composers on parade
Dec. 8th, 2008 07:12 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacThis week marks the birth centenaries of two significant composers. One of them is still alive.
Wednesday: Olivier Messiaen, born in Avignon, France, December 10, 1908. He died in 1992.
Thursday: Elliott Carter, born in New York, December 11, 1908. He's the one who's still living.
Neither has been an obscure name for a half-century or more, but for a long time they tended to be overlooked when lists of great contemporary composers were being drawn up. That's changed in recent decades, and now their centenaries are being marked with some fanfare.
They're very different composers, though, and fans of each tend to stare at the other with some incredulity. Neither is among my favorites, but if I had to choose, I'm definitely on the Messiaen side. He was a mystic Catholic who stands with the great spiritually-inspired composers of the century. He wrote a lot for the organ, which he played professionally, and was often inspired by birdsong as well as by his religion. His best music leaves an impression of stillness within a bleak, dissonant beauty (as I put it in a review). I will be spending some time Wednesday listening to his Turangalîla Symphony and the Quatuor pour la fin du temps.
Carter is a difficult nut to crack, even his admirers admit. He's the last survivor of the generation of the great American populists, and started out writing like Samuel Barber, just not as well. But in the post-war era, when the atonal regime was imported from Europe, and Barber was driven into a corner while other composers trying to keep up with the times merely lost their way, Carter found his way. Systemic complexity suited him, and he became the epitome of the intellectually spiky composer. His five string quartets (the latest written at the age of 86) are considered his masterpieces, and if you want to listen to them, be my guest. There are said to be riches in Carter if you delve deep enough, but there's nothing on the surface to tempt me to do so.
Wednesday: Olivier Messiaen, born in Avignon, France, December 10, 1908. He died in 1992.
Thursday: Elliott Carter, born in New York, December 11, 1908. He's the one who's still living.
Neither has been an obscure name for a half-century or more, but for a long time they tended to be overlooked when lists of great contemporary composers were being drawn up. That's changed in recent decades, and now their centenaries are being marked with some fanfare.
They're very different composers, though, and fans of each tend to stare at the other with some incredulity. Neither is among my favorites, but if I had to choose, I'm definitely on the Messiaen side. He was a mystic Catholic who stands with the great spiritually-inspired composers of the century. He wrote a lot for the organ, which he played professionally, and was often inspired by birdsong as well as by his religion. His best music leaves an impression of stillness within a bleak, dissonant beauty (as I put it in a review). I will be spending some time Wednesday listening to his Turangalîla Symphony and the Quatuor pour la fin du temps.
Carter is a difficult nut to crack, even his admirers admit. He's the last survivor of the generation of the great American populists, and started out writing like Samuel Barber, just not as well. But in the post-war era, when the atonal regime was imported from Europe, and Barber was driven into a corner while other composers trying to keep up with the times merely lost their way, Carter found his way. Systemic complexity suited him, and he became the epitome of the intellectually spiky composer. His five string quartets (the latest written at the age of 86) are considered his masterpieces, and if you want to listen to them, be my guest. There are said to be riches in Carter if you delve deep enough, but there's nothing on the surface to tempt me to do so.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-08 11:19 pm (UTC)(And if you really want to see scorn, see what was written in the 1950s and 60s about Rachmaninoff and Korngold, who hadn't seen a dead end at all. A dismissive article on Rachmaninoff in Grove 5 says that as a composer he wasn't "of his time" at all, a truly meaningless criticism, but exactly what the Boulez circle would claim.)
Another thing about Schoenberg: he proselytized for his system, and why shouldn't he? If he had not thought well of it, he would hardly have employed it. But he didn't belittle or try to erase the significance of other composers, and that's the difference.