# The "Greatest Composer" according to one of the greatest composers.



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

In the middle of January 1896, Brahms conducted the two piano concertos with Eugen d’Albert and the Berlin Philharmonic—another milestone, his last appearance anywhere as a conductor. At a dinner hosted by Joachim the violinist was trying to propose a toast, “To the greatest composer …” when Brahms jumped up and shouted, “Quite right, here’s to Mozart’s health!” and went around clinking everyone’s glass. ~ Jan Swafford


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The following was written on May-04-2011. I don't know the accuracy of the post, but only that it was a general answer to the thread _Composers' Favorite Composers _and it received a lot of likes.



martijn said:


> Hello, I'm new here. This is an interesting topic, but as someone who has done quite some research in this field, I must say there are quite some errors here.
> 
> Among composers, Mozart, Bach and Beethoven have always been the most popular composers. If you were to hold a poll among composers, probably Mozart would end as number 1, with Beethoven a close second. Here some favorite composers of great composers:
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Brahms also said _'To follow Beethoven transcends one's strength_.' And '_Study Bach. There you will find everything.'_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Who did composers of the 18th and earlier centuries admire most? I know that Mozart was heavily influenced by Johann Christian Bach, and that J. S. Bach walked from Arnstadt to Lübeck – about 250 miles - to hear Buxtehude.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

John Williams selected Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, and Brahms as the five greatest composers, and once stated that Haydn is his favourite. He also said that he keeps Beethoven's works in the bedside cabinet and likes to read them before sleep.

His view about himself [in this context] can be deduced from these three quotes:

Williams' favourite story, which he always re-tells with glee, is the following exchange from 1994:

---Steven [Spielberg], you need a better composer than me for this film [Schindler's List]
---I know, but they are all dead.

When approached by a choir member [in 2002] who called him a god of film music, Williams nodded:
"Of film music---maybe. But the real masters are truly others."
And upon hearing a view that his music will last centuries, he replied:
"Yes. But will _we _be there in a few centuries?"

In 2019, when an interviewer pointed out that 9 Star Wars scores is a special number, Williams started laughing and commented that "Any comparison with Beethoven would be sacrilegious".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although humbled by the masters of old, Williams definitely knows his worth as the second most performed and the single most recognizable living composer in the world.

*Edit:* https://estonianworld.com/culture/a...econd-most-performed-living-composer-in-2019/
Now first.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

martijn said:


> Hello, I'm new here. This is an interesting topic, but as someone who has done quite some research in this field, I must say there are quite some errors here.
> 
> Among composers, Mozart, Bach and Beethoven have always been the most popular composers. If you were to hold a poll among composers, probably Mozart would end as number 1, with Beethoven a close second. Here some favorite composers of great composers:
> 
> ...


It's all over the place, just like the letters these composers wrote. There is a lot of competitiveness, envy, misunderstandings etc.

If there is one truth is that every composer thinks deep down that his music is the best, and will dislike any music that isn't like his. The only respect they give is to composers that are either similar to them but in their mind not better, long dead, or close friends. Even if they enjoy a rival's music they will never admit it.

In any case composers are the least reliable source to get an unbiased opinion about their contemporaries.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> The following was written on May-04-2011. I don't know the accuracy of the post, but only that it was a general answer to the thread _Composers' Favorite Composers _and it received a lot of likes.


I don't think that's true about Boulez and Webern, whose music he once described as "too simple". Other than that, yes, a fascinating list.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

1996D said:


> In any case composers are the least reliable source to get an unbiased opinion about their contemporaries.


None of this "composer" stuff is reliable, you're right, but for _a different_ reason: We choose which composers' opinions we want to listen to. If we're already choosing which composers, (above I see Brahms, Schubert, Haydn, Wagner) then the choice is already made. We like the composers we want to hear their favorite composers from--it's a paradox.

This is fundamentally why the notion of "expert" musician is flawed. Art is a subjective taste, so since whoever is an expert gets to be chosen by non-experts (the public opinion), we can't know if they're actually an expert. We only assert it from ignorance. Or, if_ experts_ get to choose who an expert is, then they must first assert they're an expert against our ignorance.

So as the first paragraph states, we simply like what we like. And as a species that seems to average at around Beethoven and Bach. You ask our favorite composers and some sources seem to say Mozart is greater than everyone, well... it's meaningless information, since we've already made up our minds who the best is we should listen to.

Beethoven says Handel is the greatest, in fact he might've said both Mozart and Handel are better than him, and we surely don't listen to that. It's because we're trusting Beethoven to give us too much information when he's not proven to be an expert as a critic. He's proven to be easily the greatest artist. That's something totally different.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> If there is one truth is that every composer thinks deep down that his music is the best, and will dislike any music that isn't like his.


Have you contacted every composer to confirm this?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

martijn said:


> Schumann particularly admired Beethoven and Bach, as well as Mozart and Schubert. Mendelssohn he called "The Mozart of the 19th century", and *he also championed Chopin. He was less positive about Wagner. He didn't see the great value of Haydn.*


Schumann changed his views on Haydn and Chopin later in life (it is well-known he was critical of Chopin's Op.35 ; I personally think the first movement of that sonata is a fine work though). He also didn't live long enough to hear Tristan.

_"Suddenly, Schumann was promoting Haydn's music, which supposedly had "ceased to arouse any particular interest," at the expense of Beethoven.
The intense study of Haydn's quartets brought Schumann's published criticisms of the composer to an abrupt and irrevocable halt in 1842."_
https://books.google.ca/books?id=B5SlCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA28

_"In Schumann's other writings about Chopin that exist from 1836 through 1842, there is a good deal of positive feedback, although one will likely glean that Schumann was disappointed that there was not more significant development or innovation. In fact, he said more than once that Chopin's work was instantly recognizable because it was all so similar. He acknowledged Chopin's original showing as fabulous, and worried that it was too much for him to be more than that. "When he has given you a whole succession of the rarest creations, and you understand him more easily, do you suddenly demand something different? This is like chopping down your pomegranate tree because it produces, year after year, nothing but pomegranates." And furthermore: "We fear he will never achieve a level higher than that he has already reached. . . . With his abilities he could have achieved far more, influencing the progress of our art as a whole.
In his 1841 review of Chopin's Sonata in B-flat minor in particular, Schumann did not seem to be happy with his fellow composer's progress. Although he talks about the abundance of beauty in the work, he also says that the choice of "sonata" as a title must be in jest: "[Chopin] seems to have taken four of his most unruly children and put them together , possibly thinking to smuggle them, as a sonata, into company where they might not be considered individually presentable." To Schumann it seemed that Chopin had lost his way, and gotten too wrapped up in virtuosity for its own sake. He decries "obstacles on almost every page" with indecipherable progressions. The second movement-again claiming the marking "Scherzo" was in name alone-he describes as a "funeral march with something even repulsive about it." Chopin for his part seemed neither pleased with Schumann's good reviews nor upset about the less positive ones. Despite the things they had in common, Chopin appears to have had little appreciation for Schumann as a composer. Nor did Chopin feel the same tug as Schumann did to support fellow composers. Although correspondence between them may have existed, it did not survive to the present day. All we have are Schumann's words (in reviews and his own personal diary entries) on one side and Chopin's chilly silence on the other."_
https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Have you contacted every composer to confirm this?


I've read a lot of the letters, and I know that composing requires you to think like that. The consequences if you don't can be severe because oftentimes new music isn't received like it's deserved to. Rachmaninoff is a good example of a composer mentally breaking over the reception of his music.

It's like in any sport or discipline, if you don't believe you're the best you won't be able to compete. After that humility is a stance used to motivate oneself to be even better.

It's not necessarily a lie either, every composer we talk about now was at the time he lived the best in the world.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> I've read a lot of the letters, and I know that composing requires you to think like that. The consequences if you don't can be severe because oftentimes new music isn't received like it's deserved to. Rachmaninoff is a good example of a composer mentally breaking over the reception of his music.
> 
> It's like in any sport or discipline, if you don't believe you're the best you won't be able to compete. After that humility is a stance used to motivate oneself to be even better.
> 
> It's not necessarily a lie either, every composer we talk about now was at the time he lived the best in the world.


You seem to be saying that successful musical creation requires the artist to compare himself to, consider himself in competition with, and believe himself superior to, all other composers, at least living ones. I don't believe this is either necessary or desirable.

Certainly there is a need to be competitive in order to be worthy of the public's attention. But artists are not competitors in the precise way that athletes are; there is no single, objectively defined task which all artists must accomplish, and no single, objective standard by which they're judged. Each artist is doing something different.

As a creative artist myself - in my younger years embarking on a career in painting, before yielding to my love of music and working for thirty-some years as an improvisational accompanist for ballet - I was certainly conscious of being in some sense competitive with others doing related work. But I felt no need to believe myself in any global sense superior to others in those fields; despite my own success, there were in fact others in both fields whose work I looked up to, and I was able to recognize any grandiose, illogical and insubstantial fantasies of being "the greatest" for what they were: childish egotism. As a creator of original, personal work not strictly comparable to anyone else's, my concern has always been with realizing as fully as possible the artistic task I set myself. What other artists are doing ordinarily plays no part in that, except when I look to them for inspiration. I don't need for my work to be "better" than theirs; I just need for it to be good, and I don't determine that by consulting what others are doing.

You say you "know" that composing requires that you consider yourself a better composer than everyone else who composes. I assume that you're a composer and that such thinking is necessary for you to do your work. I have to accept that that's your personal experience, but you're hardly in a position to speak for "every composer." When Massenet was called "Mademoiselle Wagner," he said "I shall consider myself fortunate to reach his ankles." Puccini, comparing himself to Wagner, said "next to him we are all poor mandolin players." I doubt that these are the only examples of objective self-assessment by accomplished composers, composers who were quite capable of continuing with their own outstanding work despite the realization that they were not the "greatest in the world."


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Insecurity about the quality of their music rather than thinking it was better than that of their contemporaries has not been uncommon with some of the major composers; some eventually gaining more confidence with time and some suffering throughout their lives. Brahms was an example of the former and Bruckner of the latter.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> ...I was certainly conscious of being in some sense competitive with others doing related work. But I felt no need to believe myself in any global sense superior to others in those fields...


Also in the creative field. Started out composing but am a poet. Definitely competitive and also competing with the great poets. When I wrote my All Halllows' Eve, I was competing with Keats' Hyperion. I think I did pretty well, all considering. I've always felt that if I'm not competing with the greatest to be and produce greatness; then why bother?

But that's just me.

I suspect every composer was different in the finer points, but they were all competitive and ambitious.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

vtpoet said:


> Also in the creative field. Started out composing but am a poet. Definitely competitive and also competing with the great poets. When I wrote my All Halllows' Eve, I was competing with Keats' Hyperion. I think I did pretty well, all considering. I've always felt that if I'm not competing with the greatest to be and produce greatness; then why bother?
> 
> But that's just me.
> 
> I suspect every composer was different in the finer points, but they were all competitive and ambitious.


Believing in one's capacity to do great work and wanting to be "competitive" with artists of established greatness is not the same as believing "deep down" (1996D's words) that you're the greatest artist in existence. As a painter I knew very well that I was never going to outpaint Vermeer, and that if he were alive today I'd be camping out on his doorstep waiting for him to open up so that I could beg him to teach me.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

1996D said:


> oftentimes new music isn't received like it's deserved to.


Why yes indeed, just the other day I read this comment somewhere:


> Per Nørgård, Kaija Saariaho, Sofia Gubaidulina - Schreker can replace any of them even if I don't really listen to him - at least it's music.


:lol:


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> You seem to be saying that successful musical creation requires the artist to compare himself to, consider himself in competition with, and believe himself superior to, all other composers, at least living ones. I don't believe this is either necessary or desirable.
> 
> Certainly there is a need to be competitive in order to be worthy of the public's attention. But artists are not competitors in the precise way that athletes are; there is no single, objectively defined task which all artists must accomplish, and no single, objective standard by which they're judged. Each artist is doing something different.
> 
> ...


That's very intelligent of them, it's a fantastic way to relieve pressure from oneself. Humility as I mentioned is also a way to not get ahead of yourself--not reward yourself too much--to keep getting better, only feeding your ambition further.

Personally I need to compare my music to others to make sure I'm creating something new and exciting, that in some way betters what was accomplished in the past - that moves music further in its evolution. In your case there doesn't seem to be any pressure to be more because you're not or were not really in a competitive position. Nobody will be judging your work, comparing it, or criticizing it openly on its own. There might not be something to compare it too.

From what you said you had a stable job in which you were required to do something for a specific purpose, you were good at that, and you had no pressure or intention to do more. It's a very different situation and level of ambition.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Believing in one's capacity to do great work and wanting to be "competitive" with artists of established greatness is not the same as believing "deep down" (1996D's words) that you're the greatest artist in existence. As a painter I knew very well that I was never going to outpaint Vermeer, and that if he were alive today I'd be camping out on his doorstep waiting for him to open up so that I could beg him to teach me.


Your ambition is calibrated to your ability. Whether you need to be humble to keep growing, boastful to establish yourself, or highly critical and comparative to confirm your self-belief, you ultimately are what you have it in yourself to be, and your perception of yourself will match this reality.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Believing in one's capacity to do great work and wanting to be "competitive" with artists of established greatness is not the same as believing "deep down" (1996D's words) that you're the greatest artist in existence....


Yeah, usually those who think they're the greatest artists in existence [cough] Dan Schneider [/cough] are delusional hacks.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

1996D said:


> ...you ultimately are what you have it in yourself to be, and your perception of yourself will match this reality.


No. Just no. One would like to believe that, but history is littered with bloviating self-annointed geniuses who considered themselves God's gift to their art and humanity. I highly recommend _The Joy of Bad Verse_.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> No. Just no. One would like to believe that, but history is littered with bloviating self-annointed geniuses who considered themselves God's gift to their art and humanity. I highly recommend _The Joy of Bad Verse_.


Delusion is delusion, they don't do the exercises I mentioned. The delusional cannot be self-critical, they have no ability to introspect.

That's why humility, comparison, and being highly self-critical are essential to understanding oneself.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> In your case there doesn't seem to be any pressure to be more because you're not or were not really in a competitive position. Nobody will be judging your work, comparing it, or criticizing it openly on its own.


Those are unjustified assumptions.



> There might not be something to compare it too.


There's always something to compare one's work to, in any area of endeavor. How much comparing we choose to do depends upon, among other things, our security about the purpose and quality of our own work. The main reason not to be invested in competitiveness is the realization that we are individuals with unique goals and capacities, and that comparisons with others are therefore of limited significance or value.

Competition can be motivating, sure. It can also be crippling. And carried to the extreme it simply makes us ridiculous.



> From what you said you had a stable job in which you were required to do something for a specific purpose, you were good at that, and you had no pressure or intention to do more. It's a very different situation and level of ambition.


As a painter, I exhibited in a major gallery in Boston, and my "level of ambition" was no different from that of any other artist. My ambition was to do my best work, to get intelligent appreciation for it, and to sell it, all of which I did. I didn't feel myself to be competing with other artists in the gallery. My work was nothing like theirs, so there was little basis for comparison in any case.

As a pianist I worked for a goodly number of dance schools, including the school of Pacific Northwest Ballet, and I was unique in the Seattle area in my work method of improvising entire classes rather than using scores. As a young musician and self-taught pianist, I was certainly proud of this ability and felt that it gave me a competitive edge in landing and keeping jobs, but these facts had nothing to do with my motivation for making the best music of which I was capable. The work has to justify itself, and whether it's better or worse than someone else's cannot be a major factor in the desire to pursue it. There happened to be one other accompanist at PNB who was both a better technician than I (as most of them probably were as trained pianists) and had an extraordinary creative versatility deriving from his background in both classical music and jazz. I admired his work enormously but didnt waste a second envying him or thinking I should try to beat him at his game. His game was his, mine was mine, and I played mine better than anyone else could hope to. Were there people in the world "better" - in one way or another - than either of us? No doubt. The thought didn't affect my music in the least.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There is absolutely no need to compare yourself with anyone else as a creative artist as if you do you give up in despair. In my own field I do my best but wouldn’t compare myself to the great masters of the craft. But as has been said, why do that? There is usually someone far better. I remember Bernstein saying that after many years his score of West Side a Story had “come up pretty fresh.” Then he added, “It’s not as fresh as Mozart, but who’s in that league anyway!” Brahms once said of Bach’s Chaconne that if he could only have dreamed of writing it he would have died of happiness. If these men of genius think this way, how much more modest should we lesser mortals be!


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

1996D said:


> It's all over the place, just like the letters these composers wrote. There is a lot of competitiveness, envy, misunderstandings etc.
> 
> If there is one truth is that every composer thinks deep down that his music is the best, and will dislike any music that isn't like his. The only respect they give is to composers that are either similar to them but in their mind not better, long dead, or close friends. Even if they enjoy a rival's music they will never admit it.
> 
> *In any case composers are the least reliable source to get an unbiased opinion about their contemporaries.*


How do you figure that, may I ask?


----------



## Lilijana (Dec 17, 2019)

I'm not a great composer (getting there...maybe) but I reckon the greatest composer according to me hasn't even written a single note of music yet. I have no idea who they are. All the best stuff is yet to come.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

composer jess said:


> I'm not a great composer (getting there...maybe) but I reckon the greatest composer according to me hasn't even written a single note of music yet. I have no idea who they are. *All the best stuff is yet to come.*


Sadly, I really doubt it. If you are right, better it happens while I'm still alive!


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DavidA said:


> There is absolutely no need to compare yourself with anyone else as a creative artist as if you do you give up in despair. In my own field I do my best but wouldn't compare myself to the great masters of the craft. But as has been said, why do that? There is usually someone far better. I remember Bernstein saying that after many years his score of West Side a Story had "come up pretty fresh." Then he added, "It's not as fresh as Mozart, but who's in that league anyway!" Brahms once said of Bach's Chaconne that if he could only have dreamed of writing it he would have died of happiness. If these men of genius think this way, how much more modest should we lesser mortals be!


Comparison just makes the fire grow, Bach undoubtedly motivated Brahms and the latter surpassed the former in many ways - he didn't play his game, no one was better than Bach at that, but he found another way. It's fantastic to have high standards, no one can be harder on yourself or more critical than you already are.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> As a painter, I exhibited in a major gallery in Boston, and my "level of ambition" was no different from that of any other artist. My ambition was to do my best work, to get intelligent appreciation for it, and to sell it, all of which I did. I didn't feel myself to be competing with other artists in the gallery. My work was nothing like theirs, so there was little basis for comparison in any case.
> 
> As a pianist I worked for a goodly number of dance schools, including the school of Pacific Northwest Ballet, and I was unique in the Seattle area in my work method of improvising entire classes rather than using scores. As a young musician and self-taught pianist, I was certainly proud of this ability and felt that it gave me a competitive edge in landing and keeping jobs, but these facts had nothing to do with my motivation for making the best music of which I was capable. The work has to justify itself, and whether it's better or worse than someone else's cannot be a major factor in the desire to pursue it. There happened to be one other accompanist at PNB who was both a better technician than I (as most of them probably were as trained pianists) and had an extraordinary creative versatility deriving from his background in both classical music and jazz. I admired his work enormously but didnt waste a second envying him or thinking I should try to beat him at his game. His game was his, mine was mine, and I played mine better than anyone else could hope to. Were there people in the world "better" - in one way or another - than either of us? No doubt. The thought didn't affect my music in the least.


You're right, you have to create your own game, but the final color and message of the art is a very tangible thing. You either have an impact on the world or you don't, it can happen while you live or after you die, but this impact is what defines the art and the artist.

You might not have been competitive but I assure you composers are very much so, there is ample proof, they all loathe each other deep down. Read the countless letters of any composer saying that another's music is horrendous, or just read on how new pieces were received, you'd be surprised how many masterworks were almost booed off stage. It's just the way it is.



composer jess said:


> I'm not a great composer (getting there...maybe) but I reckon the greatest composer according to me hasn't even written a single note of music yet. I have no idea who they are.* All the best stuff is yet to come.*


Now that's the spirit.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> You might not have been competitive but I assure you composers are very much so, there is ample proof, they all loathe each other deep down. Read the countless letters of any composer saying that another's music is horrendous, or just read on how new pieces were received, you'd be surprised how many masterworks were almost booed off stage. It's just the way it is.


It's natural that artists are critical of the work of other artists. Art is very personal, and an artist lives in what is virtually a self-created world. Art that contradicts our own world may be hard for us to comprehend or to like, and some of us may even feel a need to defend our vision, or criticize another's, out of fear that our own might be compromised or contaminated. But the idea that artists "loathe each other deep down" is just untrue. Tchaikovsky said some absurdly dismissive (though not entirely unperceptive) things about Brahms, but given the opportunity to meet they got along famously. Verdi and Wagner managed to avoid ever meeting, but late in life Verdi said that he stood in awe of _Tristan_ and that he had spent many fascinated hours studying Wagner's scores. Much the same is true of Wagner and Brahms, the latter only half-jokingly telling a friend that he was the best of Wagnerians. William Byrd venerated Thomas Tallis. John Blow wrote an ode on the death of Purcell. Bach and Telemann knew and liked each other. Bach admired Vivaldi, and said that he would have liked to meet Handel. Haydn and Mozart were good friends and mutual admirers. Wagner wrote a piece for Weber's funeral, at which he was a pallbearer. Liszt aided the cause of every composer he could. Wagner sent Berlioz the score of the _Tristan_ Prelude as a gesture of gratitude and admiration for the latter's _Romeo and Juliet._

You can take it from there. I think you're projecting your own psychology onto others, and trying to universalize your own view of things.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

DavidA said:


> There is absolutely no need to compare yourself with anyone else as a creative artist as if you do you give up in despair. In my own field I do my best but wouldn't compare myself to the great masters of the craft. But as has been said, why do that? There is usually someone far better.


True for you, but not for me.  I absolutely need to compare myself with other creative artists, especially the great ones. And I constantly compare myself to the great masters of the craft. I haven't despaired yet.

That said, in an alternative universe, I am a great baroque composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

1996D said:


> If there is one truth is that every composer thinks deep down that his music is the best, and will dislike any music that isn't like his.


http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Felix_Mendelssohn
[ " _Letter 805 to Nadezhda von Meck, 1/13 April 1878, in which Tchaikovsky comments on his veneration of Mozart, which he admits might at first glance seem so strange given that they were so different in temperament:

"Generally speaking, it seems to me that in an artist's soul his creative faculty is quite independent of his sympathies for this or that master. For example, one can love Beethoven but still be closer to Mendelssohn by nature."_ " ]



1996D said:


> Even if they enjoy a rival's music they will never admit it.


https://books.google.ca/books?id=5D1yBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT41
[ " _It is relevant, too, to realise that Liszt's open admiration for Chopin was tinged with uneasiness. Chilling and exclusive when provoked, Chopin may have sat open-mouthed and even a trifle piqued at Liszt's piano playing ("I write to you without knowing what my pen is scribbling because at this moment Liszt is playing my Studies and transporting me outside of respectable thought. I should like to steal from him the way to play my own Studies"). He was referring to the opus 10 Studies dedicated to Liszt, but he was much less impressed by Liszt's own compositions; clearly for him the outpouring of a facile and inferior talent:

"When I think of Liszt as a creative artist, he appears before my eyes rouged, on stilts, and blowing into Jericho trumpets fortissimo and pianissimo - or I see him discoursing on art, on the nature of creativeness and how one should create. Yet as a creator he is an ***. He knows everything better than anyone. He wants to attain Parnassus on another man's Pegasus. This is entre nous - he is an excellent binder who puts other people's works between his covers ... I still say that he is a clever craftsman without a vestige of talent ..."

Liszt's lifelong devotion, then, went coldly unrequited though it is only fair to add that his mature works were written long after Chopin's death in 1849 and it is hardly an exaggeration to say that Chopin could scarcely have known, let along considered, Liszt seriously as a composer. Liszt was also aware of Chopin's attitude and while his egotism was undoubtedly bruised, his admiration remained intact._ " ]


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> .........Personally I need to compare my music to others to make sure I'm creating something new and exciting, that in some way betters what was accomplished in the past - that moves music further in its evolution.


1996D, from our previous conversations, I'm of the impression that your own music is influenced by late Romanticism and are hoping for a revival of this style. I also understand that you eschew modernism. Is this all correct?


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

DavidA said:


> There is absolutely no need to compare yourself with anyone else as a creative artist as if you do you give up in despair. In my own field I do my best but wouldn't compare myself to the great masters of the craft. But as has been said, why do that? There is usually someone far better. I remember Bernstein saying that after many years his score of West Side a Story had "come up pretty fresh." Then he added, "It's not as fresh as Mozart, but who's in that league anyway!" Brahms once said of Bach's Chaconne that if he could only have dreamed of writing it he would have died of happiness. If these men of genius think this way, how much more modest should we lesser mortals be!


I agree with this. I am young and new to the forum. I have listened to the works of great composers and I am in awe of what such young men (Mozart, Schubert, etc...) were able to create. They were so young, they must have been extraordinary! I don't think they wanted to compare themselves, I think they just wanted to write and listen to music...in all modesty , without feeling that they were better than others


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Felix_Mendelssohn
> [ " _Letter 805 to Nadezhda von Meck, 1/13 April 1878, in which Tchaikovsky comments on his veneration of Mozart, which he admits might at first glance seem so strange given that they were so different in temperament:
> 
> "Generally speaking, it seems to me that in an artist's soul his creative faculty is quite independent of his sympathies for this or that master. For example, one can love Beethoven but still be closer to Mendelssohn by nature."_ " ]
> ...


Yeah, I was going to quote something similar from Swafford's book on Brahms, but I thought "This is an internet forum, why ruin this perfectly good thread with the facts?" Actually, Woodduck already mentioned Brahms on Wagner, and Swafford makes it quite clear in the bio that Brahms made that statement many times throughout his life.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> 1996D, from our previous conversations, I'm of the impression that your own music is influenced by late Romanticism and are hoping for a revival of this style. I also understand that you eschew modernism. Is this all correct?


No, just because a piece is broadly tonal doesn't make it Romantic, that's what the modernists say to make their movement sound more important, but the truth is that they've made their music inaccessible to almost everyone.

My music has nothing to do with Romanticism; it has no individualism; it's not about landscapes or the outdoors; it doesn't glorify the past; it's not emotionally unstable or overdramatic.

It's completely new.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> ..........It's completely new.


Modernists say no such thing. Their achievements _are_ important, like it or not. 
How is your music "completely new" then? I'm very curious.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

1996D said:


> No, just because a piece is broadly tonal doesn't make it Romantic, that's what the modernists say to make their movement sound more important, but the truth is that they've made their music inaccessible to almost everyone.


I think its cute that you think music has gone wrong and that you will be its saviour. Perhaps it is a little fanciful and naïve, but I wish you the best. I will point out most composers that are working on things that are going to change music, are spending a lot of time on their compositions and probably not hanging around bragging about new music no one has heard on a message board.

The fact is among all eras the 20th century was recently voted favorite era of music among the listeners of this forum. So Modernism being inaccessible to you does not equal 'inaccessible to almost everyone'.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Modernists say no such thing. *Their achievements are important*, like it or not.
> How is your music "completely new" then? I'm very curious.


Not really. They will rarely be listened to in the future, less even than today, their music is inaccessible and always will be, they dug their own graves. They were in sorts a placeholder and now it's time for a change.

How is it new? It's accessible but has relevance to the current times, while the craftsmanship is kept at the highest level. It looks to the past, the present, and the future - the complete story of humanity.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> I think its cute that you think music has gone wrong and that you will be its saviour. Perhaps it is a little fanciful and naïve, but I wish you the best.* I will point out most composers that are working on things that are going to change music, are spending a lot of time on their compositions and probably not hanging around bragging about new music no one has heard on a message board. *
> 
> *The fact is among all eras the 20th century was recently voted favorite era of music among the listeners of this forum.* So Modernism being inaccessible to you does not equal 'inaccessible to almost everyone'.


I'm not hanging around, everything I do here is for a purpose. Creating accessibility and the tastes of people are very important to me, this site is fantastic to learn what the true fans enjoy as far as pure musical construction.

A recent voting revealed something quite different - the top 30 was largely 19th century dominant, that's certainly when the vast majority of the composers were born.

After WW1 things cool down considerably.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

1996D said:


> It's completely new.


Well, I'm in the market to hear something new. Let's have a link! Pray tell what is your new organizational method?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> Not really. They will rarely be listened to in the future, less even than today, their music is inaccessible and always will be, they dug their own graves. They were in sorts a placeholder and now it's time for a change.
> 
> How is it new? It's accessible but has relevance to the current times, while the craftsmanship is kept at the highest level. It looks to the past, the present, and the future - the complete story of humanity.


Well me and many, many others (professional, amateur and audience) will just have to disagree with your assessment of contemporary music. Your bias might be responsible for you missing out on techniques that will allow you to dig further into your ability, hunt out material and open fresh aural vistas.

There are too many to mention, present day excellent composers whose music can wear the mighty adjectives you use to describe your music (although none would be so bold as to appraise their work in such a fashion as you have). I'd love to see some of it especially as "the craftsmanship is at the highest level", that is something I'd appreciate as I too am trained to a high level. You could PM me something if you want to keep it private, or better still post it in the composers today forum for all to hear.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Room2201974 said:


> Well, I'm in the market to hear something new. Let's have a link! Pray tell what is your new organizational method?





mikeh375 said:


> Well me and many, many others (professional and amateur) will just have to disagree with your assessment of contemporary music. You might be *missing out on techniques *that will allow you to dig further into your ability, hunt out material and open fresh aural vistas.
> 
> There are too many to mention,* present day excellent composers* whose music can wear the mighty adjectives you use to describe your music (although none would be so bold as to appraise their work in such a fashion as you have). I'd love to see some of it especially as "the craftsmanship is at the highest level", that is something I'd appreciate as I too am trained to a high level. You could PM me something if you want to keep it private, or better still post it in the composers today forum for all to hear.


That is true, as far as some elements of technique they are excellent, I'm talking about whether or not people will listen to them, that's absolutely essential to distributing any message.

I'm still pondering how to release the music, through what channel, if with some marketing or not, what type. It's a difficult decision, but getting the most amount of people to hear is the priority.

I also have other music that isn't serious and is simply just for people to enjoy, but I don't know if to release that first or the serious one.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Well you've talked the talk. Time to get out of the Ivory Tower and walk the walk I'd say, you might enjoy it. The world and some TC'ers no doubt, awaits in order to assess your prophetic, visionary work.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Well you've talked the talk. Time to get out of the Ivory Tower and walk the walk I'd say, you might enjoy it. The world and some TC'ers no doubt, awaits in order to assess your prophetic, visionary work.


It's coming out, but maybe putting the same drive into the marketing will be beneficial. There are many variables, I'm going to get it right.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

1996D said:


> It's coming out, but maybe putting the same drive into the marketing will be beneficial. There are many variables, I'm going to get it right.


Marketing? Marketing?! I am astonished. I thought commercialism was the hallmark of Not-Art (pop music).


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Marketing? Marketing?! I am astonished. I thought commercialism was the hallmark of Not-Art (pop music).


I'm still debating it, it's not about money it's about reach. Otherwise the music is at the mercy of the institutions, it's a give and take scenario.

I don't believe we're at an age where there is any support at all for high art.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

"For the words of the profits were written on the studio wall
Concert hall
And echoes with the sound of salesmen...of salesmen...of salesmen."

Feel the Rush.....


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

1996D said:


> That is true, as far as some elements of technique they are excellent, I'm talking about whether or not people will listen to them, that's absolutely essential to distributing any message.
> 
> I'm still pondering how to release the music, through what channel, if with some marketing or not, what type. It's a difficult decision, but getting the most amount of people to hear is the priority.
> 
> I also have other music that isn't serious and is simply just for people to enjoy, but I don't know if to release that first or the serious one.


Nickolas Simrock is always looking for good music maybe you should contact him!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

1996D said:


> Comparison just makes the fire grow, Bach undoubtedly motivated Brahms and the latter surpassed the former in many ways - he didn't play his game, no one was better than Bach at that, but he found another way. It's fantastic to have high standards, no one can be harder on yourself or more critical than you already are.


Might make it grow if you are a genius yourself but for those of us of lesser ability it can be a discouraging process. Like listening to Richter or Brandel play the piano when you're struggling through a Schubert sonata. Of course by studying the greats you can improve yourself but not to compare yourself. It's absolutely not true that you are your own worst critic. Why you need good friends who are not afraid to tell you honestly what they think in a kind way. I do. Because when it's out there the critics aren't going to be kind!


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Might make it grow if you are a genius yourself but for those of us of lesser ability it can be a discouraging process. Like listening to Richter or Brandel play the piano when you're struggling through a Schubert sonata. Of course by studying the greats you can improve yourself but not to compare yourself.


You'll feel the need to test yourself when you're ready.



Strange Magic said:


> "For the words of the profits were written on the studio wall
> Concert hall
> And echoes with the sound of salesmen...of salesmen...of salesmen."
> 
> Feel the Rush.....


One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity, yeah


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> Marketing? Marketing?! I am astonished. I thought commercialism was the hallmark of Not-Art (pop music).


Come on, so Beethoven didn't believe in marketing? Verdi? Wagner? Puccini? :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

1996D said:


> You'll feel the need to test yourself when you're ready.
> 
> One likes to believe
> In the freedom of music
> ...


Just about every artist (maybe not Bruckner) would enthuse privately if not publicly over glittering prizes; it's the endless compromises or the threat of them that sours them. No way of really knowing, but I'll bet even Rush was pleased to finely.....


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

My mind turns to the French composer Maurice Ravel, who despite finding himself embroiled in an uneasy rivalry with Claude Debussy in Paris--having been exposed to many of the same artistic influences, such as Satie, Stravinsky, Diaghilev, Spanish folklore, French Baroque music, Edgar Allan Poe & the French poems of Stéphane Mallarmé, Charles Baudelaire, Paul Verlaine, etc.--admitted that Debussy's "Prélude à l'apres-midi d'un faune" had made an indelible, lasting impression on him. Ravel described the work as "a unique marvel in the whole of music" and "the only 'perfect' piece of music ever composed." In other words, to Ravel, there was nothing in the history of music more beautiful than Debussy's "Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun". He added, "I would like to have it played to me on my deathbed." In fact, Ravel admired the Prelude so much that he composed a four-hand piano version of it, even though Debussy had already composed a version for two pianos.

Ravel also created a piano duet transcription of Debussy's 1899 "Trois Nocturnes" in 1909, which is another Debussy work that profoundly influenced Ravel (and Nikolai Tcherepinin in his 1911 ballet, "Narcisse et Echo"). For instance, when Ravel began to compose his ballet, Daphnis et Chloé in 1909, he chose to use a chorus and orchestra in a strikingly similar way to the female chorus in Debussy's "Sirènes" movement.

Debussy, "Sirénes"(1899): 








Ravel, "Sirénes" for piano duet: 



Ravel, Daphnis et Chloé (1912): 



Tcherepnin, Narcisse et Echo (1911): 




Debussy, Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun: 



Ravel, Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, in an arrangement for piano four hands: 




When the two composers set the same three poems by poet Stéphane Mallarmé to music in 1913, Ravel & Debussy were in direct competition with each other, and they knew it (as did others within their circles). Ravel had been the first to secure the rights to Mallarmé's poems, and when Debussy did so shortly thereafter and learned that the rights had already been given to Ravel--who he considered a rival, he was furious. While Ravel, in turn, announced to Roland-Manuel, "We will soon see a Debussy-Ravel match". Igor Stravinsky commented, "In 1913, Debussy and Ravel didn't talk to each other" (this quote is taken from the book, "Debussy, La revolution subtile" (1998), by André Boucourechliev, p. 83):

Ravel, Trois Poemes de Stéphane Mallarmé (1913-14): 



Debussy, Trois Poemes de Stéphane Mallarmé (1913): 




Ravel's admiration of Debussy's music wasn't always entirely shared by Debussy, in return, at least in 1907 when Debussy wrote to Louis Laloy,

"With regard to Ravel, I recognize your customary ingenuity. If, as it seems to me, he hasn't exactly found "his path," he can thank you for having shown him one.*  [*footnote: "Laloy had suggested that Ravel listen to the voice of the "mocking goblin," thus correctly pointing out that humor and irony were innate elements in Ravel's art."]

But, entre nous, do you sincerely believe in "humorous" music? First of all, it doesn't exist by itself; it always requires an occasion, either a text or a situation. Two chords, with their feet in the air, or in any other preposterous position, are not necessarily "humorous," and can only become so when placed in proper context.

I agree with you in acknowledging that Ravel is exceptionally gifted, but what irritates me is his posture as a "trickster," or better yet, as an enchanting fakir, who can make flowers spring up around a chair. Unfortunately, a trick is always prepared, and it can astonish only once!

Now there's nothing wrong with having fun. An art only concerned with making her smile would even be a very polite apology to Music, who so many people torment and bore!

I hope to see both of you on Tuesday evening. Kind regards,
Claude Debussy."

An additional footnote,

1. The distinguished French musicologist and critic Louis Laloy (1874-1944) was a close friend of Debussy and on cordial terms with Ravel. He founded the Mercure musical with Jean Marnold, and his article also appeared in La Grande Revue and the Gazette des beaux-arts. In an important book of memoirs (La Musique retrouvée, p. 167), Laloy summed up his view of the Debussy-Ravel imbroglio:

"I did everything possible to prevent a misunderstanding between them, but too many thoughtless meddlers seemed to take pleasure in making it inevitable, sacrificing for example Debussy's Quartet to that of Ravel, or raising absurd questions of priority between "Habanera" and the second piece of Debussy's Estampes. The two musicians then stopped visiting each other. As their esteem was mutual, I can bear witness to the fact that they both regretted this rupture."

(The above quotes are taken from the book, "A Ravel Reader: Correspondence, Articles, Interviews", compiled and edited by Arbie Orenstein, Dover Publications.)

P.S. Woodduck, I share your admiration for Vermeer, who I greatly value for both his beautiful painting technique, composition skills, and moral, allegorical mind. Did you know that early in life Vermeer started out wanting to paint large scale religious paintings, and was then forced to adapt to his lesser circumstances & that small studio? Lucky for us, he found a way around these obstacles. However, I would myself more likely "camp out" on Titian's doorstep in Venice, during his early to middle period--before his eyesight had declined, or possibly Rogier van der Weyden's. Of course, Leonardo, Raphael, Giorgione, and G. Bellini would suffice, too.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

HerbertNorman said:


> ...I have listened to the works of great composers...I don't think they wanted to compare themselves, I think they just wanted to write and listen to music...in all modesty , without feeling that they were better than others


Well........ we have their letters unfortunately (for such a rosy picture). Mozart really knew how to lay out rival composers. Bach, later in life, appears to have been embarrassed by the vanity of his youth. Beethoven once said something to the effect that the contemporary music scene was a wasteland.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

vtpoet said:


> ...... Beethoven once said something to the effect that the contemporary music scene was a wasteland.


Then he was also wrong as it happens.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

_"...... Beethoven once said something to the effect that the contemporary music scene was a wasteland."

_I'm not familiar with any quote like that. You're thinking of *Newton Minow* perhaps?​


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I think composers tell you whom they admire through their compositions. 

Beethoven's early works, including the first two symphonies, bear earmarks of Mozart and less so of Haydn. He wrote a piece for cello on a theme by Handel.

Richard Strauss wrote music throughout his long career that could a century or more earlier been attributed to Mozart. 

J.S. Bach took some of Vivaldi and wrote concertos on his themes. 

Brahms wrote a set of variants on a Haydn theme.

Bruckner wrote music indebted to Wagner instrumentation.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Just about every artist (maybe not Bruckner) would enthuse privately if not publicly over glittering prizes; it's the endless compromises or the threat of them that sours them. No way of really knowing, but I'll bet even Rush was pleased to finely.....


Money and fame are dangerous if indulged in and will take a toll on any art form, luckily there are ways to disregard them. I've been able to compose my music without any pressure of that sort because I have just about enough money to focus entirely on music, and the artistic purpose is and will always be the priority.

Once it's released the goal is the reach and impact, what it will give to the world and how it will affect it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Sure.. they lauded over the creators of the greatest, of what they heard, but what did they conclude about the minor composers? That would be interesting to hear.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

jdec said:


> Sadly, I really doubt it. If you are right, better it happens while I'm still alive!


I really do believe it, but I don't think it'll happen any time soon. Mozarts are rare, but they will recur periodically throughout the centuries, and time is ever so long...

Also, as someone who is in a creative field, who is in competition with others, everything 1996D said is actually a reflection of his/her own personality, and not true of the vast majority of artists. All artists I know, and I know quite many, would find that sympathy to be ugly and deplorable and untrue in every aspect imaginable.

It's an affront to every creative person, but hey, at least we now know one person who thinks themselves a messiah.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

AeolianStrains said:


> I really do believe it, but I don't think it'll happen any time soon. Mozarts are rare, but they will recur periodically throughout the centuries, and time is ever so long...
> 
> Also, as someone who is in a creative field, who is in competition with others, everything 1996D said is actually a reflection of his/her own personality, and not true of the vast majority of artists. All artists I know, and I know quite many, would find that sympathy to be ugly and deplorable and untrue in every aspect imaginable.
> 
> It's an affront to every creative person, but hey, at least we now know one person who thinks themselves a messiah.


I don't want to make you angry, but tell me why you think there's significant new music to be made? A new movement like serialism or minimalism was? Hasn't it all been created by now?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

AeolianStrains said:


> Also, as someone who is in a creative field, who is in competition with others, everything 1996D said is actually a reflection of his/her own personality, and not true of the vast majority of artists. All artists I know, and I know quite many, would find that sympathy to be ugly and deplorable and untrue in every aspect imaginable.
> 
> It's an affront to every creative person, but hey, at least we now know one person who thinks themselves a messiah.


I too was in a creative competitive job as a composer. I had the good fortune to work with some world-renowned classical names over the years. It struck me that the better the musician, the nicer they were as a person, humility being the operative word here. 
There is a standard of professional behaviour expected of one at the highest levels.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> I don't want to make you angry, but tell me why you think there's significant new music to be made? A new movement like serialism or minimalism was? Hasn't it all been created by now?


It's all about the longue duree. People have been making music for millennia. I'm sure before the Renaissance someone thought "Surely this is it. Surely all the greats are dead." We've had the same debates in literature and it's crazy that in the only century we've been making movies and even less making TV we've already assigned "golden" and "silver" ages.

Time is very long. We can't think only of the recent past (of which atonalism, serialism, and minimalism are a part of), but think about the limitless possibilities of the next thousand years. Where were we just a thousand years ago?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

If I strove all my life to release myself from the clutching influences of Beethoven, I might also tout and shout that Mozart is the greatest composer, just to seem more sagacious.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

AeolianStrains said:


> It's all about the longue duree. People have been making music for millennia. I'm sure before the Renaissance someone thought "Surely this is it. Surely all the greats are dead." We've had the same debates in literature and it's crazy that in the only century we've been making movies and even less making TV we've already assigned "golden" and "silver" ages.
> 
> Time is very long. We can't think only of the recent past (of which atonalism, serialism, and minimalism are a part of), but think about the limitless possibilities of the next thousand years. Where were we just a thousand years ago?


IMO, educators in general are letting down whole generations. But sadly, personal explorations in VR will soon replace the cerebral activity serious music used to afford the curious. Again, that's my opinion. I teach piano to youngsters and adult beginners.

Sorry, I think I got up on the wrong side of my bed this morning..


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> If I strove all my life to release myself from the clutching influences of Beethoven, I might also tout and shout that Mozart is the greatest composer, just to seem more sagacious.


There's so many ways to evaluate Mozart and Beethoven.

What could they listen to in their formative years? The history of dissonance up to that point.
What were their audiences?
A family to support?
Their parents and childhood experiences.
The length of their lifetimes, and health.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

Elgar described Schumann's music as 'My ideal'. He also liked Faure and tried to get the Requiem performed at the Three Choirs Festival without success. It was first performed there in 1936.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I'm sure I read somewhere that when William Walton was asked who he thought was the greatest composer he immediately replied "Rossini".

Of course, with Walton, one never knew when he was having a laugh...


----------

