# Composer's Composer vs Adoring Public's Composer



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

What do you feel about composers who are more admired by other composers versus by the general public? Does the popularity of a Classical composer with the public mean anything more than it does with Pop stars? Do critics know best, or are they just better dressed? Do musicians who perform the music count, or are they more biased than the listeners towards technical difficulty rather than the music itself? Or are other composers' biases more revealing towards the dreaded 'O' word?

For instance, Britten seems to be more a composer's composer than popular with the public, as this poll shows. While Schubert is beloved, but less a composer's composer.

Keep in mind we all have our perspectives, and it's like asking black and red ants if red or black is better.

https://www.talkclassical.com/63565-50-greatest-composers-174-a.html


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

The general public can be subdivided into many layers based on their “listening ear maturity”. A young crowed to classical music may have very different preferences than those with “trained ears”. I say the mature classical listeners (those with trained or mature ears) have almost similar preferences to the composers’ composers. 
This of course is my observation…

For sure a performer might pick up technicalities in a composer and view the composition difficulties differently than the average non-performing listener, i.e. what I mean by “trained or matured ears”.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I am surprised to hear that composers don't respect Schubert as much as the public do. Is there evidence (aside from a few anecdotes of specific composers' view of him) for this? Britten's lack of popularity with the public is always a surprise. Homophobia? His refusal to be merely an English composer? A general dislike of opera by much of the public? A lack of the bombast or tortured sounds that many associate with, and want in, 20th century music? However, I think that I have seen him become more liked on this forum than he used to be. The same for Stravinsky who spent some time being out of fashion but is definitely making a comeback now.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

I listen to classical music a lot and have been to numerous concerts , I see myself as part of the general public. I respect every one's taste although I don't always understand it. What gets me is that there are certain composers you seem to "need to love" or else you aren't deemed a connoisseur ... This gets me to the composer's composer etc...
I really , really love Schubert's work...but this is due to my first period of listening to classical and getting to know it. "My first love" if you please was Schubert and that is something you can't forget or cast aside. 
Tastes change a bit and now I am much more into the works of the "composer's composer" as you put it... I really value the work of eg. Shostakovich and Stravinsky now ... 
Another one is Mahler. I never understood the hype. Yet some people looked aghast at me when I told them I didn't value his music that much. I have listened to his work intensively though and now there is some of his work that I do appreciate.
Same with composers like Ravel and Sibelius, whom I really like now. Most of their work take a trained ear imo


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

it matters to an extent, but i do get the impression that music can be just as political (socially) and clique-y as any other field. there's nothing special about musicians which prevent them from backing music by their friends, or for someone with a lot of social power to have outsize influence on tastes.

i do find Schubert's reputation as "not a composer's composer" weird though- I think Schubert's reputation has a lot to do with Mendelsson's championing of the work, since he and Schumann were highly regarded back in the day. certainly his work has a ton of immediate appeal, though.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Of course there are composers on this list that I do not care for. Just because I dislike a composer does it mean that he is a weak composer.

A composers experiences will be different than mine so his preferences will be different than mine.

In spite of my personal biases these are all outstanding composers, including Verdi (whom I despise).

To my flawed ears Verdi is stupid and mundane. In spite of my feelings his _Requiem_ would be a desert island disc for me. Go figure.

I have a problem with using popularity as a metric to judge music. I realize that this is anecdotal but based on my experiences it seems to me that most classical music audiences prefer selections from _My Fair Lady, Sound of Music_ and various light classics. Two of the most popular works I have ever performed are Ravel's _Bolero_ and Elgar's _Pomp and Circumcision_. Yet I have read in several sources that the composers hated these works. It just seems to me that Andrew Lloyd Webber is more popular than Bach.

Anyways the BBC lists are flawed and I would take anything they said with a grain of salt.

A few years ago they took a poll of musicologists on who was the greatest music prodigy and Mozart did not make the top ten. There were two interesting essays attached to the article: one stating that Mozart was overrated as a prodigy and another stating that he should of made the top ten. Even the experts can disagree.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> Elgar's _Pomp and Circumcision_.




................

:lol:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

HerbertNorman said:


> Another one is Mahler. I never understood the hype. Yet some people looked aghast at me when I told them I didn't value his music that much. I have listened to his work intensively though and now there is some of his work that I do appreciate.


I loved the first Mahler symphony I heard (it was Barbirolli's recording of the 5th) but was for a long time lukewarm about the rest. Then, slowly and step by step, I came to like more and more. But, to use a common comparison, I rated Sibelius more highly. But now I can think of few composers as great as Mahler and he trumps Sibelius every time for me! I never felt bad about not liking him that much and am still a little "suspicious" of those who came to it all quickly! How could they?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Both types can have an appeal to me, and ultimately I think that it's my own response to their music that matters. Although I can't stand Britten due to his affairs with children, I will happily hear new works (to me) by both Carter and Schubert without caring too much for the kind of public that listens to them - the fact that their music is important to someone is enough to raise my interest for them.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It depends on the comparison. Compared to Webern or Carter Britten is probably not a composer's composer. Some composers like Bach and Beethoven are both.

I think most listener's underestimate the level of estimation even relatively obscure composers need to get their music edited and performed (or nowadays recorded). The public's estimation comes much later. They wouldn't know the music not sufficiently appreciated by musicians/editors/recording producers etc. because it would never reach them.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Allerius said:


> I can't stand Britten due to his affairs with children


You seem to have access to information that most of us lack?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

the poll is rubbish. There is no way in hell that eg. Britten is above Shostakovich and there is no even a place for Dvořák, while third-rate composers like Cage, Birtwistle, Glass and Reich are on the list. We would need more information about what those composers were composing and how the poll was conducted. The TC recommended lists have higher value than this.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Glass actually would seem to be both- he's probably one of the few composers of the second half of the 20th century that the average person has a decent shot of having heard of.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Kreisler jr said:


> It depends on the comparison. Compared to Webern or Carter *Britten is probably not a composer's composer*. Some composers like Bach and Beethoven are both.
> 
> I think most listener's underestimate the level of estimation even relatively obscure composers need to get their music edited and performed (or nowadays recorded). The public's estimation comes much later. They wouldn't know the music not sufficiently appreciated by musicians/editors/recording producers etc. because it would never reach them.


My view of Britten is that he is most definitely a composer's composer. There is so much to admire in his scores, such as his musical invention, his harmonic language, the economy of means, virtuosic and imaginative orchestration, motivic development, superb contrapuntal skill and vivid word painting. As witnessed by Imogen Holst, the man could write up to 12 pages of full manuscript a day and only rarely go to the piano to check his notes, such was the accuracy of his inner ear. Then there is his fluency and effectiveness as a conductor and his deserved reputation as one of the finest pianists of his generation.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Erik Satie intentionally kept most of his pieces around 3 minutes, to fit on a 78RPM record. He wanted his music accessible by all.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> I think most listener's underestimate the level of estimation even relatively obscure composers need to get their music edited and performed (or nowadays recorded).


Is there any work written about this? If so I'd be keen to read it.

Rich players in the art market have the power to determine whether a painter of sculptor fails or not. I would like to know what happens in the music market.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> You seem to have access to information that most of us lack?


People are always saying this sort of thing, it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong, in my experience your average Daily Mail reader who listens to a bit of classical music now and then has decided that Britten was a nonce and has decided that he doesn't want to listen to music written by pervs. It's a waist of time challenging them. Simple.

As it happens I had a weird experience recently watching a video of Death in Venice and, for the first time, I identified more with Aschenbach than with Tadzeo. Bloody hell, time to get drunk I think.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> You seem to have access to information that most of us lack?


"From early in life, Britten had close relationships with handsome teenagers. On his side, there was often a sexual attraction. The boys themselves were sometimes unaware, sometimes complicit. Ronan Magill, the last such figure in Britten's life, wasn't conscious of the charge in their relationship at the time, but says now: 'If he did [feel attraction], then I'm glad that he did - if I could make him think that way for even five seconds.'

When it comes to the question of how far attraction was physically expressed, Bridcut sometimes leans on the evidence. In 1936, Britten invited Harry Morris, 13, on a family holiday in Cornwall (Britten's brother and sister and their families were also present). According to Morris, Britten came into his room one night and made what he understood to be a sexual approach. The boy screamed and hit his host with a chair, attracting the attention of Britten's sister, Beth. Harry returned to London in the morning..." - Source is the second link below.

Perhaps "affair" was too strong a word, but it seems that Britten felt sexual attraction for little boys, suspiciously befriending many of them, at least from what I have read. Please read this, this, this, and this.



Mandryka said:


> People are always saying this sort of thing, it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong, in my experience *your average Daily Mail reader who listens to a bit of classical music now and then* has decided that Britten was a nonce and has decided that he doesn't want to listen to music written by pervs. It's a waist of time challenging them. Simple.


I'm not such a person.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> Is there any work written about this? If so I'd be keen to read it.
> 
> Rich players in the art market have the power to determine whether a painter of sculptor fails or not. I would like to know what happens in the music market.


I don't know if there are specific works written about that. But in general it is a fairly trivial observation: The band needs to be paid (or be enthusiastic friends and supporters). 
The difference between painting etc. and music is of course, that musical performances always cost money (for musicians, venue etc.) whereas a painting or sculpture can be an investment. And obviously it will depend on the economic and social circumstances. Until the 18th century almost all composers needed either sponsors or a church or court position because options on the "market" were so limited. (Or they could be rich amateurs). Handel was among the first to be more independent (as entrepreneurial impresario, not just composer) but I think only in the 19th century it became (barely) possible to live on selling music to publishers, i.e. as a composer who was not also a moderately famous performer or in some dependent position. (Most still were.)
Musical engraving was considerably more work and therefore more expensive than printing books or pamphlets until very recently, or maybe it still is, even with help of computers). This is one reason why (I think) the "historical filters" in the case of music are far tougher than in fine arts (and literature).

These "practical" conditions make me wary of "populist" arguments that the public's verdict is most important (it is not unimportant but it comes late after many filters) Especially before recordings music was so damn expensive. You need to somehow convince quite a few people (experts, usually influential musicians, publishers etc.) of the worth of your music before it would be performed at all. (Look at some of Schubert's and Bruckner's works... they never heard them performed!) Or you had to perform them yourself (again presupposing you are already a somewhat established virtuoso like the young Beethoven or many others)

Obviously, many things have changed in the last ca. 100-150 years with conservatoires and academies, universities becoming more important on many levels (both as sponsors and especially as multipliers/enhancers of status etc.) and then radio broadcasting and recordings. One of the things why many debates about "greatness" or historical status are so frustrating is that people seem to assume that late 20th/early 21st century cultural industry and mass media is typical for the reception and distribution of music when it is very different to anything before ca. 1900.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't know if there are specific works written about that. But in general it is a fairly trivial observation: The band needs to be paid (or be enthusiastic friends and supporters).
> The difference between painting etc. and music is of course, that musical performances always cost money (for musicians, venue etc.) whereas a painting or sculpture can be an investment. And obviously it will depend on the economic and social circumstances. Until the 18th century almost all composers needed either sponsors or a church or court position because options on the "market" were so limited. (Or they could be rich amateurs). Handel was among the first to be more independent (as entrepreneurial impresario, not just composer) but I think only in the 19th century it became (barely) possible to live on selling music to publishers, i.e. as a composer who was not also a moderately famous performer or in some dependent position. (Most still were.)
> Musical engraving was considerably more work and therefore more expensive than printing books or pamphlets until very recently, or maybe it still is, even with help of computers). This is one reason why (I think) the "historical filters" in the case of music are far tougher than in fine arts (and literature).
> 
> ...


I've been wondering whether to get this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0615611273/ref=ox_sc_saved_image_2?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&psc=1


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Looks interesting. I am more into history, I'd probably read a book on the co-development? of printing music and economics of music and muiscal performances. There must be some research as there are so many interesting things, e.g. the rôle of Lutheranism (vs. Calvinism) with music being so important both in church service and as a family friendly pastime, the hundreds of provincial courts in Germany (and on a different scale, fewer but more resplendent, cities/courts in Italy) each having their Kapellmeister, (often ruthlessly stealing) printers/publishers, the rise of a bourgeois musical culture in the late 18th century that created demand that could replace the small courts (they vanished after the Napoleonic wars). I don't think that such materialist and social factors are trumping the more narrow musical/cultural developments, but they are nevertheless very important.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I am surprised to hear that composers don't respect Schubert as much as the public do. Is there evidence (aside from a few anecdotes of specific composers' view of him) for this? Britten's lack of popularity with the public is always a surprise. Homophobia? His refusal to be merely an English composer? A general dislike of opera by much of the public? A lack of the bombast or tortured sounds that many associate with, and want in, 20th century music? However, I think that I have seen him become more liked on this forum than he used to be. The same for Stravinsky who spent some time being out of fashion but is definitely making a comeback now.


I was judging by the poll on Schubert, but as mentioned, Dvorak is probably a much better example of one adored by public and less a composer's composer.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> Looks interesting. I am more into history, I'd probably read a book on the co-development? of printing music and economics of music and muiscal performances. There must be some research as there are so many interesting things, e.g. the rôle of Lutheranism (vs. Calvinism) with music being so important both in church service and as a family friendly pastime, the hundreds of provincial courts in Germany (and on a different scale, fewer but more resplendent, cities/courts in Italy) each having their Kapellmeister, (often ruthlessly stealing) printers/publishers, the rise of a bourgeois musical culture in the late 18th century that created demand that could replace the small courts (they vanished after the Napoleonic wars). I don't think that such materialist and social factors are trumping the more narrow musical/cultural developments, but they are nevertheless very important.


From the limited amount of stuff I've read, the arts scene in France was astonishingly bureaucratic, political, and incestuous as well, regarding who got promoted, which works could be promoted where, and the rules which had to be followed.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> What do you feel about composers who are more admired by other composers versus by the general public? Does the popularity of a Classical composer with the public mean anything more than it does with Pop stars? Do critics know best, or are they just better dressed? Do musicians who perform the music count, or are they more biased than the listeners towards technical difficulty rather than the music itself? Or are other composers' biases more revealing towards the dreaded 'O' word?
> 
> For instance, Britten seems to be more a composer's composer than popular with the public, as this poll shows. While Schubert is beloved, but less a composer's composer.
> 
> ...


Bach was at one stage more admired by connoisseurs up to about Mendelssohn's time before posterity rewarded the general public. But I don't blame that because people had Classicism and Romanticism, so much of quality new music at each respective period. Now, we recognize Bach and the past.

As for more recent times, Milton Babbitt whose music has more academic interest on serial music than broad listening.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I believe all that matters is what you believe to be true for yourself, no matter what your position is in society. You can't escape bias thought and acknowledging that is the path to acceptance and tolerance of varying opinions.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Allerius said:


> Perhaps "affair" was too strong a word, but it seems that Britten felt sexual attraction for little boys, suspiciously befriending many of them, at least from what I have read.




I think there is no doubt about the attraction - something he was perhaps cursed with (although his art must often have been a sublimation of it) - but any evidence that appears reliable that I have seen also suggests he had a moral compass and did not act on whatever urges he felt. That, if true, seems admirable to me.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

ArtMusic said:


> Bach was at one stage more admired by connoisseurs up to about Mendelssohn's time before posterity rewarded the general public. But I don't blame that because people had Classicism and Romanticism, so much of quality new music at each respective period. Now, we recognize Bach and the past.


What gets misrepresented here often is that music was mostly treated as a very transient art before the late 18th century. To be forgotten quickly was completely normal.
That some Bach was considerably well known among connoisseurs, studied and used for teaching was already way about average. The first composer who remained pretty well known with a few works continuously from his lifetime was Handel. But even in the 19th century only a few select composers with a few select (and often edited/arranged) pieces of the 18th century were performed: JS Bach, Handel, Gluck. Even a great Mozart opera like Cosi fell out of favor (mostly because of the immoral subject matter). Some pianists studied D. Scarlatti; Palestrina and other older masters were studied by some church musicians. The real interest in musical history, including performing (not only studying or editing some works) came only in the late 19th century.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Popularity doesnt mean much for classical music. Meyerbeer was the most popular composer back in 19th century when he was living, but now his work is rarely performed. Not much lasting value. The audience a century ago could not bear Stravinsky, but now we get use to him.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> I loved the first Mahler symphony I heard (it was Barbirolli's recording of the 5th) but was for a long time lukewarm about the rest. Then, slowly and step by step, I came to like more and more. But, to use a common comparison, I rated Sibelius more highly. But now I can think of few composers as great as Mahler and he trumps Sibelius every time for me! I never felt bad about not liking him that much and am still a little "suspicious" of those who came to it all quickly! How could they?


Good point! And this is what I mean by the "trained ear" , Mahler and a lot of Sibelius is much too difficult too get into immediately imho .


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Bruckner Anton said:


> Popularity doesnt mean much for classical music. Meyerbeer was the most popular composer back in 19th century when he was living, but now his work is rarely performed. Not much lasting value. The audience a century ago could not bear Stravinsky, but now we get use to him.


Meyerbeer had lasting value for more than 100 years. His operas were still quite popular in the early 20th century and quite well known in the 50s. If you'd plot e.g. Meyerbeer vs. Bruckner, Bruckner gained only in the last ca. 60 years and will probably never hit such a peak as Meyerbeer had from his lifetime to WW 1. 
But it seems to be true that opera gives the most immediate fame and the worst prospect of lasting recognition.


----------

