TromboneChat

From a column of musical newsbits in the NY Times, a festival in Vienna has sent out invitations to 21 living composers.

• I count at least 13 who remain musically significant today.

• Their last name was all that was needed to identify them.

• Austria, Germany, Italy, Russia, France, Norway, England... great talent all over the place.

Imagine trying to come up with a list of 21 living composers today, composers of similar marquee value now and who will also endure for 100 years or more. It couldn't be done.

Depending on your definition of ‘composer’, it absolutely could be done. Just have to remember that this was closer to pop music in 1892…

Cheers,
Andy

Even the also-rans on that list are interesting.

Hans von Bülow we remember mostly as a leading conductor of the 19th Century but he also composed both piano pieces and orchestral works.




I'll admit I've never heard of Frederick Hyman Cowen, but he sounds fun!




Robert Fuchs appears to have been primarily a keyboard composer, but was not without orchestral endeavors.




Karl Goldmark had several works that remained popular in Europe after his death, but he seems to have vanished from the repertoire anywhere the Nazis took over. His Violin concerto is touted today.


Hermann Levi, was a well-known conductor of Wagner and Bruckner, among others. I think that is the basis for his presence on that list, i can't find much that he composed.

Felix Mottl, also a prominent conductor. He did compose but i can't find a note of it. Remembered more today for his Romantic transcriptions of (then) forgotten baroque composers.



Ernst von Schuch was a conductor only, AFAIK.

Giovanni Sgambati was the rare Italian composer of symphonies.


Johan Svendsen , countryman of Grieg

Karl Goldmark also has a work in the current repertoire, the "Rustic Wedding". Not often played, but more often than some of the other forgotten names.

For a list of current composers who will be part of the repertoire 100 years from now I would include:

Philip Glass
John Williams
Frank Churchill (composer for Disney)
Howard Shore
Elmer Bernstein
Leonard Bernstein
Aaron Copland
Paul McCartney
Horace Silver
Michel LeGrand
Edward "Duke" Ellington
Johnny Mercer

I invite others to add/modify our list. We could easily get 20 significant composers if we consider popular music, film scores, jazz, et.

Bruce, what's your definition of current Many of those are at least not current = alive anymore.

I think it's a very interesting question, but answers depend on definition of composers.

Just some ideas.
If we look at film/soundtrack composers there are certainly some who will leave quite a bit of music. John Williams, Howard Shore, Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer, Ennio Morricone, Alan Sivestri, Henri Mancini and many more.

Wikipedia actually has a really good list imo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempor ... ical_music

Some composers of "serious" music from that article that might remain relevant long-term:
John Adams
Arvo Pärt
Luciano Berio
John Cage
Philipp Glass
György Ligeti
Karlheinz Stockhausen
Probably more!

And then of course there is pop and rock music (again very simplified)...

It is a mark of how bereft we are of significant composers, that when make a list of notable living composers ... most of them are dead.

Remember that the Vienna list was all living composers, all still writing music, all with a presence in the then-common repertoire, all orchestral composers.

We can make our long list today... if we keep desperately extending the boundaries beyond those until we find someone who falls in our net.

But the 19th Century impresarios didn't have to do that; marketable orchestral composers were apparently growing on trees.

Stockhausen? Everyone who has taken a college-level "Survey of 20th century music" knows the name, but in 50 years of broadcast concert-listening, in 30 years of live symphony orchestra-going I've never encountered one of his pieces being performed to a paying audience. Likewise for most modern-day composers.

Consider this: in the 19th Century, prior to his reputation catching fire with his 7th Symphony, Bruckner was obscure... there had only been six performances of any of his symphonies prior to that. Only six! That was failure in the 19th Century.

Today, most composers would kill to have even that. They would list every one of those six performances in their resume, as validation of their composer-hood. That is success in the 21st Century.

The guy i had as a composition teacher at UNT had had ONE orchestral performance in his life.

Fact is, there are a lot of venues for composers today that were unknown to your late 19th Century list.

Symphonic music is used in soundtracks of cine, radio, and television. For that matter, even video games.

Verdi was not known as a symphonic composer -- he is best known for operas. Probably could say the same for Arthur Sullivan.

When you decry the lack of performances of modern composers, you should consider:

1. Orchestral music is not mainstream popular. Performance is more a niche category.
2. Copyright laws are designed to better monetize music performance. Performing a modern work costs a pile of money; something in short supply even for mainstream orchestras.

Much of the modern music I performed while I was active in my orchestra was donated by the composer; probably grateful for any public exposure. And we wished we could find more modern music to perform that didn't destroy our music budget.

Why make a post just to hate on modern music?

I don't hate modern music. I just want to point out differences between today and 1892. In fact, I believe we could find a similar list to his 1892 roster of today's composers.

Sorry, I meant the OP, could have been clearer there.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 9:01 am Fact is, there are a lot of venues for composers today that were unknown to your late 19th Century list.

And yet still they have trouble making a mark in the public conciousness.

Symphonic music is used in soundtracks of cine, radio, and television. For that matter, even video games.

Used, but only slightly noticed.

Verdi was not known as a symphonic composer -- he is best known for operas. Probably could say the same for Arthur Sullivan.

But Verdi was an orchestral composer. I don't know what the 1892 festival wanted from Verdi, but an overture from one of his operas would be a common item on concert programs then (and even now).

When you decry the lack of performances of modern composers, you should consider:

1. Orchestral music is not mainstream popular. Performance is more a niche category.

I attribute the lack of performances not to a decrease of venues... there are probably as many orchestral performances in Europe today as there were in 1892 and certainly there are more orchestral performances today in the US than there were in 1892... but to a lack of worthiness to be played at all.

Once and done is the usual result for a new piece today. They got their chance... but don't have the legs to merit additional hearings.

There seems to have been a higher bar to getting played back then... and yet many composers were meeting or exceeding that bar.

2. Copyright laws are designed to better monetize music performance. Performing a modern work costs a pile of money; something in short supply even for mainstream orchestras.

The need to pay modern-style royalties didn't stop works by Ravel, Stravinsky, Copland, Rachmaninoff, Gershwin and many others from quickly gaining a toe in the repertoire. There wasn't a shortage of music already in the PD to crowd them off the stage if they were not worth hearing. "Bolero" just lapsed into PD this year but it made an immediate splash in 1928.

robcat2075 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 8:07 am Stockhausen? Everyone who has taken a college-level "Survey of 20th century music" knows the name, but in 50 years of broadcast concert-listening, in 30 years of live symphony orchestra-going I've never encountered one of his pieces being performed to a paying audience.

Likewise for most modern-day composers.

Funny that. I've seen Donnerstag twice, including a sold out Royal Festival Hall in London. Also, composers come and go. Noone had heard of Janacek until Mackerras revived him decades later. Tippet disappeared completely after his death, but is now back on concert programmes.

The ecology is completely different now from 1898, and differs by country and funding model. In some places, orchestra music seems to have painted itself into a "gourmet" corner that helps to raise high-end donations but alienates a wider audience. In the best cases (e.g. when Rattle was at Birmingham), the orchestra builds a more adventurous audience over time, which requires time and stability.

And, yes, publisher's charges make a difference. One of my conductors has been told that they'd rather leave the parts on the shelf, than lower their charges for amateurs, so they never build the audience. Madness.

sf105 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 8:17 amIn some places, orchestra music seems to have painted itself into a "gourmet" corner that helps to raise high-end donations but alienates a wider audience.

There does seem to be an emphasis on "whales", but you see that in other kinds of non-profits, too. It's easier to keep a few big-money donors happy than to try to appeal to thousands of small ones. The downside is that losing a whale leaves a huge hole in the budget.

Some organizations do a really good job making all of their donors feel like they're appreciated; from the leviathans all the way down to phytoplankton like me.

I could be wrong here, as I'm not a professional, but I think contemporary composers do get played here (UK) but more in chamber and small scale works than large. Eg I've heard three works by Roxanna Panufnik in the past couple of years in concert. One for Peter Moore and another for Septura.
With larger works, there has to be a big sponsor, or feature in a big festival eg BBC proms.
I know the fees for playing recent composers by amateur orchestras, like I play in, can be very high, even when they are dead, so are not played as often as they might, but there are plenty of exceptions I'm sure. Just thinking out loud.
Regarding Giants, as others have hinted, film composers, also Philip Glass, John Adams, Arvo Part etc will not go away, I think.

Discussing with a friend after attending a Boulez concert at the Royal Academy yesterday (Malkki conducting some impressive students), it struck me that at some point in the 20thC, contemporary classical music moved out of the range of gifted amateurs. Very few of us can rustle up 3 grand pianos, 3 harps, and tuned percussion.

But then my pal made the point that maybe we're looking in the wrong place. A lot of bedroom composers with a copy of Logic Pro and some plugins can do stuff now over the weekend that Boulez would have needed a huge grant and a PhD student to do at IRCAM back in the day. And we know that Stockhausen had a huge indirect influence on electronic pop music.

I wonder the extent to which we are attributing a level of notoriety to the composers in the original post that they did not enjoy at the time?

Cowen, Levi, Mascagni, Sullivan (maybe Gilbert's sidekick...)?

JTeagarden wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:09 am I wonder the extent to which we are attributing a level of notoriety to the composers in the original post that they did not enjoy at the time?

Cowen, Levi, Mascagni, Sullivan (maybe Gilbert's sidekick...)?

Arthur Sullivan was a big deal at the time, Britain's best hope for a serious composer.

Outside the old Guildhall School of Music building in London (now part of JPMorgan), the composers carved into the stonework were: Tallis, Gibbons, Purcell, Arne, and, um, Sterndale-Bennet. How tastes change.

The composer Cowen seems to have been one of Borat's more aristocratic ancestors:


Very nice!