Where have the great composers gone?

[A Lark Ascending]

From Phillip Clark earlier in the week:

Where have the great composers gone?

Clark covers a lot of the modern/contemporary music in The Gramophone - incredibly knowledgeable and with a deep knowledge of jazz at the experimental end too. But a bit of a a Young Fogie - has definitely imbibed the 'Darling, I'm so unimpressed' aesthetic they seem to teach at public schools to prepare their boys for leadership. Anyway, here he's decided the sky is falling in. 

And then, later in the week, a reply:

Composers seek a new definition of greatness in a digital age

I especially like: 

"Fixed and hierarchical ideas of “greatness” feel off-kilter with the times, even socially divisive in their narrow view of what greatness is and how it manifests itself not only musically, but also culturally and demographically.

The brilliant composer Shiva Feshareki agrees. “It’s simply a different time. We live in a world where we are constantly sharing ideas. There is a place now for so many different types of music and also collaborations between different types of people on an international level. Do we really care about who is a “great” composer? Or do we care more about how we have more fluidity now, and that we have access to more perspectives, which means art can positively impact the lives of a wider variety of people?” [Brexit and Trump might suggest otherwise, but...]

(I'll forgive use of the A word.) 

Whether it is 'great' or not I certainly find plenty of new music by contemporary composers to keep me interested (even if, like most people, I mostly listen to well established classical pieces).  

Edited July 24, 2016 by A Lark Ascending

[JSngry]

I like the title, relevant to this subject, perhaps. Or not.

 

[A Lark Ascending]

I like Benedetti. She has the talent, she has the looks (fully exploited by her record company). Yet she handles it all with great humility and a commitment to giving back. Much more important, to my mind, than whether a definition of 'greatness' should or should not be projected upon her. 

[papsrus]

I know very little about modern composers (or their relative greatness), but the discussion reminds me of an observation made by New York Times investigative reporter David Barstow, a guy who in his own right has produced important, maybe even "great" work.  

In his view, the single most important aspect of what he does was simply the act of doing his craft as well as he could. Get the process right and letting the chips fall where they may. 

Approaching the work from the point of view of wanting to achieve something great is folly, in his view, and destined to lead to disappointment for all kinds of reasons. 

Perhaps the act of creating a piece of music with the goal of achieving something "great," or the act of listening to a piece of music while trying to discern its "greatness," is folly, too? Perhaps not, but I found Barstow's observations struck a chord with me (no pun intended) in how I listen to music myself. 

I don't instinctively try to place a piece of music in some sort of hierarchy. I don't, for instance, try to evaluate or grade how well the music might succeed in conveying various themes (love, anger, tenderness, etc.) in comparison to other works. I believe I really do try to appreciate a given work in its own right.

I can tell if something is well crafted, I think. I cannot discern its larger social significance or place in history, or don't care to. It's simply not how I listen.

This puts me at odds with those who have evangelical views about the relative greatness of this or that piece of music. But it I think it does come down to craftsmanship for me.

Loved the "Butterflies Remember ..."  That was great!

 

 

[JSngry]

Arlene Sierra, definitely worth a check out!

[A Lark Ascending]

Will give it a listen when I'm back home and not using up an iPhone battery, Jim. Always up for recommendations of the unfamiliar.

Papsrus - agree with your viewpoint. Sometimes the pub blues band up the road can be much more fun than the 'great' legend at your nearest big hall. 

I somehow doubt most composers set out to be 'great' - though some do. Mahler seemed in no doubt of his own genius and the lesser nature of those around him (including his Mrs who he banned from composing!).

Greatness is usually projected on them by commentators - In some cases what they really seem to be saying is aren't I great for recognising Xs greatness.

it's nigh on impossible to keep your ear on the range of contemporary composers currently writing. My perception might be wrong here but I get the idea that in the 60s a fair bit of contemporary music was released on record; but it seemed to be less available after the 70s. There seems to be a lot more available now, possibly due to changes in recording methods. 

I tend to focus on British stuff, not out of chauvinism but just because it links with my interests with earlier British music. Otherwise I tend to respond to things from anywhere heard on radio, reviews in the press or enthusiastic recommendations in places like this. 

 

[JSngry]

"Greatness" is quite often a consensus. Things matter in ways that matter to enough people, ok "great"! I'll use the word that way myself often enough, but really, it's a conversational term, little more.

And then you got the kind of greatness that comes from somebody just making shit happen that wasn't there before, personal and cultural triumphs of imagination, vision, will, logistics, all that good stuff. Taht's cool enough, but it's not really about the work itself as it is the realization of the work. A different type of greatness, no doubt.

But then you got the stuff that really does move things "ahead" or "raises the bar" or whatever, things that you can more or less empirically show that things were one way before, another way after. That's not always going to align with linear historical reality but it will align with enough people saying, hey, this did that to me. In that category you have very few people in very few realms - Bach, Bird, Stravinsky, Einstein, DaVinci, works of that character.

And that's just within the realm of recorded Euro-Centric history, which I in no way seek to dismiss or minimize. Just saying that I don't know what I don't know about the rest of the world and its histories (if one allows for the whole Pangea theory - and I think one should - then there are enough questions and propositions coming out of that to keep anybody busy) , so a little humility about what constitutes real, true, unequivocal "greatness" is called for, I think.

But as a conversational/marketing game (and take about the snake that swallows itself...), sure, why not. But beyond that...too easy to believer the hype and or take the bait.

[A Lark Ascending]

Accept the consensus idea - helps  for some time to pass for that to convince. I'm also comfortable with a judgment based on considerable evidence, clear criteria and at least an attempt at objectivity (as far as that is possible for anyone - I know no historian manages it but some are much better than others). I'm not going to dispute the greatness of Bach or Shakespeare - not because I have the means to detect it (though I like both), just because I've been convinced by many writers who know far more than me and whose judgment I trust. I might initially listen/read/watch them because of their reputation of greatness - but I carry on because I enjoy them.

Very often, however, the term is used to mean 'I really, really like this...and you should too'. Now that's fine if the term is used a la Tony the Tiger; but it's often used  to imply something much bigger without a great deal of support beyond 'I say so.'

 

[JSngry]

Yeah, well that only holds up until it doesn't.

[MomsMobley]

Samuel Adler, Dallas to Denton November 1963

Samuel Adler profile

Quartet 10

 

[fasstrack]

This is interesting to me, as a composer, on many levels.

First off, I believe classical music has always been 50-100 years ahead of jazz in harmonic materials. This is doubtless because composers get to work out their ideas with deliberation, while jazz (when done right) is definitely compositional, but more on-the-fly. Of course there is jazz composition, too. I'm speaking here of improvising. 

For example, jazz players started using devices like 4ths and pentatonics in, roughly, the '60s, borrowing concepts from composers like Berg, Debussy and Bartok worked out years before. It's true that 'great minds think alike', but it took the jazzers a while to get there. The jazz composers got there earlier. Don Redman was into whole-tone scales in the '30s.

Second, where classical composition took a turn that lost me was back in the early part of the 20th Century with serial music. I realize I am opinionated and perhaps prejudiced, but I found that school generally to be sort of paint-by-numbers. I have to hear something myself, in order for it to come out any good. I had a teacher in college, Ed Summerlin, who told us to make up artificial scales and write off them. Didn't work for me, but maybe I'll try it sometime. Anyway, Berg and Webern wrote very moving music with some of those materials. To me, Schoenberg was kind of dry---like Lennie Tristano. Brilliant, but I need some humanity too. 

I must admit I stopped listening to classical music, and want to resume in an effort to learn and grow as a composer. So I will check in here once in a while to get ideas and recommendations of who is writing interesting things these days. I never was one to stay stuck in any one period of music, and in my mind put musicians who do that on a lower tier, though I certainly respect their accomplishment and enjoy their playing/writing... 

[rostasi]

Two current favorites from this century:

Just about anything by Yannis Kyriakides.
Dropping you into the middle of his "a conSPIracy cantata."

and Tristan Perich.
This is from a performance I attended of his work for 10 violins and 10-channel 1-bit music.