# Who was the greatest classical composer of the 20th century? in your opinion



## MusicFree

not necessary your favorite, but can be

but you have to pick 1 person...who was the greatest classical composer of the 20th century and why?


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Stravinsky, easy. Harder, maybe, is who was the greatest composer of the second half of the 20th century. (Karlheinz Stockhausen? La Monte Young? Paul McCartney?)


----------



## science

Schoenberg, because he has managed to remain the most controversial (edit: controversial, that is, at the popular level). 

My favorite, though, is Nono, his son-in-law.


----------



## isorhythm

Ligeti or Messiaen.


----------



## Richard8655

Shostakovich. Originality and unique emotional expression as socialist realism during the most traumatic events of the 20th century.


----------



## Chronochromie

My absolute favorites are Messiaen, Schoenberg and Ligeti (excluding Debussy here because many important works are 19th century).


----------



## KenOC

Shostakovich certainly. But Prokofiev gives him competition. I tend to judge these things by music people actually want to hear. So...Copland...Rachmaninoff...Sibelius...Mahler...Bartok...


----------



## Cosmos

This question is impossible to answer fairly because of all the different styles that emerged out of the 20th century, and of how little I know about most of these composers' outputs. Picking just a few favorite composers is hard, but just one single composer out of an entire century? And yeah, I know OP asks for "greatest" but to me, "greatest" with these kinds of questions tend to suggest "your favorite" more than something concrete or objective

with that ramble out of the way, my favorite of the century [of the composers whose music I've listened enough of to bring forward] is a bit of a toss up between Stravinsky and Prokofiev. though, I don't think many would consider Prokofiev to be great enough to be THE "greatest" of the century, so maybe Stravinsky is the better answer.


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> Shostakovich certainly. But Prokofiev gives him competition. I tend to judge these things by music people actually want to hear. So...Copland...Rachmaninoff...Sibelius...Mahler...


How do you determine "what people actually want to hear"? What gets programmed in U.S. symphony concerts?


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Chronochromie said:


> (excluding Debussy here because many important works are 19th century).


I would say we can at least count those works that Debussy wrote during the 20th century toward his standing as a 20th century composer - which of course would make his standing as a 20th century very, very high.


----------



## Becca

My feelings about the word 'greatest' are well known and are really magnified in this particular example. The world of classical music changed so much during those 100 years that no one person could possibly represent the best of the entire century. Break the century into 3 parts and it becomes a tiny bit more doable!


----------



## Harold in Columbia

KenOC said:


> I tend to judge these things by music people actually want to hear.


So, Stravinsky, then.


----------



## isorhythm

KenOC said:


> I tend to judge these things by music people actually want to hear.


Why not judge by how good the music is?


----------



## KenOC

A list from elsewhere, based _only _on works written in the 20th century.

1 - Shostakovich
2 - Bartok
3 - Mahler
4 - Stravinsky
5 - Sibelius
6 - Prokofiev
7 - Messiaen
8 - Lutoslawski
9 - Ravel
10 - Poulenc


----------



## KenOC

isorhythm said:


> Why not judge by how good the music is?


Ah, I don't understand that comment at all!


----------



## Cosmos

Chronochromie said:


> How do you determine "what people actually want to hear"? What gets programmed in U.S. symphony concerts?


Or worse...what's programmed on daytime classical radio stations 

[not that it's bad, they just tend to be 19th century or prior music, typically lighter stuff, with the occasional warhorse standard. Not bad, just...more often than not there will be some conservative symphony that sounds nice but isn't too interesting. Easy listening, unless that sounds too snobbish?]


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> A list from elsewhere, based _only _on works written in the 20th century.
> 
> 1 - Shostakovich
> 2 - Bartok
> 3 - Mahler
> 4 - Stravinsky
> 5 - Sibelius
> 6 - Prokofiev
> 7 - Messiaen
> 8 - Lutoslawski
> 9 - Ravel
> 10 - Poulenc


Of course, that Shostakovich is (one of) the most popular 20th century composer and that he's your favorite is very convenient.


----------



## isorhythm

KenOC said:


> Ah, I don't understand that comment at all!


What about it don't you understand?


----------



## Cosmos

KenOC said:


> A list from elsewhere, based _only _on works written in the 20th century.
> 
> 1 - Shostakovich
> 2 - Bartok
> 3 - Mahler
> 4 - Stravinsky
> 5 - Sibelius
> 6 - Prokofiev
> 7 - Messiaen
> 8 - Lutoslawski
> 9 - Ravel
> 10 - *Poulenc*


Wow! I like Poulenc a lot, but never expected that he would be put in a top 10 list for the century. Kudos to the original list poster


----------



## KenOC

Cosmos said:


> Wow! I like Poulenc a lot, but never expected that he would be put in a top 10 list for the century. Kudos to the original list poster


That list came from quite an extensive and protracted voting game, so it was not just a single person liking Poulenc.


----------



## Becca

KenOC said:


> That list came from quite an extensive and protracted voting game, so it was not just a single person liking Poulenc.


"Design by committee"


----------



## KenOC

Chronochromie said:


> Of course, that Shostakovich is (one of) the most popular 20th century composer and that he's your favorite is very convenient.


Quite amazing how easily the results of a voting game can be turned into an ad hominem attack.


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> Quite amazing how easily the results of a voting game can be turned into an ad hominem attack.


Not really an attack, my good man, more of an observation! You would do better answering the questions in this and the previous page than that comment. If you so wish, of course, less you think I'm being authoritarian.


----------



## GreenMamba

Stravinsky for me. The one I most enjoy listening to.


----------



## science

I actually want to hear Nono, and I am a person. Hopefully there are enough people like me.... 

Shostakovich is ok too. I can understand why he'd be more popular than Nono. But I like Nono better.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> A list from elsewhere, based _only _on works written in the 20th century.
> 
> 1 - Shostakovich
> 2 - Bartok
> 3 - Mahler
> 4 - Stravinsky
> 5 - Sibelius
> 6 - Prokofiev
> 7 - Messiaen
> 8 - Lutoslawski
> 9 - Ravel
> 10 - Poulenc


Could you PM me a link to this forum?


----------



## KenOC

isorhythm said:


> What about it don't you understand?


You wrote, "Why not judge by how good the music is?" Well, do you mean what you think is good, or what I think is good, or somebody else thinks is good? Your suggestion is, frankly, incomprehensible.


----------



## isorhythm

KenOC said:


> You wrote, "Why not judge by how good the music is?" Well, do you mean what you think is good, or what I think is good, or somebody else thinks is good? Your suggestion is, frankly, incomprehensible.


What you think is good, of course.

You're the one who wanted to bring some unspecified other "people" into it for some reason.


----------



## KenOC

isorhythm said:


> What you think is good, of course.
> 
> You're the one who wanted to bring some unspecified other "people" into it for some reason.


I was offering a consensus opinion from another forum, thinking some might find it of interest. I offered nothing of my own opinion. I'm not sure why you have turned combative over this.


----------



## isorhythm

What you wrote was



KenOC said:


> I tend to judge these things by music people actually want to hear. So...Copland...Rachmaninoff...Sibelius...Mahler...


I found it puzzling, that's all.


----------



## Pugg

MusicFree said:


> not necessary your favorite, but can be
> 
> but you have to pick 1 person...who was the greatest classical composer of the 20th century and why?


It is a good custom that O.P post starts with his / her views


----------



## arpeggio

*Necessary Knowledge?*

I really do not have the necessary knowledge to answer such a question. There are many outstanding composers whose music I am really not that familiar with or I am familiar with one or two works: _i. e. _ Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio, Xanakis, Babbitt, Crumb and many others.

According to the database for my CD Library the composer I have the most recordings of is Britten. Yet there are many 20th century composers I admire who sound nothing like Britten. For example Elliot Carter. I have over a hundred recordings of his works including many duplicates.

The top ten 20th century composer in my library are:

1. Britten: Over two hundred recordings. I have the complete recordings of Britten set and I have not yet entered all of the recordings in my database.
2. Stravinsky-160
3. Hindemith-158
4. Holst-122
5. Barber-119
6. Carter-112
7. Prokofiev-108
8. Bax-101
9. Shostakovich-100
10. Copeland-94

Yet this really proves nothing except where my personal biases lie. Is knowing who the most popular composers in my library prove anything?

There is one pattern that bothers me about my list. There is only one modernist composer in it. In fact I reviewed my library and only about 7% or the works in it are atonal. Yet in atonal/tonal poll I selected "both". There are many modernist composers in my library. I am concerned that since atonal music is such a small part of my library some of the more rigid members of the tonal only community would chastise my support of atonal music.

The biggest composer in my library is Beethoven-621 works. Yet he is only 6.7% of all the works I have recordings of.


----------



## regenmusic

Maybe Ravel, for Prélude of "Le Tombeau de Couperin." Hindemith for "Ludus Tonalis" would be a second choice if that piece did not exist. The two I've sampled on youtube are fairly sloppy with the Hindemith, it sounds like a different piece and I don't have the pianist on the version I have.


----------



## KenOC

arpeggio said:


> According to the database for my CD Library the composer I have the most recordings of is Britten...


Britten seldom enters any "top composers" lists. I'm not sure why, because it certainly seems he should given the number and quality of his works. But there seems to be some animus against him among many listeners. Again, I don't know why!


----------



## clavichorder

It's hard for me to think of anyone better qualified than Stravinsky, but I'm trying. I love and have faith in the range and integrity of Bartok's output to view him as a contender. I have a sense that Schoenberg's output amounts to something massively impressive, but I cannot always enjoy listening to even his hyper late romantic works. I even prefer the 'neoclassical' 12 tone music he does sometimes. Debussy does very well, but you do cut off maybe a third of the substance of his output, possibly more(half?, or more?) by using the term 20th century. 

I also tend to think Prokofiev, Ravel, Britten, and even Dutilleux are of extremely high quality and am not always sure why Bartok should be so far ahead of them. And Janacek is an oldie like Debussy, but all of his most mature work is excellent and from the 20th century. I would say the same of Nielsen.

Shostakovich and R. Strauss have their spotty sides, but were extremely important and could really nail it when they were on(I personally admire more the 19th century work of the latter, as a general rule). Regarding Rachmaninoff or Copland, the former is far more interesting than early academic assessments were fond of saying, and the latter has a more varied output than the populist works would indicate, but I personally like Barber more.

I'm less qualified to judge later names working in styles removed from the early 20th century which Stravinsky, Debussy, and Schoenberg seemed to cast a shadow over. It was a fertile shadow, because I almost can't get past admiring that period.


----------



## ArtMusic

Not in any particular order, I would list Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Vaugh-Williams, Mahler, Prokofiev, Ravel.


----------



## Balthazar

Definitely Messiaen.

And Scelsi.


----------



## clavichorder

I know these polls are really tiresome, but I was thinking it might be interesting to do a Rachmaninov vs. Vaughan-Williams poll.


----------



## science

For me, the greatest thing about the classical tradition in the 20th century is the experimentation, the creative discovery of more and more new ways to do unexpected things. I know that a lot of people down't like the music that such creativity produced, but that doesn't matter to me. So when I think of the great 20th-century composers, of course Stravinsky and Schoenberg come to mind first, and then people like Babbitt, Cage, and Stockhausen. A good index for me is how reviled they are by the right people. If you can make the right enemies, you must be doing something right. That's why I really support those enemies having the freedom to to express their dislikes without suffering retribution. It wasn't Stockhausen's supporters who introduced me to the Helicopter Quartet. Stockhausen's supporters generally scorn people like me too much to condescend to share such information with the likes of me. But his enemies have no such scruples. 

On the other hand, the actual music of composers whose enemies revile them for being too romantic usually don't appeal as much to me, but the fact that they are reviled attracts me to them anyway. I cannot imagine enjoying Whitacre's or Tavener's music as much as I enjoy Nono's or Crumb's, but I really wish I could, because I'd love to be on everyone's bad side if I could.


----------



## Cosmos

clavichorder said:


> I know these polls are really tiresome, but I was thinking it might be interesting to do a Rachmaninov vs. Vaughan-Williams poll.


*slams Rachmaninoff button with all my might*


----------



## Guest

Balthazar said:


> And Scelsi.


i thought only a fool like me would have the temerity to think that!

Another my greatest might be Xenakis.


----------



## regenmusic

I wouldn't want to pick one, and I'll often go with Stravinsky, but Hindemith probably is the most overlooked greatest composer in the 20th Century. His melodic line was very pure and that's saying something in the 20th Century when there is so much murkiness.


----------



## joen_cph

arpeggio said:


> 1. Britten: Over two hundred recordings. I have the complete recordings of Britten set and I have not yet entered all of the recordings in my database.
> 2. Stravinsky-160
> 3. *Hindemith-158*
> 4. *Holst-122*
> 5. *Barber-119*
> 6. *Carter-112*
> 7. Prokofiev-108
> 8. *Bax-101*
> 9. Shostakovich-100
> 10. *Copeland-94*
> 
> Yet this really proves nothing except where my personal biases lie. Is knowing who the most popular composers in my library prove anything?
> 
> There is one pattern that bothers me about my list. There is only one modernist composer in it. In fact I reviewed my library and only about 7% or the works in it are atonal. Yet in atonal/tonal poll I selected "both". There are many modernist composers in my library. I am concerned that since atonal music is such a small part of my library some of the more rigid members of the tonal only community would chastise my support of atonal music.
> 
> *The biggest composer in my library is Beethoven-621 works. Yet he is only .067% of all the works I have recordings of*.


Those are impressive numbers in particular.

I may be slow this morning, but according to my calculation this should mean that you own around 92,700 different classical works (92,700 x 0.0067 = 621)?


----------



## Guest

MusicFree said:


> not necessary your favorite, but can be
> 
> but you have to pick 1 person...who was the greatest classical composer of the 20th century and why?


There wasn't (isn't) one.

Oh, alright, I'll give a little more. Whilst one or two posters have given a reason for their choice, for there to be any kind of useful debate we would need to agree a set of valid criteria on which to base a choice. If you'd like to offer your criteria (more important than your choice, IMO) then we could make a start.

But I don't believe we could agree on the criteria, let alone the choice.


----------



## Art Rock

Taking "greatest" as my favourite, and skipping composers whose output is substantially on both parts of the 1900 dividing year, it is clearly Shostakovich.


----------



## Crudblud

The 20th century is either too different from prior centuries or too recent, maybe both, for its music to be measured in this way. If we're going by "importance to musical development," lists might reasonably include Mahler, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Pierre Schafer, Boulez, and Stockhausen. How I would decide between these to find _the one_ is a better question, because it reveals certain difficulties which arise from the simple choosing of criteria: if I pick Mahler because he might be the only one of these composers whose body of work I like near enough in full, I also say that the century is one long downward slope, a statement with which I would vehemently disagree; if I pick Stockhausen I do not take my personal taste into account so much, but I only consider the latter half of the century ─ either way, from my perspective I can do nothing but misrepresent perhaps the most richly diverse period in our musical history. For me the six I listed earlier in this post cover the breadth of technical and technological innovation that made the music of both halves of that century possible, but that is maybe a consideration different to "greatness," a term I still find too nebulous and wonky to have much value.


----------



## Strange Magic

Prokofiev, the Mozart of the Twentieth Century, first half. Composed every kind of music, a large percentage of which is listened to by CM lovers, though certainly not programmed in concert halls as much as 18th and 19th C composers, yet more than many of his potential rivals such as Shostakovich, Stravinsky, or Bartok. Ravel is a special case: jewel-like beauty and craftsmanship but not the bandwidth required to dominate a century. The preceding is, of course, pure opinion.


----------



## violadude

When it comes to the determining the "greatest" composer of the 1st half of the 20th century, it's hard to ignore the incredible range and breadth of influence Stravinsky's music had.


----------



## Weston

Vaughan Williams appears to have the greatest physical mass.

The most influencial / controversial is doubtless Schoenberg.

My favorite is probably Ligeti.

I actually like all three and many more besides.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Stravinsky, I guess. If Debussy were completely, or even just mostly, situated in the 20th century, my vote would be for him. I'm tempted to say Debussy despite half (?) of his works being 19th century. What the heck, it's just the internet. My vote is for Claude-Achille!


----------



## Harold in Columbia

DiesIraeCX said:


> I'm tempted to say Debussy despite half (?) of his works being 19th century.


I count two major works finished in the 19th century: "Prelude To the Afternoon of the Faun" and the nocturnes. (Three if we count the string quartet.) _Pelleas and Melisande_ and everything after that belong to the 20th.


----------



## Nereffid

KenOC said:


> A list from elsewhere, based _only _on works written in the 20th century.
> 
> 1 - Shostakovich
> 2 - Bartok
> 3 - Mahler
> 4 - Stravinsky
> 5 - Sibelius
> 6 - Prokofiev
> 7 - Messiaen
> 8 - Lutoslawski
> 9 - Ravel
> 10 - Poulenc


A very different list produced through one arbitrary way of interpreting my own polls:

1. Debussy
2. Bartók
3. Ravel
4. Prokofiev
5. Sibelius
6. Shostakovich
7. Stravinsky
8. Rachmaninoff
9. Schoenberg
10. Ligeti

I need to put more Lutoslawski in those polls.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

Verdi. Because he was alive until 27 Jan 1901, so was a composer in the 20th century. 

No?

OK. Prokofiev, or John Barry.


----------



## arpeggio

joen_cph said:


> Those are impressive numbers in particular.
> 
> I may be slow this morning, but according to my calculation this should mean that you own around 92,700 different classical works (92,700 x 0.0067 = 621)?


Oops. Not only is my English bad but my math is off. It should be 0.067 (6.7%).


----------



## Orfeo

I would second Clavichorder's mention of Nielsen, truly a giant originale of 20th Century music. I would also like to mention Charles Ives, Myaskovsky, Bax, Vaughan-Williams as worthy candidates to the question (which I believe should read "Who are the greatest classical composers of the 20th Century"). The sheer diversity of great talents this century produced is nothing short of extraordinary.


----------



## arpeggio

*Diversity*



Crudblud said:


> The 20th century is either too different from prior centuries or too recent, maybe both, for its music to be measured in this way. If we're going by "importance to musical development," lists might reasonably include Mahler, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Pierre Schafer, Boulez, and Stockhausen. How I would decide between these to find _the one_ is a better question, because it reveals certain difficulties which arise from the simple choosing of criteria: if I pick Mahler because he might be the only one of these composers whose body of work I like near enough in full, I also say that the century is one long downward slope, a statement with which I would vehemently disagree; if I pick Stockhausen I do not take my personal taste into account so much, but I only consider the latter half of the century ─ either way, from my perspective I can do nothing but misrepresent perhaps the most richly diverse period in our musical history. For me the six I listed earlier in this post cover the breadth of technical and technological innovation that made the music of both halves of that century possible, but that is maybe a consideration different to "greatness," a term I still find too nebulous and wonky to have much value.


I agree. Because of the extreme diversity of styles in the 20th century it is probably impossible to answer the question.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Orfeo said:


> The sheer diversity of great talents this century produced is nothing short of extraordinary.


Makes you wonder what's the matter with ours. (By the time the 20th century was our age, it had already produced _The Rite of Spring_! Let's get it together, people!)


----------



## Fugue Meister

Pugg said:


> It is a good custom that O.P post starts with his / her views


It's also a good custom to put a real answer once in awhile.

My pic would be Bartok or Ligeti because those particular composers are the ones I listen to the most. I'm surprised Arpeggio doesn't have Bartok in their top ten. I love Stravinsky but Bartok is better and I think gives Stravinsky a run for his money where "greatest of the 20th century" is concerned.


----------



## clavichorder

And I'll have to second Orfeo's mention of Ives. Surprised he isn't getting much discussion.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

science said:


> Schoenberg, because he has managed to remain the most controversial (edit: controversial, that is, at the popular level).


I somewhat think the controversy about Schönberg is really controversy about Wagner - and that Schönberg just gets the blame because, after Wagner inflicted the fatal injury, he happens to be the one who finally stopped pretending the patient could be saved and pulled the plug.

Likewise, the controversy about minimalism may really be controversy about Stravinsky (in this case, it's the idea of "development" that got killed).


----------



## hpowders

Not counting Mahler, because he was more a product of late nineteenth century late romanticism and considering strictly modernists,
I could not possibly decide which among Copland, Shostakovich, Schuman, Ives, Prokofiev and Bernstein would be number one.

I am so thankful for the unique gifts every one of these great composers provide me.

For me, I would be happy spending the rest of my life listening to Bach, Mozart and any/all of the above. No other composers needed.


----------



## Simon Moon

Depends on the day.

On any given day, my choice might be: Stravinsky, Bartok, Carter, Penderecki, Schoenberg...



science said:


> For me, the greatest thing about the classical tradition in the 20th century is the experimentation, the creative discovery of more and more new ways to do unexpected things. I know that a lot of people down't like the music that such creativity produced, but that doesn't matter to me.


You've succinctly described my love for the classical music of the 20th century (and contemporary).

I don't listen to classical music strictly for its outward beauty. I listen to be challenged. For a catharsis, as it were. That is why I listen to almost exclusively 2oth century and contemporary classical.

It's not that I don't want beauty in the music I listen to, it's that I can find beauty in music that is not outwardly beautiful. Picasso's "Guernica" depicts subject matter that is not outwardly beautiful, but it is a beautiful painting.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Simon Moon said:


> Picasso's "Guernica" depicts subject matter that is not outwardly beautiful, but it is a beautiful painting.


Of course, Stockhausen might have argued that the even more beautiful work of art was the bombing itself.


----------



## Petwhac

For me there's no contest,

Stravinsky 100%


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

"Guernica" is pretty ugly, I'd say a beautiful Picasso is a rare thing.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Harold in Columbia said:


> Of course, Stockhausen might have argued that the even more beautiful work of art was the bombing itself.


Just shows to go you he was really losing it at the end, even though I always thought he was a mental case.


----------



## tdc

For the first half of the 20th century I'll go with Debussy. 

I think it is still too early to say who was the greatest composer of the second half of the 20th century.


----------



## musicrom

Well, this appears to be my top 11 from 20th century works I've listened to on Pandora (admittedly not completely representative of all of my listening anymore):

1. Jean Sibelius 
2. Sergei Prokofiev 
3. Dmitri Shostakovich 
4. Sergei Rachmaninoff 
5(t). Edward Elgar 
5(t). Igor Stravinsky 
7. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov 
8. William Walton 
9(t). Gustav Mahler 
9(t). Dmitri Kabalevsky 
9(t). Aram Khachaturian

As for the greatest? I have no idea.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Picasso is (most likely) my favorite artist and I'd say "beautiful Picasso" is in abundance. I'm often overwhelmed by the beauty!


----------



## Simon Moon

Richannes Wrahms said:


> "Guernica" is pretty ugly, I'd say a beautiful Picasso is a rare thing.
> 
> View attachment 83711


When I referred to "Guernica" as a beautiful painting, I was not specifically talking about its visual appeal.

I was referring more as how it beautifully portrays the horror of war.

I was using it to illustrate how my love for 20th century music does not rely on the surface beauty of the music, but more for the other, sometimes not so positive emotions it can evince.

Again, that's why I referred to some pieces of 20th century music being cathartic. Not all beauty is obvious, nor easy to extract from the music.


----------



## 20centrfuge

Stravinsky would be my choice even though Prokofiev is my favorite. 

The Rite of Spring was a bolt of lightning in the 20th century musical consciousness. I would think in that sense it rivals the impact Beethoven 5 made on it's time. In addition, Stravinsky was able to show, in my opinion, that he could compose in the style of the second Viennese school even better than it's founders. Not to mention his work with neoclassicism.


----------



## MusicFree

so Stravinsky would be the general consensus?


----------



## Art Rock

MusicFree said:


> so Stravinsky would be the general consensus?


Um, no. That's not how consensus works. Maybe he is the most mentioned name, maybe (but doubtful) even over 50% of the posters have selected him, but that is not consensus.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The "best"? Almost certainly Stravinsky... speaking "objectively".

My personal favorites? That's easier. Based on my listening:

1. Richard Strauss
2. Gustav Mahler
3. Claude Debussy
4. Maurice Ravel
5. Igor Stravinsky
6. Giacomo Puccini
7. Sergei Rachmaninoff
7. Béla Bartók
8. Jean Sibelius
9. Leoš Janáček
10. Sergei Prokofiev
11. Dmitri Shostakovitch
12. Ralph Vaughan Williams
13. Benjamin Britten
14. Frederick Delius
15. Aaron Copland


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Webern even won over that guy with the stolen tunes and rhythms.


----------



## jtbell

arpeggio said:


> The top ten 20th century composer in my library are:
> 
> 1. Britten: Over two hundred recordings. I have the complete recordings of Britten set and I have not yet entered all of the recordings in my database.
> 2. Stravinsky-160
> 3. Hindemith-158
> 4. Holst-122
> 5. Barber-119
> 6. Carter-112
> 7. Prokofiev-108
> 8. Bax-101
> 9. Shostakovich-100
> 10. Copeland-94


My list goes by total playing time. I'm not sure R. Strauss and Rachmaninoff should be counted as "20th century" so this is a top-12 list:



Code:


+--------------+------------------+---------+------------+
| lastname     | firstname        | seconds | hr:min:sec |
+--------------+------------------+---------+------------+
| Sibelius     | Jean             | 1316911 | 365:48:31  |
| Nielsen      | Carl             |  620314 | 172:18:34  |
| Prokofiev    | Sergei           |  260409 | 72:20:09   |
| Shostakovich | Dmitri           |  253277 | 70:21:17   |
| Stravinsky   | Igor             |  236348 | 65:39:08   |
| Strauss      | Richard          |  216900 | 60:15:00   |
| Rautavaara   | Einojuhani       |  216416 | 60:06:56   |
| Villa-Lobos  | Heitor           |  206802 | 57:26:42   |
| Copland      | Aaron            |  189756 | 52:42:36   |
| Rachmaninoff | Sergei           |  176073 | 48:54:33   |
| Messiaen     | Olivier          |  174107 | 48:21:47   |
| Holmboe      | Vagn             |  167311 | 46:28:31   |
+--------------+------------------+---------+------------+


----------



## Guest

There's some very organised listeners here! I think I'm doing well if I manage to keep my CDs in some semblance of alphabetical order...


----------



## Aecio

If you consider that the 20th Century starts on 1900, Debussy

If you take a broader perspective and say that the 20th Century started on 1914, then for me it's Bartok


----------



## Becca

jtbell said:


> My list goes by total playing time. I'm not sure R. Strauss and Rachmaninoff should be counted as "20th century"


Why not? They are far more 20th century than Beethoven was 19th!


----------



## Becca

After much deep contemplation, I think that I will vote for Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov as he was actively composing in the 20th century including one of his best operas _The Invisible City of Kitezh_.


----------



## arpeggio

jtbell said:


> My list goes by total playing time. I'm not sure R. Strauss and Rachmaninoff should be counted as "20th century" so this is a top-12 list:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> +--------------+------------------+---------+------------+
> | lastname     | firstname        | seconds | hr:min:sec |
> +--------------+------------------+---------+------------+
> | Sibelius     | Jean             | 1316911 | 365:48:31  |
> | Nielsen      | Carl             |  620314 | 172:18:34  |
> | Prokofiev    | Sergei           |  260409 | 72:20:09   |
> | Shostakovich | Dmitri           |  253277 | 70:21:17   |
> | Stravinsky   | Igor             |  236348 | 65:39:08   |
> | Strauss      | Richard          |  216900 | 60:15:00   |
> | Rautavaara   | Einojuhani       |  216416 | 60:06:56   |
> | Villa-Lobos  | Heitor           |  206802 | 57:26:42   |
> | Copland      | Aaron            |  189756 | 52:42:36   |
> | Rachmaninoff | Sergei           |  176073 | 48:54:33   |
> | Messiaen     | Olivier          |  174107 | 48:21:47   |
> | Holmboe      | Vagn             |  167311 | 46:28:31   |
> +--------------+------------------+---------+------------+


Interesting.

My database can not handle playing time.

If I expanded my list to the top twenty, all of your list would make it except Messiaen.

If expanded to thirty Messiaen would make the list.


----------



## DavidA

Don't know about the greatest. But Rachmaninov is my favourite. I like Prokofiev too.


----------



## drpraetorus

My money is on Shostakovich


----------



## Morimur

All things considered, probably Stravinsky.


----------



## Casebearer

Bartók and Schnittke. If you ask me in a year I'll probably add Ligeti.


----------



## Guest

Ridiculous and impossible to say. Sibelius.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Xenakis, Bartok, Stravinsky, Messiaen, Schoenberg, Shostakovich, Debussy, Dutilleux, Xenakis, Korndorf, Schnitkke, Stockhausen (there are so many amazing composers, how do I choose!!!!!)


----------



## MusicFree

is Stravinsky the obvious answer here?


----------



## KenOC

Shostakovich supposedly said that Stravinsky was the greatest composer of the century. But now it seems it was actually Shostakovich.


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> Shostakovich supposedly said that Stravinsky was the greatest composer of the century. But now it seems it was actually Shostakovich.


Oh really, strange, I haven't noticed. Maybe you can explain?


----------



## KenOC

Chronochromie said:


> Oh really, strange, I haven't noticed. Maybe you can explain?


I'm basing that on voting games elsewhere, identifying the top ten works in each decade. Shostakovich placed numerous works among the top ten in each decade from the 1920s through the 1970s, unmatched in the number of works or his dominance in favored works over a span over a six-decade span. Assigning points (the way I did it anyway) he had double the score of the next highest-scoring composer.

You can review the top works by decade here.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/best-works-by-decade


----------



## Lenny

I'd say Richard Strauss. Why? He seems to know from the very beginning who "wins" the struggle over tonality. Think about Also sprach Zarathustra. That's like a manifest of tonality! Based on text of Nietzche (God of tonality is dead - well not quite, says Mr. Strauss). He was writing fantastic, beautiful, melodic works still in 40's, to this last days. No hesitation, no struggle (like Mahler, Sibelius etc). He knew it.

And he was right. Listen to the music of today. Wagner everywhere in popular music! Classical music seems to be heading towards ultratonal, minimalistic, medieval style (Pärt, Rautavaara...).

(Sorry about the mindflow.... no need to take this too seriously)

But anyways, R.Strauss is #1 for me personally.


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> I'm basing that on voting games elsewhere, identifying the top ten works in each decade. Shostakovich placed numerous works among the top ten in each decade from the 1920s through the 1970s, unmatched in the number of works or his dominance in favored works over a span over a six-decade span. Assigning points (the way I did it anyway) he had double the score of the next highest-scoring composer.
> 
> You can review the top works by decade here.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/best-works-by-decade


Interesting criteria.


----------



## KenOC

Chronochromie said:


> Interesting criteria.


Yes. Of course, the question of criteria is always open. I'd be interested in hearing about alternatives.


----------



## starthrower

I'll take any handful of masterpieces by Stravinsky, Bartok, Ravel, Ligeti and Debussy over Shosty's entire oeuvre.


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> Yes. Of course, the question of criteria is always open. I'd be interested in hearing about alternatives.


How about: there's no way to determine a single greatest composer in any era, especially not in the 20th century.


----------



## KenOC

Chronochromie said:


> How about: there's no way to determine a single greatest composer in any era, especially not in the 20th century.


Fair enough. But of course people have a tendency to go ahead and do that regardless.


----------



## Woodduck

I can't choose, and I hate competitions, but Sibelius said: "Bartok is our greatest composer."


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> I can't choose, and I hate competitions, but Sibelius said: "Bartok is our greatest composer."


And René Leibowitz said, "Sibelius is the worst composer in the world." So I guess he's out, eh?


----------



## Woodduck

Rene Leibowitz should have stuck to conducting.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

KenOC said:


> Shostakovich placed numerous works among the top ten in each decade from the 1920s through the 1970s, unmatched in the number of works or his dominance in favored works over a span over a six-decade span[...]
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/best-works-by-decade


I'm starting to think that Boulez's most historically significant accomplishment was in persuading the avant-garde that they could ignore Stravinsky's neo-classical period without missing anything important. (The conservatives of course weren't going to listen anyway.) The result is that Stravinsky after the 1910s becomes for late 20th century music what Schubert was for Liszt and by extension the entire Russian scene as of the 1860s - the open secret source of ideas.

One day people are going to look at the '20s on that list and ask "Where the heck is Oedipus?!"

Though I guess I can't entirely blame Boulez, because The Wedding and the Symphonies of Winds aren't on the list either, and those were in his canon (at least I know the first was and assume the second was). Which I guess just proves that late nationalist Stravinsky still sounds much weirder to most people than professional weirdos like Ligeti and Schnittke.


----------



## Mahlerian

Hildadam Bingor said:


> I'm starting to think that Boulez's most historically significant accomplishment was in persuading the avant-garde that they could ignore Stravinsky's neo-classical period without missing anything important. (The conservatives of course weren't going to listen anyway.) The result is that Stravinsky after the 1910s becomes for late 20th century music what Schubert was for Liszt and by extension the entire Russian scene as of the 1860s - the open secret source of ideas.
> 
> One day people are going to look at the '20s on that list and ask "Where the heck is Oedipus?!"
> 
> Though I guess I can't entirely blame Boulez, because The Wedding and the Symphonies of Winds aren't on the list either, and those were in his canon (at least I know the first was and assume the second was). Which I guess just proves that late nationalist Stravinsky still sounds much weirder to most people than professional weirdos like Ligeti and Schnittke.


Shostakovich, meanwhile, was happy to offer up simplified and more repetitive versions of Neoclassical Stravinsky, as in the third movement Adagio of his Seventh Symphony.


----------



## Dim7

Lenny said:


> Classical music seems to be heading towards ultratonal, minimalistic, medieval style (Pärt, Rautavaara...)


I don't think Rautavaara is ultratonal, minimalistic or medieval... not anything I have heard anyway.


----------



## Davila

For me it's a toss-up between Shostakovich and Stravinsky. Shostakovich probably has the better overall body of work, but Stravinsky had some moments of pure brilliance.


----------



## joen_cph

Woodduck said:


> Rene Leibowitz should have stuck to conducting.


There´s a Divox CD with chamber music by Leibowitz and it sounds incredibly boring and unimportant.

In the end, Boulez preferred Messiaen as a teacher 
http://explorethescore.org/pierre-b...ory-and-context-a-journeyman-composition.html

I like Leibowitz as a conductor, though.


----------



## Mahlerian

joen_cph said:


> There´s a Divox CD with chamber music by Leibowitz and it sounds incredibly boring and unimportant.
> 
> In the end, Boulez preferred Messiaen as a teacher
> http://explorethescore.org/pierre-b...ory-and-context-a-journeyman-composition.html
> 
> I like Leibowitz as a conductor, though.


Leibowitz's music is dull pseudo-Schoenberg, from what I've heard. In that, I agree with Boulez's judgement.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Mahlerian said:


> Leibowitz's music is dull pseudo-Schoenberg, from what I've heard.


Basically agree, but the beginning of this seems to me like a possible starting point for Boulez's sonatine:


----------



## Lenny

Dim7 said:


> I don't think Rautavaara is ultratonal, minimalistic or medieval... not anything I have heard anyway.


It's kinda hidden. He was heading towards that sort of ambience, I think. Hearing Autumn Gardens in a church was kinda ear opener for me. His music has this mystical and ancient feeling. But yeah, minimalistic not, for sure.


----------



## helenora

I've just finished reading a thread about *R. Strauss* and as you might guess I call him as the best 20th century composer. But it's my choice, very subjective, and at the same time I think listeners underrate his works, because they look/sound so common, way less apocalyptic/dramatic compared with Schostakovich 's works, less innovative than perhaps many other 20th century composers, but it's just from the first sight ....and yes, they are less innovative perhaps - no atonality, no new forms, , not shocking or less shocking than others, not exotic, etc, but.....behind all this typicality/ordinariness of his works, even behind his "burgerisch" stuff there is so much to be discovered.... he is wise and one can hear it ( especially in his vocal music)and why can´t we be happy just with ravishingly beautiful melodies and a splendor of his orchestration? for who would deny it? isn´t it him whose talent as a melodist was compared to one of Mozart?


----------



## jdec

helenora said:


> I've just finished reading a thread about *R. Strauss* and as you might guess I call him as the best 20th century composer. But it's my choice, very subjective, and at the same time I think listeners underrate his works, because they look/sound so common, way less apocalyptic/dramatic compared with Schostakovich 's works, less innovative than perhaps many other 20th century composers, but it's just from the first sight ....and yes, they are less innovative perhaps - no atonality, no new forms, , not shocking or less shocking than others, not exotic, etc, but.....behind all this typicality/ordinariness of his works, even behind his "burgerisch" stuff there is so much to be discovered.... he is wise and one can hear it ( especially in his vocal music)and why can´t we be happy just with ravishingly beautiful melodies and a splendor of his orchestration? for who would deny it? isn´t it him whose talent as a melodist was compared to one of Mozart?


I personally regard his Alpine Symphony as one of the greatest works in the 20th century.


----------



## helenora

jdec said:


> I personally regard his Alpine Symphony as one of the greatest works in the 20th century.


4 letzte Lieder for me. since long time haven´t listen to Alpine symphony, may be it´s time now to revise it ?


----------



## Lenny

helenora said:


> 4 letzte Lieder for me. since long time haven´t listen to Alpine symphony, may be it´s time now to revise it ?


Sooner the better! I just can't believe what Strauss was doing. For example, think about his 2nd horn concerto from 1942. The world was going to hell, but he was composing this beautiful, chrystal clear music from another world. Simply amazing.

Some people might call it regression, or escapism. I don't know about that nor do I care. It's just simply amazing.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Lenny said:


> Sooner the better! I just can't believe what Strauss was doing. For example, think about his 2nd horn concerto from 1942. The world was going to hell, but he was composing this beautiful, chrystal clear music from another world.


Well yeah. Most of that year his country was still winning.


----------



## Fletcher

Stravinsky.

I personally prefer the music of Shostakovich though! 

(like other members on this thread, I'm not including R. Strauss).


----------



## Sloe

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Well yeah. Most of that year his country was still winning.


It was still at war and the people lived under threat from bomb raids.


----------



## jdec

helenora said:


> 4 letzte Lieder for me. since long time haven´t listen to Alpine symphony, may be it´s time now to revise it ?


Yeah, Last 4 songs are amazing too.


----------



## helenora

Lenny said:


> Sooner the better! I just can't believe what Strauss was doing. For example, think about his 2nd horn concerto from 1942. The world was going to hell, but he was composing this beautiful, chrystal clear music from another world. Simply amazing.
> 
> Some people might call it regression, or escapism. I don't know about that nor do I care. It's just simply amazing.


it´s a common thing that people thought about his music as being "shallow/banal"or " superficial", neither do I think that his works or any other composer's works as being related to any events of the outside world. Historical events can trigger an idea of composing or/and can be and work as a "plot" but the very content of a work is not about this or that historical event, therefore it can't be called an escapism or anything, but it's a human mind's nature to find and give explanations especially if we can easily connect dots between facts of composer's life with a composition created in that time.


----------



## jdec

Fletcher said:


> (like other members on this thread, I'm not including R. Strauss).


Like other members on this thread you should! Lol. I also think Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and Prokofiev too are the candidates along with Strauss for greatest of the 20th century.


----------



## Sonata

Ignoring all the criticisms going back and forth between everyone before:

1) Strauss
2) Mahler
3) Ravel
4) Rachmaninoff


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Sonata said:


> Ignoring all the criticisms going back and forth between everyone before:
> 
> 1) Strauss
> 2) Mahler
> 3) Ravel
> 4) Rachmaninoff


Noticing that a lot of these lists consist mostly or entirely of people who were dead by 1950.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Sibelius
Shostakovich
Hindemith
Ives


----------



## Xenakiboy

Iannis Xenakis quite obviously is my favourite and most cherished but I think the 20th century is the hardest to give an answer to this question because there has been overwhelming amounts on innovation.
There is: (vaguely in a chronological order)
Mahler's later work 
Debussy 
Ravel 
Stravinsky 
Bartok 
Schoenberg
Webern 
Ives
Schostakovich 
Varese 
Cage 
Carter 
Messiaen 
Xenakis 
Ligeti 
Stockhausen 
Kagel 
Schnittke 
Rautavaara

To name a few off the top of my head, all of whom introduced new ideas or aesthetics through their amazing music, how do you even begin to decide the greatest??? :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

Xenakiboy said:


> To name a few off the top of my head, all of whom introduced new ideas or aesthetics through their amazing music, *how do you even begin to decide the greatest???* :lol:


How is indeed a good question. But I'll go with _Why_?


----------



## Xenakiboy

EdwardBast said:


> How is indeed a good question. But I'll go with _Why_?


I do agree, there is no point in lists at all in general except for shopping lists :lol:


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Shostakovich is my top. Followed not in order, Vaughan Williams, Howard Hanson and others.


----------

