Total Members Voted: 5
They aren't contemporary... Hell one of them even died almost a 100 years ago; not to mention that he was also born in the middle of the 19th century.
They're all most definitely contemporary.
With whom? Does not the term "contemporary" at least imply the living - at least to those of us who are still alive and able to start threads such as this one?Best,Alistair
The living are apart of the category of contemporary but the category is not limited to them. I consider anyone during the 20th century or later contemporary as they are apart of that time period.
contemporary = con+tempus (together in + time), case closed.
Surely contemporary, in the abstract - ie not as in contemporary with, say, Bach - means alive (or possibly very recently having ceased to be). How can you expect people to take "classical" music seriously if all they ever see of it predates their own lives? If competitions etc ask for contemporary, show them what it means and play something from now.
One of severals favorite - 20th century (mid-late) = Otar Taktakishvilli-because music from that region is fascinating-for solo piano? probably this thing.& his first piano concerto is very fines too!-Alee Marie..