# Truly "Bach-like" composers of 20th century? Are there any or is there 1 or 2?



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

*Truly "Bach-like" composers of 20th century? Are there any or is there 1 or 2?*

I had a thought for Hindemith, but then I wondered: did Hindemith personally view himself as the 2nd coming of Bach? I have recently thought of Hindemith sort of as being very Bach like, not just in the music he wrote, but possibly in his ideas as a composer. (Sort of taking it all in, like a sponge, and just synthesizing into a great style he considered perfect but strikes many as intellectual and cold.) But if he had this perspective on himself, and coupling this possibility with the fact that he mirrors Bach in more obvious ways, is that what makes him NOT the Bach of the 20th century?

Who are the real Bach's of the 20th century if Hindemith is not? Martinu? Stravinsky? Someone else? Medtner?...(lol...or serious?)

I hope some Mendelssohn like figure could come out and discover/decide this, and I'm not gonna lie, I hope I could do something like that often, but maybe that's extremely egotistical, but I just don't want to care. Its a cool idea.

An alternative: or maybe rather than prejudice towards one "Bach" like great, there are just many composers who really should be appreciated and people need(well, they don't have to, but I wish they would) to have and understand the listening and researching tools to get to know them better. Member some guy's approach on here seems to have worked in helping him get to know a lot of composers, and I greatly respect that. Some how, I can't jump in and free myself entirely of prejudice just yet, if ever.

Sometimes, I just think that history has been written a certain way in an almost arbitrary fashion. But I have not studied history and my philosophical/critical thinking skills are not that disciplined. Perhaps academics have this consensus for a reason? Or perhaps being academic is overrated? Underrated?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed a relative rebirth of interest in counterpoint among composers. After the more homophonically inclined music of the earlier Romantics, later Romantic music, especially in Germany, went back to the source, so to speak (on the other hand, some Impressionist pieces removed counterpoint almost entirely, and it was rarely a primary focus). So around the turn of the century composers like Reger and Schoenberg were combining the counterpoint of Bach with Wagnerian chromatic harmony, which proved for many to be a toxic mix, as it complicates matters exponentially.

That's one of the reasons why composers like Stravinsky and Hindemith used a pared down harmonic language (even compared to their own earlier work), and focused on the aspects of traditional craft like counterpoint.

Stravinsky's Concerto for Piano and Winds opens with a pseudo-French overture (with those dotted rhythms), while the Dumbarton Oaks Concerto was intended as a modern concerto grosso.

I'd say that the entire 20th century was filled with composers inspired by Bach, but I'd hesitate to call any one of them a "modern day Bach", because the conception of music had changed so much in the interim that the kind of craft-focused genre writing that Bach did was considered anathema to art. Every work had to be made anew. Hindemith seems to be a notable exception, and he is sometimes criticized for writing "generically", because it seems out of step with the practice of his time.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Thank you for your quick post Mahlerian. A good summary from what I know. I had forgotten about Reger, I might want to look into him. What do you think of Busoni? Or Ernst Toch?(he sounds a bit nutty to me, but he started with pastiche very studiously and gradually got himself "up to date" with a very pleasant sounding, to my ears, modernism, for a while, till he evolved into a ridiculously grandiose artist and nobody payed attention to him, it seems).

Stravinsky is most commonly popularized as Bach of the modern age, it seems. I do like Dumbarton Oaks and intend to listen to it again. Neoclassicism is a very awesome idea, I think, and it still might have potential for composers these days; I personally wonder about going full force in that direction since it has been my trend, almost naturally.

I like Stravinsky's quotes about limitations and the thought of pared down harmonic language that is new. I think Martinu is in a camp with them, as is Shostakovich potentially. Bartok and Stravinsky possibly more versatile?



Mahlerian said:


> because it seems out of step with the practice of his time.


My personal idea: A strong part of me says, who cares about the practice of a time? Another part fears that perspective is right, since many have come to it as a consensus(although sometimes we get swayed by really clever people who aren't necessarily right, for better or worse??(just a theory)). A balance: I should respect it, but not heed it entirely or even that closely.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

And, since my focus has been on the early 20th century, I have to now ask for an opinion: is the music of today focused enough on the whole that its worth it to look into the same questions for composers who have been most active in the last 30 years? I hope the gist of what I am asking makes sense. 


Sorry, my threads are often tall orders, I wish I knew how to make them more open ended and be satisfied with that.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Clavichorder said:


> What do you think of Busoni? Or Ernst Toch?(he sounds a bit nutty to me, but he started with pastiche very studiously and gradually got himself "up to date" with a very pleasant sounding, to my ears, modernism, for a while, till he evolved into a ridiculously grandiose artist and nobody payed attention to him, it seems).


I like what I've heard of Busoni's, but I'm not terribly familiar with Toch.



clavichorder said:


> My personal idea: A strong part of me says, who gives a **** about the practice of a time. Another part fears that perspective is right, since many have come to it as a consensus(although sometimes we get swayed by really clever people who aren't necessarily right, for better or worse??(just a theory)). A balance: I should respect it, but not heed it entirely or even that closely.


I enjoy Hindemith's works from the 20s and 30s more than his other work, from what I've experienced. My impression is that once he started writing "to order", then his level of inspiration dropped somewhat. I have no problems with a composer finding a style and then writing countless works in that style, without trying to reinvent himself (I love Takemitsu's music, for example), so I agree with you in that respect.



clavichorder said:


> And, since my focus has been on the early 20th century, I have to now ask for an opinion: is the music of today focused enough on the whole that its worth it to look into the same questions for composers who have been most active in the last 30 years?


There are so many different strands of classical music ongoing at the moment that it's difficult to judge, but I'd wager that the air is very different now. There's less focus on counterpoint than during the 20th century, both among conservatives and the avant-garde.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Also, I am finally coming back to more readily, that there is a certain thing that is not easily identified that makes music great. But I believe that that can be brought out of some music like Medtner or Hindemith or other such folks who wrote very "over complicated" and "technical" music, if the performer and listener imagination merely manages to surmount those interpretive and technical challenges. Its possibly a shortcoming on the composer's part, but maybe the world is just not ready for those composers? They were backwards but could be revolutionary at the same time, much like Bach was when discovered by Mendelssohn.

Hopefully that likely circular reasoning had some interest in it. I have a lot of ideas and I don't defend them quite as stubbornly as I used to.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> I enjoy Hindemith's works from the 20s and 30s more than his other work, from what I've experienced. My impression is that once he started writing "to order", then his level of inspiration dropped somewhat. I have no problems with a composer finding a style and then writing countless works in that style, without trying to reinvent himself (I love Takemitsu's music, for example), so I agree with you in that respect.
> 
> There are so many different strands of classical music ongoing at the moment that it's difficult to judge, but I'd wager that the air is very different now. There's less focus on counterpoint than during the 20th century, both among conservatives and the avant-garde.


Yes, I romanticize the idea of a Telemann of the 20th century and perhaps that's Hindemith. I think Telemann is very cool since I love baroque music.

What is the greatest "strand of interest" to you at this time? Post Minimalists like John Adams?(that's the best I can find for "pure" classical music, if there is such a thing, and I admit, its not always worth it to be stuck on that, but I feel comfortable thinking with classical composers in mind).


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Give Jean Francaix a listen, I quite think that he could fit the moniker of a Bach or Telemann of the 20th Century even if he is slightly Frenchy Flavoured.. fx. his Piano Concertino.. For me Hindemith is much stiffer in comparison... 






/ptr


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> Yes, I romanticize the idea of a Telemann of the 20th century and perhaps that's Hindemith. I think Telemann is very cool since I love baroque music.
> 
> What is the greatest "strand of interest" to you at this time? Post Minimalists like John Adams?(that's the best I can find for "pure" classical music, if there is such a thing, and I admit, its not always worth it to be stuck on that, but I feel comfortable thinking with classical composers in mind).


Honestly, I find Adams' music got less interesting the further he strayed from minimalism. Judging by what I listen to, I seem most interested in the post-Messiaen/Ligeti works that focus on color and timbre: Saariaho, Chin, some Boulez.

The strand that I dislike the most is the neoromanticism of composers like Higdon, which strikes me as an unappetizing blend of modernism and sentimentality.

My tastes center on the late 19th and early 20th centuries, though. I listen to contemporary music, and try to be aware of what's going on, but I don't take to any of it as readily as earlier styles.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

It sounds like Milhaud kind of, only I like it better. Also, I like your use of the word "moniker."


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Clavi, for recent composers that you may find appealing, might I suggest post-minimalists like Louis Andriessen, David Lang or Nico Muhly?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

How about the 20th Century Mozart? A little off topic but since we are mentioning Neo-Classical here.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> How about the 20th Century Mozart? A little off topic but since we are mentioning Neo-Classical here.


My thought is Prokofiev. And has been for a while.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Bach, as I understand it, basically merged two different styles: he took the renaissance polyphony with their imitative forms like fugues and canons, took it out of its modal context and merged it with the more recent technique of funtional harmony and figured bass.

Schoenberg was bachian in the sense that he, too, merged two things: the old, traditional forms (suites, concertos, theme and variations) and combined them with a new technique, his twelve-tone system.

Boulez could also be seen like this. I heard him say in an interview that he tried to merge the spontaneity of Debussy with the strictness of the twelve-tone system.

All three attempted, and managed, to merge styles and techniques that, as such, would seem incompatible.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I believe I have finally arrived at my answer: John Cage is the key to it all.

April Fools. Hehe.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Actually, Ligeti


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

No-one for Villa-Lobos?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

And Janacek? Vaughan Williams? Respighi? Just putting out some names there.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I believe I have finally arrived at my answer: John Cage is the key to it all.
> 
> April Fools. Hehe.


I always thought this sounded a bit Bachian, or at least like a sleepy baroque concerto grosso.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

*Vagn Holmboe* is IMHO perhaps a candidate for a modern Bach, in the sense of focusing on the repetition of and varying relatively few established forms again and again, a "serious" undertone underlining strong polyphony and inner drive, an interest in Christian religious content as regards many of the chosen texts, plus the inclusion of folksy inspiration now and then.

He openly recognized Bach and folk music of the Balkans as some (only some) of his primary sources of inspiration, but his works are usually architecturally and emotionally consciously balanced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagn_Holmboe, http://www.dacapo-records.dk/en/recording-vagn-holmboe---chamber-music---ensemble-midtvest.aspx


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Actually, Ligeti


*Ligeti* owns all.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Actually, Ligeti


Actually, Ligeti was one of the most "polyphonic" composers of the XXth century.
Dense polyphonic structures are central ideas in most of his pieces.
In his "micropolyphony" period, tens of voices interact in a coherent way in order to produce, at a macroscopic level, a general texture, which starts to evolve. The polyphonic structure is not directly perceived, what is heard is the macroscopic texture. 
In his later period, again, dense polyphonic structures are central. But, in this case, the polyphony can be heard. The sound resembles a spider-web. The voices are constantly evolving and weaving with each other. Like lianas. Also, the rhythmic interaction between the voices is interesting, they often have different meters, or they have a different pulse.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Of course some guy named Dmitri wrote the only well-known set of preludes and fugues in all keys in the 20th century. Not bad, either!


----------



## hashes (Nov 23, 2012)

I'd say that to describe a contemporary composer as "Bach-like", s/he would have to have at least have most of the following characteristics: being (1) very prolific; (2) a brilliant improviser (and being even more known for that than composing); (3) leader of many different musical groups; (4) writing in very many diverse genres. I'd say the one person who might fit these descriptions the most is not actually a classical composer _per se_, but *John Zorn*. He has well over a thousands of compositions to his name (even Masada Books I & II include more than 500 compositions) in most active genres of the world (including jazz, classical, rock and avant-garde), is a terrific improviser on saxophone, has led many different bands in various genres, and also runs a label. Obviously he is not as talented as JSB (who is, really?), but he has to be one of the most noteworthy composers of past 25 odd years.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> No-one for Villa-Lobos?


I listened to his symphonies a few weeks ago. Interesting sounds. But I don't see how Villa-Lobos is Bach-like, even conceptually. This just sounds hilarious as I type.


----------



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

The correct answer is of course Arnold Schoenberg.


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Of course some guy named Dmitri wrote the only well-known set of preludes and fugues in all keys in the 20th century. Not bad, either!


You must have meant Nikolai. Nikolai Kapustin.

I wouldn't consider him Bachian, but when you mention it...



Best regards, Dr


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

A more clear "april fools" about Ligeti and Cage if anyone was in disagreement. And I do appreciate Ligeti, no joke.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Was going to mention Schoenberg and Ligeti but they've already been mentioned.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Villa-Lobos*

Hector Villa-Lobos compose a series of nine suites which he entitled _Bachianas Brasileiras_. Villa-Lobos was trying to adapt a number of Baroque harmonic and contrapuntal procedures to Brazilian music. I think his most famous is the _Bachianas Brasileiras No. 5_-Scored for soprano and orchestra of cellos (1938/45).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> Hector Villa-Lobos compose a series of nine suites which he entitled _Bachianas Brasileiras_. Villa-Lobos was trying to adapt a number of Baroque harmonic and contrapuntal procedures to Brazilian music. I think his most famous is the _Bachianas Brasileiras No. 5_-Scored for soprano and orchestra of cellos (1938/45).


An inspired piece. Back in the day, Joan Baez recorded this.

http://www.amazon.com/5-Joan-Baez/d...364864450&sr=1-1&keywords=joan+baez+bachianas


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Try Shostakovitch- _ 24 Preludes & Fugues, Op. 87_

Frank Martin- _Golgotha _


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Even though he's not 20th century, I feel I should mention Alkan. There is something unique and deep reaching about his music, into the past.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think Bartok was Bach-like in some ways. He was able to integrate a lot of different influences into his music and used a lot of counterpoint in his works, much of which is quite dense and layered. He wrote many great works in different formats including solo instrument, and he compiled some great learning resources for the keyboard.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

tdc said:


> I think Bartok was Bach-like in some ways. He was able to integrate a lot of different influences into his music and used a lot of counterpoint in his works, much of which is quite dense and layered. He wrote many great works in different formats including solo instrument, and he compiled some great learning resources for the keyboard.


He may very well be the best bet, but he's also got a lot of attention recently. The teaching pieces combined with brilliant versatility...


----------



## Antihero (Feb 6, 2013)




----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Glenn Gould?


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Ernest Bloch.


----------

