"Best" Classical Music of the Decade

[Michael]

The Sunday Times have produced this list (among other lists) and Beethoven was certainly holding his own in the past decade.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle6950489.ece

[Roehre]

As far as I am concerned the only piece in this Times list which really is classical music of the now ending decade is Birtwistle's Minotaur, btw a piece I much enjoy.

All the other recordings are re-chewings of much older pieces which hardly can be called "being of the outgoing decade"

But Beethoven is defending his domain brilliantly, I must say.

[Peter]

As far as I am concerned the only piece in this Times list which really is classical music of the now ending decade is Birtwistle's Minotaur, btw a piece I much enjoy.

All the other recordings are re-chewings of much older pieces which hardly can be called "being of the outgoing decade"

But Beethoven is defending his domain brilliantly, I must say.

The Birtwistle is surely one of the few on the list that least deserves the title 'classical' - it is contemporary and only posterity will decide it's 'classical' status.

[Roehre]

The Birtwistle is surely one of the few on the list that least deserves the title 'classical' - it is contemporary and only posterity will decide it's 'classical' status.

Certainly it is a contemporary opera, and posterity will without doubt eventually appreciate its merits, but I beg to differ that this isn't classical music.

If Birtwistle isn't classical, than only the end of the 18th and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries can be defined as such.
No Perotinus, No Machaut, no Dufay or DesPrez, no Couperin, no Vivaldi, no JSBach, no Mendelssohn or Schumann or Brahms or Bruckner or Mahler or Tchaikovsky or Stravinsky or Shostakovich or Messiaen - none of these are classical composers I'm afraid.

Then we stick to Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, and that's it.

[Peter]

Certainly it is a contemporary opera, and posterity will without doubt eventually appreciate its merits, but I beg to differ that this isn't classical music.

If Birtwistle isn't classical, than only the end of the 18th and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries can be defined as such.
No Perotinus, No Machaut, no Dufay or DesPrez, no Couperin, no Vivaldi, no JSBach, no Mendelssohn or Schumann or Brahms or Bruckner or Mahler or Tchaikovsky or Stravinsky or Shostakovich or Messiaen - none of these are classical composers I'm afraid.

Then we stick to Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, and that's it.

Strictly speaking that is of course correct, though of the big names Schubert could be included though he does have a foot in the Romantic camp. I beg to differ that posterity will 'without doubt eventually appreciate' the merits of Birtwistle - on what grounds other than personal? We have only very few examples of composers unappreciated in life who later found 'immortality' (Schubert and Bruckner the most obvious examples). We have far more the other way round!

[Preston]

And whilst on the subject, the place in musical history for composers such as Cage, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ligeti et al is - rest assured - assured.

Yes, Philip, it is- assured as utter crap.

[Peter]

On the same grounds as Boulez : infallible ear for timbre, instrumentation / orchestration, grasp of structure, invention, historical awareness and a penchant for working "against the grain". Sounds familiar? On purely personal grounds I like his "sound". As I do Beethoven's (with certain notable exceptions).

Well nice to know someone is so certain of the future - if I were a betting man I wouldn't put money on 'Minotaur' being standard opera repertoire in 50 years.

[Peter]

And whilst on the subject, the place in musical history for composers such as Cage, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ligeti et al is - rest assured - assured.

Obviously, but how they are seen in the centuries to come is not assured.

[Preston]

Peter you messed up my joke, .

Sorry Philip, I was just trying to get you with my comment! Unfortunately, it didn't go exactly as planned.

[Preston]

Thank you Preston for your incisive, insightful comment. I add the icon designating "sarcasm", only because I'm not sure you will see it.
Keep up the good work.

As I said, I was trying to prank you, it just didn't go as planned. Nevermind now though.

[Preston]

As you say, never mind. What works have you heard by Boulez, Ligeti, Stockhausen and Cage, by the way?

Actually, I have heard nothing by these composers. Although, if I remember correctly I did hear something called Landscapes (I believe that is the name) by Cage, though only a little of it.

As I said, it was a prank. I do not know if they are genius or not. True genius, to my mind, is something very rare.

I have changed my views on what genius is since I started posting on this forum. I remember going on about how Caravaggio was not a genius to my mind, now I consider him to be an artistic genius, by all means. I still do not consider him what I would call a spiritual genius- the greatest of all genius.

I now look at genius as this:

Artistic Genius: Someone who excels and has a great understanding of art.

Musical Genius: Someone who excels and has a great understanding of music.

Mathematical Genius: ...

And so on ...

Spiritual Genius (if you will): I consider this to be the highest form of genius. True examples of this, in no particular order would be, to my mind, Beethoven, Van Gogh, Plato, Shakespeare, Buddha, etc. I believe that to achieve this is so rare that there are only several examples.

I am not saying that there are not very spiritual people, yet, because someone is spiritual does not mean they are, what I call, a spiritual genius.

So yes, I do believe there are different kinds of genius, and, that each genius differs from each other. Though, perhaps my theory towards genius is incorrect?

Also, what higher way to touch the divine than the arts?

[Preston]

Well then, Preston : I am (by your definition) a non-spiritual, slightly-musical wanna-be genius. I'm trying, really, I'm trying ...

I do not see how you get this. I didn't say that a person couldn't be spiritual or musically talented- I was talking of genius.

Although, that post is my opinion. Perhaps, you are spiritual, I do not know. I did not know you are a musical genius, , although I know you are musically talented. If you are an atheist and truly believe that there is nothing spiritual to life, than so be it.

I do not truly know if there is a higher power, yet, I do know that there are only several people who have tapped into the world of the sacred and purer feelings.

I remain kind of agnostic.

[Peter]

Quite. Will Fidelio be? Or even an opera or two by Handel?

Who knows, but 2 or 3 centuries on those operas are still in the repertoire - my point is that we are too close to the contemporary to presume with any certainty how the future will judge it. If Handel and Beethoven were to 'disappear from the radar' it would be a sure sign of how far we have sunk.

[Peter]

Fair comments, Peter. It is interesting though, how works "come and go", so to speak. Why is it, to take Hofrat's listening suggestion, that the Clement violin concerto has reappeared? What "mechanism" is at work for that to occur?
I know what you are trying to say about us being too close to the contemporary to presume long-lasting value judgments, but I feel that unlike earlier periods, today we have much more "historical awareness" and feel more confident to "extrapolate" such judgments.
But, finally, as you say, only time will tell ...
Still, that said, I will put my head on the block and claim genius status for Boulez, Stockhausen and Ligeti. For Cage, I echo his teacher Schoenberg's comment : a great inventor with no ear for harmony.

And fair comments from you too Philip. With regard to the composers you mention at the end, I would say that in comparison to previous eras they have failed to enter the mainstream and the popular imagination. Composers such as Beethoven or writers such as Tolstoy (i.e the truly great) achieved this in their lifetimes and were universally admired and most importantly highly regarded by ordinary people as a source of pride in their nation - posterity has not diminshed that. You ask your average man on the street to name an English composer and though many will struggle to name anyone, the majority would probably say Elgar - few would say Birtwistle. Now that may seem trivial and 'populist', but I think that it is a mark of an artist's achievement if he has won the affection (though not necessarily the appreciation) of the general public.

[PDG]

You ask your average man on the street to name an English composer and though many will struggle to name anyone, the majority would probably say Elgar - few would say Birtwistle.

I think most people would say Andrew Lloyd-Webber, which is an even sadder state of affairs...