# Composers and money



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I think sometimes we like to believe that composers are too "pure" to be driven by commercial considerations. Well, it they have a sinecure in a university of some such, maybe. But making a living as a composer of classical music has never been easy. Even in the 20th century, some of our finest composers have been reduced to poverty and had to depend, essentially, on charity (Bartok is an example).

Here's an example from the past that illustrates the motivation of some composers and may be a shock. From Barry Cooper's "Beethoven":

"It is often assumed that, after the Ninth Symphony, Beethoven turned his back on the public, withdrawing into a private world to write string quartets purely for his own satisfaction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although his late quartets were supposedly sparked off by a request from Galitzin and sustained by his own love of the genre, it was public demand, filtered through a number of publishers, that fuelled this unprecedented burst of activity in a single genre. Beethoven had been asked for quartets by both Schlesinger and Peters even before Galitzin's commission had arrived; and Schott's and probably Steiner had joined the chase before a note of Op. 127 had been written. These and other publishers then sustained Beethoven's activities with offers of high rewards unmatched, as Schlesinger confirmed, in other types of music... He had, it is true, received 600 fl. from Schott's for the Ninth Symphony -- more than the 360 fl. now being offered for a quartet -- but in proportion to the work involved the rate was lower."

Cooper also describes the dinner parties during this period at which much mutual schmoozing took place -- Beethoven angling for higher prices, the publishers competing for exclusive rights.

How about your favorite composers? Noble idealists or money-grubbers following the almighty thaler?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

In earlier eras, composers were dependent on a post as court composer, composer for a titled patron(s), to hire for the church, later eras find them working primarily in a teaching / performing post.

_The one full exception I can think of was Charles Ives. 
Because Ives' income came from unrelated business, one might say his is the 'most pure' music ever written -- "Ars gratia artis," --- written with no thought or concern of pleasing either patron or audience._

Mozart only wrote a handful of all those works without their having been commissioned. The 'mystery' that he did compose those great last three symphonies without has been glamorously conjectured in every direction other than the most obvious and practical: Mozart lived off of (healthy) payments, commissions bringing so much per work. During a brief lull when he did not have work, he cranked out three symphonies to have something immediately ready if a subscription concert commission was to later be obtained.

Perhaps by the times Brahms was alive, a composer could rely on revenue from sales of sheet music, both publishing and the middle class amateur consumer having vastly increased in numbers. I won't bother to see if his larger works were or were not commissioned, but imagine it was by then perhaps possible to live off the revenue from the smaller works purchased and played in homes to 'buy the time' to write that symphony freely, without having to have an advance on commission.

A lot of people seem to have that "Hollywood - romantic" notion of the artist, in an ecstasy of inspiration, frenetically composing away in a vacuum, only afterwards hoping to peddle their work to the local band.

Composing has, for a very long time, been a profession, ergo, a job: that means business as usual with the usual business arrangements, including -- gasp -- money.

Bach may have been composing everything 'to the glory of God,' but it was church and the occasional patron who paid for it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB, I think you're right on. It's surprising to me that writers on the composers' lives spend so little time on how they made their livings, their financial difficulties, etc. The want us to "understand" the composers and the supposed backgrounds of their compositions, but leave out this one thing that means so much to us in our own lives.

You mentioned Brahms. Well, I have no clue. How much was he paid for publishing rights to a symphony? Were there any concerts with net revenues benefitting the composer? Could he sell the same piece to different publishers in different countries? How many months could a composer live, in reasonable comfort, on that income? How about his sonatas and so forth? This is all, at least to me, a total blank.

Agree on Mozart and Ives as well. Ives of course made a bucketful of money from a different direction. Mozart is a bit speculative, but makes sense.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I for one am not scandalized by this revelation. Making great and complex music for money when people used bark for toilet paper seems a lot more noble than making pop music for money in 2012.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I did some threads a while back on related issues:
http://www.talkclassical.com/20565-selling-out.html
http://www.talkclassical.com/19502-music-made-order.html

Fact is that with classical music today largely being a museum piece, I think its made this notion that its disconnected from reality. In an ivory tower, stuff like that. So some people think its always been like this, not related to real life, and to the basic need of earning money to put food on the table for a composer.

So going way back, we get the 'for the glory of God' thing. Then in the era of aristocracy being patrons, music made to order. Then in the 19th century, music for the bourgeoisie. Then in the 20th century, a splitting up of listeners/consumers of different types of classical music. Although by classically trained composers, things like film musics and musical theatre are seen as tainted by commercialism and lowbrow by some at one extreme, and at the other extreme you get music for intellectuals in the ivory towers of academia. Or various patrons of the arts high up, apart from government funded bodies (eg. universities), you've got corporations commissioning things as well as private individuals with cash.

Anyway, point is that one can question all these things, eg. for what audience a composer is doing what he's doing. None of them is 'untainted' by the need for money or to satisfy an audience, whether narrow or broad. But what I dislike is music at the service of extreme political ideologies. You won't find me listening to music of Fascist ideologues like Schmidt, nor to Stalinist ones like Khrennikov. But that's another story, these where 'true believers' of the two most destructive regimes of the 20th century. Apart from that, I'm game to listen to anything that is within my orbit of taste, whether its highbrow or lowbrow or in between.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> You won't find me listening to music of Fascist ideologues like Schmidt, nor to Stalinist ones like Khrennikov.


So do you listen to Wagner?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Bach may have been composing everything 'to the glory of God,' but it was church and the occasional patron who paid for it.


JS Bach and his large family was a lower middle class family often struggling financially. He even complained there was not enough funerals in Leipzig (he relied on funerals writing music for such to earn extra money). Poor bugger. Life must have been tough for him.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

If I can make a living doing something other than composing, I would definitely love to have my music be free.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Haydn is a notorious money-maker. He is one of the wealthiest composers in his life, and every compositions he made is for financial reasons. I don't like his music, personally.



> *Haydn's primary character flaw was greed as it related to his business dealings. Webster writes, "As regards money, Haydn was so self-interested as to shock [both] contemporaries and many later authorities .... He always attempted to maximize his income, whether by negotiating the right to sell his music outside the Esterházy court, driving hard bargains with publishers or selling his works three and four times over; he regularly engaged in 'sharp practice' and occasionally in outright fraud. When crossed in business relations, he reacted angrily."*


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

peeyaj said:


> Haydn is a notorious money-maker.


A bad thing? "3,000 gulden in one night. Only in London!" -- Franz Joseph Haydn

But he also said, "I would never have left Esterhazy and traveled if my beloved prince were still alive." (from memory)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

peeyaj said:


> Haydn is a notorious money-maker. He is one of the wealthiest composers in his life, and every compositions he made is for financial reasons. I don't like his music, personally.


He was conscious of money, and what was wrong with that? You should know that Haydn grew up in poverty, he had a very rough childhood and early adult life. He later recalled he received "more floggings than food" when he was a boy. The fact that he made a lot of money and was very successful professionally should be the epitome of success for the artist. If you have a Romanticised view that artists should be poor/struggling and their work "came out of their hearts" when they wrote their music while feeling cold and hungry, that's just a Romanticised and naive view of what composers should be.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

I never said that Haydn making money is bad. Perhaps I should not have added that I don't like Haydn's music. It just muddies what I'm replying to the OP that 'Haydn made boatloads of money on his lifetime'.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

peeyaj said:


> I never said that Haydn making money is bad. Perhaps I should not have added that I don't like Haydn's music. It just muddies what I'm replying to the OP that 'Haydn made boatloads of money on his lifetime'.


Here is what you wrote.



peeyaj said:


> Haydn is a notorious money-maker. He is one of the wealthiest composers in his life, and every compositions he made is for financial reasons. I don't like his music, personally.


Notorious means well know for bad qualities, and notorious money-maker means he was unscrupulous in money making and well know for it. There is a difference between making "boatloads of money" per se and "notorious money-maker". Haydn's success _should_ be financially rewarding, and him being financially careful was partly because he knew the value of money coming from a poor background.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> JS Bach and his large family was a lower middle class family often struggling financially. He even complained there was not enough funerals in Leipzig (he relied on funerals writing music for such to earn extra money). Poor bugger. Life must have been tough for him.


Bach is due a revisionist history movie, like the one about Abe Lincoln, vampire slayer. Bach, the church organist and composer of funeral music falls on hard times - people are too blumming healthy - so he resorts to a hidden life of crime: he becomes a serial killer. Double life stuff. Would pay to see it myself.

Well, maybe I wouldn't, but I'd certainly buy the soundtrack...


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Here is what you wrote.
> 
> Notorious means well know for bad qualities, and notorious money-maker means he was unscrupulous in money making and well know for it. There is a difference between making "boatloads of money" per se and "notorious money-maker". Haydn's success _should_ be financially rewarding, and him being financially careful was partly because he knew the value of money coming from a poor background.


Definition of NOTORIOUS
: generally known and talked of; especially : widely and unfavorably known

Wikipedia


> Haydn's primary character flaw was* greed* as it related to his business dealings. Webster writes, "As regards money,* Haydn was so self-interested as to shock* [both] contemporaries and many later authorities .... He always attempted to maximize his income, whether by negotiating the right to sell his music outside the Esterházy court, driving *hard bargains* with publishers or selling his works three and four times over; he regularly engaged in '*sharp practice'* and occasionally in *outright fraud*. When crossed in business relations, *he reacted angrily.*


Please read what I quote in Wikipedia as to understand the context and connotation of what I'm saying.

Perhaps you would be much happy, if I change the "notorious" as "well-known money maker". I stand with my words, though.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Franz listz made a good living.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Also if some one would commission a symphony,quartet, sonata ( or any piece of music) from a composer, it doesn't mean that the composer can't write it with " passion&soul".


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Stravinsky could be difficult over it - I gather he could have taught a few baseball players on the art of holding out.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

jani said:


> Also if some one would commission a symphony,quartet, sonata ( or any piece of music) from a composer, it doesn't mean that the composer can't write it with " passion&soul".


Exactly.....just because one earns money on a vocation it does not mean they are any less passionate about it. Because I am paid to be a medical professional does not mean I don't care about my patients, for example.



violadude said:


> If I can make a living doing something other than composing, I would definitely love to have my music be free.


Although on the flip side, if you made your living with your music, you would have more time to devote to that music, than say, you worked as an accountant or librarian and composed your music on the side. Even if you make your living with your art, you could provide "freebies" to fans of your work. I've seen commercial artists or authors provide some pieces free of charge online.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

peeyaj said:


> Haydn is a notorious money-maker. He is one of the wealthiest composers in his life, and every compositions he made is for financial reasons.


Not so. It seems he wrote some of his finest works for other reasons. Several of his late piano trios, for instance, were published only because they were sold to publishers (who assigned opus numbers) by friends. Female friends, I believe.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I would give more credit if you quoted from a book written by a music scholar rather than Wikipaedia.

As for Haydn "reacted angrily", you have taken that as it is without background. You should know that copyright laws did not yet exist back in the Baroque and Classical periods. When a composer was not careful enough with his manuscripts, it was all too often for publishers to publish the scores _without the composer's consent and worse, no sharing of any profits with the composer_. All too often, all composers were very careful about the extent of distributing their manuscript scores, and actual publication was done very carefully with trusted firms (explaining why many scores in general contained numerous unedited mistakes and editions, which had no approval and indeed nothing to do with the composers). It would have been unwise for the composer not to be scrupulous with business agreements as far as the price and distribution of their works of art.

I would encourage you to read widely and beyond what Wikipedia tells you.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I would give more credit if you quoted from a book written by a music scholar rather than Wikipaedia.


Were you speaking to me? I've seen no indication that Haydn disapproved of the sale or even that he didn't know about it. The point was that Haydn didn't *always* write only for money.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Were you speaking to me? I've seen no indication that Haydn disapproved of the sale or even that he didn't know about it. The point was that Haydn didn't *always* write only for money.


No, I was responding to member peeyaj. I thought I quoted his post. Sorry for confusion.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> No, I was responding to member peeyaj. I thought I quoted his post. Sorry for confusion.


Well, in fact, you *did* quote his post! So, in summary, let me just say this: Never mind! :tiphat:


----------

