20th Century music

[UB1]

How I wish I could get my head around modern art music like UB1. I just can't seem to get the traction with it. Years ago at university I remember befriending a lecturer who was a modern composer - his music was premiered in Australia at a "new music festival". I couldn't get my head around the music but, my God, the man was so interesting to talk to. We spent 4 hours in each other's company and he said, "Oh, I'm sorry; I've just realised that all I've talked about is music". I said, "you've got to be kidding! I'm not interested in anything else!" It was a memorable evening for a mother of four from the back blocks.

Most of the composers I mentioned in that first post produced basically tonal (what ever that means) music. Much of it is a short step or less from Stravinsky or Bartok. One of the things about music of the last 60 years or so is that there so many different styles were being used that it is possible to find some composers that you can enjoy. Of course there is also a lot of music that you probably will not 'get your head around' - at least that is true for me - but that is OK also.

I am certainly glad that there is such a diversity of styles and tastes because if everyone liked and every composer wrote the same music, it would be a very boring musical world.

[Bonn1827]

The composer in question, as mentioned above, is one Chris Dench and I notice he has written about himself on Google and is still producing work.

[Bonn1827]

How I wish I could get my head around modern art music like UB1. I just can't seem to get the traction with it. Years ago at university I remember befriending a lecturer who was a modern composer - his music was premiered in Australia at a "new music festival". I couldn't get my head around the music but, my God, the man was so interesting to talk to. We spent 4 hours in each other's company and he said, "Oh, I'm sorry; I've just realised that all I've talked about is music". I said, "you've got to be kidding! I'm not interested in anything else!" It was a memorable evening for a mother of four from the back blocks.

[UB1]

And Varese's output fits neatly on 2 CDs (Chailly/Concertgebouw on Decca e.g.) whereas Webern's still takes 5 or 6 (Boulez on DGG e.g.).
I prefer Webern slightly to Varèse - because of the silence of the former's music. But Varèse is in terms of orchestral sonoroties not just, but far superior to Webern IMO, and -for that matter- to nearly all 20th C composers. Messiaen comes near.

As much as I have enjoyed Varese's music in the past, none of it has stuck with me over the years.

OTOH for me Webern's op. 5, Five movements for string quartet, is the finest 10 minute work written in the 20th century. Although I have no musical talent, I do not believe there is a wasted note in the work and yet it hold for me both great beauty and power.

[Bonn1827]

I'm not sure what you mean by the acoustic comments. I adore single instrument recitals - mainly piano, it has to be said. Also, organ (ex Nostre Dame) and I enjoyed a lot of these in churches around Europe last year.

[Quijote]

Well, to be honest, I'm fairly sure, but I wouldn't mind a debate about it.

[Quijote]

Which also explains my distaste for "solo" recitals. Apart from the Goldberg and Diabelli. But even there, another "listening attitude" comes into play. I think it has to do with "timbral variation", but I'm not sure. Comments?

[Quijote]

For instance, there are times (rare, I admit) when I can listen to a Beethoven symphony or concerto "acousmatically". The higher the number of instruments, the higher my "distance from the source of sound". It is, finally, a question of "listening attitude." This is a learned approach, and one that suits my own particular mindset.

[Quijote]

And you may count on me for original comments.

[Quijote]

Of course, if somebody would question me on my terminology ("electroacoustic" or "acousmatic" approaches to essentially instrumental writing), this may widen the debate somewhat. After all, this is the Beethoven Reference Site, and we should be aware of the responsibility that infers. It is time, ladies and gentlemen, to get very serious.

[Quijote]

And Varese's output fits neatly on 2 CDs (Chailly/Concertgebouw on Decca e.g.) whereas Webern's still takes 5 or 6 (Boulez on DGG e.g.).
I prefer Webern slightly to Varèse - because of the silence of the former's music. But Varèse is in terms of orchestral sonoroties not just, but far superior to Webern IMO, and -for that matter- to nearly all 20th C composers. Messiaen comes near.

Yes, very perceptive comments, Roehre. Silence is golden. I agree, Varèse has a far more subtle handling of sonority, which almost has an "electroacoustic" approach. Messiaen comes close, this is true, but Boulez even closer. Varèse's timbral approaches were precursors to a true "acousmatic" ideal, in my opinion.

[Roehre]

Interesting postings from UB1 and Roehre. I do not know the works of Vagn Holmboe, Allan Pettersson and Karl Amadeus Hartmann, and I am therefore duly alerted to these composers who, to be frank, have never appeared "on my radar", so to speak.
I am not about to disparage composers who choose to write in such juggernaut idioms ("The Symphony" - gasp!), but I do wonder what their original "voice" might be. I have heard some of the Robert Simpson symphonies you both refer to, but I was never tempted back to repeated listening. On the other hand, his analysis of the Bruckner symphonies I found masterly.
There is one composer I find who is consistently ignored in "mainstream" debate on the 20th century, and that is Edgar Varèse. Why this should be so perplexes me, as I personally place him beside (and just a little above) Webern for his pioneering work. It is Varèse - more so than Webern - who really opened my ears to the beauty of music "beyond the printed note". Boulez himself has long laboured to bring this composer to the fore, but he remains obscure. It is a great shame.

And Varese's output fits neatly on 2 CDs (Chailly/Concertgebouw on Decca e.g.) whereas Webern's still takes 5 or 6 (Boulez on DGG e.g.).
I prefer Webern slightly to Varèse - because of the silence of the former's music. But Varèse is in terms of orchestral sonoroties not just, but far superior to Webern IMO, and -for that matter- to nearly all 20th C composers. Messiaen comes near.

[Quijote]

Interesting postings from UB1 and Roehre. I do not know the works of Vagn Holmboe, Allan Pettersson and Karl Amadeus Hartmann, and I am therefore duly alerted to these composers who, to be frank, have never appeared "on my radar", so to speak.
I am not about to disparage composers who choose to write in such juggernaut genres ("The Symphony" - gasp!), but I do wonder what their original "voice" might be. I have heard some of the Robert Simpson symphonies you both refer to, but I was never tempted back to repeated listening. On the other hand, his analysis of the Bruckner symphonies I found masterly.
There is one composer I find who is consistently ignored in "mainstream" debate on the 20th century, and that is Edgar Varèse. Why this should be so perplexes me, as I personally place him beside (and just a little above) Webern for his pioneering work. It is Varèse - more so than Webern - who really opened my ears to the beauty of music "beyond the printed note". Boulez himself has long laboured to bring this composer to the fore, but he remains obscure. It is a great shame.

[UB1]

first: Welcome to these boards, UB1

Thanks I enjoy sharing thoughts on music that I love to listen to.

A pity that his orchestral works -recorded by Marco Polo with the Arnhem orchestra- aren't generally available any more. For lovers of double bass concertos: Markevich's concerto is worth a hearing. Icare is IMO one of the best places to start listening to THIS Igor.

Most of the orchestral works that were on Marco Polo are now available on Naxos and can be previewed on demand. If you fork over $29 a year, they will let you listen to anything in their catalog. I agree that Icare
is a good starting place for Markevitch.

One German composer who went into internal exil during the years of the Third Reich, didn't emigrate, but contimued composing, although his works could not be performed.

I believe he would not let them be performed. IIRC his wife had money so he could do this.

I personally do think that Simpson symphonies 1-5 are excellent works too, and we have to keep in mind that the First symphony was the "doctoral thesis" which earned him his doctorate! A work of his which I love is his Variations on a theme by Nielsen (for orchestra) and his 32 Variations and a Fugue on a theme by Haydn (= string quartet no.9, 1982).

I can not say I am a fan of the 2nd, 4th and 5th symphonies but I have not listened to them in years so perhaps I should find time to go back and listen again.

I do not think his solo piano music is up to the standards of his other music.

I particularly don't appreciate well the Symphony no.12 "De döda pa torget", which has got IMO too strong choral parts, covering the orcehstra.

I have to confess that I love the 12th symphony. But then I also love Nono's political protests works so I guess it is not surprising that I like this piece.


Do you know Sallinen's vocal music? My favorite two operas of his are The Red Line and Kullervo. His song cycle, Songs of Life and Death, is one of the most beautiful and powerful that I know from any period.

[Roehre]

first: Welcome to these boards, UB1

I am a fan of Nielsen's late symphonies and Vagn Holmboe is often noted as his successors. He may have written a little too much music but I have never found anything of his that was not worth listening to.

Holmboe's departure from Bartok (in his 1st symphony) and slowly but surely developing his own style (IMO from his 4th symphony onwards) is a voyage of discovery in itself. His symphonies, his (chamber)concertos and the cycle of string quartets are worth exploring. The only work of his I am less enthoudiastic (at this moment that is) is his 10th symphony, which I think is too heavily leaning on too undistinguished material for too long. But even so it isn't a bas pece at all.

For those who like Stravinsky I would recommend Igor Markevitch. I think it is a shame he gave up composing at a young age to concentrate on conducting.

A pity that his orchestral works -recorded by Marco Polo with the Arnhem orchestra- aren't generally available any more. For lovers of double bass concertos: Markevich's concerto is worth a hearing. Icare is IMO one of the best places to start listening to THIS Igor.

One of my favorites from the middle years of the century is Karl Amadeus Hartmann. Most people who enjoy Mahler seem to enjoy Hartmann's symphonies. I am not a big Mahler fan but I do feel Hartmann is one of the fine symphonist of the century.

And admirers of Hartmann's music have since a couple of years the chance to follow Hartmann's development through the years, including the pre-war symphonic works (a.o.Sinfonia tragica, Symphonie L'Oeuvre", Symphony for Strings and soprano) the reworkings of this pre-war output into thesix post-war symphonies 1-6, followed by no.7 and 8 which were completely begun from scratch.
His Concerto funèbre (a violin concerto from 1939, a "j'accuse" to the Nazis !) has become quite popular the last say 15 years, his 2 string quartets are worth investigating as is his piano music and are his diverse concertos.
One German composer who went into internal exil during the years of the Third Reich, didn't emigrate, but contimued composing, although his works could not be performed.

For many years Robert Simpson was in the top 5 of listening list. From 6 on for his symphonies and most of his string quartets I would highly recommend. The 3rd Symphony is quite good also.

I personally do think that Simpson symphonies 1-5 are excellent works too, and we have to keep in mind that the First symphony was the "doctoral thesis" which earned him his doctorate! A work of his which I love is his Variations on a theme by Nielsen (for orchestra) and his 32 Variations and a Fugue on a theme by Haydn (= string quartet no.9, 1982).

Allan Pettersson may not have written the most up-lifting music but I have never found it as angst filled as many. I am partial to his 7th and then 10-13 but I will say his music may not be for everyone. Do not miss his vocal music. His Barefoot songs arranged for choir are plain gorgeous.

I agree with you regarding the 7th, but nos 6 and 8 belong to my favourites as well. I particularly don't appreciate well the Symphony no.12 "De döda pa torget", which has got IMO too strong choral parts, covering the orcehstra. Don't forget to listen to the 3 Concertos for strings and especially the 2nd of his 2 violin concertos.

Finally to a living composer - Aulis Sallinen - his chamber music, operas, and his 5th symphony has entertained me for many hours.

Yes, this "Washington Mosaics" is a colourful score, and quite a difference in orchestral writing compared with the nos.1-3, of which the very first really is a masterstroke. Chamber music of Sallinen's shouldn't be neglected either: especially the serious String quartet no.3 and the rather hilarious Chamber-music III "The nocturnal dances of Don Juanquixote" opus 58 give food to serious thoughts and genuine relaxation.

More later is anyone is interested.

Yes please