top 10 Most groundbreaking composers Ever

[sevencircles]

1.Josquin des Prez-Early Renaissance composer did propably invent the fuguetechnique and many other techniques used in the Renaissance and Baroque period.

2.Beethoven-no explanation needed

3. William Lawes- Early baroque composer. Did experiment with dissonances and conflicting melodies in a very tastefull way that was far ahead of his time

4.Heinrich Biber-Clusters and polytonality in the 17 century and it works great.

5.Schoenberg-no explanation needed

6.Stravinski-no explanation needed

7.Debussy-No explanation needed

8.Bartok-Propably the first western composer that really unerstood eastern rhythms such as Indian Rhythms for instance.

9.Xenakis-Showed the potential of stochastic music and tonal clusters combined with glissandi.

10.Buxtehude-Did really show the potential of counterpoint in general and fugues in particular. Mostly in the  list due to his influence on  Bach and the fact that he is still really underrated.

Anyone agree?

I expect that many people reading this havenīt even heard Lawes, Biber or Josquin but their importance are sadly neclected even today.

[gerryjay]

Dear Circles,
Interesting topic, but I don't agree with your list. Let me tell you why.

1. Josquin. He did not invent fugue technique, nor anything remarkable by the way. He was much more a composer of consolidation than innovation. More important, he was an outstanding writer: many of his generation had the same elements at disposal, but none created music as his. His influence to later Renaissance music is indeed important.

2. Beethoven. Perhaps, the most common example of groundbreaking, but this normally excludes Schubert, who was in a pair with Ludwig. The influence of Beethoven was, of course, much more widespread.

3. Lawes. Well, every now and then a composer disregard the rules and go the punk way. I don't think he was ahead of his time, because he was just using Baroque techniques in another fashion. However, he was different, as much as Gesualdo before or Ives after him.

4. Biber. I can't comment, because I can't recall a single moment of cluster writing or politonality in his music. So, I'll be glad to know, if you don't mind.

5. Schoenberg. Here I think we disagree in terms of perspective. To me, Schoenberg was the composer of his time. Atonality in general, and serial techniques in particular were the most urgent paths to follow late romantic german tonalism. So, he was a musician of his time (as much as Webern, or as Roslavets).

6. Stravinsky. The same that I wrote to Schoenberg, but in another direction. Strangely enough, he walked back to a safer ground and, thus, was a forerunner of neoclassicism. But he was not a step ahead of Hindemith, or Ravel, or many other composers for that matter.

7. Debussy. Here, I simply don't agree. Debussy was a conservative composer, and he reflects the state-of-the-art of late 19th - early 20th century French music, specially the exploration of the exotic (as frenchmen saw it back then).

8. Bartok. Indian Rhythms? Or I'm really forgetting something, or he was dealing with European rhythms and music. I think he was the most fine composer of this "field" nationalists (as compared to the saloon nationalists of the late 19th century), but he was as creative or innovative as Villa-Lobos, or Copland, or Chavez.

9. Xenakis. I must agree: he actually showed the potential of stochastic music. But that showed up quite a dead end later on. And about clusters, everybody was using clusters in the mid 20th century: Penderecki, Ligeti, Xenakis...

10. Buxtehude. Completely agree: a huge influence of Bach and a most underrated composer. Nevertheless, he was absolutely conservative in his own time.

I never thought before in that terms, but I promise to post my own list if I can think of one.

Best regards,
Jay.

[rodogg]

I don't completely agree with this either, so I guess I'm kinda with Jay.
If you're talking about how experimental composers were with their music, I think you could make a slightly more legitimate case.
As far as how influential composers go, this list is rather mixed.
And I do agree with Jay on a lot of things.
Schoenberg and Stravinsky were certainly popular and influential in their time, but I haven't seen much of their influence in music since then. Same with Debussy, except I enjoy his experimentation much more.
There's no telling what music would be without Beethoven's widespread influence.
Josquin was surely also very important in earlier music.
As you would have guessed, never heard or Lawes or Biber. Nor the last two composers, actually.
Bartok certainly could have a place of being a groundbreaking composer.
Sure Bach had his influences, but he should be on the list, I think. Perhaps his music has carried on longer than any other composer.
I would also think Chopin and Schumann's works were groundbreaking (for piano, at least) and helped popularize techniques such as rubato and chromaticism that carry on in music.
I am less familiar with Schubert, though, so I won't comment. Similar to Beethoven from what I hear?
Definitely an interesting topic, good points from both you and Jay.

Ryan

[sevencircles]

Dear Circles,
Interesting topic, but I don't agree with your list. Let me tell you why.

1. Josquin. He did not invent fugue technique, nor anything remarkable by the way. He was much more a composer of consolidation than innovation. More important, he was an outstanding writer: many of his generation had the same elements at disposal, but none created music as his. His influence to later Renaissance music is indeed important.

Who invented the fugue (and the canon method)?

2. Beethoven. Perhaps, the most common example of groundbreaking, but this normally excludes Schubert, who was in a pair with Ludwig. The influence of Beethoven was, of course, much more widespread.

Schubert was inspired by Beethoven and found his own style. But Beethoven was the true groundbreaker

3. Lawes. Well, every now and then a composer disregard the rules and go the punk way. I don't think he was ahead of his time, because he was just using Baroque techniques in another fashion. However, he was different, as much as Gesualdo before or Ives after him.

Some of his last works are really interesting but he is more a  personal preference. I tend to prefer mentioning unknown composers that are still unknown to most people instead of the more wellknown names

4. Biber. I can't comment, because I can't recall a single moment of cluster writing or politonality in his music. So, I'll be glad to know, if you don't mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9DJpaxT7wg There are other works as well but this is propably the only example on youtube.

5. Schoenberg. Here I think we disagree in terms of perspective. To me, Schoenberg was the composer of his time. Atonality in general, and serial techniques in particular were the most urgent paths to follow late romantic german tonalism. So, he was a musician of his time (as much as Webern, or as Roslavets).

Schoenberg did invent the 12-tone system and was the first truly serial composer or am I wrong?

6. Stravinsky. The same that I wrote to Schoenberg, but in another direction. Strangely enough, he walked back to a safer ground and, thus, was a forerunner of neoclassicism. But he was not a step ahead of Hindemith, or Ravel, or many other composers for that matter.

Rite of Spring, Firebird etc. Really groundbreaking works. He did inspire many others like Bartok for instance.

7. Debussy. Here, I simply don't agree. Debussy was a conservative composer, and he reflects the state-of-the-art of late 19th - early 20th century French music, specially the exploration of the exotic (as frenchmen saw it back then).

I think he inspired many 20:th century composers.

8. Bartok. Indian Rhythms? Or I'm really forgetting something, or he was dealing with European rhythms and music. I think he was the most fine composer of this "field" nationalists (as compared to the saloon nationalists of the late 19th century), but he was as creative or innovative as Villa-Lobos, or Copland, or Chavez.

Heard this from Shawn Lane (a wellknown fusionguitarvirtuoso) actually. Itīs possible that Bartok  just made some sketches that involved the Indian Konokol system. He propably didnīt publish anything significant that involved Indian rhythms.

9. Xenakis. I must agree: he actually showed the potential of stochastic music. But that showed up quite a dead end later on. And about clusters, everybody was using clusters in the mid 20th century: Penderecki, Ligeti, Xenakis...

I do believe that Metastasis was the first published work that involved massive clusters and glissandi.

10. Buxtehude. Completely agree: a huge influence of Bach and a most underrated composer. Nevertheless, he was absolutely conservative in his own time.

True but his compositions for Organ are propably of higher quality then any composer before Bach. More complex the fugues in particular.

I never thought before in that terms, but I promise to post my own list if I can think of one.

Best regards,
Jay.

Sure Bach had his influences, but he should be on the list, I think. Perhaps his music has carried on longer than any other composer.
I would also think Chopin and Schumann's works were groundbreaking (for piano, at least) and helped popularize techniques such as rubato and chromaticism that carry on in music.

Donīt know if Chopin was that innovative actually and neither was schumann. I tend to agree with Glenn Gould when it comes to Chopin.

Liszt was propably more innovative actually.

[richard black]

Yes, Liszt was enormously innovative, especially in his orchestral music which was a huge influence on Wagner.

Bellini was a lot more innovative than many realise, and a huge influence on Chopin.

I'm not sure how innovative I find Schoenberg. OK, he 'invented' (discovered, I think was the term he used) the twelve-tone system, but what did he do with it? I find it best used by Berg and Searle. Schoenberg's pre-12-tone works don't really advance much on Zemlinsky.

Satie was a great innovator, widely acknowledged as such by many of his younger contemporaries in France in the early 20th century.

Grainger was one of the most individual minds in the long history of western music.

Fascinating topic to ponder, this one!

[gerryjay]

1. Who invented the fugue (and the canon method)?
2. Schubert was inspired by Beethoven and found his own style. But Beethoven was the true groundbreaker
3. Some of his last works are really interesting but he is more a  personal preference. I tend to prefer mentioning unknown composers that are still unknown to most people instead of the more wellknown names
4.

There are other works as well but this is propably the only example on youtube.
5. Schoenberg did invent the 12-tone system and was the first truly serial composer or am I wrong?
6. Rite of Spring, Firebird etc. Really groundbreaking works. He did inspire many others like Bartok for instance.
7. I think he inspired many 20:th century composers.
8. Heard this from Shawn Lane (a wellknown fusionguitarvirtuoso) actually. Itīs possible that Bartok  just made some sketches that involved the Indian Konokol system. He propably didnīt publish anything significant that involved Indian rhythms.
9. I do believe that Metastasis was the first published work that involved massive clusters and glissandi.
10. True but his compositions for Organ are propably of higher quality then any composer before Bach. More complex the fugues in particular.

Dear Circles,
notice that what follows is my own view. I believe that are others (as yours), and by no means I want to prove you wrong. Let's just exchange ideas and see what comes from that.  

1. I don't think we can figure out the inventor of the fugue, since it was a procedure that was developed simultaneously in many places and - in its most primordial instance - it was a popular procedure and the canon is an example of that. Furthermore, I would not talk about the proper fugal procedure until much later than Josquin times. It is actually a Baroque trend, with these many forerunners in Renaissance music. Notice that imitative counterpoint was widespread since late Ars Antiqua (more than two hundred years before Josquin).

2. The Schubert-Beethoven issue is a difficult one. Schubert was born in Vienna in 1797, that is, the city and the period were Beethoven was the trend. I know no direct proves of influence, but I assume it as highlt probable. Nevertheless, Schubert developed his art in a direction much distinct from Beethoven, and in my modest opinion, is a far greater composer than the elder fellow. Two points, notwithstanding: a) the influence of Beethoven is beyond any discussion: no other composer influenced so many composers and generations than him; b) according to your reasoning, Haydn is the real groundbreaker, since Beethoven music would not exist without Haydn technique.

3. Well, this is personal. Period. I don't quite agree, but it is irrelevant: if you really believe Lawes is the guy, write an article and fight for publishing. Musicology is made of this kind of virtuosism. And, please, there is no sarcasm in this suggestion: I really mean it.

4. Thanks for the homework. I'm kind in a rush here, but as soon as possible I'll study this example.  

5. I go with Richard here: invented is not quite the term. Furthermore, other composers were dealing at the same time with series and set theory as applied to composition. Roslavets is the most interesting example, imho. Then, if you consider twelve-tone technique a groundbreak, you must turn your attention to Webern, who was the single most important and influential composer and thinker of the system.

6. The Firebird is Parisian ballet music of the turn of the century. An outstanding example of that, but nothing really out of the ordinary. On the other hand, Le Sacre was a vigorous turn, but again, a precise example of that very moment (other works that come to my mind are Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire, Debussy's Jeux, Bartok's Bluebeard). Take a look at literature, painting, sculpture...this was the feeling of the moment.

7. I do agree with you: Debussy inspired many composers. But this don't change the fact that he was conservative composer. Notice this is not a problem: Bach was a conservative composer - one of the most conservative composers ever - and a highly influential one - perhaps THE most influential ever.

8. I'm sorry, but it does not count. I would never trust a guitarist as a source (because the classical guitar world is full of myths), and even if he is right, Bartok did not effectively used that. I can assume many other composers did know and listened eventually to Indian music, but what matters is what is public.

9. (A quick look at the Grove later  ) Metastaseis was premiered late on 1955. Clusters were used since the early days of the 20th century, and you find examples anywhere. The one that I always remember is a fascinating little piano piece: Tiger, by Cowell, written in 1930 or so. Glissandi are a very old procedure. Clusters on glissandi...well, it was probably something Xenakis was the first to try, but I can't see the relevance in the course of music of this achievement.

10. Buxtehude is a major composer, no doubt about that. His sense of texture and the use of the organ are quite something, and I think more pianists should play his works for other keyboards.

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

By the way, reading the above post again, I must start my list:

1. Haydn.
2. Webern.

More to come.
Jay.

[gerryjay]

Liszt was propably more innovative actually.

Liszt was indeed a groundbreaker. He pushed the piano a step further, he pushed the orchestra a step further, he pushed tonality a step further. And was quite influential, too.

[sevencircles]

8. I'm sorry, but it does not count. I would never trust a guitarist as a source (because the classical guitar world is full of myths), and even if he is right, Bartok did not effectively used that. I can assume many other composers did know and listened eventually to Indian music, but what matters is what is public.

Shawn passed away in 2003 so I can not ask about further information. I donīt know if he saw Bartokīs Konokolsketches but I know that he studied Indian music theory and Indian influences on Western music a lot.


Feel free to post your own top 10 list, I see that composers that I forgot about are starting to pop up.

[gerryjay]

Feel free to post your own top 10 list, I see that composers that I forgot about are starting to pop up.

Today while walking I thought about that, and I have a list to call my own. Chronological order only.

1. Machaut. Well, perhaps he was not the real groundbreaker, but he is the guy that history recorded. With his setting of the mass he defined the role of the composer, the standard for employment, and the measure of genius in music for the following centuries. All that with a single composition!

2. A collective mention to the members of the Camerata Fiorentina. Although I don't consider any of the composers related to the Camerata particularly a genius, what they did together is the single most incredible revolution in all music history. It was new, it was dare, it was influential. Groundbreaking indeed.

3. Haydn. The creator of what become known as The Classical Style. Although many composers are important as well, he was the definitive one. A close study of his string quartets is a complete class in all aspects of the Viennese language but vocal settings. For that, there is Mozart, but as far as we are in a piano forum, I turn my view in  favor of Haydn. If it was a vocal forum, the name in this entry might be Mozart's.

4. Ives. The greatest and most genuine groundbreaker. He simply disregarded tradition AND avant-garde, and created a language of his own. It is amazing, but the most incredible part is that he achieved many of the technique results that were the state-of-the-art of the Parisian or Viennese avant-gardes without never knowing them. Finally, his music is a preview of both philosophy and sonorities of many music of the 30's to the 60's, though composed half a century earlier.

5. Webern. On the other hand, Webern was all about the tradition and he was the single most important composer of the path that comes from Bach. The fact that I'm saying that is irrelevant: Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono...all the fundamental composer of the middle of the 20th century did think that back then. Webern was their only role model, I mean, a role model for the most controversial composers ever. That is impressive.

I think that my list is done. Nevertheless, if I figure out anybody else, I'll write it here. Looking forward for the feedback.

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

I remembered something interesting. Stockhausen used clusters in glissando in his Klavierstück X, which was composed late 1954 if I'm not mistaken. Xenakis, as Circles pointed out, used this technique in Metastaseis, finished early the same year. The Darmstadt air was at least different those days...

Best regards,
Jay.

[mike_lang]

Beethoven
Mozart
Wagner
Liszt
Chopin
Stravinsky
Debussy
Schoenberg
Copland
Messiaen

[ahinton]

Beethoven
Mozart
Wagner
Liszt
Chopin
Stravinsky
Debussy
Schoenberg
Copland
Messiaen

Copland? COPLAND? What ground did he break? (apart, perhaps, in the persistent support and encouragement of his fellow American composers which alone has made him one of the most important figures in American music of any generation); otherwise, your list seems pretty reasonable, if it has to be confined to just 10 composers as the thread topic requires.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I do not have a list, but if I did, Field would probably be in it for his nocturnes and the first truly romantic piano concerto.

No doubt I will be called on for a thesis in order to further justify my nomination.

Thal

[sordel]

Wagner

He's the one that I thought was missing from the earlier lists.

I have no idea who should be in the "final" list, but I'm enjoying the suggestions.

[ahinton]

I do not have a list, but if I did, Field would probably be in it for his nocturnes and the first truly romantic piano concerto.

No doubt I will be called on for a thesis in order to further justify my nomination.

It would appear not (at least not so far, anyway); I can't claim to be especially surprised, frankly (though do stop splitting infinitives, Thal, old chap - "further to justify"'s better than "to further justify" - just thought I'd mention that, for the sake of amiable pedantry)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

(go away)

(Thal)

[ahinton]

(go away)

As in "to boldly go away"?...

Best,

Alistair

[bleicher]

1. Monteverdi - a pioneer of opera
2. Haydn
3. Beethoven
4. Liszt - for inventing the symphonic poem and exploring extreme chromaticism and near-atonality before Wagner did
5. Stravinsky - for exploring rhythm
6. Shoenberg - for devising a new way of organising pitches which influenced many composers after
7. Debussy - for exploring tone colour, and new ways of structuring music
8. Stockhausen - a pioneer of electronic music

Only 8 so far, and my list is biased towards 20th-century music because that what I know more of. But I don't think anyone's said Monteverdi yet.

[gerryjay]

But I don't think anyone's said Monteverdi yet.

Dear Bleicher,
I think Monteverdi is the principal composer among the ones that developed and perfectioned the ideas sent forth by the Camerata Fiorentina (the reason I listed the later instead of him). However, he was kind like Bach: not an innovator, but an outstanding skilled artist that brought existent techniques and genres to a peak.
Best regards,
Jay.

[bleicher]

Fair enough. I don't know as much about music of that period, despite it having been drilled into me at university (and 20th-century music almost completely ignored).

[sordel]

4. Liszt - for inventing the symphonic poem and exploring extreme chromaticism and near-atonality before Wagner did

Of course Liszt was a major influence on Wagner, but the Tristan chord is still generally regarded as having broken new ground, not so much because it was the first dissonant chord used in classical music (of course it wasn't, and those specific intervals had been used previously by other composers) but because in a major work it was given a critical position at the end of the first phrase in the prelude. If we're going to give one composer the nod for ushering in the atonal fashion, I think Wagner is still going to get that: others may have touched upon the ground, but he really broke it.

Also, although leitmotifs had been used by Weber, it is Wagner who really broke the ground by exploring them so fully. Wagner was also a major composer who really introduced the idea of the composer creating and controlling his acoustic environment, by commissioning the Bayreuth Festspielhaus to his own design and "burying" the orchestra in order to give greater prominence to the vocalists. This could also be seen as breaking ground for later composers, such as those who use installations.

I don't mean to value Wagner at the expense of Liszt - Liszt has his own claims to greatness - but if we are compiling a list of most groundbreaking composers I am still of a mind that Wagner must be there and Liszt doesn't need to be.

[mike_lang]

the persistent support and encouragement of his fellow American composers which alone has made him one of the most important figures in American music of any generation

Indeed!

[gerryjay]

Fair enough. I don't know as much about music of that period, despite it having been drilled into me at university (and 20th-century music almost completely ignored).

I'm sorry, I didn't mean you are wrong. Monteverdi is the recognized example and - to some authors - the actual inventor of opera. Anyway, I think that the primary sources don't support this view.

About the lack of 20th-century music, it is a shame, but a most common problem. The good part is the fact that 20th-century music is probably the period covered with the best manuals and "History of the..." books around. Examples abound: Griffiths, Taruskin, Simms, Antokoletz, usw. There is a pick to any historiographic belief, and many - if not all - go very well in the task of exploring the composers and the literature, which is the fundamental part of it.

By the way, how off topic I went?

Best regards,
Jay.

[Derek]

God I'm glad I have more than one hobby.

[sordel]

God I'm glad I have more than one hobby.

Hmmm?

[retrouvailles]

God I'm glad I have more than one hobby.

Why? Is all this deep musical discussion too much for your rock-music-trained brain?

[ongaku_oniko]

Before calling this "deep musical discussion", I think we need to better define "groundbreaking".

If we're only talking about a refusal to write music that is similar to others of their time, Kentaro Noda definitely deserves a spot on the list for using his foot to play notes on the piano.

Point is, we must evaluate music on a basis other than simply being rebellious, but also the quality of their music and the amount of influence they have.

[essynia]

amiable pedantry

I like that.

[essynia]

(probably a few composers to come -).