Sorabji and Messiaen - Most Influential 20th Century Composers?

[lorguemystique]

In my life of 40+ years I have heard and played much keyboard music from the Baroque period to the 20th century.   When playing Sorabji's "Le Jardin Parfumee" and Messiaen's "Vingt Regards", I know them to be quite the visionaries.  I am always at a loss for words when mention is made of Cage's works as being influential 20th century music.  Compared to Sorabji and Messiaen, Cage's work comes acroos as that of a puerile dilettante.

[dnephi]

Almost no one has heard of Sorabji.  I will not argue his value, but his influence is anything but broad.

Messiaen, however, is the most influential of the mid-20th century, with Schoenberg, Prokofiev, and Stravinsky being very influential in the beginning of it.

[retrouvailles]

I would definitely agree with Messiaen. I see him as the genesis of many movements in music. However, I see Sorabji more as the culmination of many influences, rather than the beginning.

[indutrial]

In my life of 40+ years I have heard and played much keyboard music from the Baroque period to the 20th century.   When playing Sorabji's "Le Jardin Parfumee" and Messiaen's "Vingt Regards", I know them to be quite the visionaries.  I am always at a loss for words when mention is made of Cage's works as being influential 20th century music.  Compared to Sorabji and Messiaen, Cage's work comes acroos as that of a puerile dilettante.

I could understand listing Messiaen as one of the most influencial, but I wouldn't likewise categorize Sorabji that way because, frankly, he doesn't cast that big of a shadow, especially in the world of non-pianists. His works are not particularly well-known and those that are often have a divided reception. While many others here and myself certainly think he's an excellent composer, I think that there are definitely twentieth century figures that stand out a bit more. I would argue that Bartok is far more influencial than the both of them, especially when you consider works like his string quartet cycle and Music for Celeste, Strings, and Percussion. Bartok wrote great piano music, but his versatility in other settings makes him stand out.

I agree that Cage is not that big deal, but his influence on composition and style is certainly still felt in a lot of places to this day. I think that his work was too mired in abstract ideas and purposeful unusual-ness to add anything of considerable value to the music of his time, but the development of a person of his stature with his qualities is almost like a necessary evil in the greater scheme of the overall intellectual environment of the century. I, for one, prefer composers who stood out less than Cage but stood on firmer ground.

In terms of overall influence during the twentieth century, one would have to cite serialism, which whether one liked it or not, influenced a lot of composers and players one way or the other, some embracing the dissolution of traditional tonality and harmony, others outright rejecting it, and yet others combining elements of both sides. When you look at modern giants like Elliott Carter, Charles Wuorinen, Henryk Gorecki, Sofia Gubaidulina or Avro Part, one can definitely sense that the trend caused a major splash at some point.

My personal favorites from the twentieth century far exceed any TWO composers. Messiaen and Sorabji are certainly among them, along with others like Per Norgard, Carter, Wuorinen, Tansman, Ligeti, Scriabin, Bartok, Stravinsky, and Dutilleux (to list ones off the top of my head). Just this week I found out that the second half of Norgard's ongoing quartet cycle (#s 7-10) is being released later this year. Anyone who likes stunning modern music would do well to dig deep into that guy's considerable ouevre.

[indutrial]

I would definitely agree with Messiaen. I see him as the genesis of many movements in music. However, I see Sorabji more as the culmination of many influences, rather than the beginning.

Very good call. To me, Sorabji represents a peak of what guys like Scriabin and late romantics like Szymanowski were aiming for. His legacy stands as more of a giant curiosity than a watershed for change. Messiaen also gets more points because he was an influencial teacher, which gave him an overt influencial power that Sorabji lacked. By that token, one could possibly include Nadia Boulanger as a figure of massive influence on the work of the 20th century. She didn't compose all that much, but her list of students is the stuff of legend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadia_Boulanger

[retrouvailles]

I would definitely see Nadia Boulanger as one of the greatest teachers, if not the greatest, of the 20th century. Her experience reaches far and wide. I have heard first-hand from some of her students that I have met how great of a teacher she was. For example, I met David Conte (listed on wikipedia) last week, and he was telling me stories about how she would assign him exercises in harmony. I don't know much about Messiaen's teaching, but I do know that he had probably the same amount of influence as Boulanger. Sorabji could not even begin to touch that.

[ahinton]

Sorabji, as his friend and almost exact contemporary Hugh MacDiarmid observed, was no guru; he did not seek to teach composers, let alone found any kind of school. Messiaen, on the other hand, taught a great many composers, although I am not inclined to think that he sought to found a "school of Messiaen" either (and indeed he did not really do so - by saying which I do not at all seek to undermine his achievements either as composer or teacher). Messiaen was far more of an establishment figure than was Sorabji; Sorabji was very much an outsider who, now that his music is becoming better known, is being increasingly perceived less and less as an outsider other than for the fact that he happened to choose largely to distance himself from the general milieus of music-making, musicology and pedagogy for much of his active professional life as a musician. There can be no doubt that the influence of Messiaen has so far been greater than that of Sorabji, yet it would not be unfair to say that Messiaen has not himself been the most influential of the past century's composers. I had a few lessons many years ago with one of his students who told me that, in one class, Messiaen had urged the assembled young composers to go and listen to the last four symphonies of Sibelius; now I cannot imagine that this is the kind of thing that most people would have expected from Messiaen, but then I don't think that we know enough yet about the totality of who Messiaen was (the recent book by Hill and Simeone will surely help here, however and is essential reading for those interested in Messiaen's legacy). There is arguably some kind of parallel between Sorabji and Messiaen in the extent to which each contributed voluminously and importantly to the repertoire of the piano and the organ, though there any similarity almost certainly ends. In 1989, I encouraged Kevin Bowyer (whose repertoire has long since included the complete organ works of Messiaen) to send a copy of his recording of Sorabji's First Organ Symphony to Messiaen, which he did, though no response was ever received; I wonder what Messiaen made of this seminal work, written in England before he himself had composed anything for the organ - and I'll have to carry on wondering, since we have no evidence in the form of an answer...

[lorguemystique]

WOW!!!

Very thoughtful commentaries by the "heavyweights" of this forum.

Cheers!

[indutrial]

In 1989, I encouraged Kevin Bowyer (whose repertoire has long since included the complete organ works of Messiaen) to send a copy of his recording of Sorabji's First Organ Symphony to Messiaen, which he did, though no response was ever received; I wonder what Messiaen made of this seminal work, written in England before he himself had composed anything for the organ - and I'll have to carry on wondering, since we have no evidence in the form of an answer...

Just a slight detour...

Did Mr. Bowyer's performance of the 2nd Organ Symphony go over well back in February? I remember reading that the performance needed to be cut down to just the first movement. A perfectly understandable abridgement, considering the girth of that piece. Organ music is something I'm admittedly not very well-versed in, but I definitely would love to learn more about Sorabji's enormous works for the instrument.

On another related note (at least in regard to my own self-absorbed interests  ), I recently downloaded (from Emusic) Mr. Bowyer's excellent recording of an earlier organ work by Per Norgard called Partita Concertante, Op. 23. The more things I hear from Norgard's worklist the more I'm convinced that time will definitely tell on that composer's greatness as more of it unfolds, and the piece Bowyer plays is no exception. Kudos to him for including Norgard, Messiaen, and Sorabji in his excellent repertoire.

[retrouvailles]

indutrial, have you considered taking a gander at what's going on at the Sorabji Archive Forum? You might find some valuable information there.

And I think I will shout another praise for Kevin Bowyer. I would like to hear him play some Messiaen organ works some day, which I absolutely adore.

[ahinton]

Just a slight detour...

Did Mr. Bowyer's performance of the 2nd Organ Symphony go over well back in February? I remember reading that the performance needed to be cut down to just the first movement. A perfectly understandable abridgement, considering the girth of that piece. Organ music is something I'm admittedly not very well-versed in, but I definitely would love to learn more about Sorabji's enormous works for the instrument.

I was there and can tell you that it was mind-bogglingly wonderful, immensely powerful, well-nigh note-perfect and had the lucidity and followable logic as well as the sheer excitement of Jonathan Powell's Sorabji performances. There will soon be some important news about Bowyer and Sorabji - watch this space! (or rather watch the space on the Sorabji forum to which "retrouvailles" has drawn attention here).

Best,

Alistair

[louis_james_alfred]

Hello everybody,

I've been following this great site as a guest for quite some time now, but this time I felt I had to reply. I'm a professional organist/pianist, and would be really interested to find a list of Sorbabji's organ compositions and scores. Wikipedia gives a list of works that include 3 organ symphonies, one of which lasts 7 hours. Is there anything else, and where could this music be found?

Btw, the link retrouvailles gave was dead.

Could anybody help me?

Thanks a lot. 

[ahinton]

Hello everybody,

I've been following this great site as a guest for quite some time now, but this time I felt I had to reply. I'm a professional organist/pianist, and would be really interested to find a list of Sorbabji's organ compositions and scores. Wikipedia gives a list of works that include 3 organ symphonies, one of which lasts 7 hours. Is there anything else, and where could this music be found?

Btw, the link retrouvailles gave was dead.

Could anybody help me?

Thanks a lot. 

I can only imagine that the Sorabji Archive website and forum are down at the moment and I can confirm to you that they were up and running earlier this morning, so I trust that this will only be a temporary hiatus; the link that "retrouvailles" gave is correct.

In the meantime, please send me an email to sorabji-archive@lineone.net and I will respond by emailing you our current brochure which details all of Sorabji's scores, published literary writings and recordings and all the items that we supply.

I apologise for the inconvenience about the site and forum and look forward to hearing from you.

Best,

Alistair

[retrouvailles]

]
Btw, the link retrouvailles gave was dead.

It isn't dead for me. Maybe you need to register with the forum first.

[sevencircles]

Schoenberg is the most influential composer during the 20:th century followed by Stravinski

Xenakis is worth mentioning too as well as Messiaen

but not Sorabji

[ahinton]

It isn't dead for me. Maybe you need to register with the forum first.

The site and forum were indeed down when I tried accessing them myself about an hour ago, although the forum had been OK earlier this morning. Anyway, it's now all back up again, so there should be no problem.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Schoenberg is the most influential composer during the 20:th century followed by Stravinski

Xenakis is worth mentioning too as well as Messiaen

but not Sorabji

For any composer to be credibly regarded as influential, a performing tradition in his/her music would need to have been established for a sufficient period of time; Sorabji's music only began to come to the fore in the past 30 years or so, when he was already in his 80s, whereas the other composers you mention were getting performances soon after each of their works was completed.

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

indutrial, have you considered taking a gander at what's going on at the Sorabji Archive Forum? You might find some valuable information there.

Thank you for the link. I haven't visited that forum in a while and that was a great thread to dig through. I had no idea that the 2nd Organ Symphony was 7+ hours. God damn, that sounds tough, for audience and performer alike.    I hope that the first full recital of that work is catered and has a PA speaker routed to the bathroom. Someone in the other forum was talking about memorizing the work! I hope that by the time he's finished, he has enough memory left to recall the first names of his loved ones and how to get to the grocery store.

As expected, a quick glance at the Sorabji website indicates that the 3rd Organ Symphony is of equal magnitude. Those works are definitely of great interest to me, especially since they are being attempted and they have been typeset. I will probably hold off on studying them for a long time because I want to study several of his piano pieces first, not to mention loads of works by other composers, alongside the normal nuisances of school, work, family, and good health!!. I have to say, the prospect of a full performance of the full 2nd Symphony might just prod me into making travel arrangements for next year.

[ahinton]

As expected, a quick glance at the Sorabji website indicates that the 3rd Organ Symphony is of equal magnitude. Those works are definitely of great interest to me, especially since they are being attempted and they have been typeset.

No, they have not been typeset yet - sorry to disappoint you. No. 2 has been edited years ago by Kevin Bowyer but, brilliant as is the result, it was done by hand in the days when music-setting software was very much in its infancy and could never successfully have handled anything remotely as complex and challenging as this score. Let's see what happens, however; news soon, I hope (and, as I have already recommended, watch the Sorabji Archive forum for that...)

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

No, they have not been typeset yet - sorry to disappoint you. No. 2 has been edited years ago by Kevin Bowyer but, brilliant as is the result, it was done by hand in the days when music-setting software was very much in its infancy and could never successfully have handled anything remotely as complex and challenging as this score. Let's see what happens, however; news soon, I hope (and, as I have already recommended, watch the Sorabji Archive forum for that...)

Best,

Alistair

Oops, my mistake. Am I at least correct in assuming that a reasonably legible edition of the work is available? Sorabji's own handwriting is just nightmarishly difficult and I'm amazed anybody can navigate it.

[ahinton]

Oops, my mistake. Am I at least correct in assuming that a reasonably legible edition of the work is available? Sorabji's own handwriting is just nightmarishly difficult and I'm amazed anybody can navigate it.

The first organ symphony is in printed published form, with corrections and annotations in the hand of Kevin Bowyer, the second exists in a beautifully calligraphed edition by Kevin Bowyer and the third remains for the time being in ms. only - but, as I said, watch this space...

Best,

Alistair

[s_bussotti]

I actually disagree with the fact that either of those composers were/are particularly important to the continuation and evolution of modern, classical music, beyond the aforementioned teaching of Messiaen.  I've always thought of Messiaen in a similar way I think of Shostakovich and Stravinsky; truly great composers, but ones who hardly anyone really emulated or extracted inspiration from in their own writings.  While certainly there are a couple splatterings of composers here and there like Takemitsu who did adopt a heavily "Messiaen-inspired" voice, I think that, among what are now the major composers, they are extremely few and far between.  The composers of the 20th century that I would say have been possibly the most influential are Schoenberg, Debussy, Ravel, Hindemith, Cowell, Ives and Gershwin for Pre-Darmstadt, and then Cage, Carter, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Bussotti, Ferneyhough, Boulez, Vivier and Reich for Post-Darmstadt and 21st Century.  I think Messiaen's harmonic world he created is unto Messiaen himself, and I believe some of the theory he is often associated with was being explored well beyond what he was doing, before he was doing it, and that the composers who were really utilizing it were extracting it not from Messiaen, but from his students who seemed to have almost instantly taken it lightyears from what Messiaen himself was doing with it.

[ahinton]

I actually disagree with the fact that either of those composers were/are particularly important to the continuation and evolution of modern, classical music, beyond the aforementioned teaching of Messiaen.

I think that this is fair comment; the value of any individual composer's work is not necessarily reflected in the extent to which he/she is, or is thought to be, influential on future generations.

I've always thought of Messiaen in a similar way I think of Shostakovich and Stravinsky; truly great composers, but ones who hardly anyone really emulated or extracted inspiration from in their own writings.

I cannot agree with you entirely here; Shostakovich certainly exerted some influence for a time on youger Russian composers (although I agree that this was not especially widespread or long-lasting) and the influence of Stravinsky has been rather more prevalent (and lives on even today in composers such as Andriessen).

While certainly there are a couple splatterings of composers here and there like Takemitsu who did adopt a heavily "Messiaen-inspired" voice, I think that, among what are now the major composers, they are extremely few and far between.

Takemitsu is undoubtedly one of the more obvious examples, but I would submit that the influence of Messiean, such as it has been, is rather more subtle; ask almost any French spectralist composer and he/she'll probably admit (if being honest!) to drawing on Messiaen to some extent at some point, even though his/her own music doesn't obviously "sound" like Messiaen's.

The composers of the 20th century that I would say have been possibly the most influential are Schoenberg, Debussy, Ravel, Hindemith, Cowell, Ives and Gershwin for Pre-Darmstadt,

I rather have my doubts about Cowell here (and that's not a value-judgement of his own work, merely a doubt about the extent of his influence, since his music is rarely heard or discussed outside US and, even when he is discussed, it is often in the context of American mavericks such as Partch rather than as a composer central to any identifiable American musical tradition).

and then Cage, Carter, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Bussotti, Ferneyhough, Boulez, Vivier and Reich for Post-Darmstadt and 21st Century.

Again, I think that you risk confusing importance with extent of influence. Carter, who has found his own ways with immense difficulty over a remarkably long gestative and maturing period, has never really fitted into a particular persuasion and it would be hard to detect specific widespread influences from his work. I also have my doubts about Bussotti and especially Vivier in this regard (the latter being somewhat less well-known than the remainder of composers on your list here). Ferneyhough's influence probably has at least as much to do with his teaching activities (which he regards as being of central importance to his work as a composer - perhaps more so than most).

I think Messiaen's harmonic world he created is unto Messiaen himself,

That's absolutely true; as he matured, some confluence with Alain, Langlais, etc. is undoubtedly detectable (as well as a whiff of Dukas and Roussel), but he did really become something of a law unto himself.

and I believe some of the theory he is often associated with was being explored well beyond what he was doing, before he was doing it, and that the composers who were really utilizing it were extracting it not from Messiaen, but from his students who seemed to have almost instantly taken it lightyears from what Messiaen himself was doing with it.

I think that you'd need to flesh this one out with some explanatory detail! - and one could likewise argue that Skryabin, Roslavets, Hauer and others wwere experimenting with quasi-serial ideas before - and independently of - Schönberg. I'm also less than certain that your statements here are wholly compatible with your previous sentence about Messiaen's harmonic world.

Like Ferneyhough, Messiaen had many students. Of the other composers you mention in this post, Schönberg probably had a greater number of students than most. The extent to which such widespread tutelage may be reflected in the influence of the music itself is inevitably debatable and variable from one composer to another. It is also important to consider for how long any such influence may be seen to prevail - and where it pertains geographically.

So, it's a big and interesting subject which is far from easy to see in black and white in most cases, but I think that we can agree that the extent to which any composer's music may be seen as influential is not necessarily an indicator of its value or of its expressive power and, accordingly, neither Messiaen nor Sorabji can truly be regarded as especially influential, despite the importance of their music (especially their writings for piano and organ which are arguably as vital to 20th century music as those of Liszt and Alkan to 19th).

Best,

Alistair

[s_bussotti]

I cannot agree with you entirely here; Shostakovich certainly exerted some influence for a time on youger Russian composers (although I agree that this was not especially widespread or long-lasting) and the influence of Stravinsky has been rather more prevalent (and lives on even today in composers such as Andriessen).

You are probably right on the point of Stravinsky from a purely aesthetic point of view, but I would say some of the more distinguishable traits of his compositional technique such as the seemingly unwavering use of parallelism and some of his neobaroque tendencies did not really carry onto his predecessors.  Certainly works like "Firebird" and "Rite of Spring" are cornerstones of the always-debatable "important pieces list" just for their raw aggression and rhythm-oriented motifs, so on that level I would have to agree to having chosen a poor example.

I rather have my doubts about Cowell here (and that's not a value-judgement of his own work, merely a doubt about the extent of his influence, since his music is rarely heard or discussed outside US and, even when he is discussed, it is often in the context of American mavericks such as Partch rather than as a composer central to any identifiable American musical tradition).

I would love to have a discussion about the importance of Cowell in regards to the ouvre of American music in the early 20th century, but I feel that would be an utterly HUGE digression; feel free to make a separate topic and I would be more than happy to oblige you there.

Again, I think that you risk confusing importance with extent of influence. Carter, who has found his own ways with immense difficulty over a remarkably long gestative and maturing period, has never really fitted into a particular persuasion and it would be hard to detect specific widespread influences from his work.

I think Carter is most-readily heard in the works of a LOT of lesser-known composers, but of the more important I would oblige you to take a listen to some of Charles Wuorinen's work (As I'm sure you've done in the past, but perhaps give it another listen with this particular goal in mind).  And while the time-lines of these two composer's output is nearly identical, I've always had the sneaking suspicion that Babbitt likes to expand on some of Carter's ideas.  EIther that or they just seem to have the unfortunate position of both having some strikingly similar ideas and close proximity XD

I also have my doubts about Bussotti and especially Vivier in this regard (the latter being somewhat less well-known than the remainder of composers on your list here).

I can understand the exeption for Carter, but considering your knowledge I'm surprised you'd contest the impact of either of these composers, particularly Vivier.  While his work is less-known and less-played, I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that, simply, there is quite a bit less of it in general; he died quite young, as I'm sure you know.  Vivier I would, without hesitation, consider the godfather of Spectral music; as far as I am aware (and correct me if I'm wrong; it's possible I am, as I have been in the past in these sort of matters) he was, quite simply, the first spectralist, and that composers such as Dufourt, Radulescu, Grisey and Murail often cite him as one of their major influences.  I really think he opened the door to spectralism and post-spectralism which is slowly and steadily becoming THE major school of music right now.  As for Bussotti, I really group him with Stockhausen and Cage as the three major exponents of Avant-Gardism; he is certainly the lesser-known of the three, but again as is the case with Messiaen (with the exception of the forth-coming geographical reference), he has tought many of Italy's most important composers.  I would also dare say he is probably the man we should thank (or despise, depending on your disposition) for making graphic notation a serious medium in the 50's and 60's.  But perhaps his influence is more regional than wide-spread, which seems to consistently be the case with the Italians for some unknown reason (although that is not to say he hasn't had global impact; just take a look at composers like Boucourechliev to see what I mean).

I think that you'd need to flesh this one out with some explanatory detail! - and one could likewise argue that Skryabin, Roslavets, Hauer and others wwere experimenting with quasi-serial ideas before - and independently of - Schönberg. I'm also less than certain that your statements here are wholly compatible with your previous sentence about Messiaen's harmonic world.

Actually I wasn't referencing his experimentation with the various forms of serialism; I was speaking in regards to his work in the fields of harmony and color theory.  I would have thought the idea of him being the "inventor" of total serialism a la Qautre Etudes (which is an argument I have come to just utterly despise, as I see it so many times) instead of someone like a Boulez or Barraque would be a foregone conclusion.  (and speaking of Barraque, THERE is a very influential but hardly-played composer.  Like Vivier, just so little output.)

[ahinton]

You are probably right on the point of Stravinsky from a purely aesthetic point of view, but I would say some of the more distinguishable traits of his compositional technique such as the seemingly unwavering use of parallelism and some of his neobaroque tendencies did not really carry onto his predecessors.  Certainly works like "Firebird" and "Rite of Spring" are cornerstones of the always-debatable "important pieces list" just for their raw aggression and rhythm-oriented motifs, so on that level I would have to agree to having chosen a poor example.

By "predecessors" I assume you to mean the opposite, "successors" and I do think that quite a bit of middle-period Stravinsky rubbed off on other composers, though it's almost half a century since Stravinsky last composed, so that influential aspect has undoubtedly diluted during that time.

I would love to have a discussion about the importance of Cowell in regards to the ouvre of American music in the early 20th century, but I feel that would be an utterly HUGE digression; feel free to make a separate topic and I would be more than happy to oblige you there.

My point here is that, as you go on to say about Bussotti, his influence has tended to be more regional than international and his music is rarely heard today outside America.

I think Carter is most-readily heard in the works of a LOT of lesser-known composers, but of the more important I would oblige you to take a listen to some of Charles Wuorinen's work (As I'm sure you've done in the past, but perhaps give it another listen with this particular goal in mind).  And while the time-lines of these two composer's output is nearly identical, I've always had the sneaking suspicion that Babbitt likes to expand on some of Carter's ideas.  EIther that or they just seem to have the unfortunate position of both having some strikingly similar ideas and close proximity

I'm not for one moment suggesting that Carter has exerted no influence and I have indeed listened to numerous of Wuorinen's works, but I do think that, even though Carter has enjoyed far more success in Europe than in his own coutry (at least until relatively recently), his work and his compositional procedures embrace such individuality as to confine any realistic influential cross-fertilisation; in an interview a few years ago, Carter claimed to know little of Babbitt's work and, as I'm no Babbitt scholar, I cannot say whether or to what extent Babbitt has drawn on Carter's example, although it doesn't seem especialyl obvious to me that he has (that said - and to digress momentarily - I'd give quite a lot to see the pair of them performing in 'Histoire du Soldat with the comparatively youthful John Harbison, as they've done a few times lately!).

I can understand the exeption for Carter, but considering your knowledge I'm surprised you'd contest the impact of either of these composers,

I'm not so much contesting it as seeking to put it into a realistic global perspective.

particularly Vivier.  While his work is less-known and less-played, I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that, simply, there is quite a bit less of it in general; he died quite young, as I'm sure you know.  Vivier I would, without hesitation, consider the godfather of Spectral music; as far as I am aware (and correct me if I'm wrong; it's possible I am, as I have been in the past in these sort of matters) he was, quite simply, the first spectralist, and that composers such as Dufourt, Radulescu, Grisey and Murail often cite him as one of their major influences.  I really think he opened the door to spectralism and post-spectralism which is slowly and steadily becoming THE major school of music right now.

Again, I'm not seeking to undermine Vivier's importance but to exercise due proportion; his influence in the world of spectralism is undoubtedly of significance but, since I take issue with the notion that any one musical persuasion "is slowly and steadily becoming THE major school of music right now", I submit that Vivier's influence is arguably as musically parochial as Bussotti's is or Cowell's was geographically regional (and I must stress again that this is not intended as a pejorative comment per se).

As for Bussotti, I really group him with Stockhausen and Cage as the three major exponents of Avant-Gardism; he is certainly the lesser-known of the three,

Indeed he is, but what interests me here is that you'd cite him in preference to Boulez or Xenakis - or even (if one looks back pre-WWII) Varèse.

but again as is the case with Messiaen (with the exception of the forth-coming geographical reference), he has tought many of Italy's most important composers.

That's a point I made earlier; teaching clearly affects this situation significantly, but because that is clearly the case, one needs to try to distinguish between the influence of a composer's teaching and that of his/her actual music (not always an easy thing to do).

My remark above that no one musical persuasion is THE major school of music right now also leads me to conclude that the establishment and survival of individual composers' influences is likely to be weakening in general terms; this is a very different environment to that of the heyday of Darmstadt, the rise of American minimalism or even the so-called "post-Romantic" movement (such as it ever is or was) - it is one in which Carter can flourish alongside David Matthews, Lachenmann alongside Glass, Ferneyhough alongside Maxwell Davies and Dutilleux alongside Finnissy. Not for nothing (other than the sheer dispiriting fact) did a group of young composers at the end of a lecture ask the BBC specialist new music producer who'd given it what kind of style might be expected of them...

Best,

Alistair

[point of grace]

listen to berio's symphony!

[ahinton]

listen to berio's symphony!

It's a remarkable work that has certainly stood the test of forty years well - but what's it got to do with this thread?

Best,

Alistair

[pk]

Sorabji has never been influential anywhere but to some on this forum 

[mattgreenecomposer]

Its funny that noone mentions filmscore or Jazz when discussing 20th century music.  They blow it off as some sort of adolescent "passing phase" or something.  Not mentioning filmscore in the 20th century is like not mentioning opera in the 18th century.  I think most of these composers we study about in academia will be just a flicker in the wind compared to the pioneeers of filmscore and Jazz.  Only time will tell, but these genres of art/music are not going anywhere, infact, they are expanding into the interactive and video game worlds.  I laugh at the fact that people just blow of composers such as John Williams, Dave Brubeck or Gershwin  as some big joke that shouldn't be taken seriously.

Its like the king saying, "Oh Mozart is so cute, he does so well for such a small child."

[tompilk]

i agree about film scores. star wars is incredible score... to be able to create something so iconic and that so many people "latch on" to is probably the work of genious.

[indutrial]

Its funny that noone mentions filmscore or Jazz when discussing 20th century music.  They blow it off as some sort of adolescent "passing phase" or something.  Not mentioning filmscore in the 20th century is like not mentioning opera in the 18th century.  I think most of these composers we study about in academia will be just a flicker in the wind compared to the pioneeers of filmscore and Jazz.  Only time will tell, but these genres of art/music are not going anywhere, infact, they are expanding into the interactive and video game worlds. 

I agree that film and game music, as well as jazz and rock, are all incredibly important for contextualizing the idea of influence and importance in the twentieth century and I wish that a lot of classical musicians would simply get over their "city on a hill" attitude and take a more inviting stance towards what are usually viewed as "lesser" genres. A myopic approach to deciding what one should listen to will only result in a myopic and pretentious musician who has LOADS of potential to annoy others and troll the crap out of webforums like this one. Besides, being as real as possible, it's probably fair to say that the ones who talk the most trash are probably completely incapable of sporting the same musicianship that someone like Dave Brubeck, John Williams, Nobou Uematsu brings to the table.

[s_bussotti]

Dave Brubeck, John Williams, Nobou Uematsu

I prefer Ornette Coleman, Ennio Morricone and Yoko Shimamura tbh

[indutrial]

I prefer Ornette Coleman, Ennio Morricone and Yoko Shimamura tbh

I like these three as well. I was simply citing examples of a far more well-known nature, not to mention examples I've seen idiots talking trash about in the past. Why anyone feels the need to take lame shots at Dave Brubeck is beyond me.

Ornette's a good example of a musician who gets slagged not only by dumb classical musicians, but also by intolerant and annoying jazz musicians who disapprove of all sorts of things ranging from his tone to the fact that he used a plastic saxophone a few times, not to mention the cardinal sin that his tunes often didn't involve any set-in-stone harmonic changes! OH NO!!! The world might crumble if we don't stitch 10-20 ii-V-I progressions into those tunes! I'd say that Ornette's legacy speaks for itself, especially when you look at how many cutting-edge sax players in the jazz scene (Marty Ehrlich, Tim Berne, John Zorn, Andrew D'Angelo) are doing similar things now, or drawing from his example and going even further into improving the language of improvisation. Ornette and his creative cohorts (Don Cherry, Eric Dolphy, Charlie Haden, Billy Higgins) remain some of the most important contributors to that genre.