead by 1500 so I don't think he qualifies for the 1500-1550 category. Outside of the big names, however, I don't have much knowledge on pre-Rennaisance composers so I don't know who their competition was.


It wasn't taste that prompted my inclusion of Shostakovich. Although I am fond of some of his works, I don't consider him one of the most important composers of the time. However, his influence was HUGE in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (and beyond as well) and that is what prompted his inclusion on my list. I tried to think of another composer who might be universally seen as a colossus of the 1950-2000 timeframe and couldn't come-up with anyone important enough who would be considered by many to be more of minority interest. Perhaps Ligeti, yes. Or perhaps Lutosławski? Or Berio? Elliott Carter would also be in the running.

I fouled-up with Ockeghem, sorry. 1550-1550 is a toughie. Perhaps Gombert or Morales? Perhaps the biggest name at this time, though, was Thomas Tallis.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Norse said:


> Agreed about Shostakovich. He's a popular composer, but not exactly someone who drives the development of music forwards in the post 1950's era. But I also think this kind of "who's famous and popular now" thinking could be used to argue against for instance Bach. To me he doesn't seem so much as someone who "pushes the envelope" and is highly influential in his own time, but someone who comes back because of the quality of his music to inspire both some romantics and neo-classicists. (Mozart and Beethoven knew some Bach, too) It depends on what criteria is to be used for selecting someone. In the opening post, it says "influenced those periods" not "influenced later periods".


I didn't specify _which_ Bach.

Nah, I did mean J.S. mainly because when most people even hear the word Baroque they think of him. So whilst he wasn't as celebrated at the time, his position now is well and truly cemented. Thus, I think he more than makes up for his lack of influence on the period by his representation of it later on.



Delicious Manager said:


> I tried to think of another composer who might be universally seen as a colossus of the 1950-2000 timeframe and couldn't come-up with anyone important enough who would be considered by many to be more of minority interest. Perhaps Ligeti, yes. Or perhaps Lutosławski? Or Berio? Elliott Carter would also be in the running.


I'd say Berio and Carter, along with Nono and Babbitt are overshadowed by Boulez on the serialism side of the era, possibly because he was the biggest ego of the lot and effectively the spokesperson for the European avant garde for a while. And if we consider guys like Lutoslawski then why not Feldman or Xenakis. Maybe, it's just my experience but these aren't as colossal names as Cage and Stockhausen, neither did they create as many new ways of thinking about music and sound as these two.



> I fouled-up with Ockeghem, sorry. 1550-1550 is a toughie. Perhaps Gombert or Morales? Perhaps the biggest name at this time, though, was Thomas Tallis.


Yeah, Tallis is a good choice. William Byrd is another contender. This is exactly why I started with Bach, before him there are a few periods where I couldn't see an outright figure that embodies the age. For example, is Corelli that much more of a musical giant than Lully or Purcell. Equally, you could say is Bach that much better a choice than Handel for his period or Schoenberg and Stravinsky for theirs, but I think at least the 1700-1900 period are choices most can agree on. Go far enough back and there's only Hildegard of Bingen who's not been lost to the annals of history, giving her a free ticket.


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> I fouled-up with Ockeghem, sorry. 1550-1550 is a toughie. Perhaps Gombert or Morales? Perhaps the biggest name at this time, though, was Thomas Tallis.





Argus said:


> Yeah, Tallis is a good choice. William Byrd is another contender.


I was thinking maybe Willaert (c. 1490 - 1562). He was versatile, had one of the most important musical positions in Europe, chapel master of St. Mark's in Venice for 35 years, where he "founded" the Venetian School (The Gabrielis etc) and had a bunch of students. If we are to believe Wikipedia and it's sources, he was the most influential composer between Desprez and Palestrina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Willaert


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Argus said:


> Yeah, Tallis is a good choice. William Byrd is another contender. This is exactly why I started with Bach, before him there are a few periods where I couldn't see an outright figure that embodies the age. For example, is Corelli that much more of a musical giant than Lully or Purcell. Equally, you could say is Bach that much better a choice than Handel for his period or Schoenberg and Stravinsky for theirs, but I think at least the 1700-1900 period are choices most can agree on. Go far enough back and there's only Hildegard of Bingen who's not been lost to the annals of history, giving her a free ticket.


Byrd was only born around 1540, so he can't compete. In addition, I don't think that, internationally, he's as important as Tallis. I think Bach (JS) is such a collosus, he couldn't be left-out. Certainly he was a more consistent composer than Handel. And I know a few people who would fight a corner for Rameau. Again, is Purcell as important outside England as he is in his home country (I'm in England, so can't judge)? I think Corelli's INFLUENCE was greater than Lully's if you consider what composers like Vivaldi, Geminiani and Locatelli owed to him.

The 1950-2000 is probably the most arguable, simply because there were (and still are, of course) such a wide variety of style co-existing at one time.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Delicious Manager said:


> Byrd was only born around 1540, so he can't compete. In addition, I don't think that, internationally, he's as important as Tallis. I think Bach (JS) is such a collosus, he couldn't be left-out. Certainly he was a more consistent composer than Handel. And I know a few people who would fight a corner for Rameau. Again, is Purcell as important outside England as he is in his home country (I'm in England, so can't judge)? I think Corelli's INFLUENCE was greater than Lully's if you consider what composers like Vivaldi, Geminiani and Locatelli owed to him.
> 
> The 1950-2000 is probably the most arguable, simply because there were (and still are, of course) such a wide variety of style co-existing at one time.


I should have checked when Byrd was alive, I just had it in my mind that he was a contemporary of Tallis.


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

For a list with so few spots, the selected composer must represent more than his music to be considered adequate, he must stand for the ideas most characteristic for the era.
I agree that the 12-tone technique, and its offsprings are far too important to be excluded from the list but I *strongly* disagree with putting Schoenberg for the period 1900-1950 for a number of reasons:

1. He was not and never has been popular. He was influential as a teacher and inventor of compositional techniques, but his music has never been really popular outside small circles, who were just as likely to favor Webern or Berg. Today, Webern is much more performed and the same true for Berg in some regions. 
2. He is too much like Wagner. He said it himself, that his music was simply him continuing with the ideas Wagner started. Schoenberg really belongs to the late romantic period, and there are too many completely fresh ideas going on in the period of 1900 - 1950 for him to take this spot.
3. Schoenberg's musical ideas had mostly influence in the second half of the 20th century, after the 2nd WW had completely swept romanticism (and any need to compromise towards it) away (which only made composers rather turn to Webern).

My suggestion is to "de-throne" Schoenberg from 1900-50 and let _Webern_ share the 1950-2000 spot with Cage. The point of this is to represent the two extreme ideologies creating the great tension so characteristic of this period. Webern stands for the tendency to hyper-organize and overthink music, such as the serialists did, focusing on the dogma that music becomes somehow better the more "logical coherency" it has. Cage stands for the opposite, for approaching music in as many different ways as possible, and for randomness, the pure opposite of organization.

What should be in the 1900-50 spot is a difficult question.
I think the important influence of folk music on classical music in this era can't be ignored. A folk-classical composer can stand for nationalism, an important trend in classical music that neither Beethoven nor Wagner particularly stand for. Integration of folk music into classical music also parallels how cinemas brought orchestral music into the musical world of all social classes in the 20th century. 
I'd personally put Bartók because he's simply the greatest composer associated with the use of folk music material and is regarded as one of the pioneers of ethnomusicology. Some might say he was never a nationalist. Read about his early years, and also, isn't the urge to integrate "your people's music" into classical music as nationalistic as it gets?
Stravinsky is also a good choice, because he used folk music in his famous early works and also represents the important neo-classicalism. He was also way more popular and influential. (he really is a better choice, I just don't like his music that much  )


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Saturnus said:


> My suggestion is to "de-throne" Schoenberg from 1900-50 and let _Webern_ share the 1950-2000 spot with Cage. The point of this is to represent the two extreme ideologies creating the great tension so characteristic of this period. Webern stands for the tendency to hyper-organize and overthink music, such as the serialists did, focusing on the dogma that music becomes somehow better the more "logical coherency" it has. Cage stands for the opposite, for approaching music in as many different ways as possible, and for randomness, the pure opposite of organization.


Webern didn't live to see 1950 so I can't put him into that bracket, but Boulez' obsession with organisation should make him the natural replacement in your example. But then why not put Webern in the 1900-1950 bracket and leave Cage alone.

It seems Webern is a pretty hip composer to like nowadays (Hip in an academic sense). I don't really get it. I don't really like Schoenberg or Berg either, but Webern seems to get the highest praise from later composers, mostly for his use of space. If I was going off preference I'd take Stravinsky or Bartok easily but I think the use of folk tunes in classical wasn't exclusive to that time period, whereas the transition from a harmonic system that had lasted for a couple of centuries and was in formation for many centuries before that, into a totally new system is too gigantic to discount. It represents the early 20th centurys climate of change, political, philosophical, social and scientific. In other words, in a period that had the two bloodiest wars ever, I think the uneasiness of dodecaphony sums up the era better than reconfigurations of traditional folk music. Maybe I'm getting too extramusical here.

Finally, I'd agree Stravinsky was more popular, but again my point of him adopting 12-tone later in life shows even him to have been vulnerable to the influence of Schoenberg's brainchild. Also, I don't think his neo-classicism was that influential at all, his influence rests almost entirely on the powerful rhythms and raw harmonies of The Rite.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Bach and Beethoven are clear-cut, but I wouldn't give anybody a 50 year berth.

Not to be too upset with era lists, afterall, they're largely composed by a few in the now from Historical Hindsight, and often with the urge to simplify matters. Not so simple always. Some composers were thought better of in their day. Some were thought better of when dead. 

In reality, Mozart was kid wonder, but played second fiddle to Haydn. And where's the love for Bruckner, Brahms, and Mahler?! Sorry, just Wagner doesn't cut it.

Leaders for 20th? My hindsight's steeped with Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Penderecki, but I'm glad to stick the Second Viennese School before Stravinsky.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Schoenberg's lasting influence doesn't lie in his invention of the twelve-tone system, but in his relaxed attitude towards dissonance. It's true that his influence was probably greater after 1950, but his influence before 1950 was as great as any of the other candidates except Debussy. We know from Stravinsky's letters that Schoenberg had already made an enormous impression on him as early as 1912 (before the premiere of the _Rite of Spring_) and that he, Stravinsky, actually introduced _Pierrot Lunaire_ to Ravel. Nevertheless, I can see an argument for putting Stravinsky on the list instead of Schoenberg.

As for Webern, his own Romanticism is downplayed by modernists in order to make Schoenberg look old fashioned and 19th-century. Webern's late songs and cantatas are not emotionless or anti-Romantic, and are indebted to Mahler.


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

Another big point I forgot to mention is *rhythm*. Rhythm got unusually complex in the 20th century and great innovation was in that element of western music during the 1900-50 period. Wagner-Schönberg-Cage looks like nothing at all happened in that department.



> the transition from a harmonic system that had lasted for a couple of centuries and was in formation for many centuries before that, into a totally new system is too gigantic to discount. It represents the early 20th centurys climate of change, political, philosophical, social and scientific. In other words, in a period that had the two bloodiest wars ever, I think the uneasiness of dodecaphony sums up the era


Debussy's, Bartók's and Messiaen's harmonic systems were also totally new. As for uneasiness... Bartók with his violin sonata, music for strings and percussion, and string quartets, is still a good candidate.



> his relaxed attitude towards dissonance


Debussy, Bartók and Messian were very relaxed about that too, but of course not as much. Wagner-Schönberg-Cage gives the impression that in the 19th century everything was melodic and harmonical and then suddenly DISSONANCE ALL OVER THE PLACE and then you know... Cage. Music history just isn't that simple.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Messiaen is not usually thought of as having much significance before 1950.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Saturnus said:


> Another big point I forgot to mention is *rhythm*. Rhythm got unusually complex in the 20th century and great innovation was in that element of western music during the 1900-50 period. Wagner-Schönberg-Cage looks like nothing at all happened in that department.


Cage's Construction pieces (from 1939-42) are rhythm incarnate.






Not to mention the percussive nature of the prepared piano.






Plus, the rhythms of his chance pieces are incomprehensible compared to music before because of the clear randomness to them. Composers before wouldn't have dreamed of such a lack of structured rhythm.

Varese and Cowell were also heavily into the rhythmic aspect of music. In fact many of the ultra-modernists were to some extent.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Saturnus said:


> Debussy, Bartók and Messian were very relaxed about that too, but of course not as much. Wagner-Schönberg-Cage gives the impression that in the 19th century everything was melodic and harmonical and then suddenly DISSONANCE ALL OVER THE PLACE and then you know... Cage. Music history just isn't that simple.


Well, if Tristan opened the door for increased dissonance, then Schoenberg blew the idea of consonance and dissonance as absolutes out of the water, and finally Cage removed the need for any specific vertical framework in composition. Any framework at all for that matter.

I'll just say that I think if you remove Schoenberg from the equation, it doesn't give anywhere near a full impression of what that period was, as opposed to removing Bartok or Messiaen, which would just narrow the scope.


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

Well, the more I think of it, the more I agree with you. But I still feel there's something wrong with putting Schönberg in the 1900-50 bracket because he didn't compose any really popular pieces. He has his Pierot Lunaire, String Quartets and 5 Orchestral pieces, but none of them come close to The Rite or Bartók's late orchestral pieces.

I still think Stravinsky or Bartók should be there, because they were both heavily influenced by Schönberg's revolution but also represent the more conservative and influential styles of the period.


> I'll just say that I think if you remove Schoenberg from the equation, it doesn't give anywhere near a full impression of what that period was, as opposed to removing Bartok or Messiaen, which would just narrow the scope.


I never thought of taking Schönberg away, that's why I suggested puting Webern in the 1950-2000 bracket, were the influence of his _music_, not just his relaxed attitude towards dissonance, belongs. I think Bartók's story with the 12-tone system, experimenting with it (Violin Sonata), then rejecting it (late works), is a really good representation of Schönberg in the 1900-50. Music wasn't all about disintegration of the tonal system in this era, that happened later, in the era of 1900-50 tonal systems evolved to their full extent in the hands of the great russians, post-romantic composers and folk-integrating composers like Bartók. That was the most performed and most representative music of the era.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Saturnus said:


> I still think Stravinsky or Bartók should be there, *because they were both heavily influenced by Schönberg's revolution *but also represent the more conservative and influential styles of the period.


Than doesnt it make him more suitabile for the spot?


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

He influenced them with his ideas but he wasn't the dominant influence. Bartók cites folk-music, Debussy, Beethoven and Bach before Schönberg and Stravinsky was openly opposed to Schönberg before he himself started composing serial music. 
Also Schönberg influencing Bartók and Stravinsky doesn't change the fact that Schönberg by no means represents the extended tonality, rhythmic innovation and folk-music influences that all are essential for this period and _must_ be represented.
Bartók and Stravinsky being influenced by Schönberg simply makes them represent more styles, making them more suitable.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Webernite said:


> Messiaen is not usually thought of as having much significance before 1950.


L'ascension (1933)
La nativité du Seigneur (1935)
Poèmes pour Mi (1937)
Les corps glorieux (1939)
Quatuor pour la fin du temps (1941)
Visions de l'Amen (1943)
Trois petites liturgies de la présence divine (1944)
Vingt regards sur l'enfant-Jésus (1944)
Harawi: Chants d'amour et de mort (1944)
Turangalîla-Symphonie (1948)
Cinq rechants (1948)
Messe de la Pentecôte (1950)

You REALLY think these works of 'not much significance'??


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Saturnus said:


> I still feel there's something wrong with putting Schönberg in the 1900-50 bracket because he didn't compose any really popular pieces.


I'm not sure that 'popularity' should be used to measure a composer's greatness. Rather one should try to be objective and open-minded, looking at the importance of the music he wrote in its historical context and the INFLUENCE a composer had on later generations. Like it or not, Schoenberg's influence on music and composers in the 20th century was immense.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> Like it or not, Schoenberg's influence on music and composers in the 20th century was immense.


Influence and its impact on writing great music are two separate things. I don't doubt Arnie's influence, but I'm not convinced that Arnie's influence was necessarily a path that propelled western classical music to a higher level than the masters who preceded Arnie.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> L'ascension (1933)
> La nativité du Seigneur (1935)
> Poèmes pour Mi (1937)
> Les corps glorieux (1939)
> ...


But who did he influence during that time? Most of his best students didn't study with him until the mid 40s or later. And none of the compositions you list became widely known until after 1950 (so far as I can tell).


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Influence and its impact on writing great music are two separate things. I don't doubt Arnie's influence, but I'm not convinced that Arnie's influence was necessarily a path that propelled western classical music to a higher level than the masters who preceded Arnie.


Who do you suggest for the 1900-1950 slot then?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Argus said:


> Who do you suggest for the 1900-1950 slot then?


I'm not disputing that Arnie is one of the most influential of this 1900-1950 period (amongst the Second Viennese School), though like I wrote above to member Yummy Manager, I think influence is one thing but propelling music to higher level via that same influence is another matter altogether. Other names include Mahler, though he died by 1911. John Cage is way overrated in terms of compositional ability, though his influence was there.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Are you sure Bach is the one for the spot? I mean, of course he's the greatest, but did he have more influence on the following generation than, let's say Handel?


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Pieck said:


> Are you sure Bach is the one for the spot? I mean, of course he's the greatest, but did he have more influence on the following generation than, let's say Handel?


Goodness, yes! There isn't a composer of note who hasn't studied Bach in detail. Handel too, of course, but Bach for contrapuntal mastery.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Delicious Manager said:


> Goodness, yes! There isn't a composer of note who hasn't studied Bach in detail. Handel too, of course, but Bach for contrapuntal mastery.


I mean in Mozart's time, Bach was a bit out of fashion wasnt he? I thought CPE and Handel was the stars of Haydn and Mozart


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Bach was a big influence of Mozart, but Handel was a big influence on both Mozart _and_ Haydn, and Handel's influence on more minor composers was greater than Bach's. So, generally, I'd agree with Pieck. Bach's real influence came with the Romantics.

Edit: Although, on the other hand, I suppose you could use Bach's sons as an argument for Bach's importance between 1750 and 1800.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Pieck said:


> I mean in Mozart's time, Bach was a bit out of fashion wasnt he? I thought CPE and Handel was the stars of Haydn and Mozart


Although Handel WAS an important influence on Classical-era composers, one still cannot underestimate the influence of Bach's pedagogical works such as _The Art of Fugue_, _The Well-Tempered Klavier_and the _24 Preludes and Fugues_, not to mention his organ music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Pieck said:


> I mean in Mozart's time, Bach was a bit out of fashion wasnt he? I thought CPE and Handel was the stars of Haydn and Mozart


Yes, I would have thought so too, especially C. P. E. Bach on Haydn.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I hate to say it but in terms of sheer numbers of music and truly great melodies, John Williams is a forerunner in this category; or do you not watch movies here... His works are not only of a classical nature but are timeless and extremely memorable. Obviously, these works may not have influenced many other composers but we're living in a time where very few even know what a true composer is and such, we can mainly go by the influence his works have had on the masses which is quite a large one.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

mcamacho said:


> I hate to say it but in terms of sheer numbers of music and truly great melodies, John Williams is a forerunner in this category; or do you not watch movies here... His works are not only of a classical nature but are timeless and extremely memorable. Obviously, these works may not have influenced many other composers but we're living in a time where very few even know what a true composer is and such, we can mainly go by the influence his works have had on the masses which is quite a large one.


The one major flaw with your suggestion is that John Willliams' film scores are NOT classical music. In fact Williams cribs freely from classical composers in all his scores.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Delicious Manager said:


> The one major flaw with your suggestion is that John Willliams' film scores are NOT classical music. In fact Williams cribs freely from classical composers in all his scores.


although much discussion can be raised about this sophomoric view, let us focus on his small number of 'classical' works

Concerti"Concerto for Flute and Orchestra" (1969), premiered in 1981 by the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra under Leonard Slatkin 
"Concerto No. 1 for Violin and Orchestra" (1976 rev. 1998), premiered in 1981 by the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra under Slatkin 
"Concerto for Tuba and Orchestra" (1985), premiered by the tubist Chester Schmitz of the Boston Pops for their 100th anniversary 
"Concerto for Clarinet and Orchestra" (1991), recorded by Michele Zukovsky for whom it was written[26] 
"Concerto for Bassoon and Orchestra (The Five Sacred Trees)" (1993), recorded by Judith LeClaire with the London Symphony Orchestra 
"Concerto for Cello and Orchestra" (1994) 
"Concerto for Trumpet and Orchestra" (1996) 
"Elegy for Cello and Piano" (1997), later arranged for Cello and Orchestra (2002). Based on a theme from Seven Years in Tibet 
"TreeSong, Concerto No. 2 for Violin and Orchestra" (2000) 
"Heartwood: Lyric Sketches for Cello and Orchestra" (2002) 
"Concerto for Horn and Orchestra" (2003). Premiered with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in November 2003 
"Duo Concertante for Violin and Viola" (2007). Premiered at Tanglewood in August 2007 
"Concerto for Viola and Orchestra" (2009) 
"Concerto for Harp and Orchestra: On Willows and Birches" (2009) 
"Concerto for Oboe and Orchestra" (2011) 
"La Jolla Quartet: A Chamber Piece for Violin, Cello, Clarinet, and Harp" (2011). Premieres August 2011 at the La Jolla Music Society's SummerFest[27]

oh, yeah...williams is not classical...how could i suggest such a thing...........


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

mcamacho said:


> I hate to say it but in terms of sheer numbers of music and truly great melodies, John Williams is a forerunner in this category; or do you not watch movies here... His works are not only of a classical nature but are timeless and extremely memorable. Obviously, these works may not have influenced many other composers but we're living in a time where very few even know what a true composer is and such, we can mainly go by the influence his works have had on the masses which is quite a large one.


So John Williams represent classical music from 1950-2000 better than Cage or Stockhausen or Boulez or Glass?

But if we include Williams, why not Morricone who aside from his film scores did some avant garde free improv explorations in the 60's? Does Williams better embody the spirit of late 20th classical music than Morricone?

The classical/non-classical debate about film composers aside, surely Williams didn't write in a new cutting edge style like Cage et al, nor did his music capture the zeitgeist of the time (electronics, improvisation, graphic notation, new organisational systems, chance). So while I agree that he wrote some great music and memorable melodies, that is nowhere near enough to make him anything like a contender in this list.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

mcamacho said:


> although much discussion can be raised about this sophomoric view, let us focus on his small number of 'classical' works
> 
> Concerti"Concerto for Flute and Orchestra" (1969), premiered in 1981 by the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra under Leonard Slatkin
> "Concerto No. 1 for Violin and Orchestra" (1976 rev. 1998), premiered in 1981 by the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra under Slatkin
> ...


I am aware of Williams' non-film-score music, but you referred specifically to his music for movies and I responded to that. As for these works you mention, some of them are quite good, but could hardly be said to be influential on other composers (being so little known), or of qualifying Williams as a 'classical collosus'.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I don't know Williams' non-film music. I do remember sitting through "John Willliams movies" and within short periods recognizing three or four composers incl. Rachmaninov and Shostakovich. He isn't the only one doing this. Simply put, excessive borrowing turns me off.


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

C'mon guys, some film score composer trying to be Gustav Holst is not going to represent anything or tell anyone anything. I'm even amazed somebody brought Williams' name up.


----------

