Most important living composer.
Mon, Jul 23 2012, 1:04PM
#2
RE: Most important living composer.
Most important living composer? I would say Arvo Pärt and Einojuhani Rautavaara, believing that, in a near future, I will add Thomas Adès to this post...
Mon, Jul 23 2012, 8:57PM
#3
RE: Most important living composer.
Parla, in your last post you wrote:
In any case, I don't think, if we have to stick to the existing rules and values, that we can agree that there is a truly and well established great living composer.
And then:
Chris, this "time for another Haydn string quartet" sounded so "poignant" (in a way). We haven't seen a single sample of a potential String Quartet of a certain value and interest after Shostakovich!
What struck me forcibly here lies in the juxtapositioning of these two statements. I myself do not accept at all that we need to look only for composers who stick to the existing rules and values. But let's accept that condition for the moment. The string quartet is the art form which is the purest expression of those rules and values, isn't it? I mean all the external trappings of orchestral music, questions of timbre and texture are largely absent from the string quartet. Or put it another way, writing a string quartet is hardly an option once you discard the traditional rules and values. No wonder that those composers that eschew the traditional rules and values have largely ignored the string quartet.
If this argument is accepted then it follows that if we cannot identify securely a established great living composer who sticks to the rules and values, we are unlikely to come across a great string quartet. So to some extent it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Interestingly, most of the candidates that have been 'nominated' on this thread (The full list;Carter, Boulez, Kurtag,Henze, Penderecki, Birtwistle, Lachenmann, Pärt, Glass, Tavener, Adams, Knussen, Turnage, Rautavaara), not to mention Monsieur Boulez, are not of this 'rules and values' group, they have chosen to break the mould: and none of them has devoted much if any of their effort to the string quartet medium.
Mark, like you I find that many of these composers, as well as "Gorecki, Lutoslawski, Messiaen and Ligeti raise the bar for me rather than lowering it".
And I agree very much with this "It is of course eminently possible Parla to have sonority, colour, form, design, structure, melody and orchestration all to a fine level and as a total package in a piece. Personally the above composers tick those boxes for me."
Perhaps the saddest victim though is the string quartet, one of my favourite art forms. . Time for another Haydn quartet. Chris
Mon, Jul 23 2012, 9:14PM
#4
RE: Most important living composer.
Or put it another way, writing a string quartet is hardly an option once you discard the traditional rules and values. No wonder that those composers that eschew the traditional rules and values have largely ignored the string quartet.
Interesting that the second viennese school very much embraced the string quartet.
Mon, Jul 23 2012, 9:49PM
#5
RE: Most important living composer.
Personally Ligeti, Messiaen and a few others changed the way I listen...
Mark
They did for me too, I learned to turn the volume down to zero. (..and my speakers go up to 12 )
Mon, Jul 23 2012, 11:04PM
#6
RE: Most important living composer.
My first thought on looking at this thread was that I didn't want to touch it with a bargepole, but it's worth making one small point. With the exception of Knussen - and I'm not even sure there - every one of the composers listed by Chris Johnson has in fact written for the string quartet medium. The attention they've given to it varies, but even in Boulez's case there's the "Livre pour quatuor," which generated "Livre pour cordes." Lachenmann's take is gloriously confrontational, of course (try the "Reigen seliger Geister," otherwise his second quartet). Certainly not all these works are titled "string quartet" - the label designates both medium and composition, which is complicating - but reports of the quartet's death would seem exaggerated. That said, this is 2012; if you're after string quartets formally identical to, say, Haydn's, good luck with that ...
Mon, Jul 23 2012, 11:52PM
#7
RE: Most important living composer.
Dst is quite right. Most of the composers mentioned by both Chris and Mark have composed enough String Quartets (and Chamber Music). From a quick search, here some results:
Carter (6 of them), Kurtag (a whole recent SACD on NEOS with his work on this medium), Henze (5), Penderecki (2), Birtwistle (a full very recent CD on AEON), Lachenmann (3), Glass (5), Adams (1), Rautavaara (2 & a String Quintet), Gorecki (3), Ligeti (2).
So, it's not a "self-fulfilling prophecy". It's just lower and more indifferent music in the medium that gave birth to some of the most glorious, sublime and magnificent music. Shostakovich wrote 15 superb ones and Bartok another amazing 6, by stretching, expanding, developing further, reinventing but always respecting the rules and values. So, thanks to them, we have some String Quartets in the 20th century that vie the best in the Classical and Romantic periods. And then, after Shostakovich...the descent...
Besides, I don't see how "Gorecki, Lutoslawski, Messiaen and Ligeti raise the bar", if the music they produced cannot possibly compete with any previous great composer. Maybe they raise it by leading it astray. Of course, Mark, it is "eminently possible to have sonority, colour...all at a fine level and as a total package in a piece", but, definitely in the previous centuries and possibly in some very greatly established composers of the 20th century. So, in which way the "above composers tick those boxes for you", Mark?
To make my point: I don't expect every potential or existing composer to fully respect the rules and values of Classical Music, but, if he/she/they want to redefine, reinvent them, they cannot produce something that, eventually, betrays, destroys, demolish what this Music is all about. We've already lost the melody, the orchestration, the sense of form, the harmony, practically anything we knew and we left with...sonorities or colours...
Parla
Tue, Jul 24 2012, 6:41AM
#8
RE: Most important living composer.
The Lachenmann quartets are an astounding representation of the anxieties and tensions - political and social - of our time. A very different quartet which I would also propose as a major and significant work is Morton Feldman's String Quartet No. 2, with its mesmerising single movement which lasts around six hours!
Tue, Jul 24 2012, 7:24AM
#9
RE:
To make my point: I don't expect every potential or existing composer to fully respect the rules and values of Classical Music, but, if he/she/they want to redefine, reinvent them, they cannot produce something that, eventually, betrays, destroys, demolish what this Music is all about. We've already lost the melody, the orchestration, the sense of form, the harmony, practically anything we knew and we left with...sonorities or colours...
Yet again a sermon from Parla consisting entirely of unsubstantiated value judgements. What are 'the rules and values of Classical Music' when they're at home? (And this is a rhetorical question, incidentally - I'm not remotely interested in your views on this issue.)
Chris made a good point in his last post about the way in which ‘great’ composers challenge and redefine existing musical forms, and as a result it would be wrong to measure Birtwistle against the criteria which would be appropriate to Bach. Which is exactly right.
If music progresses at all, it’s by composers stretching musical forms beyond what had gone before. Just as Beethoven’s late quartets developed the form in ways which would probably have puzzled Haydn, so Messaien produced in the Turangalila a symphony in which the traditional form is almost unrecognisable.
To suggest that contemporary music represents the destruction of music simply demonstrates what I’ve said before about Parla – that he’s an utter philistine.
Tue, Jul 24 2012, 7:29AM
#10
RE: Most important living composer.
OK Chaps! Just checking you were awake!
It seems though that there were some factual inaccuracies in my post! Sorry.
Oddly, though, whilst living within reach of London (until about 10 years ago) I attended many concerts of modern music, but never once a string quartet by any of these composers. Now, it's too late for me. I'm far away from the concert scene.
I've heard plenty of music 'live' though from all the composers we've talked about, with the notable exception of Arbutus's first choice, Lackenmann, of whom I've heard nothing. What do you recommend for starters, Arbutus?
Chris
PS: I'm by no means restricted to Haydn as far as quartets are concerned, but they do make for perfect summer evening listening (and yes we do have real summer here).
Tue, Jul 24 2012, 12:42PM
#11
RE: Most important living composer.
Here we go round the mulberry bush...
(Sorry I was just singing a traditional and tonal melody).
Generalized value judgements passed off as undisputable facts again.
Parla: Besides, I don't see how "Gorecki, Lutoslawski, Messiaen and Ligeti raise the bar", if the music they produced cannot possibly compete with any previous great composer.
My opinion, your opinion. Get it? Cannot possibly compete with any previous great composer is an opinion.
Messiaen organ's music = some of the finest ever written for the instrument IMO.
Lutoslawski: From Musique Funebre through to the 4th symphony produced a number of masterpieces. He produced several brilliant works. IMO again.
Ligeti's scores are so finely and precisely detailed - try the Concerto for Flute and oboe. Ligeti also wrote a piece full of delicate melodies. Funnily enough it is called Melodien.
We are not left with sonorities and colours on their own. Messiaen's colours are unique precisely because they stem from the highly personal use of his modes. The colours radiate from the modes and the particular sequence of tones, semitones and minor thirds in the given mode. That is the key to understanding Messiaen rather than trying to listen out for birdsong. This, apart from being original when so many others were experimenting with 12-tone music, represents a significant step forward and not a lowering of the bar. Messiaen's achievement was that he developed a highly personal language, which is actually accessible - a kind of private language to speak to God and man with and which grew out of his deeply held religious faith. (Catholicism of course in his case). For me yes (IMO again) a hugely important figure in 20th C Music.
I can't see how you can deny Parla colour, sonority, form, structure, orchestration et al are all present in Lutoslawski's Third either.
Listen again to some Messiaen and Lutoslawski 3. Take a look at Messiaens 'Technique de mon langage musical'.
However, there seems little point in mentioning specific works. The answers back are predictable...that these pieces somehow destroy or betray the great standards, values and rules of the past, that they are not comparable with the glorious classical tradition, that they have somehow led music astray even, they are inferior artifacts etc...etc...
Tue, Jul 24 2012, 2:22PM
#12
RE: Most important living composer.
Mark, don't try always to escape with the "opinion" card and the "IMO" one. Opinions or facts, we have to see whether there is a point of common understanding, which constitutes something more than an opinion. Otherwise, we may simply state our views with no sense of communication.
So my "question" still stands: Did these composers (Gorecki, etc) produce works which can compete with any previous great composer and their work may constitute a worthy continuation of the past well established legacy?
You stated Messiaen's Organ music (in total, I guess). Yes it's fine, as a modern opus, but, still, the question stays: Is Messiaen's organ opus at the same league as Bach's and Franck's? Besides, the Organ music is such a precarious way to judge the role of a composer. There are plenty of very fine Organ composers, like Tournemire, Widor, Dupre, Alain, etc. who, however, remain indifferent and not that influential, except for those who are interested in this very particular instrument's literature.
Lutoslawski's works you mentioned might be "masterpieces" compared to what he has written, but is there any comparison with the masters of immediate past (Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, R. Strauss even Weinberg)? In any case, what is the added value of all these "brilliant works" compared to Shostakovich, for example? In which way, the bar is raised? Because the point is not that I deny the form, structure, or orchestration in Lutoslawski's Third; it's about the essence, the added value, the progress the development of Music, as an Art.
As for Messiaen, contrary to Boulez, he managed to create his language (convenient to him) along with his "Technique (de son langage musical)" to justify his works. In a way, he managed to create some at least memorable works (Quartet for the end of time: uneven but notable), but how influential is he? How many of his works have been established as undisputed (and not as controversial) masterpieces?
So, to sum up, Mark: I don't suggest that contemporary music represents the destruction of music (as Craig attributed to me), but a gradual degradation and alienation of what we used to love, appreciate and value. Because Beethoven's Late String Quartets "would probably have puzzled Haydn", but he would have never felt "betrayed". That's why, when composers, publishers, performers and scholars got to know them, they embrace and help them be established as the most significant music ever written in the medium and even more. However, Turangalia is still produce enough controversy; it's performed rarely and, definitely, it cannot constitute a well established masterpiece.
So, there is and possibly there will always be something in the air, but not (anymore) that significant to make us proud of our past and of this Music we learn to love.
Parla
Tue, Jul 24 2012, 2:51PM
#13
RE: Most important living composer.
Mark, don't try always to escape with the "opinion" card and the "IMO" one. Opinions or facts, we have to see whether there is a point of common understanding,
Not for you there isn't. Opinions are what you espouse as facts Parla.
So my "question" still stands: Did these composers (Gorecki, etc) produce works which can compete with any previous great composer and their work may constitute a worthy continuation of the past well established legacy?
Yes, because they extended the musical language into new areas of subtlety.
You stated Messiaen's Organ music (in total, I guess). Yes it's fine, as a modern opus, but, still, the question stays: Is Messiaen's organ opus at the same league as Bach's and Franck's?
Yes. A comparable addition to the organ repertoire along with Langlais' oeuvre.
Besides, the Organ music is such a precarious way to judge the role of a composer
Why? Bizarre. There were plenty of obscure French and Italian composers of the 18th/19th Centuries who were quite content to be church organists and compose music for what every composer knows is God's instrument. Unsung composers in many cases.
There are plenty of very fine Organ composers, like Tournemire, Widor, Dupre, Alain, etc. who, however, remain indifferent and not that influential, except for those who are interested in this very particular instrument's literature.
Agreed on that one.
Lutoslawski's works...In any case, what is the added value of all these "brilliant works" compared to Shostakovich, for example? In which way, the bar is raised?
The bar is raised in terms of subtlety, sensitivity, delicacy and brilliant use of form in Lutoslawski's case beyond the average sonata form.
As for Messiaen, contrary to Boulez, he managed to create his language (convenient to him) along with his "Technique (de son langage musical)" to justify his works.
Not quite. He created his language to write his works, not to justify them. The technique is an explanation with examples of his language.
Tue, Jul 24 2012, 3:34PM
#14
RE:
However, Turangalia is still produce enough controversy; it's performed rarely and, definitely, it cannot constitute a well established masterpiece.
Turangalia not a well established masterpiece? You must be on a different planet than the rest of us. As for not being performed rarely, I’ve certainly heard it more than once – and I notice that it’s being performed next Saturday at the BBC Proms (which I would have though was a fairly high-profile event). I also notice that this would be the eleventh time in the ROH (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/archive/search/work/turangal%25c3%25aela-symphony/5133).
I also notice that a quick search for Turangalia on Amazon gives a total of 345 results
Yet again seeking to disregard the facts which conflict with your argument.
More generally your suggestion that contemporary music represents ‘a gradual degradation and alienation’ of the value of music of the past merely demonstrates your narrow-mindedness.
Tue, Jul 24 2012, 3:39PM
#15
RE: Most important living composer.
Here we go round the mulberry bush indeed. Much more tactful than "circling the drain" (came to my mind). Or rather, Punch and Judy, pre-Birtwistle: "That's not a masterpiece!" "Oh yes it is!" "OH NO IT ISN'T!"
I much enjoyed the recent posts from Mark and Arbutus (dead right I think about Lachenmann, who surely has in his sights the pernicious effects of monumentalizing intellectual inertia). At the same time, I can see this thread teetering on the edge of a black hole full of sound and fury, signifying squat. Pity, because there's such a genuinely interesting discussion trying to get out.
Chris, wasn't aiming to be pompous - after spending my first 30 years in or near London I moved to the American midwest, where I'm in reach of healthy but inevitably smaller-scale musical culture. My knowledge of recent string quartets is, alas, mediated by little silvery discs.
The interesting thing about this thread is that various names have been put forward and some issues raised.
This means that, as I don't operate a deficit model, where every contemporary name of interest measures up as somehow lacking in comparison with great names in the canon, I can enjoy as you would say Parla 'good exploration, research and eventual listening'.
QED (Quietly Escaping from Despair...)
Mark