Most important living composer.
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 9:18AM
#2
RE:
I would support everything that Partsong said in his last emminetly sensible post.
And if you really want an alternative way of framing the question ‘who is the most important living composer?’ in a meaningful way, then I would suggest something like ‘Who is your personal favourite living composer?’ since all we are talking about are composers who, in our personal opinion, have produced works which deserve to played for many years. You can try and bolster that opinion by reference to other factors – such as the extent to which they influence other composers, or the degree to which they have developed their own ‘language’ for instance – but at the end of the day the selection of those criteria are themselves value judgments.
(I won’t descend to address Parla’s points, other than to say that he has yet again demonstrated (malgre lui as he would no doubt put it) his inability to see beyond his own ego and accept that his views are no more valid than anyone else’s. ‘I don’t deal with any of my preferences’ indeed.)
I am also slightly unclear about what is meant by ‘difficult’ music – certainly I can see little difficult about Boulez for instance. Either you like a piece or you don’t. (As an aside, last night I was playing Takemitsu’s Valeria (which incidentally shows the influence of Boulez) which I suppose could be classed as difficult. Certainly, my wife thought it was just random noise, but my 15 year old daughter – who perhaps has less preconceptions than her parents – thought it was brilliant.)
To take an analogy, I simply don’t understand rap music (I admit to not having heard that much, but bear with me). But I know that millions of people really appreciate it and enjoy it, so I am probably in the minority on this. So, as far as I’m concerned, rap music is ‘difficult music’. But that doesn’t mean it’s any good, or that it’s bad – it simple means that I find Boulez more accessible than rap.
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 10:22AM
#3
RE: RE:
I As an aside, last night I was playing Takemitsu’s Valeria (which incidentally shows the influence of Boulez) which I suppose could be classed as difficult. Certainly, my wife thought it was just random noise, but my 15 year old daughter – who perhaps has less preconceptions than her parents – thought it was brilliant.)
Your 15 year old daughter needs to grow up and your intelligent wife needs to find herself a new man.
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 1:59PM
#4
RE: Most important living composer.
Before tempers flare too much, may I suggest the following synthesis incorporating views of Philip, Mark, Parla and Guillaume.
Is such a synthesis possible? Let’s see.
First to the question as re-formulated by Philip (I’ve taken the liberty of dividing it into two separate parts:
A. 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;
B. '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.
I concentrated in my reply to Part B. My answer is that all the composers mentioned by Philip (not all of them living, however) satisfy the criteria. Boulez provides an example most of us have discussed so let’s stick with him as an example.
Mark, you concentrated in your response on Part A, what is amiss with our present culture. As you know I agree with what you say, but I would add that composers themselves and their music must share the blame. At the least, Mark and Parla agree with my statement that “It does seem though that 'significance' and 'popularity' seem to be drifting further and dangerously apart.” “Significant” music has, since Schoenberg become the increasingly passionate concern of a decreasing proportion of music lovers (indeed that is what Schoenberg wanted, and not just for his own music). So those of us who enthusiastically espouse Boulez’s music are a minority. In saying this, I’m afraid Parla is right. And I say it as one who much appreciates Boulez music. We have to recognise that it is partly because we are such a minority that all the complaints made by Mark and Jeff are so true. Why should classical music be supported if it is the prerogative of an increasingly exclusive club, however devoted its members.(The chicken and the egg come to mind).
I’ve been thinking again about something that Guillaume wrote:
“Most new works I've heard in the 21st century, a few "modern" gestures apart, could have been written any time in the last hundred years. I almost prefer the prevailing situation 30 or 40 years ago, when any new work performed at a mainstream concert could be guaranteed to set the audience's teeth on edge.”
Perhaps Guillaume has something here. Is there evidence that the phase of extremes (significant v. popular) is beginning to have run its course? There are at least two generations of composers younger than Boulez. Who are the most important ones, and what is their music like? Are the two extremes drawing closer again? And if so is this a good thing?
Finally, to CraigM’s suggestion that we ask the question ‘Who is your personal favourite living composer?’, my answer would be, why not? It’s not the same question but let’s see who appears on this list.
Perhaps also, when talking of 'important' we need to specify 'important to whom'?
Hoping that this doesn’t annoy anyone too much!
Chris
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 3:00PM
#5
RE: Most important living composer.
To the originator Arbutus:
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.
Yeh I like that!
Hi Chris. Nowhere near annoying! I think that's a very useful synthesis.
Yes perhaps composers have to share some of the blame. Lutoslawski spoke of how too much 20th Century Music had left the ears of listeners behind.
A very short essay by him - less than 4 pages - called 'The Composer and the Listener', and included in Ove Nordwall's 1968 book, is fascinating. 'I must emphasize that I am speaking of the listener undergoing a direct experience and not of him becoming aware of the actual organization of the musical material. I am thus on my guard against all experiments which would lead to a purely mathematical beauty in the arrangement of elements of a musical work'.
Towards the end of this short essay he goes further by stating that obeying the voice of his imagined listener, 'to compose the particular aesthetic experiences of my listener', (nice phrase) helps him to 'an artist's fulfilment of his ethical duty to the society in which he lives'.
What Lutoslawski was getting at as also explained elsewhere is how much he valued the listener's pyschological perception of a work, for example in terms of form, rather than in terms of grasping pitch systems etc...I'm sure there are lots of us who would applaud the value he placed on the actual listening experience. I don't think I could say that about some composers!
Mark
(PS The Nordwall 1968 book, though of interest, is really only half the story of his music, since it stops at the second symphony of 1967, and therefore doesn't include the works from the 70's and 80's which are amongst his major and perhaps more well-known achievements. Unless the book has since been revised, but mine is a first edition by Hansen from 1968).
PPS Craig - thanks for comment. I'm glad your teenage daughter likes Takemitsu! That and the news story today about the in-harmony project both bode well for youngsters!
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 3:42PM
#6
RE: Most important living composer.
For the record, the following living composers have been nominated so far, together with their dates of birth:
Carter (1908)
Boulez (1925)
Kurtag (1926)
Henze (1926)
Penderecki (1933)
Birtwistle (1934)
Lachenmann (1935)
Pärt (1935)
Glass (1937)
Tavener (1944)
Adams (1947)
Knussen (1952)
Turnage (1960)
Only four composers younger than 75.
Only one under 60.
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 4:12PM
#7
RE: Most important living composer.
...That's not bad at all, Chris. It means we "nominate" some "mature" or "seasoned" composers. The crucial question is whether anyone of them can truly "make" it to the end; or to make use of the verb Craig first used: if anyone of them "deserves" the honour.
Personally, I don't find enough features in anyone to make them "worthy" (to deserve) the title of the "most important", but, anyway, we may keep trying to continue the quest.
Parla
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 5:10PM
#8
RE: Most important living composer.
Parla, (and anyone else?): Bad or not, here are some (randomish) comparisons. The year in brackets is that of their 60th birthdays. Most of them were fairly highly regarded by this time, I think (?):
Elgar (1917)
Puccini (1918)
Richard Strauss (1924)
Sibelius (1925)
Rachmaninov (1933)
Schoenberg (1934)
Bartok (1941)
Stravinsky (1942)
Prokofiev (1951)
Shostakovich (1966)
Britten (1973)
Just for amusement!
Chris
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 6:41PM
#9
RE: Most impotant.
Only four composers younger than 75.
Only one under 60.
and none any good.
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 7:56PM
#10
RE: Most important living composer.
Uber: 'Dis is a lot of bollaths senior, a sticka you poopets upper you asseos'.
Hey greengo! Theesa make me holla muchos. Is funnee!I tell my missos and she throwa her head back and laaf more than me eveen.Then she say Aliice? Aleece? (she haf trouble spelling) Who the is Aliice? Then she strike me for talking to ladeez.
I say isa somebody on the music forum. He crazee. She no believe me is a he but never mind.So you no like anee of the composers? Not even whan of them? Theese is funee comment also.
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 8:10PM
#11
RE: Most impotant.
From an article in 'The Arts Desk' (online), today:
"One of the most exciting things to happen in orchestral music in recent years has been the way the music of Pierre Boulez (b 1925) has begun to escape the confines of the specialist contemporary arena and enter the musical mainstream."
Interesting!
Chris
The article goes on to mention Barenboim's performances at the Proms.
http://www.theartsdesk.com/classical-music
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 7:55PM
#12
RE: Most important living composer.
Hi Chris. Your lists and ages make for an interesting point indeed! Hm...And that comment above is food for thought too.
Mark
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 8:20PM
#13
RE: Most important living composer.
Supplementary question for those unwilling to name an 'important' living composer:
Give the name of the most recently born composer who you consider to 'deserve' to be called important!
Chris
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 8:57PM
#14
RE: Most important living composer.
Excellent question Chris.
Boulex is not only "difficult"; he is incomprehensible!
I'm not sure if the above quote represents the first example of humour from Parla. If so, he might like to tell us what to think of that great, if controversial, recording 'Never Mind The Boulex'.
Fri, Jul 20 2012, 9:44PM
#15
RE: living compost.
Sounds like a fake Rolex, you buy it on ebay and when you look at it closely you find it says ROLEZ. Boulex always sounded like a fake to me anyway, sweeping hand across the back of his head.
Do you have different facts to present, dear Mark?
No.
But I wouldn't call your views that Boulez is incomprehensible, rarely played, didn't develop his language and has little influence particularly factual.
The simple point I was making Parla was that I like the work and that I am not alone as the audience was pretty full. For what reason do I like it? It is full of delightful sonorities.
To put it at its simplest, there is a different opinion to yours.
And yours is an opinion Parla.