Today's equivalent to Beethoven

[djmomo17]

Today I asked myself: Who is the modern day equivalent to Beethoven? (as a composer, not a tragic hero).

http://lvbandmore.blogspot.com/2010/...beethoven.html

I think these are some basic facts about B which a modern equivalent would have to match:

1. He achieved fame and popularity in his own time, both as a performer and and a composer, tho his popularity waxed and waned dramatically.
2. His music influenced composers for the next hundred years, both in imitation and in opposite reaction.
3. He wrote for the home amateur, the concert hall, religious functions and stage plays.
4. His work has never lost its value and it's heard everywhere, even after 200 years.
5. He made use of current technology and adapted his compositional style to the evolving pianoforte and the orchestra. In fact he was one of the first to use a metronome.
6. He expanded and stretched the rules of composition and his inventions were considered overly-bold, especially in his early career. Actually his late career was considered avant-garde even a hundred years later.

In the end I couldn't find anyone today (in the last 50 years) who exactly fit (even excepting the 200 years influence requirement).

Any thoughts?

[Preston]

I do not think such genius exist today in any of the arts. Where are your Van Gogh's, Shakespeares, Beethoven's, etc.? I have asked myself the question you asked many times. It seems like the artistic era has been slaughtered, for a lot of the part, by the popular culture? That, or it has just vanished.

To my mind, they do not exist.

[Chris]

Unfortunately, it seems modern society isn't really set up to allow for such a person to exist anymore. So I don't think you will find anyone who meets these requirements today.

[djmomo17]

I sometimes wonder if NEW and ORIGINAL music which can be appreciated on the level of Beethoven in his time is even possible for human beings. In the last half of the 20th century tonality and timbre were stretched as far as possible and yet that style is not as popular anymore. In fact I'd judge it to be a failure, or a fad at best. Is it possible that we as humans just haven't evolved past the point where we can value music more complex than tonal orchestral music?

[Bonn1827]

I sometimes wonder if NEW and ORIGINAL music which can be appreciated on the level of Beethoven in his time is even possible for human beings. In the last half of the 20th century tonality and timbre were stretched as far as possible and yet that style is not as popular anymore. In fact I'd judge it to be a failure, or a fad at best. Is it possible that we as humans just haven't evolved past the point where we can value music more complex than tonal orchestral music?

I think you ask a fundamentally important question here, despite its seeming innocence. However, I think it a type of syllogism. You posit an argument that "new and original music" should be appreciated on the level of Beethoven "in his time", but that comparatively recently tonality and timbre have both been "stretched as far as possible" and "that style is not as popular anymore". You, therefore, regard it as a "fad". So, essentially from 3 separate and quite individual theses you argue that "we have evolved past the point of VALUING music MORE complex than tonal orchestral music". This is a sweeping statement. Your last point has little to do with the former statements you made, since there is a lot of tonal orchestral music being written today.

I also disagree with Chris. I think there's lots of good music written today and that people, overall, are smarter and better educated than their forebears, not less so. However, I don't subscribe to the Darwinian idea of music as "evolving" from a more primitive form to a more complex and sophisticated one, and I think this is essentially the basis of YOUR argument. Music reflects the times - the zeitgeist. We live in a uber industrial/consummerist age, where social contracts and contacts are fraught and problematic - where ethnic difference and the role of traditional values are under constant reappraisal and change. (if not seige) Ergo, we would expect our arts to reflect these dilemmas and challenges to tradition. Otherwise, we run the risk of our music being relegated to the Museum - or being stunted, at best. I don't enjoy much modern music because I regard it as too difficult and unfamiliar for my ears, which are more or less accustomed to tonality and its "variants". But I accept the inevitability of change. That audiences are growing smaller is an irrefutable fact - but this problem extends to ballet and live theatre (except for the redoubtable Andrew Lloyd-Webber and his dubious rock-operas). Experimental arts have always been regarded as alienating - look at Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring", which now belongs in the standard repertoire. There is a lag period and mostly has been with regard to the reception/acceptance of music. I think we owe some of this music our attention, at least. I worry about the whole notion of "mainstream" acceptance anyway. Isn't this what we get with Lloyd-Webber?

The bottom line is that we should accept that some people genuinely like it and their views ought to be respected.

[djmomo17]

I think you ask a fundamentally important question here, despite its seeming innocence. However, I think it a type of syllogism. You posit an argument that "new and original music" should be appreciated on the level of Beethoven "in his time", but that comparatively recently tonality and timbre have both been "stretched as far as possible" and "that style is not as popular anymore". You, therefore, regard it as a "fad". So, essentially from 3 separate and quite individual theses you argue that "we have evolved past the point of VALUING music MORE complex than tonal orchestral music". This is a sweeping statement. Your last point has little to do with the former statements you made, since there is a lot of tonal orchestral music being written today.

Oh gosh, I think I'm misunderstood? Actually my point is that we as humans are unable to evolve to the point of valung music more complex than tonal orchestral music (I shouldn't have said "past"). The "fad" I'm referring to is in reference to music such as advanced by Stockhausen, Pierre Henri, Milton Babbit, Schoenberg, etc...not tonal music. In general it is rare for serial or electronic music to be performed today for large concert audiences. And whenever a Xenakis work is programmed after a Brahms piece, the audience empties out at intermission.

The fact that alot of tonal music is being written today actually supports my belief that we can't get past traditional harmony and orchestral timbre. The most successful modern composer is John Adams (from what I hear) and his stuff has actually gotten more tonal than in the past.

Sorry if my previous post was not that clear.

As a counter-argument I can mention that a recent Ligeti opera, "Le Grand Macabre" was successful here in NYC. However over half of the regular subscribers cancelled and the tickets were bought at discount rates by young people. Also it was promoted like a scary Disney film so that surely helped.

I'm really not sure if I agree that modern audiences are smarter than in the past. In the 60's we had Hendrix, Morrison, the Beatles. Today we have Jonas Brothers, Britney Spears, Kanye West. At least we had Cobain for a few years which was good. Regarding the lag period of acceptance, John Cage's Cartridge Music is 50 years old and is not likely to be performed more than once every 5 years. The Rite of Spring was accepted within a year of its debut. It was just the awful Nijinsky choreography and costumes that caused the riot I think...

I respect modern composers (I consider myself one of em!), but my point is that man may not be ready for evolved music. Calculus was invented in 1820. But how often does one use it in mainstream life?

[Bonn1827]

Something seems to have become lost in translation!! Apologies from my end if I got the wrong end of the stick, so to speak.

I meant that, in general, all people - not just audiences - are smarter than those who came before, if only because of the increased level of general education and literacy, as well as understandings of history etc. The reason I said this was that it is eminently possible for there to exist a genius of the creative status of LvB. The suggestion in a previous comment somebody made was that no equivalent creative modern genius as LvB seems possible these days!! That's a bit like saying that "Guernica" can't really be valued in terms of a masterpiece like "The Last Supper" because the artists in question were representing their subjects in a totally different visual language, era and context. I see this as somehow analogous to these arguments about music. We will always have genius - it will be represented differently according to time and context. And there will be a lag period, generally speaking.

The education of the "masses" (if you will) has resulted in a strange irony - more and more people are accepting less and less, it seems, in terms of "culture", with a capital "K"!! The more you educate people the less discriminating they (the vast majority) seem to become. Are they simply spoilt for choice? This could be the subject of another Thread.

I hope I don't sound patronizing. Have a great day!!

[Bonn1827]

Calculus? Isn't that something which grows on the teeth??!!

[Peter]

Something seems to have become lost in translation!! Apologies from my end if I got the wrong end of the stick, so to speak.

I meant that, in general, all people - not just audiences - are smarter than those who came before, if only because of the increased level of general education and literacy, as well as understandings of history etc.

I wonder just how educated 'the masses' are - the standard of literacy in the Uk is appalling, the knowledge of history very limited and the appreciation of the classics, art, music, literature - non-existent. Yes they have more qualifications that you have to be brain dead to fail, but the decline of science based subjects and the rise in useless degrees is proof of this great conspiracy that has been perpetuated by politicians of all persuasions anxious to show a rise in standards when the opposite is actually the case.
From my own teaching experiences I'm always quite shocked at the lack of the basics in my pupils - I find myself turning a piano lesson into history, maths and geography.

We are so smart now that we don't need to add up (so we can't), don't need to speak anything other than English (so we can't), don't need to write and spell (so we can't), don't need to know how to get somewhere because satnav will do it (apparently!!) - we are actually being trained NOT to think which is why you have 'the irony' you referred to of a decline in the appreciation of Beethoven etc...
A whole generation now satiated with technology, locked into their own world of unreality - indeed a poor life this if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare.

[Bonn1827]

You're not telling me anything I didn't already know. But what I meant by "educated" was:

1. able to read and write - not to PhD standard, but a huge advance on hundred and hundreds of years when nobody but the tiny minority could;

2. understand cause and effect - even if that simply means what creates babies. This has hugely influenced the western standard of living;

3. able to travel, experience the world as others do;

4. know your world better through nightly news services on television;

5. keep a job by being able to speak fluently, understand technology and use thinking processes.

So, we are not as doomed as you might think. Everywhere about us is living proof of higher living standards achieved through a broad, general education. We would, of course, like it to be better but it's free!! What else do you generally get for nothing, Peter??!!
And I think it would be improved if EVERYBODY actually had to PAY for it!! (Controversy!)

[Preston]

Just some thoughts:

I think it comes down to the genius of the individual person. Beethoven, attended only some classes at college and was never enrolled, to my understanding. Now that I think of it- did Beethoven ever graduate from something similar to high school?

Few people are genius, imo. A person could have all the smarts in the world and still not be a genius. For instance, a person could have a complete understanding of music theory, yet, not be able to write a note of music- because, it takes something more than that. I think it takes somekind of supra-mind that understands things in great detail?

Also, I believe that genius of Beethoven's, Shakespeare's, etc. level is probably not an accident. What I mean by that is that I imagine genius of that level to have been meant, by somekind of divine power, to exist? Though, I am not wholly sure, I imagine it is quite possible.

I think a true genius of today would not be a doctor, scientist, etc. but somebody who worked with the arts- to the highest degree. What do you all think? I believe the arts can be a pathway to the divine.

[Preston]

And I think it would be improved if EVERYBODY actually had to PAY for it!! (Controversy!)

Unfortunately, everyone can't. Also, based on statistics a lot of the people who cannot afford private schools, are the ones who do become more well-off financially in life.

[Chris]

Calculus was invented in 1820. But how often does one use it in mainstream life?

Calculus (in the modern sense) was actually invented around 1665. I use it every day, though not much in "mainstream" life, if by which you mean eating, cooking, going to the store, etc. It really doesn't have much use in the "everyday life", so I'm not sure what your point is here?

[Chris]

I also disagree with Chris. I think there's lots of good music written today and that people, overall, are smarter and better educated than their forebears, not less so.

I did not say that there is not good music written today, nor that people are less well educated than before. I said modern society isn't really set up to allow for such a person such as Beethoven to exist anymore. The aristocracy, the Church, popular trends of entertainment, printing and publishing, communications - all these things today are vastly different than they were 200 years ago.

[Peter]

You're not telling me anything I didn't already know. But what I meant by "educated" was:

1. able to read and write - not to PhD standard, but a huge advance on hundred and hundreds of years when nobody but the tiny minority could;

2. understand cause and effect - even if that simply means what creates babies. This has hugely influenced the western standard of living;

3. able to travel, experience the world as others do;

4. know your world better through nightly news services on television;

5. keep a job by being able to speak fluently, understand technology and use thinking processes.

So, we are not as doomed as you might think. Everywhere about us is living proof of higher living standards achieved through a broad, general education. We would, of course, like it to be better but it's free!! What else do you generally get for nothing, Peter??!!
And I think it would be improved if EVERYBODY actually had to PAY for it!! (Controversy!)

Well I wasn't comparing it to hundreds of years ago and even if I were I wouldn't say people are 'smarter than they have ever been' or we would never have had such things as the Renaissance, the Industrial revolution or the Ancient empires. The average IQ level of the human species doesn't change, nor unfortunately does human nature, regardless of how we may like to think of ourselves as well educated, backed up by over inflated grades, easier exams and pointless degrees.

Yes more people can read than 500 years ago, but can they think and just what are they reading?? I have known exceptional people of great abilitity who can't read but can do things I couldn't begin to such as take an engine to bits and repair and service it! Beethoven was hopeless at maths, but I don't think we would describe someone who can just about add up as smarter than Beethoven?

Sorry Bonn but you've got me started on this one, so I'll finish!! Travel, well your average Britich tourist has such a disgraceful reputation that the only broadening of the mind here is a throbbing head the day after. As for tv - little hope here for the soap/ big brother addicted masses I'm afraid. If we were really getting smarter the demand for such trash would be drying up - sadly the opposite is the case.