# How to tell modern composers apart?



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

For me it has always been fairly easy to distinguish between composer a and composer b, of the pre 20th century, where there were themes, and tunes that are recognizable as composer a or composer b, or at the very least, where this person was from. I enjoy modern classical music, Its more or less a hobby within a hobby figuring out who is who while I am listening, About the only composer I can say for sure who he is when I hear him is Glass, as far as 20th century goes.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

You mean you can't recognize Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Ravel, Copland, Gershwin, Bartok, Schoenberg? They all have their own sound and personalities.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2012)

OK, so you don't listen to enough 20th century music. Not sure why you're telling us this. Confessions are for priests.

Anyway, listen to 20th century pieces enough, with the same intentness that you listen to 19th century music, and you'll be able to tell the difference immediately.

What I'm wondering is how you tell the difference between 18th century composers....


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

some guy said:


> What I'm wondering is how you tell the difference between 18th century composers....


There's Bach, and the rest sound like one big sewing machine!


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2012)

I _knew_ it!!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Yes, I must agree with others here as I actually find it much easier to distinguish many different composers from the 20th century then in previous eras - especially 18th century and earlier. Generally much more distinctive sounds going on in the 20th century.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Manok said:


> For me it has always been fairly easy to distinguish between composer a and composer b, of the pre 20th century, where there were themes, and tunes that are recognizable as composer a or composer b, or at the very least, where this person was from. I enjoy modern classical music, Its more or less a hobby within a hobby figuring out who is who while I am listening, About the only composer I can say for sure who he is when I hear him is Glass, as far as 20th century goes.


I think that regarding the big names, in terms of their mature works, its not hard to tell them apart. So I agree with starthrower's first post on this thread, basically.

But as for the lesser lights of the 20th century - or any period - they do often sound much like other composers who they are obviously imitating. Or they do rehash of their own music for decades. I suppose this is the reason why I'm mainly interested in the leading composers of any period. Hard to define in some ways, but everyone has their own way of separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

It also depends on individual taste, what grabs you and what doesn't. I mean there are big name composers who I don't care for much at all (& by the same token, there are 'lesser' composers who I like a lot).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I hesitate to add...most can easily be told apart because their names are spelled differently.


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

Ok, so I forgot a few.  Though I do have trouble recognizing Stravinsky every now and then. Bartok, is occasionally difficult to distinguish, though I will admit I don't listen to Bartok that much lately. Though, I think I am probably going to agree with Sid, though, my method in finding music is, whatever floats my boat .


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Manok said:


> Ok, so I forgot a few.  Though I do have trouble recognizing Stravinsky every now and then. Bartok, is occasionally difficult to distinguish, though I will admit I don't listen to Bartok that much lately...


Bartok was influenced by Stravinsky strongly in a number of works (_Piano Concerto #2_ and esp. _The Miraculous Mandarin_). The first influenced by Igor's _Firebird_, the second work by_ The Rite of Spring_. So you do have a point there, but I think in things like his string quartets, Bartok inhabits his own world fully more or less, if he's got anything to do with anyone its Beethoven's late period or the contrapuntal qualities of Bach, rather than any 20th century composer.



> ...Though, I think I am probably going to agree with Sid, though, my method in finding music is, whatever floats my boat .


Its basically mine as well. I believe there are no 'shoulds' or 'shouldn'ts' in classical music. Its okay to go with what you like, go by gut feeling, all that stuff.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Manok said:


> For me it has always been fairly easy to distinguish between composer a and composer b, of the pre 20th century, where there were themes, and tunes that are recognizable as composer a or composer b, or at the very least, where this person was from. I enjoy modern classical music, Its more or less a hobby within a hobby figuring out who is who while I am listening, About the only composer I can say for sure who he is when I hear him is Glass, as far as 20th century goes.


Usually with the big names, one can guess with some success. Experimenters making noise would be a challenge. The extreme avant-garde types who are just making noise, which I have postulated a thought experiment whereby exposing the listener blindfolded without telling them that it is piece X by composer A, they would most likely not realise it was music at all let alone a composed piece by any composer. That's the spectrum. I have discussed this thought experiment before here, and also over a dinner with guests/friends, and by all account, most agree.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

thesubtlebody said:


> A family friend from mainland China visited us not long ago, and admitted to us that all [more or less Caucasian] Americans "looked the same" to her. This was amusing and endearing, because unfortunately I can relate to it. (Though I have a lot of difficulty with any facial recognition, a problem written about by Oliver Sachs.) Lots of good first-world liberals would admit similar limitations (though probably only by accident, guiltily). I think more exposure will totally do the trick, and if you come to despise a given period/forum/style/doctrine, I think there is no harm in dropping it; there's fortunately a surplus of interesting music in the world, in one form or another; those who say otherwise have probably strapped the blinders in a bit too tight.


I find the same happens when you meet identical twins. At first you can't tell one from the other, but as time progresses, you start to see all the little differences. And in the end, each twin becomes so distinct that you almost question whether they're actually twins after all.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

thesubtlebody said:


> I take exception to "some guy"'s obnoxious, flippant reply; but I think the point does stand, Manok, that if you listen to enough of any musical period/form, the differences will almost inevitably become more and more pronounced and pleasurable. It's not casual relativism to say that one person's "trainspotting" is another person's "understanding", though it can become a little difficult to know if the significance of certain differences is.....significant. Still, I used to think that it was ridiculous to listen to dozens and dozens of performances of the same, let's say, Beethoven sonata; I used to think it was a kind of "cultivated" provincialism and decadence; and it _certainly can be_. But now, I feel so differently...using the "same" score as a point of reference to hear many different readings, it almost seems like a meditation on human freedom _[apologies for the pseudery!]_ or at any rate, a kaleidoscopic experience of possibilities within an initially-closely-defined space. Like an intensification of creative pressure due to the closing of parameters. I can see the same being true for the rather-many varieties of serialism, let's say, or the many shades of what was once called "neo-classicism", etc etc etc.
> 
> A family friend from mainland China visited us not long ago, and admitted to us that all [more or less Caucasian] Americans "looked the same" to her. This was amusing and endearing, because unfortunately I can relate to it. (Though I have a lot of difficulty with any facial recognition, a problem written about by Oliver Sachs.) Lots of good first-world liberals would admit similar limitations (though probably only by accident, guiltily). I think more exposure will totally do the trick, and if you come to despise a given period/forum/style/doctrine, I think there is no harm in dropping it; there's fortunately a surplus of interesting music in the world, in one form or another; those who say otherwise have probably strapped the blinders in a bit too tight.
> 
> P.S. On second thought, I should clarify that I am not likening your problems distinguishing modern pieces to "racism"...in no way! Nor am I calling my Chinese friend "racist"...it's a somewhat different matter, related but benign. The fact that you were honest about your difficulty was what made that crack from "some guy" seem distasteful and useless.


Pseudery is as bad as flippancy really.


----------



## thesubtlebody (Oct 20, 2012)

moody said:


> Pseudery is as bad as flippancy really.


I was being nice; it _wasn't_ pseudery, just a friendly little dig at an anthemic philosophical expression that was long-in-the-tooth by the 1950s if not before, but still relevant enough to justify listening to the same music repeatedly, to death. The larger point, manifestly evident, stands.

Your signature maxim is _sophomoric_, by the way.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

This is Gong Li ~ she has an incredible filming repertoire and is the definition of a femme fatale par excellence - literally. In most films, she meets her demise in a most gruesome and memorable way.

In Red Sorghum, she gets blown up to smithereens by the Japanese 
In Temptress Moon, she gets stoned on opium and becomes brain dead 
In Shanghai Triad, she gets dragged out in the rain and buried alive 
In Raise the Red Lantern, she goes mental after witnessing murder.
In Judou, she is burnt alive after setting fire to the cloth factory.

You'd think with a filming repertoire like this, people would remember her. Famously in Harpers, she reported that she choose to live in Paris, where she could live in peace because "they [foreigners] all think chinese people look the same".

I guess that's just anecdotal evidence about the relativity of humans. Interestingly, Michael Phelps had a very different reception when he was in China even when he wasn't wearing flippers. Everyone wanted him to sign his autograph for them. Even the penguins.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

...anyway....how to tell modern music apart: it depends who's doing the looking. It depends what tools they have to discern the difference. 

Experience helps (as some have suggested, listening to music). 
A priori information helps (like, even recruiting theoretical tools and constructs to listen out for when you approach unheard music). 
Feedback about it from other forum members help. 

Any of those approaches really. I suppose dissing someone's relativity isn't really helpful (nor is it very friendly). It probably just creates a super impression of us contemporary modern electic post-avant-garde (because avant-garde is soooo yesterday!) music fanatics as being elitist and snobbish, and not just badly misunderstood by others, and overrated by our own enclave, but actually, deserving of being badly understood. 

When I listen to modern/contemporary music (i.e. 1970's string quartets onwards ...not that many written and recorded since 2000's), what I'm struck by is the plurality. 

Composers like Szymanski and Meyer (both Polish), derive their music from the tradition of music, without inventing a new system; what is specific, is their own language of composition. They have no issues of the extremes (like the reactionary composers who vote 'Down with melody!'.

Other contemporary composers, tend to base their music on 'sonorism', or the experience of music, in terms other than musical construction. I think of Bargielski's sonorism, and to some extent, Knapik and Lutoslawski (even if I don't like the latter). 

Ultimately, sonorism itself doesn't explain sufficiently, what makes such music 'modern'. I can trace the forebearers of some music (i.e. would there ever be any Gorecki, if there was no Szymanowski?) who update their language of composition to the current trends. Schoenberg, the antiquated German duodecadophonist (antiquated, because we are talking about contemporary cutting edge music; not early 20th century repertoire which has become as fixed as the institution is on Bach or Beethoven, which he has become) once commented about Sibelius' Voces Intimae, his first string quartet, that Sibelius was ultimately boring and repetitive. He couldn't fathom what the mature Sibelius was trying to do, in his search for a super-structure of understanding musical form. 

Perhaps he did not know, that Sibelius, Voces intimae, drew on that very tradition of polyphony, or 'multiple voices', drawn from a personal chapter in his own life, when throat cancer had made him lose his. The reasons nonetheless, are secondary: only by penetrating music through effort and perseverance, does contemporary music yield its secrets. 

After all, if it was that accessible, then people would flock to it like Macdonalds. 

We all know how tasty those are.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> There's Bach, and the rest sound like one big sewing machine!


Bach is the sewing machine if you ask me. Not that I don't like him, but he is much to revered. I am sorry for my mood, but I sincerely despise when Bach is put on some pedestal above all the rest.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

thesubtlebody said:


> I take exception to "some guy"'s obnoxious, flippant reply


I suspect that you don't know who _some guy_ is responding to. Your post, on the other hand, is _certainly_ not flippant, and I am impressed by the clever use of 'etc etc etc'.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Head_case said:


> This is Gong Li ~


Gong Li is HOT HOT HOT! But that's for another thread, I suppose...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

thesubtlebody said:


> ... The fact that you were honest about your difficulty was what made that crack from "some guy" seem distasteful and useless.


To extend that, I respect a person who just gives me his honest opinion on something, just comes straight out with it. But I have little respect for people who just give me ideology, dogma or jargon. The former is ultimately genuine, the latter is ultimately phony. Simplifying it there but a person does not have to be a PHD to get the gist of what I'm saying.


----------

