Stephen Hicken:

>For what it's worth, here's a list of 101 Essential Pieces of the 20th
>Century:

Thank you for the "what it's worth," for everyone will have a different
one.  Not bad.  Typical problems:

1.  If a composer's listed for more than one work, you narrow the
field and are forced one by one to eliminate other composers' historic
contributions to the music of the century.  Notable omissions: Holmboe,
Birtwistle, Hartmann, Norgard, Gerhard, Rautavaara, Schmidt, Petterson,
Schuman, Piston, etc.  Not to mention ROUSE: Violin Concerto.:)

2.  We don't have the same perspective on the end of the century as we do
on the beginning.  Great late works haven't quite emerged in consensus yet

3.  Which work(s) should be picked, e.g., why Kije and not Romeo and
Juliet? Why Ariadne and not Elektra or Salome?

4.  The "textbook" examples (Symphony of Psalms, Pierre Lunaire, etc.) Some
of these pieces fit too easily in historians' patterns, then the writers
cite each other.  But are there many people who love hearing Pierre over
and over again?

5.  If one grants multiple citations per composer, should there be a
proportion of recognition based on "importance" and/or "popularity"? Elgar
and Falla, for instance, are neglected in this area.  I prefer an empirical
approach based on tabulations of CD sales or citations in textbooks and
articles.

6.  How do you handle film composers?

7.  Genres: opera vs.  symphonic vs.  chamber?

Anyway, fun to think about!

Jeff Dunn
[log in to unmask]
Alameda, CA