Current day masters?

[BWV 1080]

Ligeti comes closest, but he misses the mark by some margin. Contemporary music is by and large a lost cause, mainly because contemporary society is a lost cause as well. We live in a world of relativity, where all conceptions of greatness and objective values in art are no longer relevant, then why are we surprised we are seemingly incapable of recognizing a master among us, were it possible for such an individual to actually rise into the general consciousness of audiences today?

Western civilization committed cultural suicide at the turn of the 20th century and western art went down along with it, and that's that. The only composer i consider to be a master in the true sense of the word is Webern, and he died in 1945, prophetically enough.

But by all means, have at it people. Now that even the greatness of past masters is put into question, there's literally hundreds of obscure and (rightly) forgotten composers to 'discover' and 'enjoy', and i'm sure the recording industry is more then ready to capitalize on the stupidity of the average classical music fan.

When we say that conceptions of greatness, as you call them, are culturally conditioned or driven, it does not mean they are completely relative and dependent only on 'taste'. Rather, it admits that there are many different standards in this world, and many different musics. That the German school is not the only one, as good as it is. Jazz, klezmer, Cajun, French Habitant, Celtic, Indian sitar, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilian Salsa, English folksongs. These are all deep traditions, and it's not possible to compare across them.

If, on the other hand, you are referring to the German school itself; it indeed has run aground, it is spent, bereft of life it breathes no more.

Not to be picky, but don't know if Brazilian Salsa qualifies there - perhaps Samba or Bossa Nova. Good basic point though

[karlhenning]

Contemporary music is by and large a lost cause

Poppycock, sir; and you disgrace yourself by giving tongue to such poppycock with every appearance of believing that you are delivering artistic Truth.

Now that even the greatness of past masters is put into question . . . .

Dang, and I missed the memo?

You're fencing at shadows! Tchah, you deserve every ounce of your self-pitying despair :-)

Cheers,
~Karl

[piston]

Living composer Rodion K. Shchedrin (b. 1932)

"Both in his pronouncements and in his creative work Shchedrin occupied a not always comfortable position, straddling the national-traditional and the international-progressive wings and doing everything he judged possible to liberalise conditions for his fellow-composers, yet having little sympathy with the "underground" avant-garde.

If that description suggests a latter-day Shostakovich, the music itself is far more strongly marked by the example of Prokofiev -- in its vivid colours, forceful energy, self-belief and absence of doubt. His First Piano Concerto, a graduation piece from 1954, was a cheerfully extrovert romp that could have been designed as a tribute to Prokofiev who had died the previous year. Twelve years on, the Second Concerto retains that influence, alongside a fascination with twelve-note techniques that had been a presence in Soviet music for the past decade but that was still regarded in some quarters as forbidden fruit. Seemingly relishing the confrontational aspect involved in adopting this idom, Shchedrin was nonetheless determined to write public, communicative music rather than 'to sit around at home writing dodecaphonic music in the privacy of one's own living-room'..."
(David Fanning, 2003. Liner notes of the Hyperion recording of Hamelin playing Shostakovich piano concertos and Shchedrin's concerto no.2, BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra, Andrew Litton.)

If you are unfamiliar with Shchedrin's "public, communicative music," check Google "Video" for excerpts from two of his ballet music scores and a short piano piece.

[Chalkperson]

But by all means, have at it people. Now that even the greatness of past masters is put into question, there's literally hundreds of obscure and (rightly) forgotten composers to 'discover' and 'enjoy', and i'm sure the recording industry is more then ready to capitalize on the stupidity of the average classical music fan.

I can't find the words to address your arrogance that are printable on this site, and if there is anybody that could be New Millenium's foremost master I would have to say Osvaldo Golijov..his new cd with three new pieces performed by Robert Spano, Dawn Upshaw and the Kronos Quartet is the best thing I have heard in years, I strongly reccomend it to anyone with an open mind (obviously not you Opus132)...your attitude is so depressing that I can't even put my customary Winking Emoticon on this post...

[slofstra]

When we say that conceptions of greatness, as you call them, are culturally conditioned or driven, it does not mean they are completely relative and dependent only on 'taste'. Rather, it admits that there are many different standards in this world, and many different musics. That the German school is not the only one, as good as it is. Jazz, klezmer, Cajun, French Habitant, Celtic, Indian sitar, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilian Salsa, English folksongs. These are all deep traditions, and it's not possible to compare across them.

If, on the other hand, you are referring to the German school itself; it indeed has run aground, it is spent, bereft of life it breathes no more.

Not to be picky, but don't know if Brazilian Salsa qualifies there - perhaps Samba or Bossa Nova. Good basic point though

I'm forever mixing up Brazilian dances and taco sauce flavours.

On Saturday I spent a few hours at an ethnic folk music festival, so a few of these things were on my mind. I was especially impressed by a Peruvian group whose music was as layered and complex as any Brahmsian string quartet!

http://www.borealisrecords.com/a_rukanas.html

There's an audio sample, which doesn't do them justice.

[Opus132]

Poppycock, sir; and you disgrace yourself by giving tongue to such poppycock with every appearance of believing that you are delivering artistic Truth.

I'm not delivering anything. The search for objective greatness is a personal quest, a path you have to make for yourself on your own terms.

I'm merely attacking this inane conception there is no feasible path to artistic truth.

Dang, and I missed the memo?

When we say that conceptions of greatness, as you call them, are culturally conditioned or driven

Of course you didn't miss any memo, you are just playing dumb. If the greatness of past masters is merely social conditioning, then the implication is that there is no objective value in their work, which to me is a direct attack to their legacy. Bach isn't really greater then Vivaldi, it's all a result of cultural brainwashing. With this attitude, is there any wonder contemporary masters are simply so difficult to find?

[Opus132]

I can't find the words to address your arrogance that are printable on this site

It's not arrogance, i'm merely pointing out what i see. The sheer amount of ignorance and lack of taste displayed by classical music fans in general is abysmal, almost stupefying.

[Chalkperson]

I can't find the words to address your arrogance that are printable on this site

It's not arrogance, i'm merely pointing out what i see. The sheer amount of ignorance and lack of taste displayed by classical music fans in general is abysmal, almost stupefying.

I guess you are just a superior being, better than the rest of us, and i'm sorry, but I think your attitude is more a sad reflection upon yourself, than the music...

[slofstra]

If the greatness of past masters is merely social conditioning, then the implication is that there is no objective value in their work, which to me is a direct attack to their legacy. Bach isn't really greater then Vivaldi, it's all a result of cultural brainwashing. With this attitude, is there any wonder contemporary masters are simply so difficult to find?

That's a good point to make. If by 'the greatness of past masters' you mean 'their music' then your critique makes some sense. But the phrase, which is your phrase I might add, refers to our (the listeners) conception of greatness. Remember, we decide who is great; the composers just make their music. And our decision is culturally conditioned. An objective comparison of Bach and Vivaldi is quite reasonable to make since the cultural touchpoints are quite similar. (Although Chinese ears might evaluate those two composers differently from American ears). But how do you compare Shostakovich and Takemitsu?

[Opus132]

Remember, we decide who is great; the composers just make their music.

Nonsense. The greatness is inherent in the music, the individual merely needs to atone to it.

But how do you compare Shostakovich and Takemitsu?

You compare their relative achievement within their chosen idiom as well as the amount of craft required to succeed within said idiom.

[diegobueno]

No. Why? Patronage made these composers and it simply doesn't exist in a way that would allow that even if classical music hadn't reached its developmental limits by the 1930s. I know someguy and Mark will argue the point, but I'm in general agreement with John that there's nowhere for classical music to "evolve" to anymore.

Since you've charged me with the task of responding I feel duty bound to follow through. It is quite true that the 20th century brought the centuries-old process of expanding the permissible harmonic combinations to its culmination. In so many other areas, the 20th century brought taboo-breaking to its farthest limits. John Cage is a hard act to follow. Once you've reached a point where everything is permissible and anything can be music, where do you go from there?

I think you would be shortchanging the human imagination to say there is nowhere to go. Music will continue to develop along different axes, in ways we haven't considered yet.

You have tonality and tunefulness, or the noisily experimental and that's it,

And that's all there needs to be. The way music will develop in the future will make the two categories irrelevant in any case. Don't ask me how. It hasn't happened yet.

[karlhenning]

Of course you didn't miss any memo, you are just playing dumb.

Thanks, awfully.

If the greatness of past masters is merely social conditioning, then the implication is that there is no objective value in their work, which to me is a direct attack to their legacy.

Why "merely" social conditioning?

Bach isn't really greater then Vivaldi, it's all a result of cultural brainwashing. With this attitude, is there any wonder contemporary masters are simply so difficult to find?

Indulge a brace of questions, then, please. And it is only for purposes of discussion. (I am sure that while we probably do not agree entirely, we are not likely in complete disagreement, either.)

Firstly: If Bach's being greater than Vivaldi is objective truth, you should be able to spell it out, right? You have the floor.

Secondly: So, it is you laboring under the attitude that musical greatness is "cultural brainwashing" (can't swing a dead cat in here without discommoding some strawman or other of yours)? Because (correct me if I'm wrong) you were claiming that there are no contemporary masters, right?

Cheers,
~Karl

[karlhenning]

I think you would be shortchanging the human imagination to say there is nowhere to go. Music will continue to develop along different axes, in ways we haven't considered yet.

A most excellent point, and (in my view) the key to it all.

Cheers,
~Karl

[slofstra]

You compare their relative achievement within their chosen idiom as well as the amount of craft required to succeed within said idiom.

I think you will find that as you chase out the theoretical constructs you've developed in support of the idea of an 'obective reality' in the quality of music, that it will be more and more difficult to support your ideas in practice. What you say here sounds plausible, but it is entirely impossible.

There is a palpable and somewhat definable notion of quality in music. But it is not absolute, and no one has ever been able to define what is meant by 'quality'. Even within a very narrow and common interest such as this forum represents, one finds widely diverging opinions on what constitutes the 'best'. To seek to have these arguments on 'what is best?' in an objective, impartial space usually leads to personal attacks and recriminations. (Often because participants become personally involved with the outcome of the discussion - since it is thought that one viewpoint or the other must 'win').
Does this mean that all things are equal and comparisons cannot be made? By no means. If one accepts at the outset that the matter is entirely a subjective one, such discussions can be very fruitful. Because you can always learn from others.

[knotslip]

Thanks to everyone for the great responses..I can see this is a rather difficult question.

I know Aaron Copeland isn't living but he was not too long ago...Might he be considered a master composer or at least a great composer of his time? He also, from what I've heard, brought some unique sound to the genre....Please be gentle...I am new

Thanks everyone.

[karlhenning]

Thanks to everyone for the great responses..I can see this is a rather difficult question.

I know Aaron Copeland isn't living but he was not too long ago...Might he be considered a master composer or at least a great composer of his time?

I consider Copland a master, as I should have to any composer capable of work of the following quality, and range of character:

El salón México
Sextet
Billy the Kid
Appalachian Spring
Rodeo
Third Symphony
Piano Variations
Piano Sonata
Piano Fantasy

Cheers,
~Karl

[diegobueno]

Copland definitely.

The Clarinet Concerto is another great one, as is the Short Symphony (which he later arranged as his Sextet).

[slofstra]

I've heard all the named orchestral pieces, which may not be his best work. I don't think he will be as well thought of in the future, as he was in his day.

I like 'Rodeo' much more than 'Appalachian Spring'. I've heard his pieces in concert lately but never play his recordings anymore. How would you compare him to Barber, Ives, Hindemith, Stravinsky or Ravel? He seems to be in a second tier with Delius or Walton.

[karlhenning]

I've heard all the named orchestral pieces, which may not be his best work. I don't think he will be as well thought of in the future, as he was in his day.

I like 'Rodeo' much more than 'Appalachian Spring'. I've heard his pieces in concert lately but never play his recordings anymore. How would you compare him to Barber, Ives, Hindemith, Stravinsky or Ravel? He seems to be in a second tier with Delius or Walton.

I think, Henry, I will invite you to listen to the Sextet and to the piano solo music, and see if they suggest a revision in your ranking :-)

Cheers,
~Karl

[Corlyss_D]

I like 'Rodeo' much more than 'Appalachian Spring'. I've heard his pieces in concert lately but never play his recordings anymore. How would you compare him to Barber, Ives, Hindemith, Stravinsky or Ravel? He seems to be in a second tier with Delius or Walton.

I like Copland a lot. I used to dismiss his music as kitch, but Appalachian Spring in the original version for string ensemble (perhaps a quartet, I don't recall), the wonderful Old American Songs, Red Pony, his ballets, Quiet City, his clarinet compositions, Our Town incidental music, are all very ingratiating. I organized my retirement party around a western theme because I was moving to Utah immediately after I retired. I made a tape of music to play in the background during the party, including a lot of Copland, for which exercise I had to relisten to a lot of his stuff anew. I was more impressed with it the more I listened. I think his music easily compares with Dvorak's symphonic works based on folk music. I like him better than Barber, certainly better than Ives, and it would IMO be inappropriate to stack him up against Stravinsky, Hindemith, or Ravel. He just isn't in that latter class, but then he didn't strive to be, and so what if he isn't.

[karlhenning]

I like Copland a lot. I used to dismiss his music as kitch, but Appalachian Spring in the original version for string ensemble (perhaps a quartet, I don't recall)

An ensemble of 13 instruments:

Fl
Cl
Bn

Pf

Strings (22221)

Cheers,
~Karl

[Chalkperson]

I've heard all the named orchestral pieces, which may not be his best work. I don't think he will be as well thought of in the future, as he was in his day.

I agree...

I like 'Rodeo' much more than 'Appalachian Spring'.

That's because when you first heard it, it was by ELP...

He seems to be in a second tier with Delius or Walton.

Not a bad second tier to be in...IMHO...

[slofstra]

He just isn't in that latter class, but then he didn't strive to be, and so what if he isn't.

AND

Not a bad second tier to be in...IMHO...

But knotslip's original question was, "I'm asking if there are any composers comparable to Beethoven, Mozart or Bach composing classical music today? Anyone that even comes close?"

However, I agree that Copland is probably a good place to start because his music is accessible. Would every one agree that the Bernstein set is the logical first choice?
I will keep my mind open to some of his other compositions. Aahh, 'tis a gift to be simple.

[Chalkperson]

But knotslip's original question was, "I'm asking if there are any composers comparable to Beethoven, Mozart or Bach composing classical music today? Anyone that even comes close?"

Osvaldo Gilojov...buy his new cd with Upshaw, Spano and Kronos...

However, I agree that Copland is probably a good place to start because his music is accessible. Would every one agree that the Bernstein set is the logical first choice?

Absolutely, but don't rule out MTT on RCA, just because he is Bernstein's protoge does not say he is not his equal...

I will keep my mind open to some of his other compositions. Aahh, 'tis a gift to be simple.

Try Don Gillis as well...on Albany

[Chalkperson]

He just isn't in that latter class, but then he didn't strive to be, and so what if he isn't.

AND

Not a bad second tier to be in...IMHO...

Joined at the hip? with Corlyss...help...I love her dearly, if truth were known, but, she's a Republican...and what do I do when she becomes Ruthlyss...