Most underrated composer of 20th Century?

Conlon Nancarro! Works for player piano! I have a multi - CD set of these! Not one person in a million remembers him!

If by "underrated" we simply mean deserving more acclaim than we think has been afforded so far, I would say Prokofiev. But maybe I'm just "out of the loop."

More than one here, so can't be "most" but perhaps, "very"?...
Edgar Varese
George Crumb

While I do not have first hand experience of their work, from doing a little reading on "minimalism" as it pertains to music, these two names deserve consideration:
La Monte Young
Henning Christiansen

Harry Partch, who not only was a prolific composer but also developed his own instruments and microtonal scales should also be included in any list of the "underappreciateds".

I am a big believer in the concept of Yin and Yang.

THere are many things in nature that are both beautiful and dangerous at the same time. PEople learn to appreciate the beauty while avoiding the danger. Many might walk up to teh edge of a cliff for the scenic overview, but they also know not to jump off. Its part of survival of the fittest, natural selection, etc. Homo Sapiens have gotten to where they are today mainly by using their brains. If that cahnges, I have a gut feeling that rock music will have little to do with it.

The ancient strategy of the evil one is to cloak evil in the guise of banality.

A person, or a society, is either getting better or worse.
Not all rock is bad or evil per se, but its no help which
in the end is evil. You don't get to"hell' by jumping off a cliff but by sliding down a slope.
True, there are shades of gray , but the important stuff tends toward black and white.

Its true there is less hypocrisy now than before rock,which may be a good thing in personal relations but is not necessarily a good thing for society in general.
Hypocrisy is the tribute vice plays to virtue, permission to feel guilt-free is no advance.

Maybe the core of Rock and pop culture in general also serves a more redeeming second purpose by helping to bring all those baser elements out into plain view where they are easier to deal with, rather than be hidden where they might strike without warning?

I tend to believe both to be true. Plus not all rock/pop culture is bad/evil. There are more shades of grey involved, not pure black and white.

Of course there has always been evil, and Rock has been a great help to the evil one in glorifying the baser elements of human nature to its service .

"Those not alive and of the age of reason before _____ arose have no idea of the great harm _____ has done to society." - A great number of idiots throughout history

"All those whose mind entitles themselves,and whose main entitle is themselves,shall feel the wrath of my bombast!" - Mark E. Smith (rock musician)

"Those not alive and of the age of reason before rock arose have no idea of the great harm rock has done to society."

I have to wonder about rock music as a cause of great harm as opposed to being part of the reaction to great harm. Great harm certainly existed in spades prior to rock music. The major World Wars and all that came after those are just the most recent and better known examples.

I did THINK that anyone would know I was referring only to Classical.
Those not alive and of the age of reason before rock arose have no idea of the great harm rock has done to society.
And thats not just the sour-grapes of an old man.

Shubert,

I'll toss this one up to dispute the proposition that no rock musician/composer can be a genius.

Ammonia Avenue.

Shows that take the rock/pop veneer off of certain compositions and perhaps even many of the great classical composers over the years might be proud, especially when crosses over into progressive/art rock territory.

I don't know how much thinking has to do with it, seems to me its like women, you like what you like and thats an end to it.

Thanks for chiming in on that bit of critical "flat earth thinking" regarding Stravinsky Learsfool. To suggest Stravinsky lacks a place among the highest echelon of composers leaves me flabbergasted. Send me to the proverbial desert island, give me daily does of Bach and Stravinsky, and I would suffer little.

Just because a particular composer doesn't "speak to me" does not mean he "doesn't have much to say." It would be unfair for me to presume that I understand all that a composer is trying to express and what I got out of that particular composer amounts to "not much."

Speaking of jazz, Rok and Frogman, why have there suddenly been no new posts on that thread?

As for the English critic's comment, that to me doesn't even deserve a response, really. The very idea that Stravinsky "really doesn't have much to say" is of course sheer nonsense, both intellectually and musically. I would say it belongs in Nicholas Slonimsky's famous book of musical invective, except it's not really invective, just sheer ignorance. It certainly should have revoked his credentials to be a serious music critic, that's for sure.

"so skilled at his craft he has to be in the Canon, but really doesn't have much to say."

Right on Target! Sort of like a lot of modern day 'Jazz' players / composers.

And to think, some folks say he is "right up there with Mozart"!!!! Makes a body wonder.

Cheers

Larryi and Frogman, your posts above prompted me to dust of some Langaard CDs that haven't gotten much playing time. I have to say I do like his string quartets, at least the ones I've heard.

I once heard an English Critic refer to Stravinsky as the Jane Austen of music,
so skilled at his craft he has to be in the Canon, but really
doesn't have much to say.

His words , not mine.

Hello everyone, I have had to be away from this board for a few days. Glad to see all the posts here! First, I agree with Brownsfan on Britten, though I don't think he is underrated by musicians, anyway.

John Adams - he is most certainly a minimalist composer, and I would agree with Frogman that he is more talented than most. He is certainly more "accessible" than most.

I definitely agree with all of Frogman's nominations, by the way.

And last, I cannot help but comment that Stravinsky has to be considered one of the ten greatest composers ever. He and Bartok both are in there based on sheer compositional craft alone. Let me make another visual art analogy - Stravinsky is the Picasso of music - he could do anything in any style. He is perhaps the only composer other than Mozart who was successful in all genres, too.

Larryi, Yoko Ono in labor, or even not in labor, would be way out of my boundry. Thanks for the chuckle.

I am wondering about the interest level of listeners in this thread in composers that are "way out" at the bleeding edge of modernism. For example, do people really love the music of Luigi Nono, or just find it interesting or hate it? I find him interesting, but, I don't really love the music.

What do you folks think of Giacinto Scelsi? I have been listening to some of his works recently and I am sort of coming around on him. Many years ago I purchased an LP of vocal music that employed microtonal singing. Back then, I thought it sounded aweful (I imagined that this is what Yoko Ono sounds like in labor). But now, I find it much more palatable.

I am curious about where other listeners place the boundary of too-far-out-to-listen-to.

Thanks Frogman, I went to Finland several times when I lived in Germany, would LOVE to live there forever if that was possible.Am an Englund fan.

Re, Glazunov, WI Pubic Radio is playing his Salon Waltz Piano
piece right this second. They play him fairly often and have a CD quality signal, best programming I've heard either here or in Europe.

Schubert, this article addresses your comment about the prevalence of Finnish composers:

http://theclassicalreviewer.blogspot.kr/2012/04/why-does-finland-continue-to-produce-so.html

Larryi, a few years ago I took part in a performance of a work by Langaard ("Music Of The Spheres"). It was my first exposure to his music and, like you, I found it very interesting; I like your comparison to Hindemith (and Wagner) who as Photon46 says also deserves a place on the "underrated" list. This article is from that concert's program notes; you may find it interesting:

http://americansymphony.org/sfaerernes-musik-music-of-the-spheres-1918/

Just a week ago I heard symphonies by Eichberg and I liked them. I had not heard of this composer born in the 1970s. There is a lot of interesting music coming from a wide variety of sources. I even like some of what Golijov is doing, although it sounds like almost crossover to pop music.

Has anyone here listened to the early 1920s opera "Antikrist" by Langgaard? I find that music very interesting--a bit like listening to Hindemith's operas, with a touch of Schoenberg and Wagner. This is another work I happen to stumble upon and liked it a lot.

I have a perfect solution to help get any of these fine yet not well known composers some more recognition.

Hire Miley Cyrus' manager/publicist. That guy is awesome! Just ask Britney Spears.

There is a cost associated with fame though. Public twerking may be required! :^)

Or maybe Philip Glass' might suffice? Never seen him have to twerk TTBOMK.

Amen, Photon46, the amount of fascinating modern music coming out of Finland alone beggars belief.
Not to mention half the conductors in the world are Finnish.

Exactly Frogman and Mapman, it's so hard to get a grip on what "underrated" means. My musically well educated colleagues roll their eyes with ennui at the mention of most composer's that the average classical listener has never heard of, so it is all relative. Plus, I agree with earlier statements about cultural prejudices coming into play. I happen to really like Takemitsu & Minoru Miki, but they don't seem to resonate with a large number in the western world. Also like Rautavaara, Lindberg, Kokkonen, and Saariaho, but general appreciation for Scandanavian composers ends with Sibelius and Grieg. Then there are "could have been greats" like Gideon Klein whose life was cut short by a Nazi concentration camp and Karl Amadeus Hartmann whose composing career was pressured by his duties as an administrator resurrecting German musical culture after WWII. Paul Hindemith deserves a place at the table of underrated greats as well IMO.

True Frogman I thought of that when starting this post but could not have expressed it as well as you have.

I remember being frozen like a deer in the headlights. when I first heard Martin's Violin Concerto on the radio back in the seventies. I did finally get a copy of it with Martin conducting, but his music then was on Swiss labels you couldn't find in the days before Amazon etc.

Glazunov isn't much done in the USA, but he is a concert staple in much of Europe.

Frogman,

Excellent comments. some of the most influential composers were certainly not the most popular (e.g.,Berg, Webern), particularly measured by current fashion.

I like the composers you mentioned, particularly Frank Martin (mainly for choral works) and Thomas Ades. I am a big fan of John Adams too (his violin concerto is one of the finest written).

There are so many that are worthy of being heard. My personal list of favorites include:

Tippett, Alwyn, Walton, Turnage, MacMillan, Lindberg, Tuur, Jongen, Olsson, Boulez, Dutilleau, Milhaud, Durufle, Varese, Boulez, Gubaildulina, Myaskovsky, Tubin, Penderecki, Zemlinksy, Enescu, Dohnanyi, Penderecki, Ligeti, Nono, Bloch, Ruggles, Babbitt, Ives, Beach, Crawford Seeger.

Some that either did very few works or specialize in just certain forms that I like are Whitacre (vocal works) and Partch (Delusions of the Furies being a personal favorite).

Its a good point that most of these guys are highly regarded in knowledgeable circles but relatively unknown to the masses. Just goes with the turf I suppose.

Frogman, good comments and good distinction between underrated and neglected. Elliot Carter stands out to me as someone who is well respected, but is likely to remain neglected,because his music is so inaccessible. I've tried hard on numerous occasions and I just don't get his music at all. I'm guessing he is going to remain neglected on the concert scene for a very long time.

Interesting question and some equally interesting nominations. However, I
don't think we have dug deeply enough. First, let's define
"underrated". Do we mean underrated as concerns familiarity
(based on frequency of performance) to the listening public of even above-
average sophistication; or do we mean critical recognition within
musicological circles? They can be two very different things. IOW, a
distinction needs to be made between underrated and neglected. For
instance, Alban Berg is, without a doubt, one of the very greatest twentieth
century composers, but one who the vast majority of "classical music
lovers" are not familiar with. From that standpoint he is vastly
underrated; but, within musicological circles he is most certainly given his
due. At the opposite end of the "accessibility" spectrum we
have George Gershwin. Here is a composer who, while vastly popular, is
unfortunately relegated to the status of "classical-lite"; even
within some critical circles. Some of his works like "Concerto In
F" and even "An American In Paris", while eminently
accessible to the listener, are compositionally brilliant and deserving of
recognition alongside more "serious" works. In spite of his
inaccessibility even Berg is programmed on a somewhat regular basis (the
Met has programmed "Wozzeck" for this season).

The same goes for most of the other nominees, which disqualifies them
from "most underrated" status. I agree with Brownsfan that
Britten deserves much more frequent performance, but hardly a season
goes by at the Met Opera that doesn't include a Britten opera (A
Midsummers Night Dream this season and Billy Budd last). Bartok is
definitely not a contender; his concerto for orchestra is a staple of the
orchestral repertoire. John Adams has unfortunately been lumped in with
the other "minimalists". He is a truly brilliant composer, but
hardly unknown or underperformed. Phillip Glass? Well, he can't even
shine Adams' shoes, shoes, shoes, shoEs, shoEs, shoEs, shOes, shOes,
shOes :-) Janacek is a good runner-up, but I might be inclined to instead
nominate Zoltan Kodaly, Francis Poulenc, or perhaps Alexander Glazunov,
who like Janacek just squeezed by for qualification as twentieth century
composers having composed from the late nineteenth into the twentieth
centuries. The Glazunov violin concerto is one of my very favorite works.

I think that Martinu is a good call on several counts; a brilliant composer
who is particularly deserving of wider recognition especially in light of the
fact that he was extremely prolific. But, even his works are popular in
conservatories and the more adventurous programing. So, my nomination
for top spot has to be the Swiss composer Frank Martin; extremely
interesting music influenced by twelve tone row techniques without
abandoning tonality, and a name that most are not familiar with. For
anyone interested his "Petite Symphonie Concertante" is a
great place to start to learn about his music. Still a young man, but began
his composing career in the twentieth century and sure to be nominated for
most underrated 21st century composer is Thomas Ades.

I always find Vaughn Williams material to be interesting and enjoyable. Good Chandos recordings there! Britten probably deserves more kudos on this side of teh pond as well.

Newbee , Billy Budd and Peter Grimes have sure stuck .
American audiences like warhorses more than europeans, Britten is very popular in Germany, his "Variations on a theme of Frank Bridge" was the theme song on Radio Classic Berlin for a long time. His various cello works are also common there. I heard his Violin Concerto live in Montreal, his music is broadcast a lot on CBC French service as well.

US isn't only place. I love Piano music of BAX as well, very beautiful.

Newbee, Britten speaks to me as compellingly as Shostakovich, which is saying a lot. I also like Vaughan Williams, but--- just occasionally. The rest are just hit and miss, much like Britten is for you.

Brownsfan, Perhaps you don't see more of Britten's music in concert or over the radio is because of a general lack of interest. I have tried his music often but outside of a few like The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra, Four Sea interludes, The Prince of the Pagodas, and War Requiem little seems to have stuck.

Reaching for music from the British Isles I usually reach for Bax, Bridge,Stanford, Elgar(not so often), Walton, Vaughan Williams or Bantock. BTW,Chandos has some great audiophile recordings of orchestral music by Bantock which are more than just more cow(paddy)pasture music.

I do think that Bax and Vaughan Williams may be underrated. I love Tintagel.

I feel guilty about Britten but......

Bifwynne, Mahler as background music! Shame on you!!!! You're going to get drummed out of the club. But so far as Mahler goes you've probably picked the best one. :-)

FWIW, in order to conserve time, I usually set aside listening to classical music for those times when I read. Kills two birds at one time, neither being a mockingbird. If the book is really good and I'm listening to merely 'good' music I'm not missing much I guess. If I find myself distracted I don't know whether its because the book is really boring, the music is better than just good, or I'm admiring what I have accomplished in putting together my audio system. Another mystery to solve!

I find it most difficult to read, though, when the music was originally composed for the solo piano by Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Debussy, Liszt, Prokofiev, Schumann or Schubert. I do find it easy to read when the music is transcribed from orchestral works. In fact that is probably my favorite reading music.

Then there is sleeping music, Mozart, maybe at night. :-)

Newbee, I assume your post to Schubert was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. At least that's how I chose to read it. But, fwiw, I just listened to Mahler's 4th Symphony on a snowy/rainy/cold miserable day here in Philly while fiddling around on Audiogon.

Just hearing the music in the background is enough for me. Next CD will be the original sound track recording from the Jersety Boys musical, and then maybe a little Mozart, then the Beach Boys, and then ....

:)

Beats me fan, I 've heard quite a bit of it live in Germany, Montreal, Tanglewood and Mpls.

In Glasgow too, but you'd expect it there.

" Laugh In was a hoot in the 60's, now it is just plain silly tripe. "

That made me laugh!

Schubert, Britten is certainly well known and well respected. So why don't I hear his music unless I cue it up myself. That is my point. Something is wrong here. If he is really what people say he is, why is it that at age 60, I have never once heard any of his music in a concert hall, and never once head one of his quartets performed in a chamber series?

As for the transport question, I have no idea which of the 3 might be best as a transport. I do know this, if I were looking for a transport, the PS audio perfect wave would be on my list. I really like the approach of reading, correcting, then playing back what is held in buffer. It seems to me that the approach offers some of what well executed computer based systems can do without having to go all computer geek to pull it off.

Tortilladc, your comment is insightful, and I suspect that you are very right. But great music that endures must by definition have meaning and value outside of a narrow context. Laugh In was a hoot in the 60's, now it is just plain silly tripe.

Newbee, because I'm a deeply flawed person who often does stupid things.

Ignorance is not bliss, it is hell itself.

Schubert, out of curiosity, if time spent on listening to music is so precious why waste any of it posting opinions on the internet?

I'm thankful that I have no such constraints and can listen to most anything that interests me including stuff by Klami, Bantock, Ives, Massenet, ad infinitum, without guilt that I'm not listening (again) to one of the 'greatest composers' or 'greatest compositions' if I were even educated enough to know which ones these may be.

Perhaps ignorance can be bliss after all. :-)

Map, you are right of course.
But from the perspective of one who hears the footsteps of the Grim Reaper coming ever closer, what Classical can do for you at its greatest, say ,a Bach Cantata, The Monteverdi Vespers, a Josquin Desprez Mass,a Bruckner Motet
or a Mozart Quartet, is to focus you on the eternal and polish
your mind and soul for the coming journey we all must make.

Even the best of the adrenal raisers don't do that.

Not likely , If Britten wasn't already SO well known he would have been my choice, is my choice for best of 20th with Bartok a close second. But many are coming to that conclusion , so I went for Martinu .

Brownsfan, do you think I'd be smarter to buy a used Sony 5400
or a new Rega or irArcam DAC ? CA 640 as transport.

Walk around new york city with philip glass on headphones and then re-consider your opinion of his work. his music is not for concert halls or for playback on home hifis.

I'm going to go in another direction here, My vote for the most underrated composer of the 20th century (maybe all time) is Benjamin Britten. He is well respected, but I think sadly under represented in the concert hall and on classical radio. I find his music superbly crafted and of the highest value.

Now watch, Learsfool and others who actually know what they are talking about will burst my bubble and tell me he is a hack.

"there is only so many hours we have on this earth to listen"

THat is true!

One may as well spend it listening to what one enjoys the most.

For me though, I am always thinking there is always other things out there worth my time that I have not discovered yet. So I spend a fair amount of time treading unknown waters, perhaps more so than ever. Only so much time to mine the gems out there that so far have gone undiscovered.

Also, I have become less committed to individual acts, composers, musicians, writers, whatever than ever before. I have may favorites from experience, for sure, but I find there are so many no hit wonders out there in so many genres that finding them can be a full time occupation.

ITs nice to have such problems. Its a good life!

Well Map, IMHO because there is only so many hours we have on this earth to listen and the good is the enemy of the best.
But then I'm senile.