I have not, will check out promptly.

Hi Mr.Chirpsky, and welcome to DDD.

A discussion thread is fine for any topic that might get a lot of discussion. I don't know how much this is likely to get. It might generate some.

As far as a list goes, one difficulty with a living composers list is that it would require the editor to be aware of any time any of the composers on the list dies, and be ready to replace him immediately. I mean it would be embarassing to have a living composers list that contains deceased composers. And if it were working composers, I think in some cases it would be hard to know who's working and who isn't. Maybe a better alternative would be a Contemporary Composers list, with "Contemporary" defined in a way that it would include all or almost all living comoposers, but wouldn't be limited to them.

I had a related idea for a list awhile back, but I stopped working on it because I didn't think I could do an adequate job of completing it. The list idea was 20 Greatest Works by Decade of the 20th Century. I felt I could come up with good lists for every decade through the '40s, but that I would have trouble with the '50s, and it would get progressively harder each decade after that, to where I would have little idea what I would list for the '80s and no idea what I'd list for the '90s. So maybe you would have an idea for how to approach these later decades.

The issue I would have with basing the newer decade lists on the reception to the premiers of the works is that I think the list should be based on how enduring the works are, so I'd like to find sources that relect that, if they can be found.

As far as splitting the Modern Composers list into 3 lists, the idea for the Composers by Era page was that it should have 3 lists, so that the lists could be put in side-by-side-by-sdie columns. That's why the Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, and Classical composers are all on the same list. I was a poster but not Classical list editor at the time that page was created, and I was opposed to the idea, because I thought putting the composers from 4 different eras together on a single list defeated the purpose of creating Composers by Era lists. However, maybe your idea could be accommodated by giving the Modern Composers their own page, getting them off of the general Composers by Era page. Then the 3 column format could be kept on the existing page by dividing the pre-1820 list into 2 lists, Medieval/Renaissance and Baroque/Classical. Still not a perfect solution to the Composers by Era concept, but probably a step in the right direction.

I would suggest that if the Modern composers list is divided into 3 lists, that no composer be included on more than one list. Determine which of the 3 lists the composer fits the best, put him on that list, and then credit him on that list for his entire career, even if some of his works came earlier or later. That way he isn't prevented from getting the position that his entire career entitles him, and with no one listed twice, it will be possible to list more composers. Also, I would make the lists close to equal in the periods they cover - roughly speaking, 1910-1945, 1945-1980 & 1980-present. But it might not be strictly by chronology, it could be (at least partly) by style and landmark changes in the music.

Jupiter and Mars by Holst have been pwning me lately.

would it be possible to have a bunch of those threads unstickied? It's cumbersome

The purpose of the stickying is to keep the list threads at the top, and I think it's best to keep it that way.

REQUEST DENIED

With all due respect to your individual musical tastes -- and I sincerely mean that -- I don't usually encounter anyone who enjoys serialism and microtonal music.

As a long time listening, performing, and teaching musician (B.A., M.A., two California teaching credentials), I enjoy a wide range of music, including many 20th-century music such as Stravinsky and others who employ unusual dissonances, chordal structures, and so on.

Since I'm always willing to expand my musical horizons, if you would care to, I would really appreciate understanding a little more about, well, exactly what it is specifically about serialism and microtonal music that makes it enjoyable to you.

So, could you give me a little background as to exactly what it is in serialism and microtonal music that attracts you or intrigues you? Or perhaps you could send me to some recordings of your favorite serialist and/or microtonal music that are easily available on a place like YouTube, or on some other website where I can listen after perhaps gaining a little more understanding of why these kinds of music fascinate you.

I think it would be a very educational experience for me -- and maybe for you too.

Thanks.

It really just comes down to me enjoying sounds that are "unusual" and especially ones that are a little more harsh to the ear. I'm a fan of noise music and I think that stems from my enjoying of serialism and microtonal music.

In other news, I thought this was rather funny.

A report claims that playing Mozart for your designer baby (either in the womb or during hir formative early years) will improve his/her IQ and help him/her get into that exclusive preschool. If playing Mozart for little Johnny could boost his intelligence, what would happen if other composers or contemporary genres were played during his developmental time? And what about early exposure to classic art or literature?

CLASSICAL MUSIC

BABBITT EFFECT: Child gibbers nonsense all the time. Eventually, people stop listening to him. Child doesn't care because all his playmates think he's cool.

BARTÓK EFFECT: Child becomes more and more dissonant. Has trouble maintaining harmony with his peers. Difficulty following rules. Presents an increasingly bad tone overall and is unable to resolve anything.

BEETHOVEN EFFECT: Child spends far too much time at the keyboard and goes deaf. (If the child doesn't suffer from deafness, it's the Wakeman effect).

BRAHMS EFFECT: Child is able to speak beautifully as long as his sentences contain a multiple of three words (3, 6, 9, 12, etc.). However, his sentences containing 4 or 8 words are strangely uninspired.

BRUCKNER EFFECT: Child speaks very slowly and repeats himself frequently. Gains reputation for profundity.

GLASS EFFECT: Child tends to repeat himself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

IVES EFFECT: Child develops a remarkable ability to carry on several separate conversations at once.

LISZT EFFECT: Child speaks rapidly and extravagantly, but never really says anything important.

MAHLER EFFECT: Child continually screams, at great length and volume, that he's dying.

SCHOENBERG EFFECT: Child never repeats a word until he's used all the other words in his vocabulary. Sometimes talks backwards. Eventually, people stop listening to him. Child blames them for their inability to understand him.

STOCKHAUSEN EFFECT: All you get out of the child is an atonal cacophony, but those around him are conned into believing it has some sort of artistic merit.

STRAVINSKY EFFECT: Child is prone to savage, guttural and profane outbursts that often lead to fighting and pandemonium in the preschool.

TAVENER EFFECT: Child sings a lot.

WAGNER EFFECT: Child becomes a megalomaniac. May eventually marry his sister.

CAGE EFFECT: Child says absolutely nothing. Preferred by 9 out of 10 classroom teachers.

BACH EFFECT: Childs speaks beautifully and profoundly. (and goes on to produce at least 20 offspring)

PROKOFIEV EFFECT: Child is alright but, inexplicably, lawyers from Texas thinks s/he's the hottest thing ever.

SHOSTAKOVICH EFFECT: Child is a nervous paranoid mess.

MENDELSSOHN EFFECT: Child grows up to be an absolute genius but is blamed by everyone for being too happy and well-adjusted.

The Mendelssohn Effect is also sometimes called The Haydn Effect.