DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Music: Who Is The Best Composer Living Right Now?

Electric guitars, Classical guitars, Guitar amps and more.

zZounds.com offers recording equipment for starting and experienced musicians. Find the best prices on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, classical guitars and more.

Forums > Music

Who Is The Best Composer Living Right Now?

Rupan1984	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 4:01 PM ...IF YOU KNOW MUSIC YOU WILL KNOW...
EvilPicnic	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 4:03 PM Me! Me! Me!
EvilPicnic	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 4:03 PM There is no such thing as the greatest living composer, silly, they're all dead!
EvilPicnic	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 4:06 PM Although I am partial to some Mark-Anthony Turnage...
EchoMinor	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 4:29 PM KITARO! japanese neo-classical
EvilPicnic	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 4:40 PM Where I was vaguely going with my triple posts (sorry!) was that music is not like an Arsenal -v- Real Madrid match (1-0!1-0!). There is no such person as 'the best'. And anyone who thinks there is is a silly sausage who has been eating too much celery.
Bhairava	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 5:26 PM In the computer game world Nobuo Uematsu is awesome (Final Fantasy.)
jimbobber1985	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 6:19 PM Actually Picnic i think that music is exactly like the arsenal real madrid match in that mr. henry can do everything including secretly running the catholic church. Imagine if you can what would happen if he was teamed up with David Hirst?!?!?!?! Amazing....
GeneHilbert	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 6:52 PM Danny Elfman - maybe not the best, but he sure as hell gets a boat load of work doing it.
CowgirlBebop	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 7:29 PM John Adams.
hate9wicket	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 7:58 PM I'm gonna say Phillip Glass
TameasDust	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 7:59 PM Klaus Doldinger
EchoMinor	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 9:26 PM Gene good point on Danny Elfman, he composed the scores for almost every tim burton film, and a handful of others. aswell as collaborated with alot of gothic artists: Siouxsie Sioux
imemine	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 9:31 PM "IF YOU KNOW MUSIC YOU WILL KNOW" WTF? Opinions are seldom fact!
GeneHilbert	Date: February 21, 2006 @ 11:09 PM Can't forget about John Williams
PrincessTast...	Date: February 22, 2006 @ 1:15 AM Frank Zappa died in 1994. Dumbasses.
EchoMinor	Date: February 22, 2006 @ 2:14 AM who said frank zappa
EvilPicnic	Date: February 22, 2006 @ 3:35 AM If you eat too much celery you come of the opinion that celery is in fact the greatest living composer. This is mistaken. It is in fact carrot. Call any vegetable?
Alecs	Date: February 22, 2006 @ 10:24 AM Steve Vai has really awesome compositions. Alot of people disregard him for being too flashy and showoffish, but he's actually been working with an orchestra in Europe for a while now. Lotus Feet is the only song that's been released so far, and it's freakin' beautiful!
tooles	Date: February 26, 2006 @ 12:51 PM Hans Zimmer, John Williams, Lisa Gerrard. Johnny Dub for stuff like Indiana Jones and Star Wars, not to mention Jaws--someone who can build that kind of drama with two notes is obviously a genius. Zimmer and Gerrard for the Gladiator soundtrack, which is absolutely mindblowingly awesome. Gerrard's Dead Can Dance stuff is also pretty ethereal.
EchoMinor	Date: February 26, 2006 @ 6:13 PM
mcmullen	Date: February 26, 2006 @ 7:17 PM I would have to vote Vangelis Papathanassiou
mcmullen	Date: February 26, 2006 @ 7:17 PM I would have to vote Vangelis Papathanassiou
mcmullen	Date: February 26, 2006 @ 7:18 PM I would have to vote Vangelis Papathanassiou
hate9wicket	Date: February 26, 2006 @ 7:24 PM Film score guy I like is Thomas Newman Six Feet Under American Beauty Road to Perdition The Salton Sea On the Dead Can Dance, I think the Scott Brothers like them a bit too much, they use that one piece repeatly in Gladiator and Man on Fire, the latter of which I came very close to walking out on, don't get me wrong, it is a good slice of music, but they use the same cut like 10 times.
Bhairava	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 4:05 AM [Quote] Alot of people disregard him for being too flashy and showoffish, but he's actually been working with an orchestra in Europe for a while now. Lotus Feet is the only song that's been released so far, and it's freakin' beautiful! [/Quote] Hmm... Its not that great a composition its quite nice though. I think he has done much better compositions. But there are much better composers then him. I mean if you like you could say, its a good shred instrumental and that would be more true.
tooles	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 10:49 AM Oh man...I think the guy from Devo who did "The Life Aquatic" should win the title. I love those little midi riffs that play during the movie.
imemine	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 11:02 AM This person made this one forum post and vanished?
pancreaspuppet	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 11:06 AM Hmmm... Its funny how everyone has posted people who write for films or orchestra. Is that what "composer" means now? A composer is anyone who writes music. Kurt Cobain is as much a composer as Beethoven or John Williams. This really pisses me off sometimes, because I studied "composing" at uni, and when I tell people that, they say "Oh so you write for orchestras?" Which these days is just crazy! Why is there a separation between people who write instrumental music for films and such, and people who write rock/pop/dance/whatever that you listen to on CD? And BTW, "IF YOU KNOW MUSIC YOU WILL KNOW"... what the hell? First of all, don't yell at me. For two, who "knows music"? Is there a criteria for that? Enjoying music isn't enough? Thirdly there really is no best composer living right now, and if there was he/she'd probably be living in a shack, working part-time at McDonalds, and may never make a dime out of music as long as he/she lives. Sorry about the rant. I'm hungover. I apologise for my bluntness...
imemine	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 11:08 AM Yet I don’t disagree!
hantu	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 11:10 AM im not sure what company made my door bell.
Bhairava	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 1:14 PM I call myself a writer rather then composer when I'm not talking about writing songs usually and say I compose when I'm writing instrumentals that feature several instruments which all cary different aspects of a peice rather then say most of the instruments just being a backing for one instrument. Its all small technicalities though. Really a composer is just anyone that creates music. It is just a word afterall. There is just one thing though. Certain styles of music do have better compositions which require more interesting compositional skills in it. Its not that you can't make anything interesting its just some styles tend to not do this. For instance a song writer will most probably write better compositions then a lead guitarist that doesn't write songs but just practices lead for the most part. PLaying lead doesn't make you a good song writer unless you learn to write as well which takes considerable effort and years of practice on top of normal lead training. That is a rock example as I'm familiar with it. In classical music you can often tell whether someone is using cleche ideas and don't have something fresh in their work as you would be able to when reading poetry or a book.
Bhairava	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 1:15 PM Oh a better example for the end is films. You know if a film is tacky or cheesy pretty quickly but it takes time to develop a sense for what is a good film as when you are young you just enjoy most films with action in them and would discard other films.
EvilPicnic	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 5:51 PM ^^Si. I find it hard to disagree with anything you or pancreaspuppet has said. One of the reasons I like the music of Frank Zappa so much is that he made no distinction between pop songs, compositions for an orchestra, or noodling around on large synthesisers; he viewed everything as a valid medium, which is the way things should be, I think. There's too much snobbery in 'art' music. It's all semantics - music is music, there is no 'best' (although there are definately better or worse), and this thread is pretty pointless, really. has the bloke who stated it turned up again? I don't he was really taking things seriously...
EchoMinor	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 5:58 PM thing about composing is that "composer" typically is used to describe someone who composes very difficult compositions. i know the definition of it is simply "composes music or writes etc" but most people think of composers as musicians who write complex works of music. thats why alot of us have listed movie score composers, and neo-classical composers. i just stick the label of musician
MinisterofSc...	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 6:30 PM The Princess meant by saying "FZ died in '94" he means that there aren't any "best" living composers nowadays...sort of. ...see?
pancreaspuppet	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 10:32 PM I don't think film composers or neo-classical composers write more "difficult" or "complex" music than people in the low art scene. Some film scores are dead simple, not because they're bad but because they need to be. Look at Steve Reich writing ultra-simple but clever patterns for orchestras to play to rich people, and compare that to something like The Mars Volta... is one more of a "composer" than the other? I don't really think so.
GeneHilbert	Date: February 27, 2006 @ 11:38 PM I see a comparison between Cobain or any song writer for that matter, compared to Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Aaron Copland or George Gershwin as a valid argument to support the fact that simply because you write a songs – this alone qualifies you as a composer. This is like calling a gold fish and great white both fish. Yes it is true, they both inhabit the water and breathes through gills, yet they are hardly the same thing. Being able to compose hour long symphonies for orchestra, concertos for string or brass ensembles, overtures and movie scores require a higher understand of composition, harmonic theory, arrangement, instrumentation, notation, dynamics and psychological mood interpretation and manipulation. To compare this to a guitar bangers 4 or 5 minute song - is stretching at best. I will concede there are exceptions; Zappa being the most notable. However - make no mistake being one does not automatically qualify you for the other.
dsch	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 12:21 AM resurrects from an incredibly long period of not saying anything on this site to note that he agrees entirely with GeneHilbert Many rock/pop songs consist only of exposition - an A section, a B secvtion, and repeats thereof until the end. Most classical pieces involve development as well, and more complex form in general. Harmonic progressions tend to be more complex in classical pieces than in rock (even groups like the Beatles, who used unusual and innovative chord progressions for their genre, are far more easily analysed harmonically than say, Wagner is), and generally one has to understand a great deal more about more instruments to write for classical ensembles than for a rock band. This is not to put rock down as a genre. It just points out primary differences between the two. I'm a composer. I write "classical" music. I've had training in classical compositional techniques. I like having people know that's what I mean when I say it, as opposed to having them assume I'm a more simple songwriter.
pancreaspuppet	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 12:23 AM I see your point Gene, but what I'm arguing is that if perpetuate that kind of high art/low art classification, then guitar bangers will never learn to incorporate the kind of cognitive and technical skills involved with writing a symphony. And high-art composers will never learn to consider the reasons why people LIKE listening to something brutally simple like nirvana, and incorporate that into what they do. After having majored in composition, I want to see music through a pure lens, and use the same compositional skills when I'm writing a 4min song or a 2hr film score. How can you move forward if you can only look at music through certain classifications? Such classifications damage the purity of music, which is simply sound arranged in time which is pleasing to the ear. Its NOT mathematics.
Snoogans775	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 12:34 AM it's important to recognize the perspective, while the average joe may not like John Cage very much, the music world was vastly affected by him, making him "great" to them. While many music snobs disrespect bands like Nirvana because they do nothing to ensure the powers of their long standing dominance of sophistication. either way, everybody is full of shit to somebody except for Frank Zappa that is, even the people who hate him don't truly believe he was full of shit.
EchoMinor	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 1:47 AM pancreaspuppet Date: February 27, 2006 @ 10:32 PM I don't think film composers or neo-classical composers write more "difficult" or "complex" music than people in the low art scene. Some film scores are dead simple, not because they're bad but because they need to be. Look at Steve Reich writing ultra-simple but clever patterns for orchestras to play to rich people, and compare that to something like The Mars Volta... is one more of a "composer" than the other? I don't really think so. i was judging my statement on the ones i mentioned: Danny Elfman John Williams Tan Dun they usually write scores for films, and no blues/rock/or jazz musician can come close to the depth their compositions have. especially John Williams, who of course did StarWars, HarryPotter, IndianaJones, and aswell is a classically trained guitarist.
EchoMinor	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 1:49 AM but them being the better composers is just something of my opinion, everything in this thread should be looked in that fashion.
pancreaspuppet	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 3:14 AM Ok so first of all, judging a statement on three composers simply because they were the ones that you brought up doesn't qualify an argument, and doesn't really address the core of what I'm trying to say. I don't normally get so argumentative on a thread but this is something that I, as a composer, believe very strongly in, and I welcome any arguments against what I'm trying to say. so FourCalendar, you've written "no blues/rock/or jazz musician can come close to the depth their compositions have." I think that's a pretty strong and somewhat ignorant thing to say. Can I assume from this that no rock musician has dabbled in more complex instrumental music? And also that no film score composer has at any stage considered themselves a jazz musician? What do you call Bjork? How about pioneers like Brian Eno or Aphex Twin? Are they not composers? And if you're referring to "depth" why not take a look at someone like Craig Armstrong? As soon as he gets into a studio with some ground-level musos like Massive Attack, does he suddenly become a less sophisticated composer??? Also to make such a strong statement I woud assume that you've listened to every blues/rock/jazz musician in existance? Because to make such a quantitative statement like that without absolute knowledge would be, well... weightless. My basic point is that the classification you're making is unnecessary, inaccurate, and generally damaging to the freedom of music.
EchoMinor	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 3:39 AM dude it is my opinion...it obviously isnt yours but it is MINE, so if ya dont like it, ya can just disagree or keep bitchin about it.
EchoMinor	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 3:41 AM and for the record i listen to alot of blues, rock, jazz and i still think no one in those genres can touch the talent of john williams, and the other three i mentioned...simply because it is my opinion.
pancreaspuppet	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 3:56 AM That's ok. As long as you're happy with having arguable basis for your opinions, then I'm happy with you having them. Just don't try and state them as fact if you're not willing to defend them in a debate. P.S. Why would you listen to blues rock or jazz if they fall so far behind film composers? Is it perhaps because "talent" has become more about social and intellectual respect rather than raw musical talent?
EchoMinor	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 4:02 AM basically i just ment that those three i mentioned a favor more than the rest of everything else out there. you are being a rather large dick about this, it was an opinion from the start, hell this whole damn thread is going to end up being only opinions clashing back and forth. NO ONE can prove who they think is the best composer with facts, because they can easily just be looked at as their bias/personal opinion. and i never based anything i said directly on an accual fact so take your head out of your ass.
Bhairava	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 4:08 AM Hmm, I think you just don't appreciate blues rock and jazz if you say that. Anything which requires years and years of practice and time honing your skills is equally genious no matter what genre you did this on. Writing simple but good songs is about the hardest thing you can possibly do. I tend to get too complex in my writings and sometimes think it'd sound better with an orchestra but a lot of times its lack of ability on my part as I use complexity to skirt around the crux of what I'm trying to capture. Hendrix = Mozart in rock music as far as I'm concerned or perhaps Beethoven. Its not like one genious was better then another its just harboured in a different way. If you listen to people like Radiohead they have extremely interesting compositions and somewhat perfect songs as far as composition is concerned. People like Nick Drake are genious song writers, Tim Buckly too they write incredible music. Ok then I'll tell you what. Write a good but simple pop song with a 4 peice band Guitar, Bass, Vocals and drums maybe some strings if you like two or extra instruments for interest. Then record it and put it in your area and we will see how good your composition as far as simple songs go.
EchoMinor	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 4:16 AM ok let me rephrase what i ment again, sense everyone seems to want to start accusing me of not appreciating my own genre i compose in... i think classical music in general is far greater than rock/blues/jazz...BUT: it is not what i learned how to play, it was not what influenced me on guitar and everything else. hell i'd give up all my skill in guitar to be a classically trained pianist but it just isnt how the cards were played. thats all i ment, when the OP asked for composer i first thought of "classical"
EchoMinor	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 4:19 AM if you must know, my favorite rock composers would be: rush/pink floyd/the cocteau twins. so for the record i DO appreciate rock/blues/jazz of course rock does have the higher love from me.
pancreaspuppet	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 4:22 AM Well you've gotten personal and started throwing insults already so I guess its time I backed off. I don't think you really understand the basis of my argument anyway because you haven't really addressed it at all. Or maybe I'm a dick. Who knows? In any case you're right, this is generally going nowhere.
EchoMinor	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 4:25 AM i never approached this thread looking for an argument, i think my wording sometimes can give the wrong impression of what i ment. when the titled first caught my eye i thought of classical music/composers, which i think is better for my own tastes. i am however usually only influenced by rock, sense that is what i grew up on not classical.
pancreaspuppet	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 4:27 AM Ok... I posted that a bit late, didn't get to read your last 2 posts. I do understand what you're saying is an opinion only, and you're welcome to that. I'm not putting you down for the fact that you first thought classical when you saw the word composer, but I'm challenging the fact that everyone has been conditioned by society to make that distinction.
EchoMinor	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 4:31 AM well i see that point too, we all see classical composers labelled as the "composers" and rock composers labelled as "musicians" or "artists" so perhaps i am just a victim of society's curse! lol!
hate9wicket	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 10:51 AM composer noun A person who writes music, esp. as a professional occupation. Since the thread writer is not here to simplify matters, I'm guessing they have no idea themselves and are looking to us for one. We all have are own bias here, and I of course automatically assume composer as someone who writes for small to large ensembles, hence my vote for Phillip Glass, but he writes for all kinds of media, not just for the Symphony Hall. On the other hand, in this age, composer could be someone like Moby or Trent Reznor or Brian Eno, music that could easily arranged for orchestra. I just can't get the image of a guy or girl sitting at a piano, pencil in hand, poring over a paper score, scratching out notes. So I say we are all right and we are all wrong.
Bhairava	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 5:32 PM How about Johnny Greenwood.
EchoMinor	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 5:38 PM hate9wicket Date: February 28, 2006 @ 10:51 AM "I just can't get the image of a guy or girl sitting at a piano, pencil in hand, poring over a paper score, scratching out notes." ya i know, i mean someone should tell him to download powertab editor
K3VIN	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 5:43 PM people are too shy.
EchoMinor	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 5:49 PM whos too shy starts singing an 80's song: You're too shy shy hush hush eye to eye Too shy shy hush hush eye to eye Too shy shy hush hush eye to eye Too shy shy hush hush hush man i should stop watching the wedding singer
FebruaryBattles	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 5:59 PM lmao ya i know, i mean someone should tell him to download powertab editor thats why.. people are to shy to tell him
EvilPicnic	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 6:09 PM Hey! I write sitting at a piano with pencil & paper! At least for initial ideas. Staring at a computer screen is so sterile. But to reiterate my point- music is all about opinion. I could sayBach wrote the best choral music', but then another bloke says, 'But what about Dowland's madrigals?', and another, 'I prefer Britten myself...'. It's all opinion. Compare the a performance of the Rite of Spring to a guy slamming out powerchords to American Idiot in his bedroom. Arguably one shows better compositional skills than the other, but they're both still equally valid forms of music. In the world at the moment there is probably a whole lot more people listening to, and enjoying, a Green Day song than their are people listening to, and enjoying, Stravinsky. Does that mean Green Day write better music than Stravinsky did, though? It's all opinion, some people think they do, some people think they don't. Personally, I fall in the second category (Stavinsky is the shit). But I don't think it's my right to tell people who they should or shouldn't listen to, they can listen to what they like, I don't care. You can guide, you can point out all the great things about Stravinsky, you can say, 'Look Stravinsky writes very complicated music, doesn't he - See? That bit's in 5/4! How clever!' but you can't force someone to form an opinion. They have a right to think Green Day's the shit, just as much as I have the right to enjoy Stravinsky. Music shouldn't be about cleverness or snobbery, it should be about enjoying the music and making an emotional link with the sounds. If, to someone, enjoying music means listening to Green Day, fine, who am I to judge their poor musical taste. I like Meat Loaf, shoot me. Music isn't a competition. It just is.
GeneHilbert	Date: February 28, 2006 @ 10:27 PM Valid points and arguments made on both sides. Fact: Art is Art Fact: Music is Art Fact: Music affects emotion Fact: Emotion evokes passion Fact: Passion evokes Debate Fact: Being one or the other (song writer or orchestral composer) are not interchangeable Fact: Being one or the other (song writer or orchestral composer) does not disqualify one from being the other Fact: If everyone liked the same thing there would be no need for style differences or variations Fact: Style dictates its own degree of compositional comprehension Fact: Debate is Good.......