# Best compositions of the 20th Century



## HCE (Jul 27, 2018)

Hello all, lately I have been looking for the masterpiece of the 20th century, works that really touch the sublime in musical form, reflecting life and humanity. Something incredibly expressive, beautiful, and complex. I ask 20th century specifically because it seems that what I have heard of classical and really enjoyed has mostly all been from then. Some examples of what has piqued this interest are; Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps, Schoenberg's Gurre Lieder, and Charles Ive's 4th symphony. Any recommendations at all are greatly appreciated.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

A personal selection of few pieces:

Sibelius - Luonnotar
Ligeti - Requiem
Scelsi - Uaxuctum
Ravel - Daphnis et Chloe
Peter Warlock - The Curlew
Messiaen - Quartet for the end of time
Maurice Ohana - Syllabaire pour phedre


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I would suggest many works by Morton Feldman, but he's sort of hard to get into, and not just because some of his pieces are 2, 3, 4, or 6 hours long without a break. It's all extremely quiet, never changing dynamics, and neither tonal nor atonal, so it conflicts with 99% of music out there. A "popular" piece that's only half an hour long is Rothko Chapel, but I wouldn't name that as the best representation of his style. Maybe you should try Why Patterns?, Clarinet and String Quartet, and Piano and String Quartet. Those are more normal lengths. His most sublime piece in my opinion is For Philip Guston, but that's 4.5 hours long. His music isn't sublime in an in-your-face way, but if you listen closely the entire time you can hear something extremely beautiful happening and unfolding. He's my favorite composer. 

I'd also recommend From Me Flows What You Call Time by Tōru Takemitsu, Charles Ives' Violin Sonatas, Music for 18 Musicians by Steve Reich. Those are what immediately come to my mind.


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

Durufle - Requiem (1947)
Stravinsky - Apollon Musagete (1928, rev. 1947)
Boulez - sur Incises (1996)
Ligeti - Requiem (1965)
Messiaen - Fête des belles eaux (1937)
Stockhausen - Stimmung (1968)
Satoh - Violin Concerto (2002)


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

A personal top 10 to start with:

1. Ravel: Daphnis et Chloé
2. Mahler: Das Lied von der Erde (The Song of the Earth)
3. Debussy: La Mer, L 109
4. Strauss, R.: Vier letzte Lieder (Four Last Songs)
5. Shostakovich: Symphony #5 in D minor, op. 47
6. Britten: War Requiem, op. 66
7. Bartók: Violin Concerto #2, Sz. 112
8. Prokofiev: Romeo and Juliet, op. 64
9. Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerto #2 in C minor, op. 18
10. Shostakovich: String Quartet #8 in C minor, op. 110

They're all incredible and beautiful works, each profound in their own way.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2018)

Boulez's _Répons_ is probably his magnum opus but all of his other works are great too, particularly _Le marteau sans maître_ and _Pli selon pli_.

Lachenmann wrote some great tunes, including _Mouvement_ and _Ausklang_ and a bunch of great solo and chamber compositions including _Allegro Sostenuto_, his three string quartets, _Pression_ and _Guero_. It's kinda difficult for me to tell exactly which Lachenmann works are 20th century and which are 21st because his style of writing for instruments has influenced many 21st century techniques in timbre and orchestration....and also he's still composing!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I would suggest many works by Morton Feldman, but he's sort of hard to get into, and not just because some of his pieces are 2, 3, 4, or 6 hours long without a break. It's all extremely quiet, never changing dynamics, and neither tonal nor atonal, so it conflicts with 99% of music out there. A "popular" piece that's only half an hour long is Rothko Chapel, but I wouldn't name that as the best representation of his style. Maybe you should try Why Patterns?, Clarinet and String Quartet, and Piano and String Quartet. Those are more normal lengths. His most sublime piece in my opinion is For Philip Guston, but that's 4.5 hours long. His music isn't sublime in an in-your-face way, but if you listen closely the entire time you can hear something extremely beautiful happening and unfolding. He's my favorite composer.
> 
> I'd also recommend From Me Flows What You Call Time by Tōru Takemitsu, Charles Ives' Violin Sonatas, Music for 18 Musicians by Steve Reich. Those are what immediately come to my mind.


I'm checking out Feldman's "Why Patterns". I thought it started out cool, but I don't like that it goes nowhere and just meanders along.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm checking out Feldman's "Why Patterns". I thought it started out cool, but I don't like that it goes nowhere and just meanders along.


You must not have paid attention very long if you think it goes nowhere, but I think we've already established that it's not your type of thing, and I don't know what else you'd expect from my description. If that doesn't go anywhere, then Beethoven's 5th is a single droning note. I'd guess that your definition of "going somewhere" is having crescendos and decrescendos.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> You must not have paid attention very long if you think it goes nowhere, but I think we've already established that it's not your type of thing, and I don't know what else you'd expect from my description. If that doesn't go anywhere, then Beethoven's 5th is a single droning note. I'd guess that your definition of "going somewhere" is having crescendos and decrescendos.


I listened to about 7 minutes straight through, and then skipped through the rest. Yes, I like music more thematic.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

It's kind of like Miles Davis' Bitches Brew.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's kind of like Miles Davis' Bitches Brew.


Bitches Brew sounds random and is random. Feldman sounds random but is all precisely composed, but it's also not athematic. You just have to listen to hear what's happening, but maybe you should just avoid it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

If it was athematic it would be called "Why Not Patterns?"


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Fredx2098 said:


> You must not have paid attention very long if you think it goes nowhere, but I think we've already established that it's not your type of thing, and I don't know what else you'd expect from my description. If that doesn't go anywhere, then Beethoven's 5th is a single droning note. I'd guess that your definition of "going somewhere" is having crescendos and decrescendos.


In fact (sorry) Feldman's music _does _go nowhere -- at least nowhere of any interest to me. I collected ten of his most-mentioned, and long, compositions, and they simply go on and on with nothing of interest happening. At least in the parts I listened to before simply giving up.

And no, this does _not _mean that I hear Beethoven's 5th as a single droning note. That's simply silly, and needlessly insulting.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

KenOC said:


> In fact (sorry) Feldman's music _does _go nowhere -- at least nowhere of any interest to me. I collected ten of his most-mentioned, and long, compositions, and they simply go on and on with nothing of interest happening. At least in the parts I listened to before simply giving up.
> 
> And no, this does _not _mean that I hear Beethoven's 5th as a single droning note. That's simply silly, and needlessly insulting.


Not going somewhere of any interest to you isn't the same as not going somewhere. My analogy was meant to show how insulting it is to say Feldman's music goes nowhere. Your opinion is not a fact. The fact is that his music is extremely rich and diverse and full of variation. That doesn't mean you should like it. If you don't like it, then you should ignore it and not try to degrade it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Fredx2098 said:


> Not going somewhere of any interest to you isn't the same as not going somewhere. My analogy was meant to show how insulting it is to say Feldman's music goes nowhere. Your opinion is not a fact. The fact is that his music is extremely rich and diverse and full of variation. That doesn't mean you should like it. If you don't like it, then you should ignore it and not try to degrade it.


Thank you for telling me what I should (and should not) do. I will certainly give your suggestion the consideration it deserves.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2018)

Well, this just shows that different composers play around with our perception of time in different ways and there's nothing inherently better or worse about anyone's perception, just as there is certainly no _right thing_ to listen to in music (or wrong thing).

When I first listened to Radigue I was confused by the almost static nature of her music and I was constantly waiting to hear something different in each moment, but I quickly learnt exactly what her music sounds like and came to have a better experience listening to it when I found my own way to enjoy it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> Well, this just shows that different composers play around with our perception of time in different ways and there's nothing inherently better or worse about anyone's perception, just as there is certainly no _right thing_ to listen to in music (or wrong thing).
> 
> When I first listened to Radigue I was confused by the almost static nature of her music and I was constantly waiting to hear something different in each moment, but I quickly learnt exactly what her music sounds like and came to have a better experience listening to it when I found my own way to enjoy it.


Speaking of Radigue, it's _insane_ how much interesting variation she can pack into a drone. It's especially noticeable with headphones.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> In fact (sorry) Feldman's music _does _go nowhere -- at least nowhere of any interest to me. I collected ten of his most-mentioned, and long, compositions, and they simply go on and on with nothing of interest happening. At least in the parts I listened to before simply giving up.
> 
> And no, this does _not _mean that I hear Beethoven's 5th as a single droning note. That's simply silly, and needlessly insulting.


They certainly go on and on, maybe even finally directed to 'nowhere'. But interesting things do happen. Mainly the many ways in which the patterns vary, and contrast, in several (musical) dimensions and directions.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

aleazk said:


> They certainly go on and on, maybe even finally directed to 'nowhere'. But interesting things do happen. Mainly the many ways in which the patterns vary, and contrast, in several (musical) dimensions and directions.


I'd like to make a comparison between Feldman's music and something like Music for 18 Musicians. I'd guess that more people would say that the latter "goes somewhere" more than the former, but for some instruments in some sections of the latter piece there's only one line of music that's repeated over and over, as opposed to Feldman's music which comparitively almost never repeats. If it repeats, it's usually just a theme that is played twice and then it moves on, and if something sounds familiar later on, it's been manipulated and changed as to not be an exact repetition. It's very subtle, which is why I urge people to try to devote all of their attention to it, and there are many other barriers to enjoying it such as being bewildered by how different it is from pretty much any other composer or style of music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> You must not have paid attention very long if you think it goes nowhere, but I think we've already established that it's not your type of thing, and I don't know what else you'd expect from my description. If that doesn't go anywhere, then Beethoven's 5th is a single droning note. I'd guess that your definition of "going somewhere" is having crescendos and decrescendos.


Feldman is nothing like Beethoven. His music changes much slower over time, less development, and little by little. It takes a lot of patience and trust. I read it is supposed to express music at its most elementary level, but what is interesting to the composer isn't interesting to every listener.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Feldman is nothing like Beethoven. His music changes much slower over time, less development, and little by little. It takes a lot of patience and trust. I read it is supposed to express music at its most elementary level, but what is interesting to the composer isn't interesting to every listener.


I would say that Feldman's music develops _more_ overall than all or most composers I've listened to, albeit much more slowly. The natural reaction would seem to be boredom because it isn't energetic or exciting like most other classical music. The focus is on the notes and the development of harmonies and rhythms. I'm not trying to convince people to like Feldman or dislike other composers, I'm just talking about what I like and why I like it, or what I dislike and why I dislike it, trying and I guess failing not to seem assertive or to start an argument.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Bernstein - MASS
Berg - Lulu, Wozzeck
Shostakovich - Symphonies and string quartets 
Prokofiev - Symphonies and piano concertos
Schoenberg - piano concerto
Ravel - piano concerto and Daphnis and Chloe
Hindemith - string quartets and Mathis der Mather and Harmony of the World
Janáček - string quartets, operas, glagolitic mass
Sibelius - symphonies
Martinů - symphonies, piano concertos, operas, Double Concerto for 2 String Orchestras, Piano and Timpani
Vaughan Williams - symphonies

I am not a big fan of the post 1950's music. It mostly sounds boring to me (collections of random noises lacking any melody and development)


----------



## les24preludes (May 1, 2018)

Jacck said:


> Bernstein - MASS
> Berg - Lulu, Wozzeck
> Shostakovich - Symphonies and string quartets
> Prokofiev - Symphonies and piano concertos
> ...


That's a good list to start with, and being Czech I'm glad you put in Janacek. Janacek wrote some great operas - start with The Cunning Little Vixen and then Kat'a Kabanova and Jenufa, and listen to the Czech Supraphon versions not Mackerras. You may get addicted.

If you like opera, then go on to Berg Lulu and Wozzek, as above, but hear these too.

Adams: Nixon in China 



Shostakovich: Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk (film version is more interesting)




Debussy: Pelleas et Melisande
Ravel: L'Enfant et les Sortilèges (don't miss this wonderful and enchanting gem)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

KenOC said:


> In fact (sorry) Feldman's music _does _go nowhere -- at least nowhere of any interest to me. I collected ten of his most-mentioned, and long, compositions, and they simply go on and on with nothing of interest happening. At least in the parts I listened to before simply giving up.
> 
> And no, this does _not _mean that I hear Beethoven's 5th as a single droning note. That's simply silly, and needlessly insulting.


There is quite a lot of music that doesn't really have a narrative thread in the way a Beethoven symphony does. Quite a lot of impressionist music, for example, and quite a few tone poems (even if they follow a story it is not a musical story). Some are episodic, some are about the sound or the mood. It is OK to only like music that is about thematic development but you can't single out one composer who attempts something different as wrong or boring when he was following many predecessors and developing their language a lot further. Instead of regretting that he is not Beethoven, why not let Feldman in and do what he does with your brain?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

HCE said:


> Hello all, lately I have been looking for the masterpiece of the 20th century, works that really touch the sublime in musical form, reflecting life and humanity.


The masterpieces of the 20th Century? If you asked for those of the 19th Century you would expect a list of hundreds of works! For the 20th I suspect it will be even more even if you don't take the question literally and only let in those composers who belong to the century (rather than ending their 19th Century lives in the 20th). But you need to include -

- A lot of Bartok (quartets, piano concertos, 2nd violin concerto, etc).
- A lot of Stravinsky (not just the big ballets of his younger days).
- A lot of Berg (operas, violin concerto, more), Webern and Schoenberg. 
- A lot of Britten (many/most of the operas, War Requiem, Serenade, many other song cycles).
- A lot of Elliott Carter.
- A lot of Boulez.
- So much more!

Dip in. Explore. See what you like and where it takes you. There is so much to discover.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Favorites and/or greatest:

Holst - The Planets
Nielsen - Symphony No. 5
Strauss - An Alpine Symphony
Mahler - Symphonies 5, 6, 8, 9
Schmidt - Symphonies 2 and 4
Bartók - Music for strings, percussion and celesta
Szymanowski - Stabat Mater
Prokofiev - Romeo and Juliet, Scythian Suite
Martinu - The Epic of Gilgamesh
Hindemith - Mathis der Maler
Respighi - Roman Trilogy, Church Windows, Belkis
Bax - Springfire
Vaughan Williams - Symphonies 2, 5, 6, Dona nobis pacem
Poulenc - Stabat Mater
Duruflé - Requiem


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Bartók: Concerto for Orchestra (plus lots of other stuff)
Sibelius: 5th Symphony (ditto)
Prokofiev: 3rd Piano Concerto (ditto)
Debussy: La Mer (ditto)
Ravel: Concerto for the Left Hand (ditto)
Rachmaninoff: Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini (ditto)
Stravinsky: Le Sacre (ditto)
Respighi: Church Windows (ditto)
Martinů: 1st Symphony (ditto)
Hovhaness: 2nd Violin Concerto (ditto)
Shostakovich: 5th Symphony (ditto)
Poulenc: Concerto for Organ, Timpani, and Strings (ditto)

partial list


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MusicSybarite said:


> Favorites and/or greatest:
> 
> Holst - The Planets
> Nielsen - Symphony No. 5
> ...


Your favourites, fair enough. Greatest? You would have to know an awful lot of music really well to even arrive at an opinion on that.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I would say that Feldman's music develops _more_ overall than all or most composers I've listened to, albeit much more slowly. The natural reaction would seem to be boredom because it isn't energetic or exciting like most other classical music. The focus is on the notes and the development of harmonies and rhythms. I'm not trying to convince people to like Feldman or dislike other composers, I'm just talking about what I like and why I like it, or what I dislike and why I dislike it, trying and I guess failing not to seem assertive or to start an argument.


I wouldn't call it development, but variation. He changes the order of the notes, the rhythm slightly, bit by bit, adding a note here and there, but doesn't develop the "theme" by transformation.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Aside from the usual suspects, Rite of Spring, etc. I would nominate Messiaen's Chronochromie and 4 Rhythmic Studies. I was just introduced to his concept of symmetrical permutations, and find the organization works much better than Serialism to me. Atonality that makes a lot of sense, and without the human selection factor in free-atonality.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

A comment on Feldman - I don't believe his music is meant to be listened to for its full duration (I'm talking about the longer works). Feldman challenges you mentally: How long can you listen before you get bored or go insane? Minimalism on steroids, and interesting stuff indeed.

How have Schnittke and Rautavaara not been mentioned yet? Two of my favorite composers, all of classical music included. Most of Schnittke's (popular) works are extremely playful, but that never constitutes lack of expressiveness. Try:

-Cello Concerto #1
-Choir Concerto
-Piano Quintet
-Piano Sonata #1
-String Quartet #4
-Symphony #8

As for Rautavaara, I feel like he's always 100% in terms of emotion. (This is not to undermine Schnittke, whom I actually think is the 'better' composer of the two). Go nuts!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Ravel - Miroirs
Debussy - Sonata for Flute, Viola and Harp
Bartok - Piano Concerto No. 2
Ives - Concord Sonata
Mahler - Das Lied Von der Erde
Prokofiev - Symphony No. 2
Rodrigo - Concierto de Aranjuez
Takemitsu - From Me Flows What You Call Time
Partch - Delusion of the Fury
Reich - The Desert Music


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Portamento said:


> A comment on Feldman - I don't believe his music is meant to be listened to for its full duration (I'm talking about the longer works). Feldman challenges you mentally: How long can you listen before you get bored or go insane? Minimalism on steroids, and interesting stuff indeed.


I'm not sure exactly what his intentions were, but I personally disagree. Of course there's no right way for a person to listen to music, but I think it's crucial to listen to his works all the way through, intently focused, all at once without a break. It's easy to write it off as background music, but if you focus on it, there's a very deliberate and interesting direction to his music that is broken if you don't listen to it all the way through. I would only call a handful of his pieces slightly minimal. I guess it's dynamically minimal? I saw his longest piece, String Quartet No. 2, performed live, and I watched and listened intently the entire time along with many others and I was never bored for a moment. I found it more challenging physically than mentally. I've been more bored during performances a fraction of the length. Of course, it's uncommon to have enough time to listen to the longer pieces.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I wouldn't call it development, but variation. He changes the order of the notes, the rhythm slightly, bit by bit, adding a note here and there, but doesn't develop the "theme" by transformation.


There are some pieces where he just varies one theme, but I think most of them have a lot of development. Sometimes there are interesting parallels with more "normal" music like development and recapitulation. There's not much/any dynamic development, but that's a big reason I like it so much, because it's all about the other types of development.


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

Berg, Violin Concerto
Stravinsky, Agon
Messiaen, Vingt Regards
Debussy, Etudes pour piano
Glass, Einstein on the Beach
Berio, Sinfonia
Reich, Music for 18 Musicians
Lutoslawski, 3rd Symphony
Schnittke, 5th Symphony
Bartok, Violin Concerto #2
Boulez, Pli Selon Pli
Ligeti, Piano Etudes
Feldman, For Philip Guston
Adams, Nixon in China
Gubaidulina, Offertorium
Saariaho, Graal Theatre
Varese, Ameriques
Lindberg, Kraft
Shostakovich, 15th String Quartet


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Best compositions of the 20th Century? That would be very personal. Here are mine and why.

Vaughan Williams Symphony No. 4 -- was to the 20th century what Beethoven's 5th was to the 19th century. Beethoven was about heroism and glory, Vaughan Williams about conflict.

Debussy La Mer -- was to 20th century musical language what Tchaikovsky's tone poems were to the 19th century.

Ibert Escales -- see above.

Respighi's Pines of Rome -- see above only in traditional language.

Shostakovich Symphony 8 & 10 -- the last great composer's personal description of the oppression under which he lived and composed.

Stravinsky Rite of Spring -- the revolution that started new music in the century.

Schoenberg Pierrot Lunaire -- counterpart to above.

Berg Chamber Concerto for 13 Instruments, Violin and Piano -- the greatest 12 tone work.

Gershwin Rhapsody in Blue & American In Paris, Barber Violin Concerto, & Hanson "Romantic" Symphony -- the greatest American works of the American century.

Ligeti Atmospheres & Lux Aeterna, the only nonmusical music that really worked on a broad scale thanks to:

The ascension of film music by Goldsmith, Rozsa, Newman and others. Film music is a more important format now than traditional classical music.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Not enough opera on these lists.

Berg: Wozzeck
Poulenc: Dialogues des Carmélites
Strauss: Der Rosenkavalier
Bartók: Bluebeard's Castle
Britten: Peter Grimes
Shostakovich: Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District
Gershwin: Porgy and Bess
Schoenberg: Moses und Aron
Janáček: Jenůfa
Pfitzner: Palestrina
Adams: Nixon In China
Prokofiev: Love for Three Oranges
Puccini: Madama Butterfly

And in the 21st century:

Saariaho: L'Amour de loin
Benjamin: Written on Skin


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Your favourites, fair enough. Greatest? You would have to know an awful lot of music really well to even arrive at an opinion on that.


I feel so bad for not fulfilling your expectations  . I don't need your opinion to consider them greatest. To me they are and I know enough music to get that conclusion. The fact that I didn't include any of some vanguardist dissonant (and eventually awful) stuff doesn't mean my choices are not great. If some people consider great that kind of stuff, that is their issue and it's respectable. You can mention your greatest ones as you want. If you don't like something, just ignore it.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Here's something related to this topic that you might find interesting from Arts Journal.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Schoenberg-Violin Concerto, Mose und Aron
Berg-Lyric Suite, 3 Orchestral Pieces
Ligeti-Violin Concerto, chamber concerto
Prokofiev-piano concerto no.2
Schnittke-concerto grosso no.1, requiem
Honegger-symphony no.4, cello concerto
Bartok-Cantata profana, concerto for 2 pianos and percussion, string quartets 1-6
Stravinsky-Les Noces, Petrushka
Takemitsu's orchestral works Spirit Garden 2 CD set
Penderecki-Polymorphia, string quartet


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> I would suggest many works by Morton Feldman, but he's sort of hard to get into, and not just because some of his pieces are 2, 3, 4, or 6 hours long without a break. It's all extremely quiet, never changing dynamics, and neither tonal nor atonal, so it conflicts with 99% of music out there. A "popular" piece that's only half an hour long is Rothko Chapel, but I wouldn't name that as the best representation of his style. Maybe you should try Why Patterns?, Clarinet and String Quartet, and Piano and String Quartet. Those are more normal lengths. His most sublime piece in my opinion is For Philip Guston, but that's 4.5 hours long. His music isn't sublime in an in-your-face way, but if you listen closely the entire time you can hear something extremely beautiful happening and unfolding. He's my favorite composer.
> 
> I'd also recommend From Me Flows What You Call Time by Tōru Takemitsu, Charles Ives' Violin Sonatas, Music for 18 Musicians by Steve Reich. Those are what immediately come to my mind.


I have to admit that Feldman is a bit difficult for me, too. A good place to start, though, is with his Rothko Chapel. It's not a tremendously long work, and I find it quite fascinating. As for the Takemitsu piece--great place to start with 20th century music, in my opinion.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Bruce said:


> I have to admit that Feldman is a bit difficult for me, too. A good place to start, though, is with his Rothko Chapel. It's not a tremendously long work, and I find it quite fascinating. As for the Takemitsu piece--great place to start with 20th century music, in my opinion.


Rothko Chapel probably is a good way to decide if you like the style or not. If you hear it and you're just totally bored and annoyed by it, then his music probably isn't for you, but if you hear it and think it's not enough and you want more, then you'd probably like his other stuff. It's not my favorite because I think it's a little slow and has more silence than his later pieces. There's also that short section of tonality and tangible rhythm, and if that's the only part someone likes, then the rest of his stuff probably isn't for them. That part kind of reminds me of the end of For Philip Guston though. For 4 hours it's very confusing, mysterious, and abstract, then the last half hour is just sheer pure beauty. You can't just skip to the end to hear how beautiful it is though. It depends on all the music that comes before it. There's a very deliberate progression through the entire piece.

I love that Takemitsu piece. It sounds very modern but also very "pretty". I haven't listened to enough of his music though. He has another piece called Twill by Twilight: In Memory of Morton Feldman composed after his death. I was actually introduced to Takemitsu while asking about composers similar to Feldman on a different website. I think he has kind of a similar use of chromaticism, but he's not as "out there" as Feldman. I can also hear that he's influenced by Messiaen, though I've only heard a few pieces by both of them. I've read about them both and their styles though. Turangalila-Symphonie and Quatuor pour la fin du temps are good examples of 20th century music as well in my opinion.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MusicSybarite said:


> I feel so bad for not fulfilling your expectations  . I don't need your opinion to consider them greatest. To me they are and I know enough music to get that conclusion. The fact that I didn't include any of some vanguardist dissonant (and eventually awful) stuff doesn't mean my choices are not great. If some people consider great that kind of stuff, that is their issue and it's respectable. You can mention your greatest ones as you want. If you don't like something, just ignore it.


I was happy for these to be your favourites (as you posted). I'm glad you enjoy them. But I felt the claim (that you also made) that they represent *the* greatest works of the century to be seriously mistaken. And, if we are not at liberty to say so, what is the point of your posting on a discussion forum? You put up a view, claiming it to be factual, and you want everyone to ignore you? It _was _rude of me to suggest that the narrowness of your view might be because you don't know enough of the music to make the judgement - so I will withdraw that suggestion with an apology. Of course, I have no idea what you know. But I felt that some of your choices for genuinely 20th Century composers that you did include did not include their best work.

I am happy to disagree with you on the "vanguardist dissonant (and eventually awful)" stuff without even knowing which composers you have in mind for this description. A defense of such music was not where I was coming from, however. But I don't really understand why you need to insult it while personally rejecting it: surely you could take your own advice: "if you don't like something, just ignore it"?


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

My favorite piece by Feldman, though not his greatest (that honor goes to For Philip Guston, IMHO), is the Untitled Composition for Cello and Piano, posthumously titled, "Patterns in a Chromatic Field." It is, for me, the definitive New York piece. It's hard for me to listen to it and not feel the energy of that city coursing through its notes. Feldman was considered by many music critics to be a member of the New York School, and this piece does honor to that membership.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

PeterFromLA said:


> My favorite piece by Feldman, though not his greatest (that honor goes to For Philip Guston, IMHO), is the Untitled Composition for Cello and Piano, posthumously titled, "Patterns in a Chromatic Field." It is, for me, the definitive New York piece. It's hard for me to listen to it and not feel the energy of that city coursing through its notes. Feldman was considered by many music critics to be a member of the New York School, and this piece does honor to that membership.


That's a great, rare piece by him with some energy and dynamic variation while still being his style. For Philip Guston is his most masterful piece I think, but my favorite is Piano, Violin, Viola, Cello, just because it's so intensely emotional.


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> Rothko Chapel probably is a good way to decide if you like the style or not. If you hear it and you're just totally bored and annoyed by it, then his music probably isn't for you, but if you hear it and think it's not enough and you want more, then you'd probably like his other stuff. It's not my favorite because I think it's a little slow and has more silence than his later pieces. There's also that short section of tonality and tangible rhythm, and if that's the only part someone likes, then the rest of his stuff probably isn't for them. That part kind of reminds me of the end of For Philip Guston though. For 4 hours it's very confusing, mysterious, and abstract, then the last half hour is just sheer pure beauty. You can't just skip to the end to hear how beautiful it is though. It depends on all the music that comes before it. There's a very deliberate progression through the entire piece.
> 
> I love that Takemitsu piece. It sounds very modern but also very "pretty". I haven't listened to enough of his music though. He has another piece called Twill by Twilight: In Memory of Morton Feldman composed after his death. I was actually introduced to Takemitsu while asking about composers similar to Feldman on a different website. I think he has kind of a similar use of chromaticism, but he's not as "out there" as Feldman. I can also hear that he's influenced by Messiaen, though I've only heard a few pieces by both of them. I've read about them both and their styles though. Turangalila-Symphonie and Quatuor pour la fin du temps are good examples of 20th century music as well in my opinion.


I've got to explore a little more Feldman. I tried to listen to his 2nd string quartet, but just couldn't handle it. I have trouble listening to anything that long, though. At least at one sitting.

I've heard Twill by Twilight, and it is a beautiful piece. Unfortunately, I started with Takemitsu with some of his more difficult pieces--Quatrain II and Water Ways on an old RCA Lp by Tashi. Now when I hear these pieces, they don't sound nearly so radical, but at the time I couldn't make any sense of them, and never tried anything else by Takemitsu until a year or so ago.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Bruce said:


> I've got to explore a little more Feldman. I tried to listen to his 2nd string quartet, but just couldn't handle it. I have trouble listening to anything that long, though. At least at one sitting.
> 
> I've heard Twill by Twilight, and it is a beautiful piece. Unfortunately, I started with Takemitsu with some of his more difficult pieces--Quatrain II and Water Ways on an old RCA Lp by Tashi. Now when I hear these pieces, they don't sound nearly so radical, but at the time I couldn't make any sense of them, and never tried anything else by Takemitsu until a year or so ago.


Have you checked out the pieces I suggested initially? I would say that SQ2 is a pretty bad place to start! It seems to be one of the most talked-about, but it's not one of my favorites. It seems a bit like a novelty since it's so far away from the typical string quartet tradition, not that I don't like it, but I don't consider it a good representation of his style. It's more like its own thing than like a more "typical" Feldman piece. I feel like it has less direction and flow than his other pieces. If you want to check out a longer piece, I'd recommend Violin and String Quartet, For Christian Wolff, and For Philip Guston, which are 2, 3, and 4 hours long respectively. The first two are some of his works that I would call slightly minimalist, if you like that. I think it's better to start with shorter pieces though. Have you heard The Viola in My Life? I think that's a pretty good place to start. It's better than Rothko Chapel in my opinion, but it's from around the same time and it's about the same length.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

HCE said:


> Hello all, lately I have been looking for the masterpiece of the 20th century, works that really touch the sublime in musical form, reflecting life and humanity. Something incredibly expressive, beautiful, and complex. I ask 20th century specifically because it seems that what I have heard of classical and really enjoyed has mostly all been from then. Some examples of what has piqued this interest are; Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps, Schoenberg's Gurre Lieder, and Charles Ive's 4th symphony. Any recommendations at all are greatly appreciated.


Sibelius's magnificent _seventh symphony_.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Schnittke's 2nd concerto grosso.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

To me the finest works of the 20th century are the Piano Trio and String Quartet of Faure. Next to them I would mention the Symphonies and Cello Concerto of Elgar; the 1st symphony and Belshazzar's Feast of Walton; the Miraculous Mandarin of Bartok; Elektra, Capriccio and the Metamorphosen of Richard Strauss; the 2nd Piano Sonata of Rachmaninov; the Poem of Ecstasy of Scriabin; La Journee de L'Existence of Vischnegradsky; Mer da Glace and Voss by Richard Meale; War and Peace by Prokofiev; the 2nd Violin Concerto of Szymanowski; the Symphony of Sorrowful Songs by Gorecki; and Bomarzo by Ginastera. This is just off the top of my head, should mention other works of Strauss, Prokofiev, Heino Eller, Khachaturian, Kalomiris, d'Indy, Finzi, Bartok, Barber, Hanson etc. but there might be no end to it.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

To assign a musical "greatest work of the 20th century" is another of those impossible to do tasks that essentially bubbles down to a subjective choice, no matter how many objective tenets are applied to the selection.

My immediate thought was the Stravinsky _Le Sacre du Printemps_. But a nanosecond later I remembered Schoenberg. And an immediate selection by Schoenberg completely escaped me.

It seems one can consider the greatest work of the century to be either a work of summation, or a work of beginning. _Le Sacre_ in some sense embodies both these ideals. But has it proven influential? It's rhythmic variety is certainly ... various! But many composers prior to Stravinsky utilized shifting time signatures and syncopations. Has _Le Sacre_ inspired other composers' thoughts and methods into realms that earlier models could lay an equal claim to? Even Stravinsky, it seems moved away from the Russian folksiness of _Le Sacre_ onto a more neo-classical and even Schoenbergian pose in his later works. So, should we consider Schoenberg?

The 12-tone method has certainly proved influential even if it has slackened as a purity in the later decades of the century. Still, it gave us some wonderful works from Schoenberg and his pupils Berg and Webern, among others. But does anyone really want to name _Pierrot Lunaire_ or Variations for Orchestra, Op. 31 as the "greatest work of the 20th century"?

The century introduced so much into music. Yet so much of it was already there, too. We might consider a work of "concrete music" to claim the position of greatest. Yet Beethoven featured gunshots in his "Battle Symphony" and Tchaikovsky indicated cannons for the "1812 Overture". Is assembling noises and defining it (or redefining it) as "music" a valid consideration for "the greatest of all"?

John Cage produced what is likely the most discussed and written about musical work of the century, the 4'33" piece. In some sense that forced musicians to philosophize about music in ways hitherto unknown. Still, philosophy has long been a part of music. Can Beethoven's final quartets be viewed as anything but philosophy in sound? Why should philosophy without sound be more profound? (And here I would hesitate to call a Beethoven late Quartet, as much as I admire them, "greatest" of the 19th century. Can I step into Cage's 4'33" as a "greatest" with more confidence than I can give to Beethoven? I shudder at the thought.

Perhaps something in the realm of electronic music should be hailed as "greatest" of the 20th century, a century of electronics advancement. But do we give the accolade to the inventor of the Moog, or to Respighi for including a recording of a bird in his 1924 _Pines of Rome_? I like the _Pines of Rome_, which seems more high-romantic than modern to my ears. But there you have both summation and beginning? (Yet I balk at naming a Respighi work, much as I admire them, the "greatest" piece of the century.) And I suspect electronics were introduced into music in the late 19th century, so ...

Maybe financial gain is the key to "greatest" of the century? Those rockers called The Beatles did well for themselves, I've heard. Maybe "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" is simply the greatest music of the century. (I shudder to think it may be Michael Jackson's "Thriller".)

Rather than settle on any definite work or composer as "greatest" of the 20th century, I'll continue to listen to the music which exists in so much variety that I would suggest the 20th century can lay a valid claim to possessing the most wide ranging music of any era. And rather than worry about what is the greatest work of the 20th century, I'll push forward to exploring the music of our new century, which, I suspect, may prove even more diverse in styles and sounds that the century prior. In fact, I'm more interested in speculating upon what is the greatest musical work of the 21st century, and I hope I can live to hear it all.

Which is why music is so much fun.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm checking out Feldman's "Why Patterns". I thought it started out cool, but I don't like that it goes nowhere and just meanders along.


Feldman's music does go places. It just goes to all the wrong places, that's all.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Tallisman said:


> Feldman's music does go places. It just goes to all the wrong places, that's all.


Snappy sentence .... but what do you mean? Where does Feldman go that is wrong and where should he go?


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm checking out Feldman's "Why Patterns". I thought it started out cool, but I don't like that it goes nowhere and just meanders along.


Sometimes going nowhere can be a very sought after goal I guess. But his music, like ripples travelling outwards from a small event, can feel like it travels very far indeed, and yet register somehow in a very immediate environment.

In this sense I find many Feldman pieces masterpieces of laconic utterance achieving a great deal.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Not much love for Schnittke's concerto grossos then? I haven't listened to every piece written in the 20th century but I would put Schnittke's concerto grossos right up there with Elgar's music, sorry and Sibelius'.


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

All four of Schnittke's Concerti Grossi are terrific, the first is most immediately appealing, but i enjoy the second more, and the fourth becomes the fifth symphony, which is Schnittke's greatest work, in my view.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I'm sure there are plenty more I am forgetting. 

Bartok - Piano concerto 2, Concerto for orchestra, Concerto for strings, percussion and celesta
Stravinsky - Rite of Spring, 
Carter - String quartets, Piano concerto, Variations for Orchestra
Penderecki - Violin concerto 2 "Metamorphosen" 
Magnus Lindberg - Sculpture, Piano concerto, Kraft
Joan Tower - Concerto for orhcestra
Berg - Violin concerto
Samuel Barber - Piano concerto
Takemitsu - From Me Flows What You Call Time
Ligeti - Violin Concerto, Ramifications


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Eusebius12 said:


> To me the finest works of the 20th century are the Piano Trio and String Quartet of Faure. Next to them I would mention the Symphonies and Cello Concerto of Elgar; the 1st symphony and Belshazzar's Feast of Walton; the Miraculous Mandarin of Bartok; Elektra, Capriccio and the Metamorphosen of Richard Strauss; the 2nd Piano Sonata of Rachmaninov; the Poem of Ecstasy of Scriabin; La Journee de L'Existence of Vischnegradsky; Mer da Glace and Voss by Richard Meale; War and Peace by Prokofiev; the 2nd Violin Concerto of Szymanowski; the Symphony of Sorrowful Songs by Gorecki; and Bomarzo by Ginastera. This is just off the top of my head, should mention other works of Strauss, Prokofiev, Heino Eller, Khachaturian, Kalomiris, d'Indy, Finzi, Bartok, Barber, Hanson etc. but there might be no end to it.


I really should have to mention Der Rosenkavalier, the Fiery Angel, and Les Dialogues des Carmelites of Poulenc


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

My favourite work of Schoenberg is definitely his 4'33


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, Schoenberg was Cage's composition instructor, so there is that!


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

PeterFromLA said:


> All four of Schnittke's Concerti Grossi are terrific, the first is most immediately appealing, but i enjoy the second more, and the fourth becomes the fifth symphony, which is Schnittke's greatest work, in my view.


There are six, actually (and they are all masterworks). Have you heard the 1st Cello Concerto? Now that's a showstopper!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

My favorite works of Schnittke are the Piano Quintet and Concerto for Piano and Strings. My favorite works of Gubaidulina are the Viola Concerto and Canticle of the Sun.


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

Portamento said:


> There are six, actually (and they are all masterworks). Have you heard the 1st Cello Concerto? Now that's a showstopper!


You're correct, and I actually own recordings of five and six as well, so I should know better. In my defense I will say the last two have not had as many recordings and so did not make as much of an impression on me (apparently) as did the first four.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Which of Schnittke's Concerto Grossi should I start with, ideally the least accessible and most masterful. Or should I just listen chronologically? I haven't listened to a lot of his music except the first symphony and maybe some string quartets. I remember the string quartets being extremely different from the symphony and very melancholic rather than energetic.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

There's a lot of 20th century I have yet to hear but right now I'd go for Sibelius 7 and Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy. Both are unique works of utter genius. Both of their endings have left me watery eyed many times.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Fredx2098 said:


> Which of Schnittke's Concerto Grossi should I start with, ideally the least accessible and most masterful. Or should I just listen chronologically? I haven't listened to a lot of his music except the first symphony and maybe some string quartets. I remember the string quartets being extremely different from the symphony and very melancholic rather than energetic.


I find myself loving some of his music greatly and being ambivalent about other pieces. I certainly don't think the symphonies are the place to go but he did write a number of great concertos - for piano, for viola, for cello - and the piano quintet is a rewarding work. This recording has a rare intensity that is accentuated or ruined (you choose) by some distortion in the climax of the cello concerto:


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Snappy sentence .... but what do you mean? Where does Feldman go that is wrong and where should he go?


Out of his brutalist office block and into the tonal countryside


----------



## smoledman (Feb 6, 2012)

I'll take Penderecki's "Threnody for Victims of Hiroshima" and "Polymorphia". He literally invented a new sonic world of horror.


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

Schnittke's 2nd String Quartet is an astonishing piece, especially its unforgettable second movement. This is the best description of the work I've read, from Allmusic:

_In many ways, Alfred Schnittke's entire output bears the signature of tragedy. It is often a bizarre, deeply irreverent tragedy, miles from Greek antiquity. But nevertheless disaster, catastrophe, and lament are everywhere in the thousands of pages which contain Schnittke's name. So when he writes a work inspired by an actual in-the-world tragedy, it adopts a strange multi-layered hue, and offers an unremitting experience.

Schnittke's Second Quartet is the child of such trauma, finished in 1980 to memorialize the composer's close friend, film director Larissa Shepitko, who died from a car accident the previous year. Schnittke confesses that "for me, and for all who knew her, her death came as a severe blow." The quartet that resulted from Schnittke's reaction is a particularly intense experience, and while it employs much that is familiar Schnittke territory, it carries deeper wounds.

For example, Schnittke's hallmark "polystylism" comes through in the use of early Russian sacred music; Schnittke writes that "almost the entire tonal material of the quartet is derived from ancient Russian church song," known for its striking dissonance. But gone is any of the exhilarating funhouse irony which imprints Schnittke's other polystylistic works. Instead, the single model of Russian song is pressed and pulverized with increasingly agonized vehemence; Schnittke treats it monomaniacally as a symbol of the irreparably lost and unrecoverable. In doing so, however, he also writes a work of stunningly sustained creativity. Stravinsky's famous dictum runs that a composition can only arise as the solution to a problem. Schnittke the tragedian offers a counter dictum -- that a great composition can arise out of an impossible search for a solution to an insoluble problem.

The Quartet opens with the cold, isolated sound of high string-harmonics in canon, and at close intervals. Sharp and pale, this music eventually erupts into outburst; Schnittke then quotes, in all its voices, the original Russian hymn on which quartet is based, forming a kind of poignantly hollow center.

Responding to this vulnerable repose, the second movement offers an outraged, depressurizing implosion, an unrelenting explosion of activity warping the Russian hymn's contour in all ways imaginable. It begins with a "refrain" in which the hymn is expanded to four-octave arpeggios in all four instruments, each instrument flying at a slightly different velocity; the remarkable effect reminds one of a globe spinning at self-destructive speed, a kind of unstable atomic delirium barely holding itself together. At various points Schnittke operates like a film director himself, splicing in contrasting scenes of distortive fury; at one brief point this hurtling sphere smolders to a stop and we once again hear the original hymn as it appeared in the first movement. Inevitably, however, the shocked refrain returns, and ends the movement in a choked mid-spin.

This torn-off end leads immediately into the catatonic third movement, marked "Mesto" ("sad"). With equal single-mindedness but a new glacial tone, this movement offers a frozen dirge around a single note, D. Schnittke infuses the sound with a frightening thickness, which eventually swells to a barbaric climax: all four instruments, each bowing quadruple-stops, hammer out seven ffff chords.

The fourth and last movement is a kind of broken epilogue, attempting one last time to capture the missing center. But after a traumatized return to the Quartet's opening bars, Schnittke finally turns away from centers and offers a muted, translucent coda to the whole work. This starlit firmament of string harmonics literally evaporates from sound, ringing out the Russian hymn as it fades. In such a way does the work possess a double memory, of friendship, but also of heritage and history._

https://www.allmusic.com/composition/string-quartet-no-2-mc0002435344

I recommend the recording by the Beethoven Quartet.


----------



## endelbendel (Jul 7, 2018)

Feldman's music goes right into one's neuroanatomy. That can be discomforting. Impossible to hold back from it, and if attempt to do so by distancing or intellectualizing, you miss it and it gets boring. But fully embraced it is a massage from within, transcendental voices and a tutelage about the self, how one listens. The variety across his oeuvre is outstanding: choose your colors. All instruments and combinations. Especially impressed by the writing for trombone. Granted, the violin pieces are tendentious modernist and less engaging. The piano pieces are from a magician full of humor and generosity. Those comments are just from sampling at Presto. Couldn't help it; ordered a few of them.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

endelbendel said:


> Feldman's music goes right into one's neuroanatomy. That can be discomforting. Impossible to hold back from it, and if attempt to do so by distancing or intellectualizing, you miss it and it gets boring. But fully embraced it is a massage from within, transcendental voices and a tutelage about the self, how one listens.


Hey! You get it! Good to see another person who appreciates his music. It's definitely crucial to concentrate on it to appreciate it. It's such a magical world that he creates. I can definitely understand someone hearing it and immediately being turned off by it and write it off because it's so unique and unlike anything else in music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Tallisman said:


> Out of his brutalist office block and into the tonal countryside


Thank you. Brutalist? Really? That surprises me.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

endelbendel said:


> Feldman's music goes right into one's neuroanatomy. That can be discomforting. Impossible to hold back from it, and if attempt to do so by distancing or intellectualizing, you miss it and it gets boring. But fully embraced it is a massage from within, transcendental voices and a tutelage about the self, how one listens. The variety across his oeuvre is outstanding: choose your colors. All instruments and combinations. Especially impressed by the writing for trombone. Granted, the violin pieces are tendentious modernist and less engaging. The piano pieces are from a magician full of humor and generosity. Those comments are just from sampling at Presto. Couldn't help it; ordered a few of them.


Good comments but just from listening to 30 second samples? Do let us know what you make of the full pieces.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> There are some pieces where he just varies one theme, but I think most of them have a lot of development. Sometimes there are interesting parallels with more "normal" music like development and recapitulation. There's not much/any dynamic development, but that's a big reason I like it so much, because it's all about the other types of development.


I fear that if I listened to piece of music for eight hours at a stretch then the only thing that would develop would be my beard!:lol:


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Barbebleu said:


> I fear that if I listened to piece of music for eight hours at a stretch then the only thing that would develop would be my beard!:lol:


Well lucky you because his longest piece is 6 hours at most and he only has 4 pieces that are 2 hours or longer! I feel like people talk about String Quartet No. 2 a lot because of the novelty of being 6 hours long. It's not a novelty itself, but that's how most articles and critics describe it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Good comments but just from listening to 30 second samples? Do let us know what you make of the full pieces.


I think it's better than listening to 30 seconds and declaring that it's all boring and meaningless, at least!


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Fredx2098 said:


> Which of Schnittke's Concerto Grossi should I start with, ideally the least accessible and most masterful. Or should I just listen chronologically? I haven't listened to a lot of his music except the first symphony and maybe some string quartets. I remember the string quartets being extremely different from the symphony and very melancholic rather than energetic.


I'd go chronologically, as you can see the radical shift in Schnittke's compositional process as his health deteriorated. The later works are concise, less playful, and rather bleak. It's not for everyone, and most probably stick to the polystylistic (and more accessible) nos. 1-4.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Portamento said:


> I'd go chronologically, as you can see the radical shift in Schnittke's compositional process as his health deteriorated. The later works are concise, less playful, and rather bleak. It's not for everyone, and most probably stick to the polystylistic (and more accessible) nos. 1-4.


I do like to hear a composer's progression into their final style. I've heard some of his bleak music and I love it. I really can't get enough of extremely bleak classical music without any energy to them to soften the blow like nearly every piece of classical music has, which usually just bores me.


----------

