Best of the 20th Century

[Kylene]

Alright, while we're on the 'best of's category- why not look at our 20th century composers. <BR>My personal favourites are:<BR>Aaron Copland: incorporation of folk songs and orignial melody, first "american" composer (music has a truly "american" sound).<P>Hindemith: not souly for his compositions, but for his teaching style at Yale (I think Copland was a student).<P>John Williams: proving the most memorable music for movie goers--<P>**Sorry, my composers are US based it seems... not a huge fan of atonality or serial music.<P>Who's the best and why?<BR>

[serge urtizberea]

Not being a fan of modern or contemporary music, I can't offer a detailed opinion, but I'll put my vote forward for either Gershwin or Mark O'Connor. Theirs is very influenced music, very original.

[shostakovich]

Copland as America's best is hard to argue with. His colleagues all thought so. Looking by nationality, I'd pick Debussy and Ravel from France, Walton and Vaughan-Williams from Britain. Prokofiev and Shostakovich from Russia, de Falla from Spain. Stavinsky left Russia for France and then the US, and I'm ambivalent about him. Although I'm leery of "greatest" categories, I think he wrote the single greatest piece of music in the century: The Rite of Spring. It's 87 years old and still fresh. There's nothing else like it. The progression from the dazzling Firebird to the quirky Petrouchka to the volcanic Rite in just 3 years is astounding. After that his work strikes me as clever, guarded, versatile, craftsman-like, but (to me, at least) disappointing. But then I can't really fault Stravinsky for not topping the greatest piece in the century. No one else did.

[Peter]

It surprises me how easily people, especially Americans, when considering the greatest composers of the 20thC, tend to overlook the man who must surely be no.1.<P>This man composed more world-famous melodies than anyone else, by some distance.<P>He comprised one half of 2 out of the 3 most celebrated songwriting partnerships ever.<P>He is the only man to have received ALL 4 top showbiz awards; namely, an Emmy, a Grammy, a Tony and an Oscar (this last-named providing yet another clue!). <P><BR>

[treebeau]

Andrew Lloyd Webber ?

[Peter]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by treebeau:<BR><B>Andrew Lloyd Webber ?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>>><P>Sir,<P>I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your tongue was very firmly in your cheek with that enquiry. Police car sirens are more musical than Mr. Lloyd-Webber.

[LVBfurimmer]

My favorite 20th century musicians would have to be<BR>Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky, and Shotokovich.<BR>I've never been a fan of the Armericans. LOL, Peter, I agree about Andrew Lloyd Weber

[treebeau]

How about Richard Rogers, then?<P>(Rogers and Hart, Rogers and Hammerstein)<P>Certainly he must have won awards for film music and stage music.<P>Ah yes, and "Oscar" was the first name of Hammerstein, I think.

[shostakovich]

Hi Peter. I'm guessing you mean Paul McCartney. You don't have to go to this extreme to make me believe you are young. Although I admire McCartney for several reasons, I have trouble balancing "great" with "popular". After all, medicine is not supposed to taste good.<BR>And by the way, I have more trouble balancing "great" with "unpopular" (e.g. Anton Webern, whom Stravinsky thought was wonderful).

[shostakovich]

On second thought, maybe treebeau has the person you have in mind. I like that answer better, but I still have the same reservations. Shos

[Peter]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shostakovich:<BR><B>On second thought, maybe treebeau has the person you have in mind. I like that answer better, but I still have the same reservations. Shos</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>>><P>TREEBEAU:<P>You are correct! I submit, here & now, that Richard Rodgers was the greatest composer of the 20thC. His legacy is, in my view, unrivalled.<P>SHOS.:<P>I`m not that young Why do you have reservations about RR?

[ReedMan]

Greatness measured soley by popularity ? That would be an objective measurement but it would result in a business/marketing/sales answer.<P>Greatness should factor in the influence it has on others as well as its uniqueness. Certainly more subjective and thought provoking. It gets to the heart of artistry.<P>I would vote for Copland and Stravinsky for their symphonic work; Rosza and Gal for their chamber creations. Their best exemplify creativity and works that remain<BR>fresh over time.<BR>

[~Leslie]

This is a good thread. I admit I was a little taken back by no categories. That this is a classical site, you must mean orchestral. I agree that Stravinsky, Debussy, and Copland were major contributors in this category. <P>I would like to add Gershwin and Duke Ellington. <P>Writers for Broadway and movies,......well for certain not Andrew Lloyd Weber, yeesh his melodies are awkward. ~

[Peter]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ReedMan:<BR><B>Greatness measured soley by popularity ? That would be an objective measurement but it would result in a business/marketing/sales answer.<BR>Greatness should factor in the influence it has on others as well as its uniqueness. Certainly more subjective and thought provoking. It gets to the heart of artistry.<BR>I would vote for Copland and Stravinsky for their symphonic work; Rosza and Gal for their chamber creations. Their best exemplify creativity and works that remain<BR>fresh over time.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I absolutely agree that greatness has nothing, but nothing to do with popularity. I only gave my `popular-related` clues for the sake of encouragement.<P>The whole subject of crossover styles is immense, and would be ineptly covered by me here; however, I reiterate that Richard Rodgers wrote more `great` melodies in the 20thC than anyone else. His melodic invention, to my ears, is on a par with Tchaikovsky`s. Rodgers was a classically-trained pianist, & he fully understood the worth of the great classical masters. But, as we all strive to do (in whatever area of life), he drew on his training, influences & talent to carve out a phenomenal career as a composer of the most brilliant songs of the century; and, it should be stated, that THE musical stuff of this century has been, manifestly, through the art of the song.<P>Throughout the world, his tunes are more widely recognised than those by any other composer this century, although many people may not know the name of the author of the melody which they `cannot get out of their head`.<P>Compositional talent is not just about huge orchestration, searing strings & austere settings; it is also to do with the actual skill of composing. Yes, RR wrote for market forces & personal gain, but then again, WHO DIDN`T??!<P>I`m talking here about melodic invention, in whatever musical form; and, subjective though the argument might be, I respectfully use this criterion to determine my personal choice as no.1. <P> <P>

[Kylene]

Okay, lots of talk about musicals and their composers-- how about some trivia...<P>This 20th century composer, in his popular musical wrote a piece entitled "Bring Him Home", whose opera was this piece originally stolen from? (And I mean stolen- not just a couple of bars, the whole thing!)

[shostakovich]

A flurry of excitement at this posting. Peter, I'd like to respond to RR reservtions here. I wouldn't take issue with what you say about him as a tunesmith. But to me greatness lies more in how a composer "develops" a tune (theme). The 3 Bs are not great tunesmiths, but they are among the best in developing. <P>Unfortunately for my case, development sections have not been high priority in the 20th century. And I have to go with symphonists before 1950 as candidates for "greatest". Prokofiev and Vaughan-Williams come to mind. And notwithstanding the fact that more people whistle Rodgers tunes than Prokofiev's, V-W's and half a dozen other symphonists put together, I can't put RR into their league. <P>And another thing that bothers me about greatest for RR is that he had collaborators. The symphonists worked alone. On that criterion, all writers of musicals, opera, operetta, etc would have to be eliminated, except for Wagner whose music dramas were totally his.<P>Because of Wagner's achievements and his vast influence, some critics divide music into "before Wagner " and "after Wagner". I even read once (forgot where) that many people claim he had more influence on his craft (music) than any other individual had on his own (music, art, literature, science, you name it). I wouldn't argue for or against that claim, but personally I'd join you for a look and listen at King and I sooner than accept a free trip to Bayreuth if it meant I had to sit through The Ring. Great can be very hard to take in large doses.<P>From the perspective of the 20th C. greatness from 1600-1750* was largely based on contrapuntal ability (Bach). From 1750-1950* it was based on thematic development (Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms). All this might change from the perspective of the 21st C, and the main criterion for greatness could very well be melody.<P>* Dates are rough estimates.

[Peter]

Shos,<P>I don`t like `The King & I`!! - it`s one of Rodgers` weaker scores.<P>You make some valid points, but you are wrong about collaboration; neither Hart nor Hammerstein ever assisted Rodgers with the music - H & H were lyricists, both experts in their particular field of endeavour. Before rock `n` roll, the roles of the composer & the lyricist within a songwriting team were, generally, adhered to strictly.<P>Richard Rodgers was more than just a tunesmith. His Emmy-winning, 13-hour score for the 50s WWII sea battles TV documentary series, `Victory at Sea`, is very nearly as long as Wagner`s `Ring` cycle, and yet, to my ears, it contains so much more worthy music.<P>Talking of Wagner, I have to say that his music does little for me. It is all huff & puff; an overblown cacophonic din. He was always trying to outdo Beethoven for power - but noise has nothing to do with power. In fact, given his despicable views on the human race coupled with his all-consuming love for himself, I`m amazed that anyone listens to his efforts at all. Go & listen to Schubert, instead - Wagnerians may find this to be a humbling experience, indeed.

[shostakovich]

Hi Peter. You're about 6 hours ahead of us, so I'm always catching up. I enjoy King and I because I'm a sucker for "exoticism". The Small House of Uncle Thomas makes for an enjoyable ballet on a subject particularly close to people living in Hartford, CT. Harriet Beecher Stowe had a home there.<P>As for collaboration, what I meant was that in any match of music and words there is a trade-off, a limitation. A SONG, the heart of a musical, rarely exceeds 5 minutes. To me something so relatively small, no matter how much I love it, can never be "great". You mention Victory at Sea. I love it. I have all 26 episodes on video, and all 3 LPs of excerpts. Since all the music was "arranged" by Robert Russell Bennett, that was for sure a collaboration. And no single selection exceeds 5 min. Wonderful listening, not great music.<P>Wagner, on the other hand, wouldn't let anyone touch a note or a word of his. His super development of the leitmotif, and grand orchestral effects influenced composers all through the 20th C, not least of which are the film composers. Great music, if not all wonderful listening. Highlights are the way to go with Wagner.<P>There's no question he was a megalomaniacal scumbag as a person. His ethnic ideas were abominable. He was a double-crossing deadbeat freeloader. Yet I separate the man from his music, much of which is magnificent. Perhaps we in the states have had more experience doing this sort of thing, as we most often have to separate the man from the office among American presidents, a practice that is continuing into the 21st century. You CAN do it. As Arthur Rubinstein said to the cabbie who asked him how to get to Carnegie Hall, "Practice, practice, practice".<BR>Shos

[ReedMan]

If you judge greatness on melody, than you might as well choose the yellow submarine boys'(The Beatles) tunes. Hmm. That seems shallow. Well let's dig deeper and scan the radio dial. Arrgh ! That stuff gets old fast. Many vocals are indecipherable, the tunes are fluff, repetitious or ugly. They are OK for background music.<P>Maybe greatness is something that withstands repeated listenings over a longer period of time, say one's lifetime ? Compositions in classical music have produced many winners that generate physical and emotional reactions. <P>The 20th century gave us new creations & inventions. Melody is not a strongpoint in general, new harmonies, instrument/vocal combos, styles are apparent. Some stuff is challenging. <P>Greatness should not be confused with popular; exposure to greatness may occur in smaller doses; however the effects should be more profound and lasting.

[Peter]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ReedMan:<BR><B>If you judge greatness on melody, than you might as well choose the yellow submarine boys'(The Beatles) tunes. Hmm. That seems shallow. Well let's dig deeper and scan the radio dial. Arrgh ! That stuff gets old fast. Many vocals are indecipherable, the tunes are fluff, repetitious or ugly. They are OK for background music.<BR>Maybe greatness is something that withstands repeated listenings over a longer period of time, say one's lifetime ? Compositions in classical music have produced many winners that generate physical and emotional reactions. <BR>The 20th century gave us new creations & inventions. Melody is not a strongpoint in general, new harmonies, instrument/vocal combos, styles are apparent. Some stuff is challenging. <BR>Greatness should not be confused with popular; exposure to greatness may occur in smaller doses; however the effects should be more profound and lasting.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>We may just have to settle here for agreeing to disagree. I have stated that melodic invention (which includes counter-melody, harmony, rhythm & tonal relationships) is my personal criterion for determining who would be my choice as the 20thC`s no.1. I concede that how one should choose a determining criterion is subjective - all musical tastes must be - but I am happy with my own method.<P>REEDMAN:<P>Of course classical music has produced many "winners" this century, but it has also produced a lot of junk; the emotionally-compelling SOUND of an orchestra does not, necessarily, mean that the music it produces is "great". Classical music`s great period was c.1700-1850, and, I believe that it has, sadly, been on a downward slope ever since. Beethoven was the pinnacle of artistic achievement, but will we ever see his like again? I say no.<P>Also, I disagree that melody has not been strong in the 20thC. I say that the 20th has been THE century for melody, as I interpret the word to mean.<P>SHOS.,<P>I am impressed by your knowledge of Rodgers & Hammerstein, & also by your video collection! I have read your comments with much interest, but, as I just said to ReedMan, we are going to have to agree to disagree.