No Stravinsky, so either this is a dumb joke or you messed up and should make a new poll

 

I honestly thought I'd put him in. I'm up too late.

Now you've registered your eternal disgust, you could just click 'other' and answer the question; or not answer it. Either way the world will not end.

 

Schoenberg and Debussy- and yes, Magnum Miserium took the words right out of my mouth. No Stravinsky, no Rite of Spring, who knows what would have happened to music!

 

1. Stravinsky: changed the aesthetics of music in its use of colour, rhythms, harmony
2. Bartok: his creative use of different mathematical systems to composition
3. Schoenberg: developed the most systematic form of atonalism
4. Varese: decomposition of music
5. Debussy: innovative use of colour and oriental harmonies
6. The Beatles: innovative mix of pop music with classical and avante garde
7. Satie: forerunner to minimalism

 

Obviously The Bieb, who exhibited a catchier, more consistent melodic sense than Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, Captain Beefheart, John Coltrane and The Velvet Underground COMBINED. Who also wrote more consumable songs and became much more popular than all of them COMBINED. And therefore influenced more people, creating an overwhelming mob of beliebers who have, in turn, influenced him, from which has emerged an entirely new belief system and philosophy in which to live by.

 

That's beautiful man.

 

Can I actually edit a poll?

 

No, you can't edit poll options.

 

Justin's Firebird truly was revolutionary. For this alone I greatly respect Justin.

 

La Monte Young is a contender

And (not saying he's right, and there are some particular points on which I think he's outright wrong, but anyway) Kyle Gann makes a strong case for Morton Feldman: https://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2008/01/in_dispraise_of_efficiency_fel.html

 

And (not saying he's right, and there are some particular points on which I think he's outright wrong, but anyway) Kyle Gann makes a strong case for Morton Feldman: https://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2008/01/in_dispraise_of_efficiency_fel.html

I forgot about this part - We were talking "modernism" vs "post-modernism" recently; here's the difference:

The thinking went from, "Your intuition is limited by the musical system within which you're working," to, "Your intuition is limited by the range of materials you've agreed to work within."

 

What the h### is doing Bieber in this poll.....

 

Well even if you think "The Rite of Spring" is overrated surely you'll concede the importance of "Petrushka" on the one hand and "Oedipus rex" on the other

 

where is Xenakis?

 

And Ligeti, Stockhausen, Boulez, Schnittke, Messiaen.

 

Tarkovsky' movies really are boring though

 

No, Hollywood movies are fascinating, but in a boring way. Tarkovsky's movies are boring but in a fascinating way.

 

It is a historical fact that Schoenberg was the most of one of the most revolutionary composer of the 20th century. But of course, revolutions do not always lead to a greater good.

 

I'd put in a good word for Holst and Korngold as well.

 

Charles Ives. (All the more unusually for having absolutely no influence on contemporary composers because his music mostly sat in a drawer for 40 years.)

 

Charles Ives. (All the more unusually for having absolutely no influence on contemporary composers

Elliot Carter's signature effect where different instruments (or different voices played by the same instrument) seem to argue with each other seems to me deeply derivative of Ives. And this is just a hunch, but I think a thorough investigation would reveal significant influence by Ives on Henry Cowell and Conlon Nancarrow.

because his music mostly sat in a drawer for 40 years.)

Mostly yes, but not all of it; he published (at his own expense, naturally) the "Concord" sonata in 1919.

 

Of course John Cage

 

other = Stravinsky

 

We agreed that Justin Bieber would stand in for Stravinsky!

 

Schoenberg, Debussy and other (Stravinsky, Webern, Varese, Stockhausen, Reich, Adams)

 

to leave out Stravinsky was a gross mistake, this poll is not valid.

 

yes, indeed........

 

I'd hardly consider Steve Reich 'obscure', unless you're being sarcastic

 

Debussy's "vocabulary" seemed to die with him so I wouldn't call him a "revolutionary".

However, Schoenberg's atonalism had far reaching effects, influencing many composers, so for me the most revolutionary 20th century composer was Schoenberg and that's whom I voted for.

 

Debussy's "vocabulary" seemed to die with him so I wouldn't call him a "revolutiuonary".

Except he heavily influenced Stravinsky, Ravel, Bartók, Poulenc, Boulez, Messiaen, Ligeti, Saariaho, the spectralists,...

 

Four real options, three joke options, and "other".

Can someone verify that the OP isn't an ArtMusic alt account? :lol:

 

Okay, Bieber and "other" is two, what is the other "joke" option?

Don't you see that "other" gives you free rein to condemn me and others for not knowing about so-and-so undervalued composer and his revolutionary song-cycles and sonata for washboard and spoons?

 

Honestly, I don't know who was the most revolutionary. But I like Schoenberg's style of rebellion the best, therefore him. Something about chaining the music to a strict system makes me tickle in a good way.

 

Tough poll! Many good candidates already mentioned, but what about Duke Ellington?

 

Duke Ellington took Ravel and Debussy's harmonies and added them to jazz. I don't know if he was so much a revolutionary as an integrator. Which is pretty respectable in itself.

 

My top five, roughly in order:

1. Schoenberg
2. Stravinsky
3. Debussy
4. John Cage
5. Terry Riley

I say "roughly in order", because I might change my mind if asked on another occasion. I'd probably keep the same five names, though.

 

Miaskovsky is very revolution. He shaped the Soviet symphony for others like shostakovic and thrennikov.

 

Shostakovich and Prokofiev deserve more love!

 

I think they're well loved, just not seen as revolutionary