Was he the greatest composer born in the 20th century?
YOU ARE MY HERO
copland, weill, finzi, durufle, shostakovich, messiaen, britten, bernstein, brubeck, ligeti, rorem, carlisle, floyd, glass, corigliano, rutter, adams, and heggie.
All on par with, and generally better than Boulez
IMHO tiers go:
1. Claude Debussy
2. Arnold Schoenberg
3. Olivier Messiaen
4. Pierre Boulez
Rest don't matter nearly as much really.
I've heard plenty of Schoenberg and it was all garbage.
>but muh music theory and score analysis
Nobody in the real world gives a fuck about that shit. His music sounded like garbage and was garbage
I don't have to qualify myself to you, pleb. I've heard a few of his string quartets, his variations for orchestra, the Verklärte Nacht and Pierrot Lunaire, etc. They all sound like garbage and I'm pretty convinced that nobody ACTUALLY likes his music. Only hipster faggots pretend to like it to seem sophisticated.
Well none of them are more interesting than Boulez in the context of 20th century music.
Hmmm interesting that you mentioned works with high levels of compositional detail, or emotional imagery. Maybe you just listened to them in the background of your vidya.
>I don't have to pour over a score and analyze every chord to determine a musical work's merit.
You kind of do, actually. That's what classical music is based on. The score. Not "muh feels."
This is a shit opinion. Music is, and always has been, first and foremost an audio experience. The score is merely a tool for the musicians to make the correct sounds at the correct times.
If it's played correctly, and sounds shitty, then it's shitty music. Schoenberg's music sounds shitty.
>If it's played correctly, and sounds shitty, then it's shitty music. Schoenberg's music sounds shitty.
I don't think it sounds shitty.
Neither do people who actually take classical music seriously.
We don't care about your opinion.
I agree, too bruh.
19th century dumbfuck
You would. Stupid talentless hack shit like that from the 20th century is exactly what went wrong with classical music and is also what is wrong with the shit aspect of /mu/
Good songwriting/composition is more important than muh experimentalism bullshit. Besides, Schaffer, Stockhausen, and Xenakis are much more important to the muh experimentalism gimmick bullshit anyway.
lol, you're speaking for a collective "we" that does not exist. Most people regard Schoenberg's music as gimmicky, obtuse, and shitty.
Your critiques are so harsh, I'll have to wipe my tears with the money I make being a professional classical musician.
People can't deal with him. They can handle one style at a time, but not polystylism.
Incidentally, he would be my pick for greatest composer born in the 20th century.
>Schoenberg's music was shit
What you're trying to say is:
*I dont like Schoenberg's music
*I dont understand Schoenberg's music, or what he's trying to accomplish
*I have a closed mind and need a comfy melody to enjoy something
Schoenberg's music is widely accepted to be great. You just have bad taste. I think Schoenberg wrote some of the most seminal 20th century music, largely to being so heavily grounded in late romantic traditions and forms.
It had better be. Can the same listener respond with pleasure to all of the following widely divergent styles & sensibilities in music composed during the 20th century?
>Schoenberg -- Chamber Symphony #1
>Debussy -- Fetes
>Copland -- Appalachian Spring
>Shostakovich -- Symphony #11
>Adams -- Chairman Dances
>Glass -- Koyaanisqatsi
>Respighi -- Feste Romane
I most certainly do, and never mind the fact that out of the prior centuries I also especially savor such diamonds as:
Handel -- Semele
Haydn -- Symphony #88
Bach -- Orchestral Suite #3
Johann Strauss jr -- Demolier Polka
Schumann -- Symphony #2
Paganini -- Violin Concerto #2
Berlioz -- Symphonie Fantastiqe
As for why I'd rather be dead than do without at least that much variety, and am happy only with much more, let's just say that appetites vary in degree as much as they do in kind.
A few of them actually yes.
What I'm saying is that I'm not some impressionable pleb who could'n't be convinced by my obscure faggot music theory nerd professors to like shitty music like Schoenberg.
Yes, I like music that sounds good. I don't think it ALWAYS has to be beautiful, but listening to non stop atonal bullshit makes me and 99% of the rest of the world want to blow my fucking brains out.
Schoenberg is widely accepted to be hit, you're the one with the narrow point of view.
Schoenberg's shitty atonal, avant garde circle jerk music is one of the huge problems with modern compositional style.
let it be known that Boulez was a professional arm waver and did so with grandeur and style
i dont know much bout classical, so please bear with me here
why do people shit on Karajan a lot? Who would be deemed one of the best conductors? How do you even figure out which conductors/interpretations are good and which arent?
I'm presuming it's really just up to the individual listener..?
I will admit Schoenberg may be in part responsible for the sort of musical degeneracy that pervades academia today but that is just a contingency of his legacy as a composer. Truthfully he and his pupils, especially Berg, created some of the most complex and engaging music of the 20th century. Music became shitty when academics memed atonal composition into "make it sound as shitty and absurd as possible".
Karajan brimmed with enthusiasm and passion, which made him great at conducting certain repertoire (especially some of the great romantic symphonies and operas), but wasn't as good at the more nuanced, intellectual stuff.
For my money, Maazel and Toscanini were the best conductors of the 20th century.
SDF probably explains Karajan's strengths and weaknesses better than I could, to be be quite honest my family. I don't listen to him too often, but I do personally enjoy his Strauss and Sibelius.
I listened to his Beethoven once, it was awful.
Ugh. Berg's music sounds like garbage too. As an opera singer, I'm pretty familiar with his works because of Lulu, which introduced me to him more intimately than my music history/ theory classes. I just hate that music, it sounds like complete ass.
Then contrast a guy like Berg with a contemporary like Korngold, whose music was absolutely gorgeous but also still innovative and new.
At some point, classical composers became so obsessed with trying to make things that were new, that they lost sight of making things that were GOOD.
Like everyone else, even conductors have their good and bad decades, and better or worse compatibility with organizations that differ as much as orchestras do, often for reasons no one quite knows. About all you can do is try out and compare recommendations & comments from experienced listeners and critics, give some real time to listening away from distractions and "the madding crowd", and read biographies of whatever composers you grow fond of. Starting out, I learned a great deal just listening to the two classical radio stations in Chicago during the 80s & 90s, making tons of off-air recordings, buying whatever I could afford, "borrowing" everything I could get my hands on, including from a big public library nearby, and reading the Penguin guides. With the internet at your fingertips, you may either get lost or enjoy a swifter learning curve than I did, so finding critical voices that prove true to your own growing experience is more important than it ever was.
Der Rosenkavalier is a mighty lighthearted beast, and Karajan's recording from the 60s is exemplary of it. Yet he also did Tchaikovsky's 6th in a way so insanely over-the-top in the 3rd movement that there really isn't anything quite like it, and "wrong" as it is in its extreme, I return to it for how right it is in registering delusional mania. Inconsistent as Karajan was, even in the difference between boringly conventional and bafflingly eccentric, he did touch genius often enough to be worth the time that trying-out takes.
Although I generally prefer music that's more emotionally reserved, sweet, or serene, the 6th is unique in how directly it goes to the extremes it does, and in how completely successful it is at doing so. It may go against the grain of my temperament, but I cannot resist anything made with as much genius.
What media player does /classical/ use? I just bought a new computer and am in the market for a new one to play a mixture of both downloads and CD imports.
There's a literal wall of organ CDs in our organ practice room and some of them are really niche and interesting.
but Schoenberg does sound good. You just have to listen for colors, timbres, unusual combinations of instruments and notes. You can't be listening for melody or standard harmony. You have to open your fucking ears to the sound of the 20th century. Life changed, so did music. Industrialization was in and Royalty was out. Europe in the 1900s was in for the biggest overhaul it had ever seen, including music.
If you dont want to listen to 20th century music, I think you'll find it is you who are the pleb. Its not a matter of taste, his music is beautiful, it just isn't beautiful in the traditional way. All the composers from around this era dealt with a wider variety of subjects than just beauty or sadness. European composers had to deal with 2 of the worst wars on record, combined with the stress of tyrants like Hitler and Stalin. Whether they left for the states or suffered through it, writing music would never be the same.
Fuck, if you think tonal music could have continued to evolve after Wagner, you probably just dont know enough about music history. Things had to change in order for composers to challenge themselves and their audiences. Beethoven did it, Bach did it, and Schoenberg did it, Just in their own ways. the second Viennese composers like Webern, Berg and Schoenberg wrote some of the most beautiful music of the seiralists, all being well versed in late romantic writing. Why not pick on the truly atonal composers like Carter or Ferneyhough? Here are composers who have completely abandoned any traditional sense of beauty or easily recognizable emotions.
His complete work 320kbps
I got you senpai
OP is always benevolent with you /classical/ anons
They were too interested in "challenging themselves" and creating something entirely new that they ended up making music that just flat out sucked. Good music sounds good, period.
You say that those composers HAD to go the direction they went, and yet there are plenty of composers after Wagner who still created beautiful music that was also theoretically innovative. Korngold, Britten, Gershwin (and really all of the great jazz composers, like Brubeck and Bill Evans), etc etc ad nauseam. Messiaen is a very good example of a composer whose music employed a TON of different colors, and yet it also was beautiful as it's default. This is where Schoenberg and Berg horribly failed; they failed to create music that was even occasionally beautiful or enjoyable.
Yes few operas draw you into their soundworld quicker. Tried to think or something similar the only thing I think works as effectively is Rossini's long overture to William Tell.
You are convinced by your own lack of appreciation and you think it is others with their heads up their asses? Most sensible people would see that as a time to be humble about their opinion and not just allow it to reinforce itself.
>They were too interested in "challenging themselves" and creating something entirely new that they ended up making music that just flat out sucked.
Creating something entirely new? None of it is completely new. It's a logical progression from old very old composers like Obrecht and Isaac, and from newer ones like Brahms and Mahler.
>they failed to create music that was even occasionally beautiful or enjoyable.
But I find plenty of their music beautiful and enjoyable, so I guess they didn't fail.
Your presumptuous thoughts behind why they made the music that did and their purposes behind doing so only serve to highlight just how uninformed you are in regards to Schoenberg's, Webern's, and Berg's intentions behind making the music that they did.
>claims it is immediately appalling
>posts a excerpt from Act II in garbage sound quality as an example
You have quite the narrow world view, to be sure. I suppose the hundreds of performers, conductors, and the multitude of composers who sympathize with their music (not strictly for their aptitude in theory) were all just liars/and/or up their own asses, then.
How can you take that person seriously? Saying that Schoenberg or Berg never composed anything beautiful, I can only assume they have heard one or two compositions of his. Even some of the less informed people I know in classical have heard his Verklärte Nacht and the Gurre-lieder, which is entry-level Schoenberg and both of those are tonal as hell and very accessible and beautiful. Much of his later music is beautiful too, albeit you find the beauty through a harsher viewpoint. The brief glimpses where he returns to tonality in his Violin Concerto, for example, strike me as a return to a naive sense of old romanticism and that, in contrast with the otherwise rather bleak atmosphere of the rest of the concerto, makes for something that is really quite enjoyable in my view. It's a reflection of their times.
Boulez was an important figure in continuing to practice serialism and push its boundaries but I wouldn't say he was the greatest composer born in the 20th century. My personal favorite is Ligeti.
Perhaps taken as a whole and considering his composition, his personal conducting style and his championing of modernist music he could be regarded individual in 20th century classical but I would agree his legacy as just a composer doesn't seem significant enough to be the greatest.
Tbh i'm not that into classical but Boulez is one of the only conductors i can namedrop off the top of my head so he must be important
I discovered him in an advanced music theory class i took in freshman year of college. Had to write a bunch of serial pieces, shit was awesome
Dissonance, atonality, serialism, jittery electric-eel-biting-your-prostate rhythms, these are all incidental to Schoenberg's music being bad.
It's akin to Bach's music - inane and boring - due to Schoenberg being a quintessential German - morbidly obsessed with form and effort and utterly indifferent to sonority. He didn't emancipate shit, his music isn't "free", it's just imprisoned at the other end of the tonal harmony stick.
>i dismiss legendary composer's output because i just want to be original and it's not cool to appreciate everybody
too bad you'll never in your life achieve anything in any field even comparable to what you call "shit tier avant garde tvelwe tone"
Is this an original piece or did they rip this from somewhere?
here's a proper art music cover.
I'd like to be mad but I'm too dumbfounded
>dem organ works