# Composers who lived up to their promise (or not)



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Great composers often show their gifts at an early age. Some live up to their promise and some, perhaps, do not. I think we can all give examples of each, at least from our own viewpoints. Here are two of mine:

Mendelssohn: Possibly the greatest musical prodigy in history. He left many fine works, but were any really better than his Octet, written at 16?

Shostakovich: His first symphony, written at 19, made the world sit up and listen. Despite many difficulties, external and internal, his best music grew deeper and more affecting. He continued to change and develop for 50 years and became probably the greatest composer of the 20th century (although he gave that place to Stravinsky).

Your mileage may vary! But...who are your candidates?


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I think Prokofiev really lived up to his promise. Even his early works show his unique voice. I.e. His first piano concerto: Harsh, lyrical, quirky, mysterious...not everyone appreciated his music, but a few years later, after everyone developed a better ear for the 20th century, he was considered one of the greats.


----------



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

Korngold springs to mind. He hit the ground running at a very early age with his wonderful piano trio and despite remaining a steadfast Romantic all his life his output sounded neither thick-textured nor shallow (although some may argue that his soundtrack work could be a bit syrupy, but hey - what Hollywood wanted, Hollywood got...) - to me his best work sounds strangely timeless rather than dated.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I agree with the OP's examples, and can't really think of any myself. What I want is a thread of composers who showed little or no promise and then achieved lasting fame, i.e. the late bloomers.


----------



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

brianvds said:


> I agree with the OP's examples, and can't really think of any myself. What I want is a thread of composers who showed little or no promise and then achieved lasting fame, i.e. the late bloomers.


Franck? And, to a less drastic extent, Janacek?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I agree with Mendelssohn as an example. The teenaged works are astonishing and he maintains that quality throughout his career. No others come to mind at the moment. I probably don't know enough about the early lives of the composers.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Mendelssohn: Possibly the greatest musical prodigy in history. He left many fine works, but were any really better than his Octet, written at 16?


Personally, I'd rate several of his later works higher, including the Italian and (especially) Scottish symphonies, the overture Fingal's cave, the two piano concertos and the more famous violin concerto. So, although you list him as an example (if I read your post correctly) of someone who did not fulfill his early promise, I would disagree.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Mendelssohn: Possibly the greatest musical prodigy in history. He left many fine works, but were any really better than his Octet, written at 16?


No, but I enjoy symphonies 3&4, the piano trios, some of the quartets, the violin concerto, and the overtures. I just don't think he ever surpassed the octet, and his output afterwards wasn't very consistent. I thought the piano concertos, including the double piano concertos, weren't very interesting.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2013)

This is the quickest thread duplication I've ever seen.

It missed appearing in the same day as the thread it duplicates by a mere 25 minutes. 

Still, one day and 25 minutes after the first one has got to be some kinda record, no?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> Franck? And, to a less drastic extent, Janacek?


Bruckner and Wagner also come to mind.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Mendelssohn: Possibly the greatest musical prodigy in history. He left many fine works, but were any really better than his Octet, written at 16?


I disagree with the implication that Mendelssohn somehow went 'downhill' after the Octet. If he had composed nothing after the age of 16, I don't think he would be remembered much at all. I think much of his chamber music is on par with the Octet in terms of quality. _Songs without Words_ is one of the groundbreaking works in the Romantic piano literature. The Hebrides, Violin Concerto and 3rd Symphony are masterpieces, imo.

He died tragically young without the sheer volume of output of Mozart or Schubert. Despite this, his early masterworks including the Octet, String Symphonies, Concerti for 2 pianos, etc. show that he composed consistently great works over a substantial period of time.

His legacy suggests he is one of the greatest geniuses in music history. No unfilled promises, in my view.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Skilmarilion said:


> I disagree with the implication that Mendelssohn somehow went 'downhill' after the Octet.


I made no such implication. Your statement that "he composed consistently great works over a substantial period of time" is completely in line with my view. But...were any of his later works "better" than the youthful Octet?


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I made no such implication. Your statement that "he composed consistently great works over a substantial period of time" is completely in line with my view. But...were any of his later works "better" than the youthful Octet?


You make a valid point, certainly the Octet is a remarkable work. However, I wouldn't say that because the Octet could be considered his greatest work that he should be regarded as not living up to his 'promise'. Whilst his early compositions are stunning, I feel that his later, forward-looking works are the high points of his output, showcasing the maturation of his mastery of form, orchestration and expressive power.

I think the Violin Concerto and Scottish symphony are his greatest works, 'better' than the Octet. Of course this idea of 'better' would probably need defining ...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Skilmarilion said:


> I think the Violin Concerto and Scottish symphony are his greatest works, better than the Octet for sure.


Well, we differ on a matter of opinion that can't really be argued logically! But I'd ask that you compare Mozart and Mendelssohn. Mozart was a prodigy for sure, but probably not one to compare with Mendelssohn, age for age. However Mozart continued to develop and ended up a far stronger composer than in his late teens or early twenties. I don't think Mendelssohn showed the same pattern. You may well disagree!


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Mozart was a prodigy for sure, but probably not one to compare with Mendelssohn, age for age


I always thought Mozart's reputation as a prodigy stemmed from his improvisational and sight-reading skills around ages 7-9. How do those compare to Mendelssohn's at the same age?


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Mendelssohn: Possibly the greatest musical prodigy in history. He left many fine works, but were any really better than his Octet, written at 16?


I think that Mendelssohn did write works "better" than the Octet after age 16, but even if we assume that the Octet is his greatest work, it is still not enough to say Mendelssohn did not live up to his promise. Looking at the Octet as a masterpiece and wondering if any later piece surpassed it is one way of evaluating Mendelssohn's growth, but it doesn't give the complete picture imo. If we take into account Mendelssohn's whole output in his teenage years, while it's undeniable that he created some incredible works, there is also a fair number of premature and uneven works, with some room for growth. I feel that his later works display greater consistency and overall maturity, which are evidence of growth and development. So I think he did live up to his promise, despite being a terrifyingly talented kid. If others disagree about Mendelssohn's overall maturity and growth after his teenage years, I respect their opinion, but I just don't think holding up one masterpiece as a way of evaluating the musical development of a composer's entire life is a good way of looking at the big picture.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Well, we differ on a matter of opinion that can't really be argued logically! But I'd ask that you compare Mozart and Mendelssohn. Mozart was a prodigy for sure, but probably not one to compare with Mendelssohn, age for age. However Mozart continued to develop and ended up a far stronger composer than in his late teens or early twenties. I don't think Mendelssohn showed the same pattern. You may well disagree!


I do disagree, if you consider his final concerto (Violin, E minor), Symphony (Scottish) and piece of chamber music (6th quartet), they are all works of far greater depth, expressiveness and structural complexity than his first, teenage works in each genre. Mendelssohn's early output, though incredibly mature and technically sound, was essentially written in the classical style. The A-flat concerto for 2 pianos has an opening orchestral tutti akin to that of Beethoven's 3rd concerto.

As he matured though he fully settled into the Romantic style. _Songs without Words_ is very much in the style of what Chopin was writing at the same time. His innovations advanced the concerto by a large degree. I think _The Hebrides_ even foreshadowed the programmatic music which would later define the Romantic period too.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I wonder if Berwald could have been even greater had he received more encouragement during his life and been able to concentrate on music more. Perhaps Borodin too could have achieved more.


----------

