 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do the majority of contemporary classical composers only have a few seminal works to listen to while the rest are intolerable?
The rest of the stuff they compose goes off thirty seconds into the play for being inconsistent and random.
Each composer (living or deceased) has a body of works to listen to. If their entire oeuvres are intolerable save for a few exceptions, then this is a reflection more so on the limitations/expectations of the listener rather than on composers' abilities & aesthetics.
Perhaps academic institutions the world over shall alter their curriculum for music composition so that their students will be able to produce the type of music that John Q. Public wishes to hear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm currently on a Penderecki kick, listening to all his symphonies and most of his choral works and am just amazed at the range and breath of his work. I enjoy Glass, but I also enjoy most of the stuff John Adams has written, or Arvo Pärt, or several others. Personally, I cannot confirm your observation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 29, 2016 - 4:56 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TerraEpon
(Member)
|
Using Phillip Glass as an example of the only one whose body of work is consistently good.
Well maybe because it's all sounds the same?
(yes...that was a joke....lighten up)
No, seriously, the OP here completely boggles me. Just to toss out a few names of composers who have been recoreded a number of times (and possibly many many times), and ignoring those who are more known as film composer....Daugherty, Ewazen, DiLorenzo, De Meij, Rouse, Bourgois, Serebrier, Schwantner....for starters. Had I more time I could give out more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
