20th/21st Century Music: Ratings 1 to 10

[Lance]

It will be interesting to see what transpires here given my subject matter, this subject inspired by a recent response to another post:

On a scale of 1 to 10 [10 being your best/highest rating], how would you rate contemporary music ... let's say music composed after 1950 to the present ... composers such as Elliott Carter, Roger Sessions, etc. - or "contemporary" music in general. If you love Baroque, Classical, Romantic and music written up to 1950 and composers generally rate a 9 or 10, as might Mozart, Schubert or Beethoven, how does the "contemporary" music rate in comparison - from YOUR point of view?

My rather generous rating: 1.5. (Beethoven would be a 10.)

No explanations necessary; just looking for a hard number - as you see/hear it.

Hey, don't be ashamed of your rating or don't be intimidated by anyone else on this board. Respond by the answer that comes from your heart!

[Corlyss_D]

Formal classical music - 3

Movie scores - 10

[val]

My rather generous rating: 1.5. (Beethoven would be a 10.)

No explanations necessary; just looking for a hard number - as you see/hear it.

Lutoslwski 7
Berio 7
Dutilleux 7
Britten 7
Boulez 6
Carter 6
Nono 6
Penderecki 6
Stockhausen 5
Tippett 5
Zimmermann 5
Dufourt 5

[gfweis]

Excluding Poulenc, Finzi, Walton, Bliss, Shostakovich, and others as post-1950, but not modernist composers in the sense intended, I suppose I'd give Berio a 1.5 and Britten a 2 (if Mozart & Beethoven are 10's), raising the overall average of post-1950 modernist composers to 1.01.

[DavidRoss]

Early 20th Century (inclunding the tail end of the 19th) seems the richest period to me (Stravinsky, Sibelius, Mahler, RVW, Puccini, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Debussy, Ravel, Walton, Bax, Copland, Barber, Gershwin, etc.), so let's score it a 10. The late 19th gets a 6, mostly due to Brahms, Dvorak, and Tchaikovsky. The early 19th gets a 6, thanks mostly to LvB. The late 18th gets a 6, due mostly to (without Mozart, a 3, and without Haydn also, a 1). Early 18th gets a 6. Adams, Glass, Hovhaness, Reich, Pärt, Lutosławski, Rautavaara, Shostakovich, Takemitsu, etc. make the late 20th comparable to most other periods so I'd give it a provisional 6, with the understanding that in time we may unearth a treasure trove of neglected works that will raise the overall assessment a notch or two.

[BWV 1080]

Carter, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Takemitsu and Dutilleux all rate a 10

[Haydnseek]

On a scale of 1 to 10 [10 being your best/highest rating], how would you rate contemporary music ... let's say music composed after 1950 to the present

I'll give it a collective 3. I think it's important that new music be performed and keep hoping I will hear something I'll really love, but very, very little of it works for me - almost nothing really. I really wish the picture were different. I can't bring myself to attend concerts of the old warhorses anymore (though I still enjoy recordings of them very much.) Jazz is the form of contemporary music I listen to with the most pleasure.

[Cyril Ignatius]

With Beethoven, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky and Brahms as 10s, I might collectively give recent compositions a five, very generously. I can only give a vague collective rating because so few of the compositions I've heard really intice me to look further. They often play them as opening pieces in the concert halls - and most I just take in - I try to find what I can in them, but for the most part I just don't find them beautiful. Many are okay in their own way, but overall I'm indifferent. I know some people obviously love the dissonence and atonlity, and that's fine.

There are sriking exeptions to my overall response to modern pieces:. I recently heard "Old and Lost Rivers" by Tobias Picker, at the Cincinnati symphony. I really like that piece and wish they would record it and give Tobias PIcker lots of support.

A typical example of the contrast between the older beautiful classics and the modern was on full display at the Cincinnato Symphony this past weekend. The first half was modern pieces, and with the exeption of one gentler and melodic piece, I was indifferent. The second half was Mahler's First Symphony, marvelously conducted by Junichi Hirokami. It was great.

[Blip]

The problem with comparing the contemporary scene to the late 18th century is that the comparisons don't include the mediocre composers of the earlier age, which would always bring down the average. You rate Beethoven and Mozart as a 10, naturally, but add in, oh, say, Benjamin Carr, Alexander Reinagle, Pierre Landrin Dupont, and James Hook, and the rating of the era drops considerably. The number of bad or unkown composers always overhwhelms the number of great ones, so that the whole age looks pretty medicore. ("I mean, except for Haydn, Mozart, Schubert and Beethoven, the music from 1780 to 1830 just sucks.")

I'd rate Carter and Wolpe each as an 8 or a 9, but John Adams as a 3 or 4, and so on. In this way, every age that has ever been rates about a 5. Look at the winning percentages for the entire history of major league baseball. No matter how good or bad the reputation of a particular franchise, they all cluster around .500.

[DavidRoss]

The problem with comparing the contemporary scene to the late 18th century is that the comparisons don't include the mediocre composers of the earlier age, which would always bring down the average. You rate Beethoven and Mozart as a 10, naturally, but add in, oh, say, Benjamin Carr, Alexander Reinagle, Pierre Landrin Dupont, and James Hook, and the rating of the era drops considerably. The number of bad or unkown composers always overhwhelms the number of great ones, so that the whole age looks pretty medicore.

Exactly. Except that the early 20th Century was an exception, and you're mistaken about Adams (a 3 or 4? balderdash!).

Cyril Ignatius--I've a nice recording of Picker's Rivers together with Hovhaness's Mysterious Mountain, Takemitsu's Tree Line, and John Williams's Bassoon Concerto, Five Sacred Trees--Williams/LSO Sony.

[Blip]

Exactly. Except that the early 20th Century was an exception, and you're mistaken about Adams (a 3 or 4? balderdash!).

Well, maybe as high as a 5, but I've never found Mr. Adams' music any better than fair. I agree with you about the early 20th century, though: an extraordinary period. It's always been my favorite. There was so much going on, with many great composers writing in many different styles.

[johnQpublic]

8

[jbuck919]

I can't do any better than Lance--1.5. But I hope he and all of us would agree that this does not mean worthlessness. It just means that we are dealing with mere art instead of colossal art.

[karlhenning]

I can't do any better than Lance--1.5. But I hope he and all of us would agree that this does not mean worthlessness.

No, just as $15 is not worthless compared to $100 :-)

[Corlyss_D]

It just means that we are dealing with mere art instead of colossal art.

Even the term 'art' can be challenged when it turns off so many people. I think a lot of these composers are legends in their own minds and the minds of those who invite them to cocktail parties for their brilliant repartee.

[karlhenning]

Even the term 'art' can be challenged when it turns off so many people.

Right, so the Beethoven late quartets aren't really 'art' are they? If 'art' is contingent on acceptance by the booboisie.

[Corlyss_D]

If 'art' is contingent on acceptance by the booboisie.

Are you including the knowledgeable concert-goer in your dismissal? I wasn't referring to people who don't listen to classical music at all. And I certainly wouldn't refer to people who do listen to classical music as "booboisie." Just because a music student can string together mathematically or intellectually satisfying musical sounds don't make it music any more than Barbara Cartland's stringing together words makes her a artist (using the term in the most general sense).

[Blip]

It just means that we are dealing with mere art instead of colossal art.

Even the term 'art' can be challenged when it turns off so many people. I think a lot of these composers are legends in their own minds and the minds of those who invite them to cocktail parties for their brilliant repartee.

Well, here we go again. This argument has been rehashed to death, and it always ends up in the same place: the people who do like moderism think the people who don't like modernism think the people who do like modernism are elitist, and the people who don't like modernism think the people who do like modernism think the people who don't like modernism are boobs.

I won't get into any of that. I can only speak for myself and cannot take responsibility for anyone else's reaction. I can understand why knowledgable concert goers don't like some of my favorite composers, and I respect it. On the other hand, I have never invited any of my favorites to a cocktail party and flattered myself with their presence. Lance asked for a response from the heart and I gave mine. I love a lot of this stuff (see my review of the new Bridge disk on the Carter thread). What others may regard as dissonance or ugliness, I regard as power. Of course, there are some phonies and no-talents among the current generation, but that's true in every generation.

[karlhenning]

If 'art' is contingent on acceptance by the booboisie.

Are you including the knowledgeable concert-goer in your dismissal?

Are you including great art in your dismissal? :-)

I borrowed the term "booboisie" from Mencken, of course.

But there are three errors of the broad brush in your post here, Corlyss. (1) That all new music is of the same character, and/or of the same level of quality; (2) That composers who don't write warmed-over StuffThatEveryListenerAlreadyLikes are charlatans; and (3) That no knowledgeable concert-goers (or an inconsiderable percentage of concert-goers) appreciate new music.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Corlyss_D]

Are you including great art in your dismissal?

If it's inaccessible to even knowledgeable people, can it be great? Can it be art?

I borrowed the term "booboisie" from Mencken, of course.

I can't ask him, so I asked you.

But there are three errors of the broad brush

You're jumping to conclusions since I didn't specify any particular composers or compositions. I know who I have in mind. You have a different list obviously. That's okay. I'd don't want to talk specifics. Generalities serve better for a discussion of the notion that the 20th Century has failed woefully to produce nearly the quality of composer and music that the 19th did. 500 years from now, people will still be playing and admiring most of the 19th Century output and looking on the 20th Century's as a curiously and inexplicably dark void. This reminds me I owe you those articles on human and other nervous system preferring tonality. They are around here somewhere . . .

[karlhenning]

Are you including great art in your dismissal? :-)

If it's inaccessible to even knowledgeable people, can it be great? Can it be art?

That is a tendentious simplification. I'm a knowledgeable person, and I find Carter's Boston Concerto "accessible."

We will probably find some knowledgeable person somewhere who finds practically any piece of music which has been composed "accessible," so that pretty much takes care of attempts to dismiss greatness or arthood on that basis.

. . . This reminds me I owe you those articles on human and other nervous system preferring tonality.

I await these with interest.

Cheers,
~Karl

[karlhenning]

Hey, don't be ashamed of your rating or don't be intimidated by anyone else on this board. Respond by the answer that comes from your heart!

I rate at 10:

Prokofiev, Symphony-Concerto for Cello and Orchestra
Prokofiev, Symphony No. 7
Shostakovich, Symphonies Nos. 10, 13, 14, 15
Shostakovich, The Execution of Stepan Razin
Shostakovich, Suite on Verses of Michelangelo Buonarotti
Shostakovich, Viola Sonata
Shostakovich, Violin Sonata
Shostakovich, String Quartets Nos. 12 & 13
Stravinsky, Agon
Stravinsky, Cantata
Stravinsky, Canticum Sacrum
Ligeti, Lontano
Ligeti, Atmosphères
Ligeti, Piano Concerto
Wuorinen, Third and Fourth Piano Concerti
Wuorinen, Genesis
Wuorinen, Mass for the Restoration of St Luke's
Wuorinen, Piano Quintet

I rate at 9.5:

Stravinsky, Requiem Canticles
Stravinsky, Movements for Piano and Orchestra
Boulez, Le marteau sans maître
Boulez, Pli selon pli
Carter, Double Concerto for Harspichord, Piano and Two Chamber Orchestras
Wuorinen, Percussion Quartet
Moody, Akáthistos Hymn
Moody, Passion & Resurrection

I rate at 9:

Stravinsky, Threni
Wuorinen, Concerto for Amplified Violin
Rautavaara, Vigilia
Shatin, Ignoto Numine
Erb, Ritual Observances
Andriessen, Hoketus
Harvey, Mortuous Plango, Vivos Voco

[jbuck919]

Lance is an extremely mild-mannered and affable moderator, for which I thank on a daily basis whatever gods there be. It is unlike him to start a controversial thread, and I imagine he did not anticipate the baggage some of us carry with us on this topic.

Lance wasn't asking for individual ratings of either pieces or composers on a scale of one to ten (he mentioned Beethoven as a 10 as an exemplative benchmark, not so we could say specifically that Milton Babbitt was a "1.") He was asking for a relative rating of music before circa 1950 (which includes Shostakovich and Stravinsky even though they died later) and music of the newer era. Did anyone really have to draw a picture to see what he was getting at?

I'm sorry Lance, you did not appoint me your interpreter, but just kick me off the board (or at least in the rear) if I've got this wrong and all these rushers in have it right.

[karlhenning]

Well, those ratings are from my heart, and I know you're not trying to intimidate me, John

[Corlyss_D]

We will probably find some knowledgeable person somewhere who finds practically any piece of music which has been composed "accessible," so that pretty much takes care of attempts to dismiss greatness or arthood on that basis.

Accessible to one is not even a starter in defining art, which is just modified communication, like a fingernail is a modified hair. At the core, art must communicate, or it ain't art.

I await these with interest.

The thing that hung me up last time was that the articles were unreadable technical stuff. I may send them if I can find the urls, but please don't feel obligated to read them.

[DavidRoss]

...the 20th Century has failed woefully to produce nearly the quality of composer and music that the 19th did. 500 years from now, people will still be playing and admiring most of the 19th Century output and looking on the 20th Century's as a curiously and inexplicably dark void.

Understood as opinion, fine. But presented as a statement of fact, simply wrong. The twentieth century--especially the first few decades--was as fecund in music as in all the other arts. Mahler, Sibelius, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Barber, Bartok, Bax, Vaughan Williams, Copland, Gershwin, Hindemith, Holst, Strauss, Janacek, Nielsen, Shostakovich, Walton, Villa Lobos, Satie, Poulenc, Ives, Piston, Messiaen, Korngold, Berg, Elgar, Rachmaninov, and Puccini gave us as much quality and variety of marvelous music as all the previous centuries together, and that's only in the first half of the 20th. The second half is too recent to have been digested by all but a few specialists, yet there is no reason to believe that when the cream rises to the top it won't prove nearly as rich.

You might say (or jbuck would) that no period equals the late 18th/early 19th centuries when Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were all alive. I agree that it was an astonishing time for music. But certainly no more than the late 19th/early 20th centuries, with Debussy, Sibelius, Mahler, Stravinsky, and Prokofiev all at once.

I love Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms...as well as many other old boys like Vivaldi, Berlioz, Dvorak, Schumann, Zelenka, usw. But my love for them does not prevent me from enjoying, appreciating, admiring, and loving many superb composers who stood on the shoulders of these giants and reached ever higher. And I am flabbergasted whenever I encounter someone who exhibits so much good sense in so many ways yet who denies that any great music has been written since Brahms (or Beethoven, or Haydn, or Monteverdi, etc.). It's like claiming that Dickens was the high point of English literature and nothing since has been worth reading, or that painting went straight downhill after Raphael: it's a point of view, hardly a fact, and not a very informed or enlightened point of view at that.

[springrite]

Lutoslwski 7
Schnittke 9
Feldman 9
Ligeti 8
Berio 7
Perle 6
Rorem 6
Pettersson 8
Kurtag 7
Dutilleux 7
Rihm 7
Maw 6
Gubaidulina 8
Lindberg 5
Saariaho 7
Rouse 6
Session 6
Xenakis 7
Veinberg 6.5
Henze 6
Dallapiccola 6
Salonen 7
Boulez 6
Carter 10
Nono 6
Penderecki 6
Stockhausen 7
Zimmermann 7
Messiaen 8
Takemitsu 8
Birtwhistle 7
Adams 5
Glass 2

[Corlyss_D]

Understood as opinion, fine. But presented as a statement of fact, simply wrong. The twentieth century--especially the first few decades--was as fecund in music as in all the other arts.

No way. Neither in terms of quality or quantity or influence. Just for grins, try checking a music history book - Grout, Machlis, Crocker - and see just how many pages are occupied in mid-late 20th Century music compared to the 19th. Whereas the visual arts continued to flourish and evolve, formal classical music all but collapsed. People won't pay to hear it. They don't buy the CDs. They don't want it. Yet composers continue to strain at the very modest output they do manage to produce in a style that most people don't want to hear. If conductors didn't program such music in with warhorses, it would rarely be heard at all.

[Dickson]

Boy, what a tough question. I really don't like judging music on a scale...it's like saying X is the greatest composer ever..I can't do that.

There's so much in the 20th century to love...Ligeti, Berio, Stravinsky, Webern, Schnittke, Bartok...how can you say anything but that it was a great time in which to live and be a music fan?

Of course there are composers I haven't gotten yet (Carter and the "angry" composers from the 60s still come to mind...sorry Blip), but I won't give up on them.

Ok..I'll give this period an 8.36 out of 10. If I knew what 10 was...I'd listen to it more.

[karlhenning]

Accessible to one is not even a starter in defining art, which is just modified communication, like a fingernail is a modified hair. At the core, art must communicate, or it ain't art.

Doesn't matter, unless you're trying to say that things which I find accessible, will be accessible to me alone.

All of the pieces on my list are a matter of public record, because a sizeable group of people find them accessible.

And, it is a matter of historical record, that a great many pieces which are now standard repertory, were decried in their day by conservative audiences as (essentially) inaccessible.

[Corlyss_D]

how can you say anything but that it was a great time in which to live and be a music fan?

Easily.

[Corlyss_D]

All of the pieces on my list are a matter of public record, because a sizeable group of people find them accessible.

History will judge. But I'm not coming back in 500 years just to find out what history says about Lygeti and Lutoslawski. I'll be busy with other things by then.

And, it is a matter of historical record, that a great many pieces which are now standard repertory, were decried in their day by conservative audiences as (essentially) inaccessible.

Yeah, but not necessarily dispositive.

[karlhenning]

Yeah, but not necessarily dispositive.

That is neither more (nor less) true of Medieval/Renaissance music, than of 20th-century music.

There are more people who just plain like this new stuff, than you are giving credit for, Corlyss :-)

[Corlyss_D]

There are more people who just plain like this new stuff, than you are giving credit for, Corlyss

Well, I didn't say nobody liked it. But obviously the numbers are shockingly small considering. Otherwise, writers like Lebrecht wouldn't be continually announcing the death of classical music, or its "museumification." Opera companies would be clamoring to produce Blitzstein instead of safely producing Rossini and Verdi. Symphony orchestras would not be described as "fearless" in proforming things written after 1950. Conductors wouldn't be described as "champions of modern music" - it wouldn't be discussed at all. It would be routine. Is it routine among generalists? Or is it the purview of specialists? I think we both know the answer to that.

[karlhenning]

There are more people who just plain like this new stuff, than you are giving credit for, Corlyss :-)

Well, I didn't say nobody liked it. But obviously the numbers are shockingly small considering. Otherwise, writers like Lebrecht wouldn't be continually announcing the death of classical music, or its "museumification." Opera companies would be clamoring to produce Blitzstein instead of safely producing Rossini and Verdi. Symphony orchestras would not be described as "fearless" in proforming things written after 1950. Conductors wouldn't be described as "champions of modern music" - it wouldn't be discussed at all. It would be routine. Is it routine among generalists? Or is it the purview of specialists? I think we both know the answer to that.

My esteemed Corlyss, each of these points can be addressed; nothing is as easy as these bullet-points suggest, and the whole plate is a tendentious reading as a sum-of-the-parts.

I think one of the most telling things about this exchange of ours is, that you are doing some wolf-crying — hasting to panicked pronouncement of the supposed "death of classical" — while I, who am actually writing music (and in pretty robust obscurity, at that) am not in the least worried.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Volodya]

I've only really heard two composers from 1950 to the present in detail. One is Shostakovich (who I give a 10 for the music he wrote past that year) and the other is Lutoslawski (who I would give a 4 at this point--I need to hear more by him).

I thought about getting some discs by Carter, Cage, Glass and some other composers I see mentioned on this site and others, but it seems pre-1950's music always wins out.

[Blip]

Ok, now I remember why I stopped coming back here ...

[Volodya]

Ok, now I remember why I stopped coming back here ...

Did my post drive you away again, Blip?

[Blip]

Ok, now I remember why I stopped coming back here ...

Did my post drive you away again, Blip?

No, you were perfectly reasonable. It's the persistence and general tenor of these arguments I find unpleasant. I thought I left this kind of thing behind when I moved to GMG.

[RebLem]

...except that I would give Hummel and Field a 5, and Arriaga a 6 or 7.

Most modern music is crap, but then Goldmark wasn't any great shakes either. I'd give George Crumb and Ellen Taafe Zwilich 7's. Not very familiar with most of the others, except I must protest the inclusion of Benjamin Britten in this group. Britten was a great, conservative composer, and for the period he lived in, only Gershwin,Copland, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich are peers to me. They all get 10s.

[Corlyss_D]

I thought I left this kind of thing behind when I moved to GMG.

You mean they don't have "this kind of thing" at GMG?

[Blip]

I thought I left this kind of thing behind when I moved to GMG.

You mean they don't have "this kind of thing" at GMG?

Not since Eric left.

[BWV 1080]

Interesting how the argument goes "I never listen to it, but it is crap"

[karlhenning]

Interesting how the argument goes "I never listen to it, but it is crap"

Or in the case of some, "I went and listened to it once, just so I can say I've listened to it, and it's crap."

[DavidRoss]

Interesting how the argument goes "I never listen to it, but it is crap"

Or in the case of some, "I went and listened to it once, just so I can say I've listened to it, and it's crap."

I like the forthrightness of John's pronouncement that he "knows in advance" that most modern music is crap, thus he needn't waste time hearing it. I'm saddened, however, that he regards this attitude as enlightened (calling to mind, Karl, that related thread on the decline of critical thinking in universities).

[Volodya]

...except that I would give Hummel and Field a 5, and Arriaga a 6 or 7.

Not very familiar with most of the others, except I must protest the inclusion of Benjamin Britten in this group. Britten was a great, conservative composer, and for the period he lived in, only Gershwin,Copland, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich are peers to me. They all get 10s.

Forgot to mention Khatchaturian, who may not have been a 10 but was at least a steady 6 or 7.

Agreed that Gershwin and Copeland were two great American composers, although I wouldn't place them in the league of the Great Ones.

Would like to hear more of Britten (and R. V. Williams, too).

[Gregory Kleyn]

It will be interesting to see what transpires here given my subject matter, this subject inspired by a recent response to another post:

On a scale of 1 to 10 [10 being your best/highest rating], how would you rate contemporary music ... let's say music composed after 1950 to the present ... composers such as Elliott Carter, Roger Sessions, etc. - or "contemporary" music in general. If you love Baroque, Classical, Romantic and music written up to 1950 and composers generally rate a 9 or 10, as might Mozart, Schubert or Beethoven, how does the "contemporary" music rate in comparison - from YOUR point of view?

My rather generous rating: 1.5. (Beethoven would be a 10.)

No explanations necessary; just looking for a hard number - as you see/hear it.

Hey, don't be ashamed of your rating or don't be intimidated by anyone else on this board. Respond by the answer that comes from your heart!

Can a friggin number ever come from the heart?

[Dickson]

Greg, the 8.3 score I gave was straight from my heart. I'm not sure where the .06 came from.

[karlhenning]

Can a friggin number ever come from the heart?

Until the heart can express itself, we find symbols to express what we read there. Why is a number an 'ineligible symbol' for this purpose?

[DavidRoss]

Can a friggin number ever come from the heart?

Until the heart can express itself, we find symbols to express what we read there. Why is a number an 'ineligible symbol' for this purpose?

And the Russian judge gives that comment a score of 8.6 on content, 8.9 on form.