# Getting to Know a Composer



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

Brahms asserted that he would not criticize a work without having seen the score. The contemporary composer Earl Kim claims that it takes a hundred listenings to really get to know a work. Taking these thoughts as a starting point (though of course not claiming that anyone must agree with them), I'm curious to know at what point you would be willing to say that you "know" a composer's work.

It seems to me that 'knowing' a composer requires, at a minimum, a close acquaintance with a substantial portion of his or her major works, as well as at least a decent-sized sample of the minor ones. I'm at least partly with Brahms here, in that it strikes me that a close acquaintance with a piece requires at least some knowledge of the score, although perhaps hearing multiple different interpretations can substitute in part. Certainly I would not claim that I know a work I've heard only once or twice without following the score-- but at what point would I feel I'd heard enough to claim greater knowledge? I'm not sure.

And then, how many works is enough? Strictly speaking, we ought to have heard the entirety of the composer's work, but I doubt anybody would accept this as a criterion (and if they did, they'd also have to say that no composer is knowable, as there are few if any composers whose entire body of work still exists, let alone can be heard). Roughly speaking for the purposes of discussion, I'd say a dozen major pieces or ten percent of the composer's output, whichever is larger, would do for an average good composer, though the numbers might need to be higher for greater composers (Remember, I'm considering what it takes to claim _knowledge_, as opposed to deciding whether one _likes_ the particular composer, which might require hearing only a piece or two).

But these are preliminary thoughts for conversational purposes-- what would your take on the question be?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well I don't read music, but I do enjoy listening to works repeatedly, as Earl Kim suggests, to get better insight. I aim to develop perceptive listening skills by doing this, with not only a wide range of a composer's works (radio helps greatly here, as you don't have to buy anything) but also a wide range of composers from different eras. It just helps you perceive not only the individual work, but it's position in not only the composer's output, but in the history of classical music in general.

I agree that one must be familiar with a wide range of a composer's music, otherwise you don't know what you are missing out on. One might not like a composer generally, but there may be specific works he/she likes, if they get to know them. For example, I didn't really like Elgar when I had only heard his orchestral works, but once I got to know his chamber music, I could really connect with his style. Similar thing with Schoenberg, I have listened to a range of his work, and I've come to the conclusion after recent cd purchases that I really like his piano works & his opera Moses und Aaron. So if one isn't familiar with a reasonalbly wide range of a composer's output, it is easier to dismiss that composer if you've only heard works that haven't grabbed you.

I've still got ALOT of things to discover. Like I haven't heard any of Stravinsky's serialist works or his symphonies. I've only heard one of Beethoven's late quartets (the one which had the Grosse Fuge ending). & I have heard none of Bartok's chamber works (for years anyway). I haven't heard any Renaissance composers except Byrd. And the list of the gaps in my knowledge go on. So when I'm shopping for cd's I always keep these type of gaps in mind, on how I can extend my knowledge of a composer's works, even if they are not my favourite (like the Elgar & Schoenberg). It's all about being receptive & open to new things and extending your perceptive skills.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Ill take Dvorak for example, I know and own and have heard the majority of his work, maybe only the operas are the exception - but i know only a few of the symphonies, the slavonic dances and the american string quartet inside out. The rest imfamiliar with but I probably couldnt sing a long to every part. I still think I know Dvorak quite well, ive researched his life and background a lot and have the a very good assumption of his style and what kind of things are characteristic of him.


----------



## kg4fxg (May 24, 2009)

*Difficult Question......*

I very difficuly question indeed.

I try to read a few biographies and correspondance about the composer. I also look at the score in that I can read music but I am not sure that really gives me a leg up.

Some composers later works are so difference than there early pieces it is nice to know what influenced them.

Does knowing that Verdi's wife and two children died while writing Un Giorno (1840) and he threw himself into his work?

Or does knowing that "The Rakes Progress" was inspired by such prints by William Hogarth?

To understand Smetana, Dvorak, and Janacek one might need to understand history and realize that in 1918 in the wake of the First World War that Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia and part of Silesia joined to become part of independant Czechoslovakia.

Janacek combined native melodies of Movravia with subject matter that was extremely adult and psychologically rooted in premarital sex, teenage pregnacy, infanticide and many more forms of human cruelty.

Look at Weber who met Goethe, Meyerbeer, & E.T.A. Hoffmann.

I am sure culture, literature, art, archetiture had a profound influence on my composers. As you mentioned Brahams, he was brought up in the brothels and a young lad and the prostitutes would pass him around and masterbate him. Don't even get me started on Schumann's psychological issues.

For me, while I am well read I really only hope to know a composer. Will I ever know one? Maybe not, but there is so much that could have influenced them I want to read about it all. I have only scratched the surface.


----------



## handlebar (Mar 19, 2009)

One can become familiar with and even an expert on any composer or artist with enough listening,reading,meditating and study. It all comes down to the available information and whether one truly desires to understand the inner workings of the subject. One can listen to a Mahler symphony hundreds of times over the course of a lifetime and still never actually get to know the composer unless background research and deep study are made IMHO.
Of course that does depend on the subject and the depth of his/her life and psyche too.
I have been a Mahler devotee for almost 30 years and still have scratched the surface. Someone such as Henri Louis De la Grange has spent his entire existence writing and studying about GM. He certainly knows the man and his thoughts to a rather critical degree having known GM's widow,daughter and family as well as lived in the regions inhabited by GM. So there are ways to "get to know" a composer and the music.

How far does one go to understand and become part of the composers world???Is it music alone or...?


Jim


----------

