The greatest single composition of the 20th century
Posted by: mikeeschman on 28 February 2009
i would like to nominate Messiaen's "Quartet for the End of Time" as the most profound, complete and musically satisfying work written in the 20th century.
here are some program notes for this work, courtesy of University of Southern California :
MESSIAEN: Quartet for the End of Time
Program Notes
In 1940, Olivier Messiaen (1908-92) was interned in a German prison camp, where he discovered among his fellow prisoners a clarinettist, a violinist and a violoncellist. The success of a short trio which he wrote for them led him to add seven more movements to this Interlude, and a piano to the ensemble, to create the Quartet for the End of Time. Messiaen and his friends first performed it for their 5000 fellow prisoners on January 15, 1941.
If the plain facts of the work's origins are simple, the spiritual facts are far more complex. Messiaen's religious mysticism found a point of departure for the Quartet in the passage in the Book of Revelation (chapter 10) about the descent of the seventh angel, at the sound of whose trumpet the mystery of God will be consummated, and who announces "that there should be time no longer."
According to the composer, the Quartet was intended not to be a commentary on the Apocalypse, nor to refer to his own captivity, but to be a kind of musical extension of the Biblical account, and of the concept of the end of Time as the end of past and future and the beginning of eternity. For Messiaen there was also a musical sense to the angel's announcement. His development of a varied and flexible rhythmic system, based in part on ancient Hindu rhythms, came to fruition in the Quartet, where more or less literally Messiaen put an end to the equally measured "time" of western classical music.
The architecture of the Quartet is both musical and mystical. There are eight movements because God rested on the seventh day after creation, a day which extended into the eighth day of timeless eternity. There are intricate thematic relationships, as for example between movements two and seven, both of which are about the angel; and stylistic and theological relationships, as between movements five and eight.
In a preface to the score, Messiaen commented on each of the movements:
1.
Liturgy of crystal. Between three and four o'clock in the morning, the awakening of the birds: a blackbird or a solo nightingale improvises, surrounded by efflorescent sound, by a halo of trills lost high in the trees...
2.
Vocalise, for the Angel who announces the end of Time. The first and third parts (very short) evoke the power of this mighty angel, a rainbow upon his head and clothed with a cloud, who sets one foot on the sea and one foot on the earth. In the middle section are the impalpable harmonies of heaven. In the piano, sweet cascades of blue-orange chords, enclosing in their distant chimes the almost plainchant song of the violin and violoncello.
3.
Abyss of the birds. Clarinet alone. The abyss is Time with its sadness, its weariness. The birds are the opposite to Time; they are our desire for light, for stars, for rainbows, and for jubilant songs.
4.
Interlude. Scherzo, of a more individual character than the other movements, but linked to them nevertheless by certain melodic recollections.
5.
Praise to the Eternity of Jesus. Jesus is considered here as the Word. A broad phrase, infinitely slow, on the violoncello, magnifies with love and reverence the eternity of the Word, powerful and gentle, ... "In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God."
6.
Dance of fury, for the seven trumpets. Rhythmically, the most characteristic piece in the series. The four instruments in unison take on the aspect of gongs and trumpets (the first six trumpets of the Apocalypse were followed by various catastrophes, the trumpet of the seventh angel announced the consummation of the mystery of God). Use of added [rhythmic] values, rhythms augmented or diminished... Music of stone, of formidable, sonorous granite...
7.
A mingling of rainbows for the Angel who announces the end of Time. Certain passages from the second movement recur here. The powerful angel appears, above all the rainbow that covers him... In my dreams I hear and see a catalogue of chords and melodies, familiar colours and forms... The swords of fire, these outpourings of blue-orange lava, these turbulent stars...
8.
Praise to the Immortality of Jesus. Expansive solo violin, counterpart to the violoncello solo of the fifth movement. Why this second encomium? It addresses more specifically the second aspect of Jesus, Jesus the Man, the Word made flesh... Its slow ascent toward the most extreme point of tension is the ascension of man toward his God, of the child of God toward his Father, of the being made divine toward Paradise.
i hope there are other nominations on this thread.
Posted on: 04 March 2009 by JamH
Assuming we accept the Rite as the greatest composition of the 20th century [a VERY big assumption] should we start a thread on the greatest of the 19th / 18th / 17th ... etc ....
I would suggest for earlier centuries ...
Bach : Goldberg Variations and/or Passacaglia
Beethoven : Symphony 7
and not much in the 19th century that I really like ...
James H.
Of course it's all just personal opinion but I tend to jump from Bach to Beethoven and then to the 20th century [Stravinsky, Bartok, Messiean, Honnegger ... ]
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by Geoff P
As regards earlier centuries the natural choice is to go to the great classical composers who incidentally in their day could have been said to be the providers of the 'POP' music of their time. However there is a more unique situation with the choice of great composition for the 20th Century compared to earlier centuries.
The 20th C has been the first century which has provided a means of transmitting music to the mass population, rather than providing only live performance for a small select and mainly well to do audience. At the same time we have seen the rise of many new musical forms which have a distinct and unique, as opposed to just evolutionary, grounding.
To illustrate my point a few examples that spring to mind are Traditional, Mainstream and Modern Jazz, Blues shouts, R & B, musical shows and operas from the likes of Gershwin and Rodgers and Hammerstein and Rock as singles and operas etc. These genres include quite sophisticated composition ( look at the likes of Duke Ellington ) which is very much a 20th Century thing so I am happy to see that suggestions on this thread have included a wider musical panorama than just classical.
In fact you could almost nominate the 12 BAR BLUES chord progression as the 'greatest' 20th C composition, except I am not sure who you should attribute it to intially.
Certainly an awfull lot of individual compositional works and improvisational works of the 20 century are based on this simple chord progression.
regards
Geoff
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by mikeeschman
so who is going to start up the 19th century thread?
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
In fact you could almost nominate the 12 BAR BLUES chord progression as the 'greatest' 20th C composition, except I am not sure who you should attribute it to intially.
everything that can be done with a 12 bar blues has been done. there's no mystery, and no suprises here. and few opportunities to develop rhythmic ideas. you can write it down as you hear it without breaking a sweat.
by comparison, i'm still hearing new things after 40+ years in the music of stravinsky. and the quartet for the end of time remains inscrutable after dozens of listens.
i guess my definition of greatest includes the capacity to suprise and enlighten after dozens, or hundreds, of listenings.
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by Derry
I think Mike subscribes to the "note count" definition of music - and that only classical music can actually be "great".
Oh, and also that if he does not like it, it cannot be great.
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by Geoff P
quote:
everything that can be done with a 12 bar blues has been done. there's no mystery, and no suprises here. and few opportunities to develop rhythmic ideas. you can write it down as you hear it without breaking a sweat.
...I bet there are a lot of Jazz musicians that would disagree with you. Every time they improvise they have the ability to surprise and enlighten me
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by mjamrob
quote:
quote:
everything that can be done with a 12 bar blues has been done. there's no mystery, and no suprises here. and few opportunities to develop rhythmic ideas. you can write it down as you hear it without breaking a sweat.
...I bet there are a lot of Jazz musicians that would disagree with you. Every time they improvise they have the ability to surprise and enlighten me
Couldn't agree with you more Geoff, that's the difference between music on a sheet and that actually played.
So what do we mean by greatest 'composition', is it something we can analyse and appreciate on a page or a one off brilliant piece of improvisation like Jimi Hendrix?
And let's face it even good old JS liked a good jam on the organ
regards,
mat
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by Geoff P:
quote:
everything that can be done with a 12 bar blues has been done. there's no mystery, and no suprises here. and few opportunities to develop rhythmic ideas. you can write it down as you hear it without breaking a sweat.
...I bet there are a lot of Jazz musicians that would disagree with you. Every time they improvise they have the ability to surprise and enlighten me
i get to hear a lot of jazz here in new orleans, and many of the groups are trying to break new ground - groups that have the capacity to do so. It only happens now and then, that they are successful. but in the decades i have been listening to live jazz, i can not recall a single instance when new ground was broken based on a 12 bar blues.
in fact, the last time i heard something really new in a 12 bar blues was a recording with ray charles and a big band of "Lil' Darling". They play further and further behind the beat without falling off it, which is really quite electrifying. i think that recording is from the early 60s.
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by mjamrob
quote:
in fact, the last time i heard something really new in a 12 bar blues was a recording with ray charles and a big band of "Lil' Darling". They play further and further behind the beat without falling off it, which is really quite electrifying. i think that recording is from the early 60s.
You should try some James Blood Ulmer, Sonny Sharrock, Bill Frisell or Ronald Shannon Jackson Decoding Society. IMO some of the best modern blues improvisation.
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by Derry:
I think Mike subscribes to the "note count" definition of music - and that only classical music can actually be "great".
Oh, and also that if he does not like it, it cannot be great.
that's way off the mark. some music becomes absloutely clear and predictable in a few listens. some music seems to remain just out of reach over many listenings. over time, i have come to prize the music that remains just out of reach, it awakens new appetites in me.
i have maybe two dozen jazz albums that fall in this category. many dozens of live performances at jazz fest here also fall into that category. as examples (recordings), i offer "Solo Monk", queen latifa's rendering of "Lush Life", coltrane's "Giant Steps", the work of Roland Kirk in general, and stan kenton's reading of "Everything Happens to Me" on the "City of Glass" album.
this is something you never know when you will come across it. i lust after it.
and for the record, i spend most of my time listening to music that is not great. how else are you going to find the ones that are? also for the record, the overwhelming bulk of classical music is boring and trite. so it goes.
finally, what is great is a matter of taste. "in taste there can be no dispute."
it's still entertaining and informative to exchange ideas with others, as it improves the odds of finding something new you will like.
i don't judge music, i consume and digest it - like a good meal.
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by mjamrob:
You should try some James Blood Ulmer, Sonny Sharrock, Bill Frisell or Ronald Shannon Jackson Decoding Society. IMO some of the best modern blues improvisation.
Paydirt! thanks, i'll give these a listen.
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by mjamrob
quote:
Paydirt! thanks, i'll give these a listen.
Hope you might find something of interest among those, although they are best heard live, and only Bill Frisell is performing regularly anymore unfortunately.
The last time I saw James Blood Ulmer he had to sit for the duration of the gig, but he was still fantastic and a unique sound.
For me Shannon Jackson is the most interesting of the bunch, having a complete sound world of his own, combining elements of blues, harmolodic free form jazz, and African music.
I would recommend:
James Blood Ulmer - Live at the Caravan of Dreams
Bill Frisell - Rambler
Ronald Shannon Jackson - When Colors Play
Sonny Sharrock - Guitar
regards,
mat
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by Nobbyright:
Frank Zappa
which one? maybe "sheik ya booty"?
Posted on: 07 March 2009 by Jeremy Marchant
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
i would like to nominate Messiaen's "Quartet for the End of Time" as the most profound, complete and musically satisfying work written in the 20th century...
Why?
Even amongst Messiaen's music, I find it hard to justify why this would be the greatest music. Could you give reasons please? In fact this applies to the whole thread so far where there is a conspicuous lack of justification.
As for George ("I cannot think of any twentieth century music that seems the equal of the best from the nineteenth"), I suspect that you have a self-imposed lack of awareness of the repertoire.
It's not the greatest in C20 (no such thing), but I argue that Stockhausen's Gruppen (1955-57) is intrinsically a greater piece of music than almost anything written in previous centuries - for its intellectual rigour, structural complexity, brilliance of orchestration and sheer joyful panache.
Posted on: 07 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Marchant:
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
i would like to nominate Messiaen's "Quartet for the End of Time" as the most profound, complete and musically satisfying work written in the 20th century...
Why?
since 1976 (the first time i listened to this work), i have probably listened to this piece 40 or 50 times. i still haven't heard a single note that is out of place. it uses a harmonic, rhythmic and melodic language that is unique, without losing a sense of forward motion.
secondly, and probably most importantly, i find it to be beautiful.
and last, and i think this is important because it is programmatic music (in my initial post i published the program that is included in the score), i find the circumstances of its creation and performance deeply moving and worthy of reflection.
it also gets bonus points for being hard as hell to play and put across to an audience.
it is full of rapid unison passages, and the difficulty of successfully executing a unison between piano, strings and wind is widely under-estimated. it is one of the miracles of nature to hear a unison well done.
every time i listen to this work, three important things happen :
1 - i become very alert and perceptive.
2 - i leave it refreshed and invigorated.
3 - the joy of life floods me.
i guess i am in love :-)
Posted on: 07 March 2009 by Massimo Bertola
I say Penny Lane - and am not misunderstanding the use of the word >single<.
Posted on: 09 March 2009 by Jeremy Marchant
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
since 1976 (the first time i listened to this work), i have probably listened to this piece 40 or 50 times...
every time i listen to this work, three important things happen :
1 - i become very alert and perceptive.
2 - i leave it refreshed and invigorated.
3 - the joy of life floods me.
i guess i am in love :-)
But this is all about you and nothing about the music, as your last remark confirms.
If it is possible to define a piece of music as "the most profound, complete and musically satisfying work written in the 20th century", then one needs a justification a tad more rigorous than "it's the work I like the most"!
Posted on: 09 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Marchant:
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
since 1976 (the first time i listened to this work), i have probably listened to this piece 40 or 50 times...
every time i listen to this work, three important things happen :
1 - i become very alert and perceptive.
2 - i leave it refreshed and invigorated.
3 - the joy of life floods me.
i guess i am in love :-)
But this is all about you and nothing about the music, as your last remark confirms.
If it is possible to define a piece of music as "the most profound, complete and musically satisfying work written in the 20th century", then one needs a justification a tad more rigorous than "it's the work I like the most"!
1 - you conveniently edited out every last word that directly pertains to the music.
2 - the comments on the programmatic nature of the music, and its history, are particularly important. as justification i cite t. m. greene's "the arts and the art of criticism", where it is established that the intent and social content of any work of art has a direct bearing on its importance and quality.
3 - the standard of proof for a web forum, where no more than 30 minutes might be spent on a post, are different than the standard of proof in a graduate level music history course at an accredited university.
if you can get me graduate level credit for 3 semester hours from any accredited university for my response, i will gladly spend the 100 or so hours it would take to perform a modest comparative analysis, and write a check to that university :-)
Posted on: 09 March 2009 by Adam Meredith
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
as justification i cite t. m. greene's "the arts and the art of criticism", where it is established that the intent and social content of any work of art has a direct bearing on its importance and quality.
How does one divine or define "the intent and social content of any work of art"?
Posted on: 09 March 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Meredith:
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
as justification i cite t. m. greene's "the arts and the art of criticism", where it is established that the intent and social content of any work of art has a direct bearing on its importance and quality.
How does one divine or define "the intent and social content of any work of art"?
one good indication is to read the history of the work, and the program provided by the composer in the score. this is available in spades for the quartet for the end of time.
you can start with my initial post.
a couple of googles will get you a lot more.
did you read the initial post? did you goggle the "quartet for the end of time"?
it's the same as it is with anything historical. you have to find and read as many first person accounts as possible.
one final note : this thread was meant to stimulate forum participants to nominate compositions they thought were really worth listening to.
that has not happened.
adam, have you heard messiaen's "quartet for the end of time" ?
you and jeremy are both arguing for the sake of arguing without any real musical endgame in sight.
enough posts have been written to make the fundamental decision - do i want to hear this music?
if not, enough said.
if so, do it!
you can start here :
http://hubpages.com/hub/Quartet-for-the-End-of-TimePosted on: 09 March 2009 by Jeremy Marchant
quote:
1 - you conveniently edited out every last word that directly pertains to the music...
I really like your enthusiasm for the piece - and Messiaen is one my favourite composers, so maybe I can see where you're coming from. I remember a performance of the quartet in a tiny church as part of a tiny music festival in Cornwall years ago which was very moving.
However, your enthusiasm doesn't equate to an objective assessment of greatness, unless you're also asserting that only works that mikeeschman likes have any hope of greatness.
Sorry for selectively quoting your article. However it is unavoidably true that the excerpt reflects the whole, which contains the word 'I' twelve times and only one remark about the music ("it is full of rapid unison passages") as opposed to your beliefs about the music. The subject is your appreciation of the work - which is a good subject - it's just not an explanation of why the quartet the greatest work.
As for arguing without any musical endgame, I am merely doing what always happens when someone posts - namely, someone else changes the subject. In this case to one of musical criticism.
I guess I am making a wider point - and, unfortunately, picking on your post to make it - which does need to be made in the forum as whole; namely that the argument "I like X therefore X is good" is both a false deduction and an unhelpful one. Whether it is this quartet or a NAC82, rock music or Naim, someone liking it as opposed to their liking something else does not constitute an assessment of its greatness.
"It is established that the intent and social content of any work of art has a direct bearing on its importance and quality". I haven't read the book by Greene that you cite, however, the "social content of any work of art has a direct bearing on its importance and quality" is a belief not a truth. It may have been deduced from other beliefs, and therefore have the spurious appearance of something that has been "established", but it doesn't hold water because, in most cases, any "social content" has been imposed on a piece of music by other parties. That the quartet was written in a concentration camp has no bearing on the music itself unless a particular listener decides it has
for them. And that is a sentimental (in the proper sense of the word) approach which Messiaen didn't ask for, and which the ostensible subject matter, by being far removed from the circumstances of its creation, makes irrelevant.
I agree you can talk about the "social content" of some pieces of music - I'm thinking for example of much of the work of Nono and Lachenmann. And, if the latter's The little matchgirl achieves its "social content" through the knowing retelling of a mawkish Andersen fairy story, layer upon reflecting layer, so much the better. But where's the "social content" of The art of fugue?
Incidentally, I think you made a slip in referring to the "intent" of a work of art. Intent is a set of thoughts and ideas held by a sentient being, it cannot be an attribute of an abstract composition. You might think you can infer the creator's intent from a work of art, but you can't know and ultimately it's all projection.
Finally, "this thread was meant to stimulate forum participants to nominate compositions they thought were really worth listening to." But I suggested Gruppen. You haven't responded to that idea. Your views on that work as a candidate for greatness?
Posted on: 09 March 2009 by u5227470736789439
What a shame the thread has turned to point making rather than an interesting discussion. The result will be that fewer people than otherwise, reading this, will be turned onto the music of the 20th century. What a shame ...!
_____________
I suupose that it is a very long time since I equated music I loved with being great, except for the simple thought that I have read enough about music to know what music is acclaimed by generations, and has survived and speaks to us still from the great musical epochs of the past.
I actually cannot see the point in listening to any other sort of music!
As there is no way that I could learn all the great music there is by Bach, Haydn, Beethoven Mozart and Schubert, let alone by Brahms, Sibelius, Walton, Poulenc, Prokopiev [etc.], then I cannot think why I should want to dilute the experience by listening to the second rate from any era.
I like to find some indisputibly great music and learn it, and try to love it. If I succeed in loving it, then I find another piece by the same composer and repeat the process!
Thus, I suppose that my concentration is on a shamelessly narrow repertoire!
ATB from George
Posted on: 09 March 2009 by Mat Cork
This was potentially a great thread Mike started, but it's become a quite appalling justification of narrow minded views and complication for the sake of it.
True genius exists in all genre's (absolute dross as well). Given the difference music can make to life, I find it crushingly sad that some have clearly forgotten why it is, they drop the needle.
Fine minds and great art require few words...
Posted on: 09 March 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Matt, I agree with you completely. Rather than being enthusiastic over music some people really are so far from that naive enjoyment that retentive is not too strong a word for it.
Dear Mike, you have my sympathy.
ATB from George
Posted on: 09 March 2009 by u5227470736789439
Don't know but it's off topic!
