# Who are the most important modern composers?



## Schopenhauer (Jan 9, 2020)

And by modern I mean XXth and XXIth century classical music like spectralism, atonality, serialism, etc. Is there any reliable source of information on this? The classical music guides that I have ignore composers after 1950.

I've seen several threads in this forum, but the number of composers discussed on them is so big that I feel lost! :lol:


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Most important towards the development in what direction? 

Modern music is like the end of the Amazon. The river has reached its delta and all we can see in three directions other than its past are vessels of all shapes and sizes sailing and motoring around in a great bay of fresh and salt waters, under a warm sun.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

https://www.swr.de/swrclassic/donaueschinger-musiktage/swrclassic-donaueschinger-musiktage-100.html
You can download the program for the last years festival on this page. Then you can see which composers pop up! This festival is pretty hot when it comes to contemporary music.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Schoenber, Berg, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Baczewicz, Lachenmann, Boulez, Carter, Takemitsu


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Schopenhauer said:


> And by modern I mean XXth and XXIth century classical music like spectralism, atonality, serialism, etc. Is there any reliable source of information on this? The classical music guides that I have ignore composers after 1950.
> 
> I've seen several threads in this forum, but the number of composers discussed on them is so big that I feel lost! :lol:


James Dillon is the most important 21st century composer.
John Cage is the most important 20th century composer, probably the most important composer of all time.
If you're interested in the early 20th century, then Eric Satie is the most important pre war composer.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

https://www.wolke-verlag.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/amm-inhalt.pdf?fbclid=IwAR21w7kGJKDgzZOMYXOHp-RUXSAuVkzb9t-zLGNWsCzj_m_5VjdcsaLfNbc
You can also look at what these guys consider the most important works


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Jacck said:


> Schoenber, Berg, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Baczewicz, Lachenmann, Boulez, Carter, Takemitsu


This is a good list.

I might add: Harrison Birtwistle, Charles Wuorinen, Luciano Berio, Joan Tower, Webern, Magnus Lindberg, Thomas Ades.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Don't forget Henze and Babbitt.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> John Cage is...probably the most important composer of all time.


I'm really curious to know why you believe this! Because he turned the definition of "music" upside down, arguing that any type of sound (or absence thereof) can be considered art?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I am starting to appreciate modernist and atonal composers a bit more lately. Still not there yet, but at least I'm _understanding_ them rather than enduring them. My list of such composers that appeal most to me include Stravinsky, Bartok, Messiaen, Webern, Dutilleux, Copland, and Ives (he was writing atonal music way before the Second Viennese School). It's amazing how many different "schools" and varieties of music the 20th century produced. All the composers above wrote some sort of atonal music, but it all sounds radically individual. Something I've recently realized after thinking that all atonal stuff sounds the same. However, a complete list of most important 20th century composers, regardless of style; must include Debussy, Ravel, late Mahler, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Sibelius among others.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

I am still working on a listing of important contemporary composers and their works here: https://sites.google.com/site/classicalmusiclist/contemporary-composers-and-their-works. There are still many more composers to know but I'd say the 59 listed there are generally considered among the most important. My cutoff point is around the 1970s so there are definitely some other post-war composers that fall just short, notably Messiaen, Shostakovich, Sessions, Scelsi, Zimmermann, Varèse, Britten, Poulenc, Bernstein, Walton, and Rochberg among many others.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

Some big names not mentioned:

Karlheinz Stockhausen, Iannis Xenakis, Morton Feldman, Giacinto Scelsi, Gerard Grisey, Steve Reich

Plus some names associated with Grisey (spectralism) and Reich (minimalism):

Terry Riley, John Adams, Philip Glass, John Luther Adams, Tristan Murail, Hugues Dufourt, Horatiu Radulescu, Jonathan Harvey

Some 21st century names:

Georg Friedrich Haas, Salvatore Sciarrino, Enno Poppe, Kaija Saariaho, Bernhard Lang, Simon-Steen Andersen, Mark Andre, Wolfgang Rihm, Pascal Dusapin, George Benjamin, Stefan Prins, Rebecca Saunders, Brian Ferneyhough, Hans Abrahamsen, Chaya Czernowin, Gyorgy Kurtag, Beat Furrer, Marc-Andre Dalbavie, Matthias Pintscher, Jorg Widmann, Richard Barrett, Philippe Manoury


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Who are the most important modern composers? *

Of course, the _real_ question for you is: Who are the most important modern composers _for me_? In other words, _you_ have to decide what _you_ want out of "modern music" and then listen to a wide range of it and decide what works for you and what doesn't. You then have a path to pursue, one that will make sense to you. And you are the only one for whom it needs to make sense.

That path may be on a continuance of "traditional sounding" tonal music. Which is okay. Or it may lead towards extreme experimentation and severe redefinings of what "music" is. Or the many paths in between.

That's one of the great things about contemporary music. The variety is astounding, moreso than in any other period of musical pursuits. It's a modern art concept itself, that "anything goes". This leads, of course, to quite a bit of sub-standard art; but it also provokes imaginative masterpieces that otherwise, in a less open art philosophy, could never have been achieved.

It will probably take some time for us to cull out the grain from the chaff as far as modern day composers are and what their overall importance and/or influence upon the art of music may be, and some of us may not be around long enough for those judgments to be solidified by society at large. But that, too, is part of the joy. We are in the formative years. By the recordings we purchase, the concerts we attend, the articles we write, the Forums we respond on, we are helping to define the grain and identify the chaff. And we can do that only by continuing to listen. To explore. And to decide.

So ... what have _you_ heard thus far that you find intriguing? Important sounding? And even moreso than that, important to you as a music listener?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Glancing through the names mentioned so far, I'm astonished not to see Sofia Gubaidulina and Unsuk Chin.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

You guys are just not reading the OP, these long lists are no help. Stop acting like a bunch of wusses. Three names max.



Schopenhauer said:


> I've seen several threads in this forum, but the number of composers discussed on them is so big that I feel lost! :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I agree. But three names is too minimalist for a period of 120 years, a period of considerable richness.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I can do it with one name, it's obvious

John Cage


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

A list of the "most important" must include Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg and Britten. Probably Prokofiev as well. After them it is more difficult as the music hasn't quite "settled" and also as I have spent less time with it. It is quite hard not to make a list of the many who I enjoy a lot. It must surely include Messiaen, Stockhausen, Boulez, Ligeti and Carter .... but it hurts me to leave out Ravel, Nono and Maderna and a few others. And, after them, it seems clear to me that Kurtag needs to be in the list but I am not sure how to sort other living composers who I enjoy. 

I regret not being able to include Tippett, Schnittke, Gubaidulina, Lutoslawski and Lachenmann and many others. And I didn't know what to do about Strauss and Janacek - both should have been included, perhaps - or indeed Shostakovich. But John Cage? I have yet to succumb to his music.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> A list of the "most important" must include Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg and Britten. Probably Prokofiev as well. After them it is more difficult as the music hasn't quite "settled" and also as I have spent less time with it. It is quite hard not to make a list of the many who I enjoy a lot. It must surely include Stockhausen, Boulez, Ligeti and Carter .... but it hurts me to leave out Nono and Maderna and a few others. And, after them, it seems clear to me that Kurtag needs to be in the list but I am not sure how to sort other living composers who I enjoy.
> 
> I regret not being able to include Tippett, Schnittke, Gubaidulina, Lutoslawski and Lachenmann and many others. And I didn't know what to do about Strauss and Janacek - both should have been included, perhaps - or indeed Shostakovich. But John Cage? I have yet to succumb to his music.


it looks like no one here except me can actually read 
the OP said


> And by modern I mean XXth and XXIth century classical music like spectralism, atonality, serialism, etc


 That is why I skipped Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, Janáček, Shostakovich etc


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I noticed it but the overriding category asked about was important composers from the last 120 years. The different "schools" (and "atonalism") were given as examples (using the expression "like ...."). But I might perhaps have included Grisey and Murail. And I have gone back to edit my list to include Messiaen, who definitely belongs and Ravel to those who I regret not including. It is hard to make a short list. I didn't even mention two of my favourites - Maxwell Davies and Birtwistle.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I can do it with one name, it's obvious
> 
> John Cage


no, Cage was a one-hit wonder


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Mandryka's enthusiastic proselytization has convinced me that it's time for me to really explore Cage. I've only heard one piece of his really, the String Quartet in Four Parts, and was utterly bored by it. I think it's time to check out the piano concertos.

I made a thread on this last year. But my answer will have changed.

Claude Debussy, Arnold Schoenberg, Pierre Boulez. It pains me to leave out so many names, but especially Webern, my personal favorite modern composer. But I think this is what it will have to be.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> Mandryka's enthusiastic proselytization has convinced me that it's time for me to really explore Cage. I've only heard one piece of his really, the String Quartet in Four Parts, and was utterly bored by it. I think it's time to check out the piano concertos.
> 
> I made a thread on this last year. But my answer will have changed.
> 
> Claude Debussy, Arnold Schoenberg, Pierre Boulez. It pains me to leave out so many names, but especially Webern, my personal favorite modern composer. But I think this is what it will have to be.


the big 3? There is not doubt that it is Schoenberg, Bartok and Messiaen
(If I do not count Debussy, Shostakovich, Stravinsky and Prokofiev as modern, they are transitional figures to modernity)


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog+series/a-guide-to-contemporary-classical-music
Me again! Here is an article that's pretty good too.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> Mandryka's enthusiastic proselytization has convinced me that it's time for me to really explore Cage. I've only heard one piece of his really, the String Quartet in Four Parts, and was utterly bored by it. I think it's time to check out the piano concertos.
> 
> I made a thread on this last year. But my answer will have changed.
> 
> Claude Debussy, Arnold Schoenberg, Pierre Boulez. It pains me to leave out so many names, but especially Webern, my personal favorite modern composer. But I think this is what it will have to be.


That wasn't boredom, it was l'ennui mystique


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> That wasn't boredom, it was ennui.


Ennui is not a feeling I value much more than boredom.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> Ennui is not a feeling I value much more than boredom.


Faut apprivoiser l'ennui.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

The most important modern composer is within our midst, right here in good ole TC. And he'll be most happy to tell you so.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> John Cage is the most important 20th century composer, *probably the most important composer of all time.*


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Who are the most important modern composers? 

The short answer is: Time will show. To day we can only guess.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> John Cage is the most important 20th century composer, probably the most important composer of all time.


Tell that to a duck, and I'm sure you woulds be answered with some excited quacking.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

Jacck said:


> no, Cage was a one-hit wonder


Not true I feel.

I'm no Cage expert, but I find his Sonatas and Preludes for Prepared Piano intriguingly attractive, characterful things. Particularly as played by John Tilbury on Decca. A kind of one-man Gamelan band take on the world, I really don't know anything else like them. And I'm certainly not the only fan.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

premont said:


> Who are the most important modern composers?
> 
> The short answer is: Time will show. To day we can only guess.


Really? I'd agree with you for most composers born after, say, 1925 but I think we know well enough which earlier composers have been worthwhile. You may dislike the music of Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, Strauss, Berg, Britten, Webern, Prokofiev, Shostakovich etc. and their popularity may fluctuate a little with fashion but their position as notable composers is surely secure.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> Mandryka's enthusiastic proselytization has convinced me that it's time for me to really explore Cage. I've only heard one piece of his really, the String Quartet in Four Parts, and was utterly bored by it. I think it's time to check out the piano concertos.
> 
> I made a thread on this last year. But my answer will have changed.
> 
> Claude Debussy, Arnold Schoenberg, Pierre Boulez. It pains me to leave out so many names, but especially Webern, my personal favorite modern composer. But I think this is what it will have to be.


To appreciate Cage you have to first learn how to listen to Cage. You have to forget listening waiting for the music to move you emotionally, and you have to forget listening with an ear to analysis, structure. That's not what he's about and if you approach it like that it will be very boring, very disappointing.

Fortunately there is a third way, which maybe Cage discovered. You can listen to the music with the same sense of _fascination _that you might have watching the night sky in the desert, or the patterns of sunlight on the ocean. And with the same _alertness_. Not all performances will work, some will.

I used to think that this way of listening was only appropriate to Cage, but if I reflect on my own experience of listening to, for example, Cage Etudes, Berio Chemins, Webern's concerto, then I think that I engage with the music in the same way. I wonder now if it's possible, desirable, to approach Chopin like this, or Ockeghem.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Life is a sonic adventure!


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> Really? I'd agree with you for most composers born after, say, 1925 but I think we know well enough which earlier composers have been worthwhile. You may dislike the music of Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, Strauss, Berg, Britten, Webern, Prokofiev, Shostakovich etc. and their popularity may fluctuate a little with fashion but their position as notable composers is surely secure.


Yes, but I do not think these were the composers the OP thought of in the first hand except maybe the second Viennese school. But even as to those only time will tell if they stand the test of time:



Schopenhauer said:


> And by modern I mean XXth and XXIth century classical music like spectralism, atonality, serialism, etc.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I can do it with one name, it's obvious
> 
> John Cage





Jacck said:


> no, Cage was a one-hit wonder


I won't defend that John Cage is the _most_ crucial composer of the modern era, but the issue of whether he wrote more than a single influential work or not is irrelevant to the discussion. In other words, it matters not if Cage _was_ a "one-hit wonder". That word "wonder" is more critical than is "one-hit".

John Cage, for whatever music he composed or didn't compose, proves a major influence upon contemporary art due to his philosophical positions. He may not have invented any single musical aspect of our modern age, but he did champion the ideas (such as randomness in music, the importance of chance, silence, spontaneity in composition ...) that have taken hold to our concept of what art is. And so many artists, not just those in the field of music, are exploring the world through Cage's propositions.

Had Cage never written an important score he would still prove an influential figure, like his positions or not. In today's artistic world, the impact of John Cage remains inescapable. Which is why, for all else, his name continues to come up in discussions such as this one.

For the record ... I espouse a number of Cage's works as quality works of art which I enjoy experiencing, again and again. To my ears (and eyes, and philosophical mindset) he certainly was not a "one-hit wonder". But a wonder, yes. That he truly was. And is.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Any thoughts on Caroline Shaw? I was introduced to her by her appearances on Mozart in the Jungle and have dabbled into her music but haven't gotten deep enough to make any judgments.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> Claude Debussy, Arnold Schoenberg, Pierre Boulez.


Yes, I think there's a decent case for these three being objectively, the most _influential_ composers of the century in terms of how they moved music and the concept of art itself forward. You could argue Stravinsky rather than Debussy, but I think both were equal giants in drastically different aesthetics.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Much less interesting than Scarlatti. In fact a pale imitation of his sonatas.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Oh great, nearly as good as Cher


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

John Cage reminds me of the Italian artist Aldo Clementi. At least one work of his. In fact, to put it in a nutshell, or at least a _tin can_, a lot of Cage's work reminds me of a specific work of Clementi's.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Schoenberg has an even smaller public than he started with, and Boulez is virtually forgotten outside conservatories. So their influence has to be limited in that sense. I'd plump for
Faure
Elgar=
Scriabin
Prokofiev
=Rachmaninov

And I'll defend these choices in the face of any pseudo-intellectual self negation and hermeneutics


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Yes, I think there's a decent case for these three being objectively, the most _influential_ composers of the century in terms of how they moved music and the concept of art itself forward. You could argue Stravinsky rather than Debussy, but I think both were equal giants in drastically different aesthetics.


Who was influenced by Boulez's music?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Manxfeeder said:


> Any thoughts on Caroline Shaw? I was introduced to her by her appearances on Mozart in the Jungle and have dabbled into her music but haven't gotten deep enough to make any judgments.


I like her music, but then again I'm a bit odd.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Schopenhauer said:


> And by modern I mean XXth and XXIth century classical music like spectralism, atonality, serialism, etc. Is there any reliable source of information on this? The classical music guides that I have ignore composers after 1950.
> 
> I've seen several threads in this forum, but the number of composers discussed on them is so big that I feel lost! :lol:


About 10 years ago I had this exact same question. I first found a series of recordings by DG in a series called 20/21 "Music of Our Time". That was the first place I looked. There I found Rihm's Jagden und Formen and Berio's Sinfonia. Both pieces were a good start for me.

I then found a series on the online periodical, The Guardián about contemporary composers. I explored Xenakis, Thomas Ades, and others https://www.theguardian.com/music/series/a-guide-to-contemporary-classical-music. It was helpful.

After dozens of internet searches and picking the minds of people here on TC...

I heard "The People United.." an amazing contemporary theme and variations for piano by Rzweski which is already part of the standard repertoire.

I heard Harvey's "Mortuos Plango..." for ensemble and electronics and was blown away.

I found different ideas involving minimalism by Andriessen such as "De Stijl" that I love.

I heard the fusion of cinema and music in a very fresh 21st century way with Van der Aa's "Up Close"

I heard the ancient sounding yet contemporary and fragile work by the Estonian composer Arvo Pärt called Fratres that I am confident will stand the test of time. I would say it is the "Barber's Adagio for Strings" of our generation.

I've always loved the highly regarded American composer John Adams and enthusiastically recommend his opera "Nixon in China" as well as the symphonic work "Harmonielehre" though probably the best intro to his work is the short piece "The Chairman Dances".

I also recommend Abrahamsen's "Let me tell you" for soprano and orchestra. It is a very popular 21st century piece. It is highly regarded on TalkClassical and has many enthusiasts.

I've found composition prizes like the Grawemeyer and Pulitzer to help in exploration.

It's an Interesting challenge - uncovering new music, there is so much out there, it's not easy to know where to begin. It can feel like you have no bearings. My advice is to throw yourself in and realize that if you hear something you don't like, don't just assume you won't like other contemporary stuff. It's a large strange world. There's something for everyone.

Frankly there is plenty out there that I haven't taken to. It's just doesn't speak to me. But I have found so much that is exciting and enticing and I love the exploration.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

To name summarize my favorites so far (that are post Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich) I would include:

Olivier Messiaen
John Adams
Sofia Gubaidulina
Thomas Ades
Wolfgang Rihm


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Eusebius12 said:


> Schoenberg has an even smaller public than he started with, and Boulez is virtually forgotten outside conservatories. So their influence has to be limited in that sense. I'd plump for
> Faure
> Elgar=
> Scriabin
> ...


You've chosen four Romantic composers, and Prokofiev, whom I'd agree is an excellent choice. The question is about Modern composers, like it or not.

Believe it or not, more people are listening to Schoenberg than ever.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Who was influenced by Boulez's music?


The whole "total serialist" school of Stockhausen, Babbitt, etc. He was one of the most towering musical figures of the latter half of the century with his dogmatic insistence that "tonality was dead" and serialism was the only way forward. He even attacked late Schoenberg for not being serialist enough! What did Boulez call it, "broken music for a broken world" or something to that effect? For the record, I have nothing against serialism, just the dogma that Boulez brought to it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ We know Boulez spent a lot of his life being opinionated (and was even nearly arrested for it in his venerable old age). But to call his views a dogma implies that others had no choice but to follow his dictats. I find it hard to accept that for noted composers. Surely they were convinced and _chose _to follow his lead?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ We know Boulez spent a lot of his life being opinionated (and was even nearly arrested for it in his venerable old age). But to call his views a dogma implies that others had no choice but to follow his dictats. I find it hard to accept that for noted composers. Surely they were convinced and _chose _to follow his lead?


Alexander Goehr writes of Boulez's influence and there was indeed a pressure to write in an acceptable style to Boulez if one wanted a performance. At least one of Goehr's pieces was rejected as he was a serialist of sorts in the Schoenbergian sense, at odds with Boulez's modernism.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The whole "total serialist" school of Stockhausen, Babbitt, etc. He was one of the most towering musical figures of the latter half of the century with his dogmatic insistence that "tonality was dead" and serialism was the only way forward. He even attacked late Schoenberg for not being serialist enough! What did Boulez call it, "broken music for a broken world" or something to that effect? For the record, I have nothing against serialism, just the dogma that Boulez brought to it.


I think Boulez gave up writing that sort of music very early on, by the mid 1960s! And Stockhausen didn't stick to the style either. They both went their own way. The relation between the young Boulez and the young Stockhausen was so close that it's hardly clear who influenced whom. I know much less about Babbitt, so won't comment.

I think that Boulez's masterpieces had very little influence musically, he encouraged people at IRCAM to do their own authentic thing. But I look forward to being shown to be wrong.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> Alexander Goehr writes of Boulez's influence and there was indeed a pressure to write in an acceptable style to Boulez if one wanted a performance.


Note that " in an acceptable style to Boulez" is not at all the same sort of thing as "in the same style as Boulez." I'm sure that he was a strong influence in the former sense, but not sure that he was a strong influence in the latter sense.

But to take the matter further it would be nice to know when Goehr wrote that? And which pieces got performed?

Just speaking naively here, I can't think of anything that _sounds _like Rituel or Répons, but I may have forgotten things or not noticed things.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Note that " in an acceptable style to Boulez" is not at all the same sort of thing as "in the same style as Boulez." I'm sure that he was a strong influence in the former sense, but not sure that he was a strong influence in the latter sense.
> 
> But to take the matter further it would be nice to know when Goehr wrote that? And which pieces got performed?


It's all in his book 'Finding the Key'. The first chapter is an open letter to Boulez. The book as a whole is an excellent read.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0571193102?pf_rd_p=f20e70b1-67f9-48d1-8c78-ba616030b420&pf_rd_r=WJJSFN5KX86CRX1KFB5K


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

In some cases, one charismatic artist and musician being influenced can have a world wide impact. Boulez, Stockhausen, Varese, Stravinsky and Bartok's influence went beyond the classical world and influenced modern rock music. Frank Zappa, Robert Fripp, Keith Emerson, and the Beatles were all listening to this stuff and turned millions of people on to the music. Boulez even recorded an album with Zappa. And Zappa championed many of these composers throughout his career. Messiaen influenced Boulez's generation in addition to the 60s generation.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I don’t know much about modern classical music, so please forgive me if I made some sweeping generalizations. My current level of comprehension doesn’t really go beyond Webern and Messiaen. I define “dogma” as an opinion that is taken to an extreme such that you’re not willing to let anything change your mind. All I know is that Boulez savagely criticized composers such as Ravel and late Stravinsky, and that he was adamant in the idea that serialism was the “only way forward.” Whether this idea became a restricting dogma in conservatories, etc. of the time is a different topic.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I don't know much about modern classical music, so please forgive me if I made some sweeping generalizations. My current level of comprehension doesn't really go beyond Webern and Messiaen. I define "dogma" as an opinion that is taken to an extreme such that you're not willing to let anything change your mind. All I know is that Boulez savagely criticized composers such as Ravel and late Stravinsky, and that he was adamant in the idea that serialism was the "only way forward." Whether this idea became a restricting dogma in conservatories, etc. of the time is a different topic.


Boulez was - by modern teminology - a troll. I'd take Ravel over Boulez anytime.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> You've chosen four Romantic composers, and Prokofiev, whom I'd agree is an excellent choice. The question is about Modern composers, like it or not.
> 
> Believe it or not, more people are listening to Schoenberg than ever.


I don't think you can always strictly separate romantic from modern composers. Scriabin is more of a transitional figure.

Anyway, I don't care who is considered most important I only care who's important to me.


----------



## Schopenhauer (Jan 9, 2020)

Wow, awesome response but...I am still lost! :lol:

Anyways, I was taking a look at some of the composers you mentioned, but it is difficult to find what are the best recordings of the most recent composers (for example Friedrich Haas). I guess I have to listen to them all and then choose.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Schopenhauer said:


> Wow, awesome response but...I am still lost! :lol:
> 
> Anyways, I was taking a look at some of the composers you mentioned, but it is difficult to find what are the best recordings of the most recent composers (for example Friedrich Haas). I guess I have to listen to them all and then choose.


start with
Schoenberg - Piano concerto
Penderecki - Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima
Hindemith - Ludus Tonalis
Messiaen - Turangalila symphony
Bartók - Concerto for Orchestra
Lutoslawski - Symphony no. 3
Crumb - Black Angels
Ligeti - Double Concerto for Flute, Oboe and Orchestra
Murail - Désintégrations 
Takemitsu - From me flows what you call Time
Lachenmann - Mouvement

these are some fine and varied modern works. You can listen to them on youtube or spotify and find out if you like them, and then you can search for the best recordings.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

Schopenhauer said:


> Wow, awesome response but...I am still lost! :lol:
> 
> Anyways, I was taking a look at some of the composers you mentioned, but it is difficult to find what are the best recordings of the most recent composers (for example Friedrich Haas). I guess I have to listen to them all and then choose.


Well, for Haas, the best places to start are _in vain_ (his masterpiece), _limited approximations_ (his other masterpiece), _dark dreams_, _open spaces_, the nine string quartets, his couple of operas, and maybe _Hyperion_. For such a great composer, Haas actually has very few commercial recordings. Fortunately, there are many recordings of live performances of his works on youtube, including the ones I mentioned.

As far as being lost: it goes with the territory. There are simply too many great 20/21st century composers to list and too many styles to explore. In fact, trying to reduce the number of greats to a small handful says more about the person doing it and their personal tastes than about what is actually the case.

Here's Haas's _in vain_.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Schopenhauer said:


> Wow, awesome response but...I am still lost! :lol:
> 
> Anyways, I was taking a look at some of the composers you mentioned, but it is difficult to find what are the best recordings of the most recent composers (for example Friedrich Haas). I guess I have to listen to them all and then choose.


If you want specific recommendations, you could look at two lists compiled through voting by TC members - The TC Top 150 Recommended Modern Classical Works and The TC Top 200 Recommended Post-1950 Works List. Also you could check out a wonderful resouvoir of knowledge on Contemporary composers - Trout's A Contemporary Music Repertoire (a work in progress).


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I think that if you really want someone to like Penderecki, don't push that Threnody at them...Try Symphony no. 7 or cello concerto.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I think that if you really want someone to like Penderecki, don't push that Threnody at them...Try Symphony no. 7 or cello concerto.


every person is different. Threnody was one of the first modern works that I heard and I found it immediately accessible and appealing (it reminded me of movie sountrack and also depicted something concrete - the horror of a nuclear blast). Penderecki in general is quite accessible.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Jacck said:


> every person is different. Threnody was one of the first modern works that I heard and I found it immediately accessible and appealing (it reminded me of movie sountrack and also depicted something concrete - the horror of a nuclear blast). Penderecki in general is quite accessible.


Yes, when I settle down to listen to some good classical music, I look forward to hearing something that reminds me of the horror of a nuclear blast.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Yes, when I settle down to listen to some good classical music, I look forward to hearing something that reminds me of the horror of a nuclear blast.


not everything must be nicely sounding and pleasing. In painting you also have Zdzislaw Beksinski, Hieronymus Bosch or H. R. Giger. They do not depict exactly pleasant subjects, yet people admire and enjoy their art. So it is with music. Some music is ugly, dissonant, and yet it can be interesting or fascinating and people can admire and enjoy it. Of course this music requires to train yourself a little to listen to it.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Sorry guys to mention Threnody. I know it's a classic, but I regard it as an experiment, and that Penderecki went on to create music with the same style, just not all the time...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Yes, when I settle down to listen to some good classical music, I look forward to hearing something that reminds me of the horror of a nuclear blast.


Is there a tonal piece "for the victims of hiroshima" or something similar? This would be an interesting test of the expressive strengths and limitations of tonal music.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Is there a tonal piece "for the victims of hiroshima" or something similar? This would be an interesting test of the expressive strengths and limitations of tonal music.


Or the limitations of atonal, avant-garde works. If the work is "for the victims of Hiroshima" then the question is whether the atonal, dissonant depiction of a nuclear blast (to use Jacck's words) or a tonal work expressing sadness, melancholy and hope for better times would be more appropriate.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Or the limitations of atonal, avant-garde works. If the work is "for the victims of Hiroshima" then the question is whether the atonal, dissonant depiction of a nuclear blast (to use Jacck's words) or a tonal work expressing sadness, melancholy and hope for better times would be more appropriate.


"Appropriate" to whom? The reality of nuclear warfare is well beyond the scope of "sadness, melancholy and hope for better times". 
This is the point that Penderecki was trying to express with this work, I think.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> John Cage is the most important 20th century composer, probably the most important composer of all time.


Did John Cage compose music? Didn't know that.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't think the suffering, death and destruction of nuclear war can be expressed in a piece for strings. I pretty much discard the title in my mind and listen to the piece as pure music. With this approach I find it to be a thrilling musical work with no associations to human folly and cruelty. Just a testament to Penderecki's creative imagination and skill as a composer and orchestrator.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

flamencosketches said:


> "Appropriate" to whom? The reality of nuclear warfare is well beyond the scope of "sadness, melancholy and hope for better times".


'Appropriate to whom?' indeed.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Or the limitations of atonal, avant-garde works. If the work is "for the victims of Hiroshima" then the question is whether the atonal, dissonant depiction of a nuclear blast (to use Jacck's words) or a tonal work expressing sadness, melancholy and hope for better times would be more appropriate.


Tippett's _Child of our Time_ maybe, is that tonal? I can never tell these things. Anyway I can't stand it!

I prefer the Pendereki because it expresses melancholy, sadness and the only real sense of hope possible given the magnitude of the event -- hope through _anger_.

I'm not sure I agree that it's a dissonant _depiction _of a nuclear blast, but I don't want to get drawn into a discussion of the nature of depiction.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Atonal music is capable of expressing a variety of emotions, but whether someone connects with the aesthetic is a different story. I had always heard that Berg's Violin Concerto was the most accessible work to get into atonal music, but I've heard it about three times now and I still think it sounds ugly and bitter. But I do think that Webern, Messiaen, Ives, some of Stravinsky's late experiments, and some of Schoenberg (_like A Survivor From Warsaw_) can use radical conceptions of color and form to evoke certain expressions that I find fascinating. I do have mixed feelings about the level of craftsmanship in, say, Webern (kind of like a Pollock painting- the sounds are interesting, but are they really thought out, or could anyone produce it through the element of random chance?) but this does not diminish my aesthetic appreciation for him. I admit that atonal music in general appeals almost exclusively to my mind rather than the deep feelings of ecstasy I get with Bach, Brahms, and Schubert. But there is a time and a place for everything, and the mark of a healthy listener is the ability to dive into unfamiliar territory, admit one's own limitations, and keep one's mind open to everything until you actually experience it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Is there a tonal piece "for the victims of hiroshima" or something similar? This would be an interesting test of the expressive strengths and limitations of tonal music.


My "imprinting" experience of Penderecki's work was on this recording, with Bruno Madera conducting. I got chills then, and I get chills now. I listen to it every August 6.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Allerius said:


> Did John Cage compose music? Didn't know that.


I'm sure John Cage would agree with you, as long as you cooperate. Maybe just ask him for an autograph, as a good will gesture.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

In as much the creation of "new" sounds tends to be a marker for greatness, Messiaen always strikes me as the most obvious answer to this question. His song cycle and Hymne are two accessible pieces that I dont think would baffle a Debussy or Ravel fan all that much.

While I do love Schoenberg and the like, I still feel reservations about the success/viability of that idiom when I listen to it. Messiaen immediately strikes me as fresh, genius, and unique among his contemporaries. The string cluster type works by Xenakis, Penderecki, Ligeti, and etc give me a similar impression, but Messiaen has the added bonus of being beautiful in the typical sense, which is the quality I always feel like people are really asking for with these questions.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

Just to say that Threnody wasn't written with Hiroshima in mind, Penderecki only made the association after he'd heard it performed and he then added the title/dedication. I think he was originally going to call it 8'37, a seeming hat-tip to TC heartthrob, John Cage.

A striking and excellent piece though, that's for sure.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Atonal music is capable of expressing a variety of emotions, but whether someone connects with the aesthetic is a different story. I had always heard that Berg's Violin Concerto was the most accessible work to get into atonal music, but I've heard it about three times now and I still think it sounds *ugly and bitter*.


Really?! Are we listening to the same piece?  You may as well have just told me the last movement of Mahler's 9th sounds ugly and bitter.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm sure John Cage would agree with you, as long as you cooperate. Maybe just ask him for an autograph, as a good will gesture.


Can't because he is dead, but I could prepare a combo of beans, cabbage and broccoli with castor oil to help his audience to find a completely new way of listening to 4'33" in it's next presentation near my town to honor his soul.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Atonal music is capable of expressing a variety of emotions, but whether someone connects with the aesthetic is a different story. I had always heard that Berg's Violin Concerto was the most accessible work to get into atonal music, but I've heard it about three times now and I still think it sounds ugly and bitter. But I do think that Webern, Messiaen, Ives, some of Stravinsky's late experiments, and some of Schoenberg (_like A Survivor From Warsaw_) can use radical conceptions of color and form to evoke certain expressions that I find fascinating. I do have mixed feelings about the level of craftsmanship in, say, Webern (kind of like a Pollock painting- the sounds are interesting, but are they really thought out, or could anyone produce it through the element of random chance?) but this does not diminish my aesthetic appreciation for him. I admit that atonal music in general appeals almost exclusively to my mind rather than the deep feelings of ecstasy I get with Bach, Brahms, and Schubert. But there is a time and a place for everything, and the mark of a healthy listener is the ability to dive into unfamiliar territory, admit one's own limitations, and keep one's mind open to everything until you actually experience it.


I listened to the Berg violin concerto probably 5 or 6 times without getting anything from it. To me the sounds were random and by no means enjoyable. I heard an audio file discussing the work a couple of times. The file stepped one through the piece describing what was happening. After listening a couple more times to the concerto, it started to sound beautiful to me. Now it is my favorite 20th century violin concerto.

The last couple of minutes or so where the concerto focuses on the end of the tone row (last 4 notes), which comes from a Bach chorale, is simply achingly beautiful to me. I find it remarkable that a work which completely eluded me and sounded random can now sound so profoundly beautiful.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> Really?! Are we listening to the same piece?  You may as well have just told me the last movement of Mahler's 9th sounds ugly and bitter.


I think it partly has to do with my distaste for the sound of the solo violin...I favor very few violin concerti. I think I'll try it again once I get acquainted with some more Schoenberg, etc. Maybe it will click with me then. Then again, I created a thread on my favorite symphony- Bruckner's 8th- only to be met with a slew of responses that it was "overblown," "pretentious," "tedious," etc. and I had the exact same reaction as you express above. Music like this does take time to fully appreciate, and I'm sure I will come around on Berg someday once I'm completely comfortable with the atonal idiom (still very much in the process of "adjusting my ears").


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I think it partly has to do with my distaste for the sound of the solo violin...I favor very few violin concerti. I think I'll try it again once I get acquainted with some more Schoenberg, etc. Maybe it will click with me then. Then again, I created a thread on my favorite symphony- Bruckner's 8th- only to be met with a slew of responses that it was "overblown," "pretentious," "tedious," etc. and I had the exact same reaction as you express above. Music like this does take time to fully appreciate, and I'm sure I will come around on Berg someday once I'm completely comfortable with the atonal idiom (still very much in the process of "adjusting my ears").


I appreciate your open-mindedness! For some reason atonal music clicked nearly right away for me, except that it was not Berg who won me over but Webern. Bruckner on the other hand is a challenge for me-though he is one I keep trying with, as I want to love his music like you and so many others do. I just got this recording today:









It's not your beloved Furtwängler/Vienna recording, but it is the same orchestra, always great in Bruckner (today, anyway-they for years during Bruckner's lifetime utterly neglected his music) and I think the recording will help me to understand this massive symphony more-or so I hope, anyway!

Solo violin is something I'm still working on appreciating myself, I used to hate it too but I am learning to love it, I think.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Messiaen, apart from being a masterful composer was equally important as a pedagogue who had an influence that was important, especially given the amount of well known names who attended his classes.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ...........but I've heard it about three times now and I still think it sounds ugly and bitter. But I do think that Webern, Messiaen, Ives, some of Stravinsky's late experiments, and some of Schoenberg (_like A Survivor From Warsaw_) can use radical conceptions of color and form to evoke certain expressions that I find fascinating. I do have mixed feelings about the level of craftsmanship in, say, Webern (kind of like a Pollock painting- the sounds are interesting, but are they really thought out, or could anyone produce it through the element of random chance?) but this does not diminish my aesthetic appreciation for him. I admit that atonal music in general appeals almost exclusively to my mind rather than the deep feelings of ecstasy I get with Bach, Brahms, and Schubert. But there is a time and a place for everything, and the mark of a healthy listener is the ability to dive into unfamiliar territory, admit one's own limitations, and keep one's mind open to everything until you actually experience it.


You ask if Pollock's paintings (I assume you refer to his "drip period") are really thought out. In earlier days Pollock certainly did think out his paintings ... often starting with a figurative scene that he would then render totally unrecognisable and abstract but without sacrificing the structure and rhythm of his starting point. I know less about his method in the drip paintings but do know that they related to music (jazz) and its rhythm. By then he had been painting for a long time and much of his thought process would have been unconscious. My avatar is a Pollock painting, by the way.

Then you ask about how atonal music fails to give you the deeply ecstatic feelings that you get from Bach, Brahms and Schubert. What strikes me here is that the feelings I get listening to those three composers are very different from each other - but I love them all - so I am not sure what you get lumping them together. Certainly, the feelings I get listening to apparently atonal music are different but I am not sure the difference between my reception of, say, Brahms and one of the atonal composers you mention is so much greater than difference in the feeling I get between Brahms and Bach. Different composers (and composers of different periods) give you different feelings ... but it is all pleasure.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> You ask if Pollock's paintings (I assume you refer to his "drip period") are really thought out. In earlier days Pollock certainly did think out his paintings ... often starting with a figurative scene that he would then render totally unrecognisable and abstract but without sacrificing the structure and rhythm of his starting point. I know less about his method in the drip paintings but do know that they related to music (jazz) and its rhythm. By then he had been painting for a long time and much of his thought process would have been unconscious. My avatar is a Pollock painting, by the way.
> 
> Then you ask about how atonal music fails to give you the deeply ecstatic feelings that you get from Bach, Brahms and Schubert. What strikes me here is that the feelings I get listening to those three composers are very different from each other - but I love them all - so I am not sure what you get lumping them together. Certainly, the feelings I get listening to apparently atonal music are different but I am not sure the difference between my reception of, say, Brahms and one of the atonal composers you mention is so much greater than difference in the feeling I get between Brahms and Bach. Different composers (and composers of different periods) give you different feelings ... but it is all pleasure.


Excellent stuff to chew on, thanks for this. I lumped Bach, Brahms, and Schubert together because they are my three favorite composers and the ones that I tend to experience the deepest emotions with. And yes, you are certainly right that part of the joy of classical music is the utterly different aesthetic/emotional responses that different composers and styles can conjure up. I am a very emotional consumer of art (even though I'm an extremely analytical person, ironically enough). Probably the most intense emotional response that modernist (though not completely atonal) music has garnered from me is Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time and Vingt Regards. There is a sort of esoteric expression to them that connects with me in a very abstract way. And I think your analysis of Pollock's style really nails my impressions about Webern in particular, in my limited time listening to him.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Schopenhauer said:


> And by modern I mean XXth and XXIth century classical music like spectralism, atonality, serialism, etc. Is there any reliable source of information on this? The classical music guides that I have ignore composers after 1950.
> 
> I've seen several threads in this forum, but the number of composers discussed on them is so big that I feel lost! :lol:


In "The Classical Music Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained", the composers labelled as "contemporary" and the works discussed in the respective chapters dedicated to them are:

*Schaeffer/Henry* - _Symphonie pour un homme seul_;
*Cage* - _4'33"_;
*Stockhausen* - _Gruppen_;
*Xenakis* - _Pithoprakta_;
*Khatchaturian* - _Spartacus_;
*Penderecki* - _Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima_;
*Riley* - _In C_;
*Takemitsu* - _November Steps_;
*Berio* - _Sinfonia_;
*Davies* - _Eight Songs for a Mad King_;
*Reich* - _Six Pianos_;
*Glass* - _Einstein on the Beach_;
*Schafer* - _Apocalypsis_;
*Lutoslawski* - _Symphony No. 4_;
*Ligeti* - _Études_;
*Saariaho* - _L'Amour de Loin_;
*Higdon* - _Blue Cathedral_;
*Adès* - _In Seven Days_;
*Whitacre* - _Alleluia_.

The composers that are still alive or that died in the 1990s or after that deserved at least one page in "The Complete Classical Music Guide" and their key works according to the book are:

*Copland* - _Appalachian Spring_, _12 Poems of Emily Dickinson_, _Piano Variations_, _Symphony No. 3_, _Clarinet Concerto_;
*Cage* - _Variations II_, _Sonatas and Interludes_, _Roaratorio_;
*Bernstein* - _West Side Story_, _Symphony No. 2_;
*Carter* - _A Symphony of Three Orchestras_, _Cello Sonata_;
*Corigliano* - _A Dylan Thomas Trilogy_, _Symphony No. 1_;
*Reich* - _Music for 18 Musicians_, _The Cave_;
*Glass* - _Music in 12 Parts_, _Akhnaten_, _Symphony No. 5_;
*Adams* - _Nixon in China_, _Harmonielehre_, _Grand Pianola Music_;
*Riley* - _In C_, _The Saint Adolf Ring_, _Concert for Two Pianos and Five Tape Recorders_;
*Schnittke* - _Concerto Gross No. 1_, _Symphony No. 1_, _Viola Concerto_;
*Messiaen* - _Turangalîla Symphony_, _Quartet of the End of Time_, _Visions de L'Amen_;
*Tippett* - _The Midsummer Marriage_, _A Child of Our Time_, _Symphony No. 3_, _King Priam_;
*Lutoslawski* - _Les Espaces du Sommeil_, _Mi-Parti_;
*Stockhausen* - _Gruppen_, _Gesand der Jünglinge_;
*Boulez* - _Éclats/Multiples_, _Répons_;
*Xenakis* - _Metastaseis_, _Pléïades_;
*Ligeti* - _Lontano_, _San Francisco Polyphony_, _Requiem_;
*Nono* - _Il Canto Sospeso_, _Prometeo_;
*Berio* - _Sinfonia_;
*Sculthorpe* - _Port Essington_, _Earthcry_;
*Davies* - _Image, Reflection, Shadow_, _Symphony No. 3_;
*Birtwistle* - _Gawain's Journey_, _The Mask of Orpheus_;
*Pärt* - _Fratres_, _Credo_;
*Lindberg* - _Aura_, _Related Rocks_;
*MacMillan* - _Veni, veni Emmanuel_, _Vigil_;
*Turnage* - _The Silver Tassie_, _Blood on the Floor_;
*Weir* - _Missa del Cid_, _A Night at the Chinese Opera_;

A major living classical composer missing in both lists in my opinion is *John Williams*; he can be defined as a "classical composer" considering that he has a considerably body of concertos and chamber music in the classical tradition, and the soundtracks to the Star Wars series alone, being derivative or not, should be viewed as a proof of his genius in my opinion.

I know that it's difficult to define objectively what music is, but I agree with *Leonard Bernstein* that it's a kind of language. This makes me view with skepticism the idea that every sound is music, what seems to me like a simplistic and unrealistic way of dealing with a complex matter. I think that noise can be pleasant - like the laugh of a child or the sound of rain - but I can't think of it as "music" like a Mozart symphony or a Beatles song, and if so many people didn't believe in this distinction, there would have not been a necessity for a word for "music" in basically every culture of the world in the first place. Also, when I see certain alleged "great composers" encouraging his pupils to do things like _Piano Piece for David Tudor #1_* I have a hard time to take them seriously.

*: Here is what is written in the "score" of this "serious composition" of contemporary classical music:

"Piano Piece for David Tudor #1: Bring a bale of hay and a bucket of water onto the stage for the piano to eat and drink. The performer may then feed the piano or leave it to eat by itself. If the former, the piece is over after the piano has been fed. If the latter, it is over after the piano eats or decides not to. October, 1960."

P.S.: Reading again this post it occurred to me that my criticism above may seem to be for all contemporary classical music, but actually I meant it only for specific composers whose work could be described as a kind of musical dadaism in my view. I don't know much contemporary classical music but I actually enjoyed to explore part of it in the last two years. Some composers that I discovered and that I know for only one or a few pieces and that have somehow impressed me include Pärt, Yoshimatsu, Mozetich, Chin, Crumb, Takemitsu and Schnittke.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Where on Earth is Britten? he should be on any list of 20thC composers.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Where on Earth is Britten? he should be on any list of 20thC composers.


If this was meant for me: He died before the 1990s and was not considered a contemporary composer in the first book.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Allerius said:


> If this was meant for me: He died before the 1990s and was not considered a contemporary composer in the first book.


Not specifically you Allerius, but thanks for clarifying, I was just skimming the thread and saw a list that included Riley, Bernstein, Glass and thought hang on...... Must read properly in future.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Schopenhauer said:


> Wow, awesome response but...I am still lost! :lol:
> 
> Anyways, I was taking a look at some of the composers you mentioned, but it is difficult to find what are the best recordings of the most recent composers (for example Friedrich Haas). I guess I have to listen to them all and then choose.


Exploring unknown, modern composers and their music, is not something that you should feel is a chore. Think of it as exploration, with the destination being the discovery of some of the greatest music.

Think of being 'lost', as the period just before making great discoveries.

So many of these composers have works up on YouTube. Have fun!

And on a side note, please try to ignore some of the anti-modernist members on this forum. They can get a bit snarky with regards to their comments of classical music post 1950.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> Exploring unknown, modern composers and their music, is not something that you should feel is a chore. Think of it as exploration, with the destination being the discovery of some of the greatest music.
> 
> Think of being 'lost', as the period just before making great discoveries.
> 
> ...


Sorry but I do consider exploring the works of most modern composers an immense chore, one that is mostly highly unenjoyable. Quite a number of times I have had the radio on and the announcement has come on about this 'new work' or 'commission' by a new composer and I have dutifully listened to try and make sense of the unpleasant noise emanating from the speakers. Sorry but with a very few exceptions it is about as pleasant as getting your teeth drilled and the exceptions are not particularly enjoyable anyway. I recently sat through Berg's Wozzek (pre-1950 I know) in the cinema and came out wondering whether to put a gun to my head or jump off the nearest bridge! I listen to music for enjoyment and frankly these are mostly experiences which do not enhance enjoyment of life and are no 'fun' at all. I realise I might be labelled 'snarky' but that is my experience.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

There's a great deal of good information out there on the 'most important' modern composers, so it's redundant to discuss it here yet again. As for contemporary, living composers, I nominate György Kurtág, Heinz Holliger, Richard Barrett, Michael Hersch, and Vyacheslav Artyomov.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I listened to the Berg violin concerto probably 5 or 6 times without getting anything from it. To me the sounds were random and by no means enjoyable. I heard an audio file discussing the work a couple of times. The file stepped one through the piece describing what was happening. After listening a couple more times to the concerto, it started to sound beautiful to me. Now it is my favorite 20th century violin concerto.
> 
> The last couple of minutes or so where the concerto focuses on the end of the tone row (last 4 notes), which comes from a Bach chorale, is simply achingly beautiful to me. I find it remarkable that a work which completely eluded me and sounded random can now sound so profoundly beautiful.


I think this is a fairly common experience for music listeners struggling to enjoy modern pieces for the first time. It's a matter of giving our ears and brain ample time to process and absorb the music until we can really hear the flow of the piece and enjoy the music.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

starthrower said:


> I think this is a fairly common experience for music listeners struggling to enjoy modern pieces for the first time. It's a matter of *giving our ears and brain ample time to process and absorb the music* until we can really hear the flow of the piece and enjoy the music.


The problem is how much time when one could be listening to music one really enjoys?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> To appreciate Cage you have to first learn how to listen to Cage. You have to forget listening waiting for the music to move you emotionally, and you have to forget listening with an ear to analysis, structure. That's not what he's about and if you approach it like that it will be very boring, very disappointing.
> 
> Fortunately there is a third way, which maybe Cage discovered. *You can listen to the music with the same sense of fascination that you might have watching the night sky in the desert, or the patterns of sunlight on the ocean.* And with the same _alertness_.


The night sky in the desert and patterns of sunlight on the ocean are experiences worth infinitely more than Cage's dabblings. Of course, if it's 4'33" we're experiencing out there, Cage may have his name on the scenery.

Plagiarizing God... Huh. Nice work if you can get it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Plagiarizing God


Alphonse Allais "Marche funèbre composée pour les funérailles d'un grand homme sourd" (1897)


----------



## erki (Feb 17, 2020)

It is rather unavoidable to have this contemptuous conversation about modern music, isn't it. Some just love the stuff that some so vehemently hate.
I think it may have to do with different minds of people. In my case I did hear Szymanowski violin concerto when I was 16 and absolutely loved it. This did not stop me enjoying Bach and Beethoven however. Berg came somewhat later and fitted into the slot in my mind right away.
What I like about this music is the kind of chaos it creates in my mind but maintains an understandable reason at the same time. Very similar to the nature where you can find harmonies if you desire but in general it is chaotic like windstorm.
But if chaos disturbs ones mind the negative reflex towards it is rather understandable. Only to express your dislike is questionable.
About composers that are important. The importance comes with relative to the time and it is hard to tell it at the present time. But I discover new modern music all the time. 

I would name few - some still alive some dead:
Arvo Pärt
Max Richter
Steve Reich
Witold Lutoslawski
Oliver Messiaen 
John Cage


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

DavidA said:


> The problem is how much time when one could be listening to music one really enjoys?


This is something I've been struggling with lately. In my quests to understand Webern, Dutilleux, Schoenberg, etc. there are occasional and even quite frequent moments of revelation in which I start to enjoy the music. But then the entire thing, once it's finished, leaves me feeling profoundly unsatisfied. Webern's Five Pieces for Orchestra - extremely interesting in the selection of pitches and colors that the composer chooses. But I then asked myself, "What was the point? What was the composer really trying to say? Why should I consider this an example of fine craftsmanship?" I see nothing wrong with the modernist/atonal aesthetic, and I appreciate there there are so many individual styles within that idiom. As I've already mentioned, I really do love Ives, Stravinsky, Bartok, and Messiaen. But ultimately, I do feel that, to one extent or the other, a good deal of modern music seems to glorify chaos and disorganization. Of course, the easy way to adjust one's ears would be to listen to nothing but Boulez and Stockhausen for a week straight, nonstop, and then Schoenberg would start to sound like Schubert:lol: But as of right now, the miraculous purity of Schubert is infinitely more fulfilling to me, even after my mind has gained fascination from the coloristic and formalistic experiments of the atonalists. So this begs the question - for those who consider themselves lovers of atonal music, is it worth it to keep trying? If you were initially repelled, how long did it take you to appreciate it? Did you keep at it even when there was other music you'd rather be listening to? I appreciated mmsbls's anecdote about the Berg concerto above, but are there any other "atonal testimonials" anyone would care to share that just might give me a glimmer of hope?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> This is something I've been struggling with lately. In my quests to understand Webern, Dutilleux, Schoenberg, etc. there are occasional and even quite frequent moments of revelation in which I start to enjoy the music. But then the entire thing, once it's finished, leaves me feeling profoundly unsatisfied. Webern's Five Pieces for Orchestra - extremely interesting in the selection of pitches and colors that the composers chooses. But I then asked myself, "What was the point? What was the composer really trying to say? Why should I consider this an example of fine craftsmanship?" I see nothing wrong with the modernist/atonal aesthetic, and I appreciate there there are so many individual styles within that idiom. As I've already mentioned, I really do love Ives, Stravinsky, Bartok, and Messiaen. But ultimately, I do feel that, to one extent or the other, a good deal of modern music seems to glorify chaos and disorganization. Of course, the easy way to adjust one's ears would be to listen to nothing but Boulez and Stockhausen for a week straight, nonstop, and then Schoenberg would start to sound like Schubert:lol: But as of right now, the miraculous purity of Schubert is infinitely more fulfilling to me, even after my mind has gained fascination from the coloristic and formalistic experiments of the atonalists. So this begs the question - for those who consider themselves lovers of atonal music, is it worth it to keep trying? If you were initially repelled, how long did it take you to appreciate it? Did you keep at it even when there was other music you'd rather be listening to? I appreciated mmsbls's anecdote about the Berg concerto above, but are there any other "atonal testimonials" anyone would care to share that just might give me a glimmer of hope?


If you like Schubert then listen to late Feldman, Jorg Frey and late Cage.

I think you should forget the second vienna school composers for a while. Life's too short for music which doesn't whet your imagination. Listen to other contemporary composers if you feel like -- what about (off the top of my head) Ben Johnston's quartets, which I've been exploring recently, or Laurence Crane or Michael Finnissy or Luigi Nono or Gyorgy Kurtag or Pascal Dusapin. None of these people sound like Webern or Schoenberg or Boulez.


----------



## erki (Feb 17, 2020)

> But I then asked myself, "What was the point? What was the composer really trying to say? Why should I consider this an example of fine craftsmanship?"


The first question could be asked about much of the music(Mozart, Händel) - leaving out religious where the point is somewhat obvious and even then it could be enjoyed without pulling hair about peoples stupidity believing in GOD
The second question about craftsmanship is more tricky. Many these modern pieces that draw the most of hatred are very well crafted and require extreme high craftsmanship of handling the instrument. So if you do not like or consider worth of understanding something it does not mean automatically it is poorly created .


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

What is a composer trying to say? Nothing that can come in words (even for pieces with a programme) and probably nothing that can be painted. Those who think they can discern what a composer's literal message is seem to me to be belittling the composer or talking about a very minor one.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

erki said:


> The first question could be asked about much of the music(Mozart, Händel) - leaving out religious where the point is somewhat obvious and even then it could be enjoyed without pulling hair about peoples stupidity believing in GOD
> The second question about craftsmanship is more tricky. Many these modern pieces that draw the most of hatred are very well crafted and require extreme high craftsmanship of handling the instrument. So if you do not like or consider worth of understanding something it does not mean automatically it is poorly created .


I cannot see your point about 'peoples stupidity believing in GOD' comes into the discussion unless you are just trying to get an irreligious dig in at people who are theists, something which is totally off the point. Please note that many great composers such as Bach, Handel through to Messiaen were theists but this did not make them 'stupid'. 
The second point is that however well the craftsmanship is done, if one does not enjoy the product, there is not much point in listening to it. Music is for my enjoyment and if it fails to move me that way it is of no use to me.


----------



## erki (Feb 17, 2020)

> Please note that many great composers such as Bach, Handel through to Messiaen were theists but this did not make them 'stupid'


Exactly. But also the people who enjoy modern music are not stupid to like that music. However obvious it may appear that there is no point. Or as obvious it may appear that there is no such thing as God. So why do you think that your understanding of modern music is the right one as you describe "unpleasant noise emanating from the speakers" and "about as pleasant as getting your teeth drilled"?


> The second point is that however well the craftsmanship is done, if one does not enjoy the product, there is not much point in listening to it.


You seem to think that if you can not enjoy it it is poorly crafted.
But I agree there is no point listening to something you do not enjoy and it should be avoided - not thought about it, not a word said about it. However irritating it may be to see others do.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

erki said:


> Exactly. But also the people who enjoy modern music are not stupid to like that music. However obvious it may appear that there is no point. Or as obvious it may appear that there is no such thing as God. So why do you think that your understanding of modern music is the right one as you describe "unpleasant noise emanating from the speakers" and "about as pleasant as getting your teeth drilled"?
> 
> You seem to think that if you can not enjoy it it is poorly crafted.
> But I agree there is no point listening to something you do not enjoy and it should be avoided - not thought about it, not a word said about it. However irritating it may be to see others do.


Please read what I said without making personal attacks other peoples beliefs. I never said that people who liked modern music were stupid. I was giving my own personal opinion which is what we are here on TC to do. If you think there is no such thing as God that is your personal belief but I cannot see what it has to do with whether or not we enjoy modern music. I realised you that wanted to get one back at me but that is not the way to debate to bring in personal attacks which are off the point and nothing to do with the thread.

My other point is that if you can't read what I actually put please don't reply. I did not say that modern music is poorly crafted. Instead if you actually read what I say I said the opposite. I also didn't say (as you appear to have read into it) that is it irritating for me that others to listen to it. This is a free country. As far as I know there are no Stalinist police going around checking on whether people listen to modern music. Please listen to all the modern music you like as it doesn't irritate me in the slightest as long as I don't have to listen to it as well. So please my friend learn to read what I put before coming in with your personal replies.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I do consider exploring the works of most modern composers an immense chore, one that is mostly highly unenjoyable. Quite a number of times I have had the radio on and the announcement has come on about this 'new work' or 'commission' by a new composer and I have dutifully listened to try and make sense of the unpleasant noise emanating from the speakers. Sorry but with a very few exceptions it is about as pleasant as getting your teeth drilled and the exceptions are not particularly enjoyable anyway. I recently sat through Berg's Wozzek (pre-1950 I know) in the cinema and came out wondering whether to put a gun to my head or jump off the nearest bridge! I listen to music for enjoyment and frankly these are mostly experiences which do not enhance enjoyment of life and are no 'fun' at all. I realise I might be labelled 'snarky' but that is my experience.


Of course it is a chore for you, because you do not like modern music. But you were not the target of my comments, though, were you?

I was not aiming my comment about exploring modern music 'not being chore to explore' to those who do not like it. I was aiming that comment at the OP, who does seem to like it, and was looking to discover new music. My comment was meant to instill the excitement of the discovery of new music to the OP, instead of being looked at as a chore, _for him_.

It's the same old crap on TC.

Original poster: "modern and contemporary recommendations please"

Hater of modern music typical response: "bla, bla, bla, noise. Bla, bla, bla Cage's "4:33", ha, ha. Bla, bla, bla, random, bla, bla".

Original poster: "thanks to those that have recommended music. Not sure why those that do not like modern music feel the need to chime in?"


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> So this begs the question - for those who consider themselves lovers of atonal music, is it worth it to keep trying? If you were initially repelled, how long did it take you to appreciate it? Did you keep at it even when there was other music you'd rather be listening to? I appreciated mmsbls's anecdote about the Berg concerto above, but are there any other "atonal testimonials" anyone would care to share that just might give me a glimmer of hope?


I was not initially repelled, but I know the feeling (Laphroaig). When I first started listening to Classical Music, I listened to the favorites, most of whom are either from the Baroque or Classical Periods. Then I by chance bought a CD that had Alban Berg's Lyric Suite on it.

I think the Modern Period was the most creative Period in our existence; art, architecture, music, film, literature. There is no shortage of great Modern composers. I would never encourage anybody to listen to something they don't like, but if you're willing to give it a fair chance you might discover something. It worked for me with the Laphroaig.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

gregorx said:


> I was not initially repelled, but I know the feeling (Laphroaig). When I first started listening to Classical Music, I listened to the favorites, most of whom are either from the Baroque or Classical Periods. Then I by chance bought a CD that had Alban Berg's Lyric Suite on it.
> 
> *I think the Modern Period was the most creative Period in our existence; art, architecture, music, film, literature. There is no shortage of great Modern composers.* I would never encourage anybody to listen to something they don't like, but if you're willing to give it a fair chance you might discover something. It worked for me with the Laphroaig.


+ 10


----------

