Talk:21st-century classical music/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Creation

I created this page since the century is already a decade old. I feel there is a need to discuss this subject in detail. Jubilee♫clipman 13:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Film-score and TV-theme-music composers who also write classical music

I had to add a mention of John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith as, bizarrely, they weren't mentioned at all but two extremely obscure composers were. 108.202.113.201 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidently someone disagrees with you, since your edit has been reverted already. However, I think the problem here really is one of balance. More people notable in other fields should be added, such as "Novelists who also write classical music", "Pastry chefs who also write classical music", "Barristers who also write classical music", "Ship captains who also write classical music", and "Military commanders who also write classical music". I'm sure there are lots from which to choose.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Williams and Goldsmith should be mentioned simply as composers. Guys that wrote cantatas, concerti and other concert works as well as a ton of film scores. This section could simply be deleted. And I also think there are vast parts of this article that really should be deleted. Gingermint (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Let us be clear about the subject of this article: it is about classical music. I know that there are parallel articles on 20th-century music (including popular, jazz, and other types), and 20th-century classical music (with a more restricted focus). In the present century, however, "21st-century music" redirects to Contemporary classical music. Perhaps this should be rectified since, as far as I am aware, there is no dedicated article on 21st-century music in general, paralleling the one on 20th-century music. In any case, not just any notable composers should be thrown into this article—only those notable as composers of so-called "classical music". Hence my facetious suggestions that famous pastry chefs, who happen to have tried their hand at composing "classical" music, ought to be included. That was a joke. Williams and Goldsmith are undoubtedly notable as film composers (and that is an honourable profession, demanding much skill), but that does not by itself qualify them as notable composers of "classical" music. They may be this as well, but we should not confuse the one with the other, and must demand reliable sources to verify their status.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

List of composers that need adding

These are here - rather than in the article - so that no one is tempted to add to the list arbritarily. They are a personal prompt, so please do not add names here, either. Instead, add names (or suggest removing names) in a reply.

"Serious" composers (reverse chronological):

Thomas Adès

Mark-Anthony Turnage

George Benjamin (composer)

James MacMillan (composer)

~~Karl Jenkins~~

John McCabe (composer)

Arvo Pärt

Peter Maxwell Davies

Harrison Birtwistle

(?)Henryk Górecki (NB: Symphony 3 was written in 1976)

Sofia Gubaidulina

Karlheinz Stockhausen

Hans Werner Henze

(?)Luciano Berio

"Popular" composers:

~~Howard Goodall - Classical BRIT Awards Composer of the Year 2009, TV themes and Choral works~~

Tan Dun - Film scores: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Patrick Doyle - Film scores: Bridget Jones' Diary, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Howard Shore - Film scores: The Lord of the Rings

(?)John Rutter

John Williams - Film scores: Star Wars Episodes I-III, Harry Potter

(?)Ennio Morricone

(Note, (?) indicates that this composer may not have made notable contributions in C21st.)

Jubilee♫clipman 00:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

When I add names to the article, I will strikethrough, i.e., ~~name~~ = added. You can do the same if you add a name to the article. Do not strikethrough to indicate anything else! Thanks. Jubilee♫clipman 01:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I added Karl Jenkins but he needs more. His major choral works are highly acclaimed. Jubilee♫clipman 03:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

He's a very obscure composer of little note. As someone noted elsewhere on the Talk page, we just can't list everyone. Gingermint (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for more composers

I note your list is rather UK-heavy, perhaps because of your location (though you seem to have left out Brian Ferneyhough, amongst others). I do wonder about the utility of adding a long list of popular-music composers to an article about "classical" music. Or is this to do with the claim that such distinctions are no longer observed? In any case, let me suggest a few non-UK composers worthy of consideration, in order to redress the balance:

That should do to be getting on with.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these! Ferneyhough is mentioned already, in the first section, but he needs expansion, obviously. Yea, I need to get out more... of the UK, I mean! Jubilee♫clipman 05:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC) (How did I miss Steve and Phil...? Duh! Jubilee♫clipman 05:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Another:

Ludovico Einaudi

Jubilee♫clipman 05:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I could easily come up with a dozen more UK composers who ought to be discussed (e.g., Harrison Birtwistle, Trevor Wishart, Nicola LeFanu, … but I don't want to feed your local prejudices ;-) But some of these names suggest another theme to be followed: the fact that women (Saariaho, Neuwirth, Oliveros, Amacher, LeFanu, etc.) are now more prominent among composers than they used to be in the old century.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Added a short section about the girls! This will need expansion: merely mentioning names won't hold much cop here! There's a gigantic list at http://www.classical-composers.org, BTW! Jubilee♫clipman 06:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Jubilee♫clipman 08:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Trevor Wishart... and I live not a million miles away! Another inexplicable omission! Jubilee♫clipman 08:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's a pretty reasonable omission. 108.202.113.201 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There are just too many names in this list and most of those names are not significant composers. We just can't list everyone. 108.202.113.201 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Which ones are "not significant", in your opinion? I would not have suggested any of them that I did not feel were significant.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Article taking shape

Good to see this article starting to take shape. I think it would be a mistake to get too bogged down in adding long lists of "significant" composers though. I too could offer my list of 100 composers I feel deserve inclusion, but then by next month I might have revised my opinions. Better I think for this article to aim to identify general trends, schools, styles, movements, call them what you will, then perhaps back each one up with a couple of examples. I will be watching with interest. Keep up the good work! --Deskford (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that today. Trends and influences are far more important than individual composers. Even Mozart was part of a general trend, albeit an exceptional part. Influences upon Beethoven's music include Mozart and Haydn, but other lesser and almost forgotten figures were equally - if not more - important to his musical development, eg Cherubini. The lists of names will, however, serve as prompt to help ensure the trends are fully covered. There is actually a list at List of 21st-century classical composers by birth date (and one by date of death), but I must confess to having heard of perhaps only an eighth of those names. The names we have plucked out of the air are, perhaps, more representative of the truly notable trends since they (at least in my case) took very little time to produce. We've bound to have overlooked someone though. ;) Anyway, I was intending to base the article on notable and identifiable trends. ("Styles", "Schools" and "Movements" are probably undefinable, given the eclecticism I have pointed out in the lead. Pop quiz: define "Postmodernism" in no more than 50 words...) Jubilee♫clipman 18:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I am acutely aware of the fact that Female composers basically says "here's a load of women, go figure..." I am working on remedying this! Jubilee♫clipman 19:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The real proof of changing attitudes will come when female names occur as often as male names in the other sections of this article, rather than hived off into a section of their own. Interesting that in that BBC Music Magazine article only one out of ten composers interviewed was female. My experience is that among the younger generation (say, under 30) there are at least as many female as male composers, but it will be interesting to see how many of them rise to prominence in the years to come. And whilst I said I wasn't going to advocate adding names to lists, I must mention Gloria Coates and Rebecca Saunders as among the most individual composers around today. I'm astonished to find that Rebecca Saunders doesn't even have an article yet, although she does on the German Wikipedia. Perhaps I'll have a go at translating it. --Deskford (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Great if you can translate that! Good point about female composers: am drafting a few things as we speak and they are popping quite frequently, in fact. (And, yes: BBC interviewed only one lady...?!) Jubilee♫clipman 20:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Article on Rebecca Saunders now in place. --Deskford (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good article. I never realised she was at Edinburgh: she must have been studying there around the same time as I did my BMus or just after! She defo goes in...! ;) BTW, is Prof. Nigel Osborne notable enough? Perhaps as a link back to Kenneth Leighton if not in his own right? Jubilee♫clipman 00:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nigel Osborne counts as notable in my books, though his article could do with a major overhaul. I'm looking forward to hearing/seeing his new work for dancer/singer and cello on 31 October. --Deskford (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(Too many :::::::::::::'s!) Yep, that Wiki is pretty rubbish! We will have to work on it. I'll look out for that work. Thanks for heads up! Jubilee♫clipman 01:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, anyone tried my Pop quiz yet? See my first reply to Deskford. ;) Jubilee♫clipman 01:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Postmodernism? Isn't that when you throw out the baby and keep the bathwater? --Deskford (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's quite good. And only a quarter of the length of my specification... have a gold star! ;) Jubilee♫clipman 21:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

InterWiki links.

I notice that Ptbotgourou has just modified InterWiki links so that this page is now linked to the "Contemporary music" or "Contemporary classical music" articles on the Czech, Danish, French, Italian, Spanish and other Wikipedias, and users on those sites clicking on the "English" link are now brought here instead of to Contemporary music or Contemporary classical music. Surely this just adds to the confusion.... --Deskford (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Potentially: I'll check out whether they are on the other page and see where they link to from the foreign pages. They are technically correct, though. Jubilee♫clipman 21:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He copy/pasted them verbatim from Contemporary classical music. Compare the edits (they don't appear in the normal page, even if you ask hidden cats to be displayed). I think the cats will take user to a DAB page of some sort. I've never tried, actually, but I'll investigate further and get back. However, surely any relevent cat can be added to multiple pages without confusion? E.g Living people cat, or Biology cat, etc. Just a thought. Jubilee♫clipman 22:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you can only have one InterWiki link per page per language, and now, for example, on the French Wikipedia article "Musique contemporaine", where the link used to be en:Contemporary classical music it is now en:21st-century classical music. So if you start off on the English page Contemporary classical music, click on "Français" under "languages" on the left of the page you go to the French page "Musique contemporaine", but then if you click on "English" under "Autres langues" you come back to 21st-century classical music instead of where you started. The change seems to have been made on all the remote language pages. --Deskford (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah... see what you mean. That is a perfectly correct assessement of the situation. Obviously the later-added cats over-rule the earlier ones. I'll remove them and add hidden text to tell people not to add any foreign language cats yet. Thanks for the heads up and explanation. Jubilee♫clipman 22:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That only solves half the problem. Ptbotgourou has physically changed the links on each remote site too, so they need to be reinstated. Whilst I am reasonably happy to edit the French and German Wikipedias, I would be a bit cautious about Japanese or Korean. I'll have a go, though; it's just a case of guessing which link says "Undo"! --Deskford (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's done now for all the languages, assuming I guessed the correct answer for those that came up with warning prompts and confirmation messages. --Deskford (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! Good man for solving that one: I'd have no idea where to start. He was over the top in his methods. Perhaps we aught to call him and ask his reasons? I only suggest that because he might have some good contributions to this article and the discussions surounding it. Jubilee♫clipman 01:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it seems to be a bot, and judging by the discussions on its talk page and its owner's talk page it has a bit of a history of over-enthusiastic InterWiki linking on a seemingly random range of subjects. --Deskford (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither the bot (Ptbotgourou) nor the user (Gdgourou) have any jurisdiction here: he is a French admin and is not listed as an English admin (check the lists under Wikipedia:List of administrators). I've asked him to limit the Bot to French Wikis. Jubilee♫clipman 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also copied this discussion over to his French user page. Jubilee♫clipman 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC) I meant the discussion on:User talk:Gdgourou. Jubilee♫clipman 15:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks toi inform me. The only reason is that someone on one wiki put a wrong interwiki, then my bot (it's mine but it would be anybody else) updated the all pages. But you couldn't ask me to limit my bot action to the french wikipédia.

The only solution in this case is to correct all interwiki linked page and prevent anybody put an incorrecte one. That not a problem with a bot but with an incorrect link. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also don't be frightened by japanese or korean wikipedias. Interwiki are always at the bottom of the page and in the latin alphabet... For the fact I'm an administrator on FR but not on EN it's like a lot of people. You could only be an admin on a wiki you are active. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you list me the wikis you dont' havev correct ? --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they have all been sorted. I suggest that the real solution is to limit your Bot to FR Wikis, when adding lists of inter-Wikis. Modification of the linked other language pages will then go more smoothly. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, though! Jubilee♫clipman 15:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OK Deskford have done all the work to correct the problkm but perhpas, you have to checked this edit an this one [1]. Galassi move the page on the 13 october, my bot the this change the 14 octobre , and then Measles move the page in the other way the 16 october... Ok my bot have perform the update, only because he work at that time on the c letter, any another bot will have do the same things durings this period.

For the point to limit my bot of fr, perhaps you should verify the pywikipedia script. There's not solution to prevent this. It's was my bot this time but it could be any other. And perhaps you don't know that by default the EN wiki is taken to the correct one also when he is wrong. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Now I understand, seeing that the page was previously moved then moved back, how that would trigger the bot into relinking. Thanks for pointing that out. --Deskford (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep... The only wrong thing done by my bot is that he wasn't working on another lettre at this time... I dodn't know how I could correct that ;-) --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check/verify/correct. I see your point about the moves: that probably did cause the problem. I also see why the Bot cannot be limited: it is designed to affect all the other-language-Wikis, obviously. I will add {{nobots}} temporarily if there are more problems, but perhaps it is not necessary yet. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And I presume that if I hadn't gone and changed everything back by hand, this bot or another bot would eventually have got round to doing it. It all makes sense now. Glad to have had the learning experience! --Deskford (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! BTW, what is "pywikipedia script"? Jubilee♫clipman 16:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I presume it's a Python script that controls the bot. --Deskford (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's right, my bot use the most common script for interwiki : interwiki.py include the pywikipedia framework. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 17:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm still learning about all these admin tools. Anywhere you can point me to that gives an overview the most common (not just bots)?Jubilee♫clipman 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Start Class!

I just noticed! That's great: it suggests the Wiki Classical community (or at least User:Kleinzach who added the banner) has accepted the basic rationale for the existance of this page. It also suggests it's time for others to get involved, though, especially since I am going on holiday on Sunday and might not get back on Wiki till next month. Dive in people! Blindingly obvious point follows: Keep the article's scope within the C21st (or at earliest 1995) unless you are including works/composers/styles/etc that have anticipated this century's in a substantial way. Eg, New Simplicity started in C20th and is still current but only the newest works and developments are relevent as primary topics in the article. Use common sense! (End of lecture!) Jubilee♫clipman 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

PS the Female composers section still needs to be expanded. Don't talk about individual composers, per se, do that in the article body under a relevent section discussing their music. Rather explain more about their growing prominence, the (cited) reasons for it and (again cited) possible sociological and psychological impact it has had. That is, be general. Thanks. Jubilee♫clipman 01:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Jubilee: Thanks for creating this article; an important thing to begin. I think the most important thing that the article can do at this point is discuss published attempts at predicting what 21st-century music will be like (both forecasts from before the turn of the century and now) and point to significant issues that have arisen since 2000 (or 2001). I don't think discussion of Anderson's style (Khorovod is from 1991, no?) or Nyman's (etc.) add to the article, since all of them have been chosen on the basis of what they accomplished prior to 2000. There are a few names that have risen to prominence since 2000 (Nico Muhly prominently) and several important performing groups (Alarm Will Sound, the Grand Valley State group) -- this paragraph has an American bias, but I think it reflects how we might describe other countrys' music. The Tan Dun Internet Symphony can be mentioned (other prominent single works that got major press include his First Emperor, and Adams's Doctor Atomic). I can think of certain techniques that were extremely new prior to 2000 but seem completely commonplace today (e.g., bowing at a high angle to the strings). Though he had already done Silence of the Lambs and other earlier films, Shore definitely gained prominence after 2000 so I would include him, but I would downplay Williams a bit -- even though he has had success (many Oscar nominations), his recent music is rarely discussed. While Jennifer Higdon and Kaija Saariaho seem fair game, Sofia Gubaidulina, Pauline Oliveros, and Meredith Monk seem better as demonstrations that there were already very prominent female composers in the late twentieth century, rather than a 21st-century change in attitude towards female composers. Just some thoughts. Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these thoughts, Myke. These changes and additions will help focus the article properly. The BBC article seemed to warrant some dicsussion of those composers, but almost all of them seem to have been prominant figures prior to the turn of this century. Perhaps downplaying these a little will help (unless their music has undergone a major sytlistic change in the past ten years)? Doctor Atomic certainly needs a mention - I forgot about it, in truth! You're right about Williams, too: he's old hat really... The list of female composer might need revising, you're quite right: there are plenty of significant female compsers who have come to prominence only in this century, though the ones you highlighted are indeed proof that the change was anticipated in the previous century. I still think that the present century has seen a surge in activity from women who are, or are now being recognised as, "significant": a definate "change in attitude" in my book (and in Roxanna Panufnik's book, for that matter). Finally, "new techniques" seems like a misnomer to me: really, all techniques used on any and all instruments still in use from the Baroque and Classical periods are developments and extentions of older techniques. In fact, all those instruments are almost entirely "new" in a certain way: the modern clarinet has numerous keys and devices not even thought of when the instrument was first conceived; and the bows of modern strings are entirely different from their Baroque counterparts. There are perhaps new applications of older instruments and important new developments which are becoming significant: eg electric violins and sampling. The former are now being used by a far wider group of performers (including Nigel Kennedy and Bond) than ever before. I'm not sure about the latter, though, as composers using Musique concrète techniques have used sampling for well over half a century: perhaps we should discuss the fact that it is far easier for a home-based performer/composer to use sampling in this century, given the massive improvements in PCs and in music sampling technology, eg Steinberg Cubase? There may also be entirely new instruments that need to be discussed? --Jubilee♫clipman 20:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction: I already included Doctor Atomic. I forgot about that...! --Jubilee♫clipman 22:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Film scores and TV theme music

Maybe I sound like an elitist jerk, but is this section worth having. Certainly there is some art music created in collaboration with film, but the composers mentioned here are of a distinctly different genre which branches off severely from aesthetics and practices of 21st century classical music. Thoughts? JDOCallaghan (talk) 09:25, February 22, 2010

I would understand Howard Shores mentioning, but why Patrick Doyle? Why him, not Nicholas Hooper, or Alexandre Desplats, etc. It's not logical, in my opinion. I would delete that, if there is no notable source. Lumenor (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Doyle is a know composer and Desplats and Hooper are enormously obscure. And let's face it, Doyle is not an enormously well-known composer. He's no John Williams or Bernard Herrmann. Mostly, Patrick Doyle is known in the UK and outside of that little island only a few film music aficionados have heard of him. 108.202.113.201 (talk) 00:18, January 28, 2012

Added users and times/dates from history to above comments as they were never autosigned for some odd reason. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Major issues to resolve

(Following posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary music)

The following articles overlap and the situation need to be rationalized: contemporary music, contemporary classical music, 20th-century classical music, and 21st-century classical music. The following issues are the most urgent (in order of importance):

It has been suggested that contemporary music and contemporary classical music be merged, but no consensus has been reached as to which way.
The article 21st-century classical music is contentious. It is claimed that the title is not the proper name for this period and that the article's subject properly belongs in contemporary music/contemporary classical music. (Note that I wrote the article, in good faith, following up on a suggestion.)
20th-century classical music appears to end in 1980, or so, despite the period defined in the Periods of European art music box.
None of the articles fully expore the music of the period in question.

Other issues exist, as well, but those above need immeadiate attention.

Thank you for your input. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This call for discussion has been posted on multiple talk pages. In order to keep all relevant discussions in one place, please post any response on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Major issues to resolve. --Deskford (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Music in the 21st century

This section really says little about the subject except in the first paragraph. The following paragraphs are just padding that do not tell us enough about the style and techniques found in 21st Century. I'm not even a fan of the first paragraph, but it at least spends some time coming to a kind of conclusion. Could someone fix this? 108.202.113.201 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This section summarizes one article in a British magazine. The first paragraph is introductory, the rest appears to describe the composers mentioned in it, one by one. That is not such a bad thing, it seems to me. What is really needed is to expand beyond the shores of the British Isles, in order to create a more world-wide balance. Equal space ought to be given to composers in Germany, for example, or Japan, or Australia. As this space fills out, it undoubtedly will prove necessary to cut back the UK-centric content, but for the time being, at least it fills out the section.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Listening to music in the 21st century

This is a weird section. It doesn't really belong and, frankly, looks like an advertisement (and a severely Brit-centric one at that) for some streaming radio station. It certainly looks like a kind of advertisement! Gingermint (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)