Who is the most recent composer to have entered The Canon?

[IcedNote]

The trick here is, of course, time is an essential element of determining who's in the canon. So someone like John Adams -- is he there already? Or do 100 years need to pass before we can say? If the latter, then who really is the last composer to enter it? Stravinsky? Thoughts?

Curious,

-G

[John F]

Actually, the trick is to define just what "the canon" is. I'm not sure I know. What's your sense of it?

[IcedNote]

Hm, good point.

With a bit of thought, I'd tackle it from two angles: composers becoming staples of Western repertoire and composers forever mentioned in textbooks.

Fairly boring criteria, but I think it fairly sums it up.

-G

[diegobueno]

I am likewise in the dark about what the Canon might be, except that Pachelbel's shouldn't be in it. Garrett's two angles are as good as any I can think of.

Whatever the Canon may be, I think it's pretty safe to say that Stravinsky is part of it, and John Adams is not yet there.

[John F]

That's reasonable. "The canon" strikes me as mainly an academic concept - it is when applied to literature - so "historically important by general consensus" would be one angle. Composers in the international standard repertoire, excluding living composers I should think (too early to "canonize" them) and those of merely local or regional popularity, might be another, though "canon" might not quite fit.

I'd have to think about it.

Is it just curiosity, or do you have something more definite in mind?

[jbuck919]

I am likewise in the dark about what the Canon might be, except that Pachelbel's shouldn't be in it. Garrett's two angles are as good as any I can think of.

Good one, Mark, although I continue to rely on secondary Baroque for my organ repertory and will be playing Titelouze (as in Le tombeau de Titelouze) this Sunday.

I might have dismissed this topic entirely if it had not come from Garrett. When I saw the subject, I was sure it was from another frequent poster who routinely asks such questions. It is telling that such a question is being asked by anyone, for there was a time not long ago when the idea of a semi-closed "canon" would have seemed strange. Nevertheless, that is what we are stuck with, and even Mark, a composer himself, has not attempted to contradict the notion per se. No one wants it to be this way, of course, but non-open-endedness seems to be what we are stuck with. As the director of the Paris Opera said a couple of years ago, Lulu is the last opera in the regular canon, and that is still not going to change this year. There is in fact a gray area, because I have noticed that Britten's operas have some place in European repertory outside of English-speaking countries, but that tenuous situation can be taken as either a sign of hope or of despair.

My exact answer to the question that was actually asked? Well, my life intersects only with Stravinsky and Shostakovich in the sense that as a very young man I might have met them. They are already miraculous in having extended an art that might have died with Brahms in 1897, and frankly, I wouldn't try to stretch things beyond that, as much as I admire some of the music of composers who flourished slightly later. The universe does not owe us an eternity of great art any more than it owes us an eternity as a species, and just as we happen by pure luck to exist in the time frame that is ideal to know about our being in a scientific sense, we happen to be fortunate enough to live on the fringe of the time frame of the great flourishing of western art.

[IcedNote]

"Lulu" brings up an interesting thought -- is Berg in The Canon? From an academic side, sure. But among general audiences and standard rep? Much, much more difficult to determine.

-G

[IcedNote]

Is it just curiosity, or do you have something more definite in mind?

Something triggered the thought this morning, but I can't remember what it was. Maybe just a thought experiment?

In any case, I just took a very scientific look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template: ... th_Century

Working up from the bottom (as in back through time), the first Big Name I come to Boulez, followed very closely by Ligeti. Those two are very curious cases. Maybe I'm a Prisoner of the Moment, but I have a very difficult time imagining those two guys being forgotten anytime soon.

-G

[John F]

Important composers, yes. "Canonical"? I wouldn't say so. One measure of historical importance is influence on other composers and on the course of music history generally. I don't think either Boulez or Ligeti qualifies in either respect, the second because it's much too soon to tell, while the first is just my impression.

[IcedNote]

Many, many, many contemporary composers I know cite the two as primary influences, so I wonder if that'll sustain through to the next generation. I'd say Boulez has a better chance given his other roles (e.g. conductor), and, at least in my circles, he's recognized as The Giant in classical music over the past 30 years.

-G

[John F]

Then perhaps they do belong. Who are some of the composers influenced by Boulez and Ligeti? Obviously I don't know who they are.

[maestrob]

Boulez's music is not, IMHO, part of the canon except to a specialized audience for contemporary music. His influence as a conductor is not so strong either. However, he encouraged a school of contemporary composition that survives his passage, and thus Garrett may be right, in a limited way. I liken Boulez to Boulanger who encouraged and supported a group of composers in 1920's Paris, including Copland. If I were more up on the contemporary scene I would name names, but perhaps I'd better leave that to IcedNote and diegobueno.

[Modernistfan]

It has become very hard to define the boundaries of the "canon," assuming that it even exists. Unfortunately, it seems that recent trends, particularly in the United States where timid programmers are fearful of offending shrinking audiences, have removed considerable repertoire that was entering the canon or was on the verge of doing so. Thirty years ago, it seemed clear that Shostakovich and Prokofiev were clearly in the canon and Lutoslawski was on the verge of entering it. Now, for many American orchestras and radio stations, nearly all of Shostakovich and Prokofiev is off the table and Lutoslawski doesn't even exist. (Yes, there are a few exceptions, but they are becoming fewer and fewer.) Even Carl Nielsen, who died in 1931, and Leos Janacek, who died in 1928, are now too radical and difficult for many American audiences.

[Heck148]

The trick here is, of course, time is an essential element of determining who's in the canon. So someone like John Adams -- is he there already? Or do 100 years need to pass before we can say? If the latter, then who really is the last composer to enter it? Stravinsky? Thoughts?

Penderecki?? Lutoslawski?? Corigliano??

[John F]

It has become very hard to define the boundaries of the "canon," assuming that it even exists. Unfortunately, it seems that recent trends, particularly in the United States where timid programmers are fearful of offending shrinking audiences, have removed considerable repertoire that was entering the canon or was on the verge of doing so. Thirty years ago, it seemed clear that Shostakovich and Prokofiev were clearly in the canon and Lutoslawski was on the verge of entering it. Now, for many American orchestras and radio stations, nearly all of Shostakovich and Prokofiev is off the table and Lutoslawski doesn't even exist. (Yes, there are a few exceptions, but they are becoming fewer and fewer.) Even Carl Nielsen, who died in 1931, and Leos Janacek, who died in 1928, are now too radical and difficult for many American audiences.

I disagree with all of this, for one reason or another. Shostakovich's and Prokofiev's major works are standard repertoire with orchestras, string quartets, and pianists all over the world; in one New York season not long ago, two string quartets were simultaneously playing complete cycles of Shostakovich's quartets. Not so their operas, perhaps, but some of Janacek's operas are now in the standard repertoire of the world's major opera houses. Lutoslawski has never been "on the verge." Nielsen's symphonies have been recorded repeatedly, and the New York Philharmonic has just finished doing the complete cycle; this hardly bespeaks timidity. The programming of classical music on American radio stations is governed by different considerations than that of orchestras, opera and ballet companies, chamber ensembles, and soloists, and is irrelevant to this discussion. Aside from all that, the complaint isn't really relevant to the discussion of what we mean by "the canon," which is not determined by frequency of performance by American orchestras.

[slofstra]

Here is my own crack at defining the point at which a composer enters the canon. It's the point at which the composer's music is played by multiple major orchestras (or vocalists, ensembles, soloists or opera companies, as the case may be), around the world, purely because of the perceived merits of the composer's work, and not at all because of one or more of the following reasons: they are known and liked personally, they have earned and fulfilled a particular commission or commissions, they are the best or one of the best of their particular country, city or region, they are employed as a conductor and conducting their own work, they have been appreciated by only a single generation of listeners. Those attributes may have been present in the past, but may not be present at the point at which the composer's music is to be considered canonical. (I'm a bit serious as I write this, but not entirely. )

So with all that in mind, how do we find those newly present or working their way in to the canon? The composer must be dead, in order to be free of any political influence, say, for at least 10 years. More years are better. The composer's repertoire must be played by at least 5 major orchestras in five separate countries, outside of the composer's own country, better, outside his language group, in at least 10 separate years over a period of 30 years, two of which must be at least 25 years apart. Then he or she could be considered for the ballot on the Classical Composer's Canon.

[some guy]

The list was not terribly impressive, but even so, there were many names on it which are BIG, though probably only to that infamous "specialized audience for contemporary music," which is a convenient way to marginalize what should really be the norm, convenient for those who locate the norm somewhere else, somewhere much farther back in the past.

Remember when people used to go to concerts in order to hear new music? Of course you don't. That was over 200 years ago.

Well, I wish the question had never been asked, myself.

But now that it has been, I guess we have to deal with it. Such a strange idea, though, "the canon." As if....

Here is my own crack at defining the point at which a composer enters the canon. It's the point at which the composer's music is played by multiple major orchestras (or vocalists, ensembles, soloists or opera companies, as the case may be), around the world

OK, then Simon Steen-Andersen and Helmut Lachenmann and Mark Andre and Grainne Mulvey and Peter Eötvöshave all entered "the canon."

Except.

And another exception: other music making situations besides "major orchestras..., vocalists, ensembles, soloists or opera companies."

purely because of the perceived merits of the composer's work

Yeah, this happens. But you kinda spoiled it with the "major orchestras, vocalists, ensembles, soloists or opera companies" bit.

And this. Where did this come from? The poor sap has to be dead. There's a real downer for ya.

The composer must be dead, in order to be free of any political influence, say, for at least 10 years. More years are better. The composer's repertoire must be played by at least 5 major orchestras in five separate countries, outside of the composer's own country, better, outside his language group, in at least 10 separate years over a period of 30 years, two of which must be at least 25 years apart. Then he or she could be considered for the ballot on the Classical Composer's Canon.

Well, this is so blatantly ridiculous, I can only hope that your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek. Because if not....

OUCH.

I've got another model. See what you think.

Listen to music.

Repeat.

[John F]

The composer must be dead, in order to be free of any political influence, say, for at least 10 years. More years are better.

Henry's other requirements aside, and "aside" is where I think is where they belong, let's look at this one.

I too thought that the canon, whatever it is, is of dead composers only, but now not so much. "Political influence" has nothing to do with it, but enough time has to have elapsed for a broad, lasting consensus to form, not just among performers but critics, music historians, musicologists, and other opinion-makers and -shapers. (Sorry, some guy, but that's how it is.) For some works, however, and therefore their composers, the consensus forms long before their deaths, the obvious example being "Le sacre du printemps." The "canonization" of Stravinsky was assured long before 1971. On the other hand, it often happens that after a composer's death, performances of his/her music become infrequent and the works that are performed become fewer. Examples are Schoenberg, who's definitely in, and Schnittke, who probably isn't. But that has no bearing on their standing as belonging to the canon, or not.

[karlhenning]

The trick here is, of course, time is an essential element of determining who's in the canon. So someone like John Adams -- is he there already? Or do 100 years need to pass before we can say? If the latter, then who really is the last composer to enter it? Stravinsky? Thoughts?

Penderecki?? Lutoslawski?? Corigliano??

Interesting suggestions!

Cheers,
~k.

[slofstra]

The list was not terribly impressive, but even so, there were many names on it which are BIG, though probably only to that infamous "specialized audience for contemporary music," which is a convenient way to marginalize what should really be the norm, convenient for those who locate the norm somewhere else, somewhere much farther back in the past.

Remember when people used to go to concerts in order to hear new music? Of course you don't. That was over 200 years ago.

Well, I wish the question had never been asked, myself.

But now that it has been, I guess we have to deal with it. Such a strange idea, though, "the canon." As if....

Here is my own crack at defining the point at which a composer enters the canon. It's the point at which the composer's music is played by multiple major orchestras (or vocalists, ensembles, soloists or opera companies, as the case may be), around the world

OK, then Simon Steen-Andersen and Helmut Lachenmann and Mark Andre and Grainne Mulvey and Peter Eötvöshave all entered "the canon."

Except.

And another exception: other music making situations besides "major orchestras..., vocalists, ensembles, soloists or opera companies."

purely because of the perceived merits of the composer's work

Yeah, this happens. But you kinda spoiled it with the "major orchestras, vocalists, ensembles, soloists or opera companies" bit.

And this. Where did this come from? The poor sap has to be dead. There's a real downer for ya.

The composer must be dead, in order to be free of any political influence, say, for at least 10 years. More years are better. The composer's repertoire must be played by at least 5 major orchestras in five separate countries, outside of the composer's own country, better, outside his language group, in at least 10 separate years over a period of 30 years, two of which must be at least 25 years apart. Then he or she could be considered for the ballot on the Classical Composer's Canon.

Well, this is so blatantly ridiculous, I can only hope that your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek. Because if not....

OUCH.

I've got another model. See what you think.

Listen to music.

Repeat.

My "rules" are meant to be prescriptive, not descriptive. Apparently they are being considered by the Classical Composers Hall of Fame, to be established in Toledo, a city who feels that they are too often weighed in the balance against Cleveland, and found wanting. The local establishary is obtaining advice from the Rock and Roll emporium in the neighbouring city and is currently struggling with how to have inductees attend their initiation ceremony, given the current working set of rules.

Incidentally, some guy, I noticed that you also seemed to have stopped listening to music long enough to weigh in on this disdainful subject.

[John F]

Classical Composers Hall of Fame, to be established in Toledo

[IcedNote]

...

Haha, oh, come on now, M! Whether we like it or not, the mass audiences have a say about The Canon, regardless of what the hell the definition is. So as much as even someone like Varese is known to us "insiders," there's very very very very very very little chance he'll be canonized.

I do like your passion, though.

-G

[IcedNote]

Then perhaps they do belong. Who are some of the composers influenced by Boulez and Ligeti? Obviously I don't know who they are.

Well, even if I listed all the composers I know who said such things upon Boulez's passing, it's still a very small sampling of who's "in the know." I think in these cases we'll need to wait a while to see.

In short, it's nearly impossible to be an academic composer and not be exposed to the influence of Boulez. (Though how you respond to that influence is up to you.)

-G

[BWV 1080]

First proposition: the 'canon' is determined by performers not audiences. Composers whose music gets championed by leading performers is the quality test

Based on this Ferneyhough or Finnissy would be the most recent

[John F]

First proposition: the 'canon' is determined by performers not audiences. Composers whose music gets championed by leading performers is the quality test

That may be a test of quality, though I'm not so sure of that, but it's only one of many criteria that add up to the canon, and not the most important one. Fads and fashions, and performers' own personal taste, affect their choices of repertoire, and they are not unaffected by what audiences want to hear. The canon, as I understand it, is essentially an academic concept, not a popularity contest. Measures of a composer's canonicity are his/her prominence or lack of it in books and courses on music history, not in this season's concert programs.

[slofstra]

Okay, I just figured this out. Google reference count, using first and last name.

Brian Ferneyhough - 145,000
Oscar Golijov - 224,000
Ernest Chausson - 352,000
Dmitri Shostakovich - 382,000
Aaron Copland - 483,000
Frederic Chopin - 1,470,000
Joseph Haydn - 10,600,000
Ludwig van Beethoven - 15,400,000
John Adams - 333,000,000 (This is where the method can break down).

Divide the reference count by 100,000, subtract 2 if American, add 1 if Russian, add 2 if non-European, and you get the Google Canonicity Rating, as follows:

Brian Ferneyhough - .5 (not American, but resides there, so deduct 1 or if < 2, divide by 2)
Oscar Golijov - 2
Ernest Chausson - 3
Dmitri Shostakovich - 5
Aaron Copland - 3
Frederic Chopin - 15
Joseph Haydn - over 100
Ludwig van Beethoven - over 150
John Adams - TILT

The Google Canonicity Rating is interpreted as follows:

1 - Has fans.
2 - If alive, may be in the canon one day. If dead, never will be.
3,4 - Border line canonicity.
5 and up - Definitely canon material.

[diegobueno]

In regard to contemporary music, the Canon is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it enables the perpetuation of the same old same old, on and on, thus shutting out further developments in the art, depriving it of fresh blood and slowly starving the art to death.

On the other hand, the lure of a canon of undying masterpieces serves as a stimulus to advanced compositional techniques. The reason the avant-gardist creates for an uncomprehending public is because he feels that this is the surest road to that Canon. The great masterworks of the past, he reasons, were little understood in their own day but are now universally revered. Therefore, one must write music which is ahead of one's time. It was Mahler who insisted that "my time will come", and sure enough it has.

Now supposing that one lives in a musical culture that has no concept of a Canon, and was solely based on the music being created right then. In such a situation, a composer would be obliged to write to the tastes of his contemporaries. He would know that future musicians, future audiences would never know he ever existed, and if they did they would be happy to send his scores to the recycling bin because they had more recent music to listen to. The composer in this culture could not hope that "my time will come". It would impossible to be ahead of one's time, because one's time would be the present and nothing else.

So my attitude towards the Canon is ambivalent. It exists, which may be a good thing or a bad thing, but that's beyond my power to change.

[BWV 1080]

Okay, I just figured this out. Google reference count, using first and last name.

Brian Ferneyhough - 145,000
Oscar Golijov - 224,000
Ernest Chausson - 352,000
Dmitri Shostakovich - 382,000
Aaron Copland - 483,000
Frederic Chopin - 1,470,000
Joseph Haydn - 10,600,000
Ludwig van Beethoven - 15,400,000
John Adams - 333,000,000 (This is where the method can break down).

Divide the reference count by 100,000, subtract 2 if American, add 1 if Russian, add 2 if non-European, and you get the Google Canonicity Rating, as follows:

Brian Ferneyhough - .5 (not American, but resides there, so deduct 1 or if < 2, divide by 2)
Oscar Golijov - 2
Ernest Chausson - 3
Dmitri Shostakovich - 4
Aaron Copland - 3
Frederic Chopin - 15
Joseph Haydn - over 100
Ludwig van Beethoven - over 150
John Adams - TILT

The Google Canonicity Rating is interpreted as follows:

1 - Has fans.
2 - If alive, may be in the canon one day. If dead, never will be.
3,4 - Border line canonicity.
5 and up - Definitely canon material.

Are you sure you did not get the founding father and 2nd president John Adams?

[slofstra]

Okay, I just figured this out. Google reference count, using first and last name.

Brian Ferneyhough - 145,000
Oscar Golijov - 224,000
Ernest Chausson - 352,000
Dmitri Shostakovich - 382,000
Aaron Copland - 483,000
Frederic Chopin - 1,470,000
Joseph Haydn - 10,600,000
Ludwig van Beethoven - 15,400,000
John Adams - 333,000,000 (This is where the method can break down).

Divide the reference count by 100,000, subtract 2 if American, add 1 if Russian, add 2 if non-European, and you get the Google Canonicity Rating, as follows:

Brian Ferneyhough - .5 (not American, but resides there, so deduct 1 or if < 2, divide by 2)
Oscar Golijov - 2
Ernest Chausson - 3
Dmitri Shostakovich - 4
Aaron Copland - 3
Frederic Chopin - 15
Joseph Haydn - over 100
Ludwig van Beethoven - over 150
John Adams - TILT

The Google Canonicity Rating is interpreted as follows:

1 - Has fans.
2 - If alive, may be in the canon one day. If dead, never will be.
3,4 - Border line canonicity.
5 and up - Definitely canon material.

Are you sure you did not get the founding father and 2nd president John Adams?

I'm pretty sure I did. And Quincy. And every other John Adams on Earth.

[some guy]

enough time has to have elapsed for a broad, lasting consensus to form, not just among performers but critics, music historians, musicologists, and other opinion-makers and -shapers. (Sorry, some guy, but that's how it is.)

Hahaha, John. You should really read more carefully. Yeah, that's how canonization works. Of course it does. But that's the problem with it.

My post had to do with alternatives to canonization.

I personally do not give a rat's ass for "the canon." (Sorry John, but that's just how it is.)

I do, however, Garrett's condensation ( sorry--couldn't resist) notwithstanding, enjoy listening to music. Yeah. And there's a sweet festival coming up here in Barcelona in just a couple of days, followed immediately (actually a bit of overlap) by a festival in Prague, where among other things there will be an opera based on my second novel.

Will any of that get any notice by John's critics, music historians, musicologists or other opinion-makers and -shapers? Um, probably not. But so what? We're gonna have a blast. We're alive. We do things. Y'all oughta give it a try sometime. Ya might like it.

[slofstra]

enough time has to have elapsed for a broad, lasting consensus to form, not just among performers but critics, music historians, musicologists, and other opinion-makers and -shapers. (Sorry, some guy, but that's how it is.)

Hahaha, John. You should really read more carefully. Yeah, that's how canonization works. Of course it does. But that's the problem with it.

My post had to do with alternatives to canonization.

I personally do not give a rat's ass for "the canon." (Sorry John, but that's just how it is.)

I do, however, Garrett's condensation ( sorry--couldn't resist) notwithstanding, enjoy listening to music. Yeah. And there's a sweet festival coming up here in Barcelona in just a couple of days, followed immediately (actually a bit of overlap) by a festival in Prague, where among other things there will be an opera based on my second novel.

Will any of that get any notice by John's critics, music historians, musicologists or other opinion-makers and -shapers? Um, probably not. But so what? We're gonna have a blast. We're alive. We do things. Y'all oughta give it a try sometime. Ya might like it.

John has critics? Say it isn't so.

I wouldn't lump anyone who adores Alfred Schnittke in with the canonical shrine worshippers, nor anyone else on CMG. The main purpose of the canon is to give people who can't figure out what they 'do' like, what they 'should' like. It's part of a socialization process for the hoity-toity and the chattering classes and less so, the hoi-polloi. Certainly not for anyone here. I understand we even have someone who dislikes Mozart.

[IcedNote]

I do, however, Garrett's condensation ( sorry--couldn't resist) notwithstanding, enjoy listening to music. Yeah. And there's a sweet festival coming up here in Barcelona in just a couple of days, followed immediately (actually a bit of overlap) by a festival in Prague, where among other things there will be an opera based on my second novel.

Haha, dammit....that's just awful.

Congrats about the adaptation! Who's the composer?

-G

[some guy]

David Means.

They just yesterday gave it a first run in Minnesota, which was apparently quite good. David's having a DVD made of it, anyway, to be available in Prague.

I had some copies of the novel printed for the show in Prague, too. I do not recommend that. It wasn't too much, I guess, but it was way more expensive than I could afford. This is what publishers are there for, to shoulder those costs. Plus now it's up to me to distribute the remaining copies. Also not a pleasant task. Well, it's my own fault for writing something so relentlessly skewed in every way.

Bob Ostertag was at Prague last year, by the way. I thought of you.