Most Important [??] 20th Century Composer

Posted by: JamH on 15 March 2003

I love 20th century music e.g Stravinsky
[e.g Rite of Spring] + Bartok [e.g. 4th
String Quartet] + Messiaen [e.g Visions
d'Amen] ... etc.

I don't really like Schoenberg's music but I think
most modern music is based on him ; Stravinsky
and Bartok did not leave schools. I DO like
lots of stuff [Messiaen + Xenakis + Boulez]
which I think would not have been possible
without him.

The symphony was invented by CPE Bach [I
believe] but perfected by Beethoven.

Please comment : I don't say the best ; I say
the most influential / important.

James H.
Posted on: 15 March 2003 by Todd A
I would say that the most important composers of the 20th Century - defined as composers who wrote works during the 20th Century - include Mahler, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, and Webern. They all made significant contributions to the development of music.

Mahler sort of led the way, and Schoenberg and Webern followed through with the dissolution of tonality and the establishment of dodecaphony. I would say that Webern is at least as influential as Schoenberg for the practitioners of "Total Serialism," led by Boulez. Indeed, Boulez made his allegiance known when he declared "Schoenberg is Dead!" I personally love Schoenberg, and I admire Webern greatly: I can actually make an entire evening of listening to either one's music.

I would say that Stravinsky left a number of schools behind, because whenever he dedicated himself to a specific stylistic approach - archaism, neo-classicism, or serialism - he wrote some of the most important works in each style. Whenever I delve deeper into lesser known composers of the first half of the century, I hear his influence looming large. Just take a listen to some of George Antheil's music, or Bohuslav Martinu's neo-classical period. There are many others.

I hold a special affection for Bartok. It was his music, specifically the Concerto for Orchestra, the two Rhapsodies for Violin and Orchestra, and the String Quartets that really got me interested in classical music to begin with. While he didn't leave behind a school per se, his influence is quite significant. Folk music of all sorts gained in credibility, to the benefit of all music fans, and some of his more adventurous techniques have had a powerful influence. Who else before Bartok dared to write with such striking dissonance over entire works while still utilizing more traditional forms? (I once read in a bio of Bartok that even Schoenberg, Berg and Webern criticized Bartok for being too harsh and brutal!) How many composers don't think twice about it now? There's the "Bartok Pizzicato" that one still reads about occasionally. He may not have many followers, but the compositional tool-kit is richer for his music.

I cannot really say that any one composer is the most important, and there are others who deserve consideration, too. Debussy comes to mind. And one need not listen too far back into the 19th Century to hear profound influences on what came later. I have recently become a fan of some of Wagner's music, and it is readily clear that his influence on all subsequent composers is significant, indeed. Later Liszt works are at least as adventurous as some 1910s and 1920s music. Chopin, too, pushed the bounds early on. (Debussy himself made reverential mention of how Chopin led the way and did it with just a piano.) And no matter how far one strays down atonal paths, the influences of Ludwig and JS are felt. (Wasn't Bach the first 12 tone composer, according to Schoenberg?)

Of course, it is very hard to know who the most influential composer of the 20th Century is yet since an adequate analysis and understanding of post-war music is still not here. Part of the influence of the composers of the last century will no doubt not be known until well into this one. I can certainly think of names like Pierre Boulez and (early) Karlheinz Stockhausen who showed one direction with Total Serialism. Elliot Carter and Einojuhani Rautavaara show some other expressive possibilities of atonality. Alfred Schnittke demonstrated what a pastiche approach can do, and Sofia Gubaidulina what the most spare compositions can bring. There’s also Minimalism, but I think that is a dead end. Gyorgy Ligeti and Henri Dutilleux offer glimpses of what is possible if an artist just sets out to write what they want. Perhaps the disparate styles of today show best of all how there is no one most influential composer.
Posted on: 16 March 2003 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by James Hamilton:
Please comment : I don't say the best ; I say
the most influential / important.

James H.


Messrs Lennon and McCartney by these criteria.

Regards

Mike
Posted on: 16 March 2003 by herm
Because they sold more records, Jarrett. What else? Perhaps I'll chip in tomorrow being busy / tired all day today.

Herman
Posted on: 17 March 2003 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Well at least part of this was me being cheeky; but I agree with Herm. I recall someone saying that whatever modern bands do today, The Beatles did it first.

Regards

Mike
Posted on: 17 March 2003 by Kevin-W
I'd plump for Duke Ellington - mostly for the fact that he infinitely enriched the vocabulary of popular music.

For that reason, I'd say he was a more influential 20th century composer than either Stravinsky or Schoenberg

Kevin
Posted on: 17 March 2003 by throbnorth
I think there's a fair case for Lennon & McCartney, in that by the end of the 60's it was pre-eminently their music which legitimised the concept that 'popular' music was the music of significance, and that contemporary 'classical' music had now become an irrelevance.

The 20th century is defined in terms of its popular music in a way that previous centuries were not. Picture, if you will, some awful overarching TV survey of the last millenium [not that hard), and imagine the soundtrack for each century ..... Can you hear Schoenberg & Stockhausen tinkling away as the c20th looms into view? Thought not.

With the legitimisation of popular music as exemplified by L&M, a retrospective academic glow has been cast over jazz, 40's crooners, 50's doo-wap etc etc. The situation is arguably exactly mirrored in the visual arts. I don't neccessarily think it's a bad thing, it's just something that has only recently become truly apparent.

throb
Posted on: 01 April 2003 by Wolf
I think it depends on the definition of the area of music. Classical, Jazz, R&R, country.
All have their leaders. To me Stravinsky for Country, Lennon&McCartney or Dylan for Jazz, Armstrong for Classical and Guthrie for R&R. April fools
Posted on: 26 April 2003 by JamH
Sorry for taking so long to reply to
a thread I started.

I have been transferring my e-mail to a
new PC. I got e-mail working but not a
list of old stuff 'till yesterday.

I still think Schonberg is probably more
important [not necessarily GOOD] then most.
Would Webern have done what he did without
Schonberg.

Lennon + McCarthy still wrote tonal music.
Schoenberg made a-tonal possible [I know he
'sort-of' made it possible ; Mahler was
heading that way but it was Schonberg who
actually declared it was 12-tone].

Thanks for the comments.

James H,
Posted on: 27 April 2003 by herm
Oh, definitely.

Listen to that footstompin' Rite of Spring or Les Noces.

For some good ol' French Country style Apollo Musagete will do.

And of course you can get your jazzed up Country in the Ebony Concerto.

Herman Wink