Most important living composer.
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 12:38PM
#2
RE:
I think someone needs to define what 'important' means in this context.
Absolutely – without a criterion against which to measure ‘importance’, the question is meaningless. Unfortunately, this is true of a number of threads on this board which end up going absolutely nowhere for that very reason. All you end up with is statements of personal preferences (‘I prefer Boulez’ etc.)
This is exacerbated by Parla who denies giving personal value judgments but instead claims that his own preferences are objective facts, and makes himself look like an idiot as a consequence. Hence the statement that ‘John Adams is definitely (much) more trivial than Puccini’ which means nothing more than ‘I prefer Puccini to John Adams’.
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 1:16PM
#3
RE: Most important living composer.
Agreed Philip and Craig.
I think what some of us have been getting at is that there is possibly a difference between those composers who are valued/appreciated by people - popular if you like - and those who are respected names but who might not necessarily be well-liked generally. That is interesting because it raises the issue of the view of musical academe versus people's actual tastes, and whether or not there is a dissonace between the two.
Somehow I have the sinking feeling that another potentially interesting debate is going to be kerboshed by the usual Parlance; there is nothing new after Shostakovitch, the contempoary minimalists are minimal in significance (we had all that on the holy minimalism thread), Adams et al are nowhere near as good as Puccini. Boulez is apparently not that significant either.
I heard Le Marteau Sans Maitre conducted by Boulez eons ago at William Glock's 80th birthday concert, and have it on HMundi. A very worthwhile work. And I have the score Parla to justify my opinion!
Mark
Sorry Parla but I do like listening to 'golden mediocrities'!
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 1:27PM
#4
RE: Most important living composer.
Philip, A valid point but the original question from Arbutus:
"Which living composer(s) will still be remembered as having made an important and original contribution to composed music in, lets say, one hundred years time?"
seems to me to offer the chance for some sensible suggestions. If you (or CraigM) think 'important' needs defining, perhaps you might volunteer some suggestion?
Two comments: First, I (and some others) can't help but feel that it is more difficult to find obvious names now than it was say only 40-50 years ago. I'm not sure any definition of 'important' will change things.
Second, (mainly directed towards CraigM). You argue that without such a definition all we do is state our preferences. I suspect though that in defining the criteria for 'important', the person writing the definition will likely direct the conclusion to the composers he would have named anyway.
Incidently, the composers I named as nominations are not simply my preferences. I do admire the music of Boulez, but not very much John Adams. However I recognise in his music something that perhaps will endure.
Anyway Philip, CraigM: try us with an improved version of the question if you feel it might help.
Chris
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 2:12PM
#5
RE: Most important living composer.
"Try us with an improved version of the question if you feel it might help?"
Well OK, I feel what this question really boils down to is "What in our current culture means we can't produce/sustain composers of the 'importance' of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Kagel, Tippett, Glass et al; 'importance' meaning composers whose work indelibly changed how we hear music, who advanced the language while, to a greater or lesser extent, became figures of international cultural standing."
And, btw, the sort of person who reckons Boulez "did not properly develop his own langauge" is the sort of person who really needs to raise their game.
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 3:11PM
#6
RE: Most important living composer.
Well, Philip, that was quick and decisive!
In an earlier post I wrote "It does seem though that 'significance' and 'popularity' seem to be drifting further and dangerously apart." Others seemed to find some resonance with this. Your definition is clearly aimed at the former, as indeed (I think) was the original question of Arbutus. A criticism could be that the group of those 'listeners' to such music and able to judge it based on real experience, is a small and decreasing one.
Are Boulez, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Kagel, Tippett, Glass, your nominations or do you regard these as already being amongst the pantheon? If it is the latter, then I suppose your version of the question is also asking us not for 'elder-statesmen' but younger composers (say under 60 at least!). That the work of the composers you mention indelibly changed how we hear music, and advanced the language is clear. The extent to which each of them has to a greater or lesser extent, become a figure of international cultural standing is I suppose still controversial, and this is even more difficult to assess (yet) for younger composers.
OK: these are just first thoughts! I'll try to do better later (Mark, my tutor will be checking up). Thanks again for your challenging definition of the opening question.
Chris
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 3:50PM
#7
RE: Most important living composer.
I think, at least in my posts, I specifically gave the main criterion of "influence" as for what important should mean, when I mentioned that "important goes together with with the word influential" (post #2, of Jul. 16). I elaborated a bit on that, claiming that I don't see anyone of the living composers can leave their indelible mark for the next generations.
I don't deal with any of my preferences. I appreciate what Boulez is trying to do, but I don't see any tangible "influential" results outside his narrow "cell". I don't like Puccini that much, but I can regognise his contribution to the genre of Opera and I cannot overlook the fact that some of his melodies have an unexpected impact to people all over the world regardless of age, race, gender or any other category. I listened to the music of Adams with interest, but I don't think he can influence anyone outside the specially interested ones in his music. Can anybody mention any truly "influential" work of Adams for the next generations, including the professionals? I never managed to convince any individual or professional to indulge in "Nixon in China", which I found at least a very bold endeavour, in musical terms. After the "first" listening, the answer was: "...but not for me".
Mark, Le Marteau sans Maitre is a "worthwhile work", as you claimed, but for whom, for how many and for what reason? Of course, it's worthwhile to examine it, to listen to it, on some occasions, but is it going to leave this impression, this mark, this impact for further listening, increased interest for the work and the composer? It doesn't seem to be the case.
Parla
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 4:37PM
#8
RE: Most important living composer.
By 'Mankind' I mean a significant percentage, the people who can be reached. The others have Tesco lager, dog fighting, wife beating, the x-factor and pop music to keep them happy. And 'frothing at the mouth'. I passed 'frothing at the mouth' months ago, I'm in the laboratory creating monsters now.
Alice
Thanks for the clarification. But to be clear... those not of 'mankind', what do we name them? I just want to be sure I understand all your catagories for people. I am keeping a list... for reference.
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 5:07PM
#9
RE: Most important living composer.
Parla-
Mark, Le Marteau sans Maitre is a "worthwhile work", as you claimed, but for whom,
For me.
for how many and for what reason?
Don't know didn't count the number of people in the audience but it was pretty full in the QEH.
Of course, it's worthwhile to examine it, to listen to it, on some occasions, but is it going to leave this impression, this mark, this impact for further listening, increased interest for the work and the composer?
Yes! It certainly made an impact and I have other works by Boulez on record.
It doesn't seem to be the case...
Could you add 'for me' or 'in my opinion' Parla?
Mark
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 5:16PM
#10
RE: Most important living composer.
Thanks for the clarification. But to be clear... those not of 'mankind', what do we name them? I just want to be sure I understand all your catagories for people. I am keeping a list... for reference.
Chavsville, low life, Merseyside, Tottenham hotspur ...... you take your pick.
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 5:42PM
#11
RE: Most important living composer.
Hi Philip/Chris et al...
I like the way Philip you have re-phrased the question or its implications.
A few possible reasons why we can't sustain composers of major import anymore, but I am no cultural historian:
a) lack of willingness on the part of music educators to embrace new music (Jeff's thread)
b) public dissatisfaction with the trendy avant-garde composer (Uber Alice's point in one of his more lucid moments) - I'm sure that I have heard the label 'typical proms commission'
c) information overload in society - we have such a plethora of different genres in every art form-e.g. the sheer number of classifications and sub-classifications now for fiction used by agents and publishers is staggering - under horror itself we can have contemporary, crime, dark, humorous, light, modern, occult, paranormal, psychological, erotic, traditional etc...we really are spoilt for choice
d) an anti-elitist political correctness (Jeff and me and others)
e) a recent cultural rise of talent shows and homegrown talent and reality tv rather than exploring anything more serious or demanding - as Selina Scott said on tv it's a very limited diet which is kind of more worrying than the idea of reality tv itself - although this may not have a direct effect on culture per se it is a kind of lowest common denominator approach on tv and in the media. Our culture is obsessed with celebrities rather than talented artists in any form. Not that I am against the idea of talent competitions - I notice the RPO has just awarded some commissions as a result of a competition. Didn't Kathleen Ferrier win a competition when younger?
As far as I am concerned, if you get an obituary in The Guardian you've made it culturally. Recently there was such an obituary for Christine Brooke-Rose, the British experimental novelist, which I was surprised to see as I didn't think enough people would have even heard of her.
I am not offering what I see as solutions, only a few suggestions for debate...
Personally Ligeti, Messiaen and a few others changed the way I listen...
Regards all
Mark
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 6:16PM
#12
RE: Most important living composer.
When I chose the word "important", I was thinking of composers whose work is recognizably part of a continuum, but which has in some way added to, or extended, the language of music, so that when some musicologist of the future looks back at our time, they will conclude that these were the people who were making music which was, in one or several regards, without precedent and which was also distinctively of this era.
The question of popularity is, I would argue, not the most important consideration. There are a multitude of reasons why contemporary composed music is less popular than rock or pop music (and Mark has mentioned some of the reasons above), but any composer who sets out to write a piece that will have wide appeal is unlikely to produce anything of lasting worth.
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 7:06PM
#13
RE: Most important living composer.
any composer who sets out to write a piece that will have wide appeal is unlikely to produce anything of lasting worth.
No one expects a composer to set out to write a piece that will have wide appeal. But if you have something to say and you want it to be heard and understood then you need to speak in a language that will be understood. When the young a mexican puppeteer saw the people all live in fear and he thought that maybe they'd listen to a puppet telling them what to do and he got some string and he got some wood and he did some carving and he was good and all the mexican people came running to hear him - He spoke in Spanish because he knew he would be understood. He didn't necessarily compromise what he wanted to say but he used a language that would get his point across. OK, artistically in a perfect world he could have used swahili, maybe the inflection on the verbs would have sounded better but no one would have understood what he was saying so it would have been pretty pointless. OK to a London middle class audience, they would have chatted about it for weeks and loved it, but the mexicans would have just said 'Dis is a lot of bollaths senior, a sticka you poopets upper you asseos'.
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 10:07PM
#14
RE: Most important living composer.
"Nurse, NURSE! Come quickly, Alice Cooper has got out again and he thinks he's making sense".
Thu, Jul 19 2012, 10:44PM
#15
RE: Most important living composer.
Mark, I thought you could do better than the way you replied on the issue of "Le Marteau".
Of course, it is self-evident that it is worthwhile for you. The question was about whether the work has managed to win a good number of followers. Thus, the next one "for how many", which has nothing to do with the audience of a single concert. And you left unanswered the question of "for what reason".
The rest of my questions had to do with the fate of this quite old (almost early) work of Mr. Boulez. While some scholars tried, along with the other "brilliant" score of "Pli selon pli", to present it as a milestone of contemporary music, it failed to get through. The very few recordings didn't convince or sell and both works fell almost in the total oblivion. That's why I didn't add "to my opinion"...Do you have different facts to present, dear Mark?
Parla
I think someone needs to define what 'important' means in this context.
And as for the (mis)information that Boulez's music "is rarely performed and with very limited success" - apart from those major Boulez pieces being performed at the Proms this week, alongside Barenboim's Beethoven symphonies, and that epic, very well attended Boulez festival at the South Bank last year, your insights are spot on.