# Why the obsession with composers?



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

What I mean is - why do y'all always sort your music by composer? All this talk about ranking favorite composers, comparing composers, skillsets of composers, ideology/intent of composers, influence of composers, stylistic idiosyncrasies of composers, etc, etc, on and on and on. This is especially apparent when discussing the big guns (Beethoven, The Beatles, Miles Davis), who are often treated as if they may as well have singlehandedly invented music itself.

The truth is, no one exists in a vacuum, and no one individual (or even a list of individuals) can be held responsible for significant stylistic developments in music. Understanding of a context of a piece requires far more nuance than just an analysis of its composer. The biographical elements are interesting but secondary to the music itself. And the music itself - if it's worth anything - is not primarily an individualistic personal expression or a manifestation of impressive craftsmanship; these are also of secondary importance. So why the obsession with composers? To me it seems like one of a great number of secondary characteristics to talk about when discussing music. We listen to music, not to composers.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Yes, we listen to music but it was composed by composers. We have favorites.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I guess I could say the same about performers and conductors. My real question is, _why the sensationalized obsession with the people involved in the production of music (often superceding the music itself)_?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

I think becaus every composer leaves his own musical fingerprint that makes them unique in some way. Ravel, DeBussy, and Fauré all spearheaded the movement of French Impressionism, but all had their own unique voice and sound. 

I think your question hits at something overall much broader and general: why do people put other people on a pedestal? Celebrities, athletes, the royal family, people who literally only exist to be scrutinized in the tabloids? Good question. 

I don't think it's healthy or realistic to put anyone on a pedestal, regardless of who they are. I also believe one can admire someone else's deeds or work without all that pedestal-putting baggage attached. Like the way one can appreciate Beethoven, Mozart or Bach, the three composers who I feel get mythologized the most to the point where they're not even people anymore, without the mythology or 'celebrity worship' for lack of a better word. An admiration for a specific composer can be done from an absolutely musical lens. For example, composer's personal lives can provide some context to their music which is important, but other than that I could care less about their personal lives. Just 'cause they're dead doesn't mean it's any of my business


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I could say the same about performers and conductors.


not the same, these come second, composer first.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> The Beatles, Miles Davis


a pile of crap, not music.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> a pile of crap, not music.


Right. So, anyway...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What I mean is - why do y'all always sort your music by composer? All this talk about ranking favorite composers, comparing composers, skillsets of composers, ideology/intent of composers, influence of composers, stylistic idiosyncrasies of composers, etc, etc, on and on and on. This is especially apparent when discussing the big guns (Beethoven, The Beatles, Miles Davis), who are often treated as if they may as well have singlehandedly invented music itself.
> 
> The truth is, no one exists in a vacuum, and no one individual (or even a list of individuals) can be held responsible for significant stylistic developments in music. Understanding of a context of a piece requires far more nuance than just an analysis of its composer. The biographical elements are interesting but secondary to the music itself. And the music itself - if it's worth anything - is not primarily an individualistic personal expression or a manifestation of impressive craftsmanship; these are also of secondary importance. So why the obsession with composers? To me it seems like one of a great number of secondary characteristics to talk about when discussing music. We listen to music, not to composers.


Shouldn't your user name be ThereWereManyGreatMelodists?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Haha. Very original bro. I knew someone was going to point it out. Ad hominem, and red herring. Please stick to the topic. Sorry to bore.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Not being interested in where music came or comes from is a luxury that individuals may indulge in, but the society shouldn't.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

"The composer" seems the most convenient way of categorising the vast range of music we listen to. It stands in for both a musical identity and a time period, at the same time. Whereas the type of music - symphony, string quartet, etc - covers just a general concept that doesn't necessarily tell us very much, and even when that sort of categorisation is useful, we then need to fall back on the composer anyway - _which_ symphony or string quartet are we talking about. If the composer is a kind of "default setting" for identifying music, then it seems natural that it becomes a focal point.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What I mean is - why do y'all always sort your music by composer? All this talk about ranking favorite composers, comparing composers, skillsets of composers, ideology/intent of composers, influence of composers, stylistic idiosyncrasies of composers, etc, etc, on and on and on. This is especially apparent when discussing the big guns (Beethoven, The Beatles, Miles Davis), who are often treated as if they may as well have singlehandedly invented music itself.
> 
> The truth is, no one exists in a vacuum, and no one individual (or even a list of individuals) can be held responsible for significant stylistic developments in music. Understanding of a context of a piece requires far more nuance than just an analysis of its composer. The biographical elements are interesting but secondary to the music itself. And the music itself - if it's worth anything - is not primarily an individualistic personal expression or a manifestation of impressive craftsmanship; these are also of secondary importance. So why the obsession with composers? To me it seems like one of a great number of secondary characteristics to talk about when discussing music. We listen to music, not to composers.


I agree _almost_ wholeheartedly. Had I my druthers, we'd _almost_ always focus on works rather than composers.

The exception is that I'd favor diversity in our listening, which means listening to more composers rather than listening to ever more works by the same 25 or so composers.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What I mean is - why do y'all always sort your music by composer? All this talk about ranking favorite composers, comparing composers, skillsets of composers, ideology/intent of composers, influence of composers, stylistic idiosyncrasies of composers, etc, etc, on and on and on.


It is true that every composing giant was a giant by standing on the shoulders of others. But they were still giants. Sometimes I love the lesser pioneers but never as much as even relatively lesser works by the big names - I love CPE Bach and find his explorations leading to the new Classical style really exciting - but still Haydn delivers a lot more pleasure to me. But there are, I'm sure, works by CPE Bach that I prefer to some of the Haydn works I am less taken by. I absolutely agree with the rest of what I have quoted above (even though I am guilty of what you sketch in my third and fourth sentences).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The human mind likes to categorize things, yet has, for most of us, a comfortable upper limit for how many things to store in the "easy access" memory. Since the number of, say, symphonies, concertos, chamber and other works dwarfs the number of composers, it's a lot easier to focus on the composers. Plus, most musical history books and music texts dwell extensively on composers and just specimen works, with sometimes prurient or otherwise attention-getting spotlighting of composers' lives. Both more interesting and more mnemonically useful to individually attend to composers than to Myaskovsky's or Haydn's umpteen symphonies or all of everybody's Preludes and Fugues.

Plus gossip is always about people.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Sorry to bring up John Williams again. But I think without the historical context, John Williams should be considered much greater than some give him credit for. He would be a musical giant.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I guess I could say the same about performers and conductors. My real question is, _why the sensationalized obsession with the people involved in the production of music (often superceding the music itself)_?


Like a butterfly from the chrysalis, I sense a new fan of John Cage is about to emerge.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I guess I could say the same about performers and conductors. My real question is, _why the sensationalized obsession with the people involved in the production of music (often superceding the music itself)_?


In the case of Bach there's relatively so little known about him as a person that I don't see how you can say there's much obsession there. It's the music. The Artist As Individual And Rebel Against Society stuff probably started with Beethoven and the 19th century.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Like a butterfly from the chrysalis, I sense a new fan of John Cage is about to emerge.


Why would that be? Compared to composers like Telemann and Bach, or Mozart and Haydn, Cage was utterly egocentric. Which is ironic given how often we hear about Cage's devout Buddhist belief and wanting to extinguish the ego etc etc. But Cage was still about Cage.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Sometimes I love the lesser pioneers but never as much as even relatively lesser works by the big names - I love CPE Bach and find his explorations leading to the new Classical style really exciting - but still Haydn delivers a lot more pleasure to me. But there are, I'm sure, works by CPE Bach that I prefer to some of the Haydn works I am less taken by.


I don't think C.P.E. Bach was a lesser pioneer / composer than J. Haydn. https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-22.html#post2035322


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> In the case of Bach there's relatively so little known about him as a person that I don't see how you can say there's much obsession there. It's the music.


The problem is that Bach's life story is only about as interesting as Telemann's, to the public.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> Like a butterfly from the chrysalis, I sense a new fan of John Cage is about to emerge.


I've been a "fan" of Cage for a while. Music and outlook both.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> The problem is that Bach's life story is about as interesting as Telemann's, to the public.


Or Mozart's for that matter, seeing as how fictionalized it had to become.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

consuono said:


> Or Mozart's for that matter, seeing as how fictionalized it had to become.


And yet look at how popular fictionalizing / dramatizing Mozart's life (and contextualizing his music from that vantage point) is. Case in point, so to speak.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Or Mozart's for that matter, seeing as how fictionalized it had to become.


No. Other than becoming an orphan at an early age, and losing his eyesight just before death, Bach had a relatively healthy, stable life up to 65. That isn't totally interesting to the public. The same way Handel's isn't interesting. 





That's why they write articles like https://interlude.hk/the-passions-of-bach/


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"But for whose soul is this requiem?"




"It's for me. A requiem."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> And yet look at how popular fictionalizing / dramatizing Mozart's life (and contextualizing his music from that vantage point) is. Case in point, so to speak.


Even before all the fictionalizing / dramatizing in the modern times, it has fired up imagination in the artists since the 19th century.

"It had been no empty rhetoric when the German musician in his Parisian tale died professing his faith in Beethoven and Mozart. A biography of Mozart, read to him when he was only six, had made an undying impression on him."
"He was possessed by a sense of the tragedy of Mozart's life, spent 'as if under the vivisector's knife'. His finest works had been written between present exultancy and anxiety about what the next hour might bring. When Wagner saw an Adoration of the Kings in a church in Siena he exclaimed: 'All these signs of honour in childhood, shepherds and the kings and the angels - where were they later? Mozart suffered the same fate!'"
< Wagner: A Biography / Curt von Westernhagen / P. 81~82 >


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Sorry to bring up John Williams again. But I think without the historical context, John Williams should be considered much greater than some give him credit for. He would be a musical giant.


I guess in certain circles he is already that highly regarded.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Sorry to bring up John Williams again. But I think without the historical context, John Williams should be considered much greater than some give him credit for. He would be a musical giant.


So -- viewing John Williams as the latest, and perhaps last, standard bearer of a proud historical tradition that includes major names such as Erich Korngold, Max Steiner, Franz Waxman and Bernard Herrmann makes him look WORSE? How can that be? Because newer musical trends have since arisen and taken hold? That always happens, and doesn't lessen Williams' achievements.

BrahmsWasaGreatMelodist, I'm with you. Sorry, Bulldog, I've reached my limit with this Greatest Composer stuff.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> We listen to music, not to composers.


Very true, but without composers no music.

And it is convenient to know the names of the composers who's music one likes - in order to find more music one is supposed to like. But forget the ever present ranking of the composers, which for the most part is a subjective (dare I use this word?) evaluation.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> So why the obsession with composers?












A musical piece organizes sounds in specific ways.
When such a piece intrigues listeners, listeners wish to know who wrote this piece of music.
If we like how a composer wrote this piece, chances are we might like other pieces written by same composer.
When we like multiple works by this composer, we 'follow' the composer's output.
Some of us become obsessed about such.

Speaking for myself, I don't 'follow' performers. Ensemble musicians are guided by instructions when performing music, except when an instrumentalist improvises as a virtuoso (jazz, aleatoric music, etc.)

Aren't we all here @ TC because of our obsessions?


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

I wrestle with the knowledge that if I really did listen to music solely based on my enjoyment of the sounds entering my ears, my music library would certainly be a lot more fragmented than it is - a bit from this composer, a bit from this performer, etc.... and it's hard for me to believe this isn't true for everyone on this website. Like, sure, it's one thing to say, 'this composer/performer made something I like, so I should explore the rest of their work in order to find more things I like' - but what ends up happening is I become interested in context, in how one thing seemed to lead to another, and I end up giving a recording I don't initially enjoy much more credit because I have come to trust a composer/performer, so I give it more chances in order to fit it into an 'aesthetic regime' where 'music I like' is _more_ attached to specific people than it would 'naturally' be...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> No. Other than becoming an orphan at an early age, and losing his eyesight just before death, Bach had a relatively healthy, stable life up to 65. ...


Well his first wife died suddenly while he was away and only half of his 20 children survived to adulthood, and one died at the age of 24. There was a lot of sorrow in Bach's life.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Well his first wife died suddenly while he was away and only half of his 20 children survived to adulthood, and one died at the age of 24. There was a lot of sorrow in Bach's life.


Of course there were people dying in Bach's life, just like everyone else's. So what? Accept the fact that people just don't find it as interesting as Mozart's or Beethoven's.

Michael Haydn Requiem in C minor
In just two weeks Michael Haydn composed his work in December 1771, on the occasion of the death of his employer, Prince Bishop Sigismund Count Schrattenbach, who was beloved among the people and was a great patron of the arts. The work was written under the impression of personal tragedy: Haydn's only child, Aloisia Josepha, died in January 1771, before completing her first year of life.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Having many family members and losing several just wasn't that extraordinary enough a life story, for the time.

Children of Josiah Franklin (1657-1745)
By Anne Child (born Ecton, England; died Boston, 1689)

Elizabeth Franklin (Berry, Douse) (1678-1759). No issue.
Samuel Franklin (1682-l720). Blacksmith. One daughter.
Hannah Franklin (1683-1723). Married twice. No issue.
Josiah Franklin (1685-c.l7l5). Lost in the China Sea. No issue,
Anne Franklin (Harris), (1687-1729). 2 sons, 5 daughters.
Joseph Franklin I (Feb. 6-11, 1688). Lived less than one week.
Joseph Franklin II (June 30-July 15, 1689). His mother died July 9, 1689.

By Abiah Folger (born Nantucket, August 15, 1667; died Boston, May 8, 1752) Married Josiah Franklin on November 25, 1689.

John Franklin (1690-1756). Soap-maker; deputy postmaster of Boston. One son (lost at sea) and 7 stepchildren named Hubbard. He became quite wealthy in Boston (real estate, glass).
Peter Franklin (1692-1766). Merchant and shipmaster, Newport. Deputy postmaster Philadelphia, 1763 or 4. Married Mary Harman. Issue uncertain.
Mary Franklin (Homes) (1694-1731). Husband died at sea. Had one son.
James Franklin (1697-1735). Printer. Married Ann Smith. 5 children.
Sarah Franklin (Davenport) (1699-1731). Husband baker, tavern keeper in Boston.
Ebenezer Franklin (Sept. 20, 1701. Died at 16 months in a boiling vat of suds.)
Thomas Franklin (Dec. 7, 1703-Aug.17, 1706)
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN (1706-90)
Lydia Franklin (Scott) (1708-58). Married Robert Scott, a sea captain. One daughter.
Jane (Mecom) (1712-94). Married Edward Mecom, saddler. Had 12 children, only one survived her.

Napoleon’s Corsican parents were Carlo Maria and Maria Letizia Buonaparte. Joseph, their third child and the first to survive, was born in 1768, Napoleon in 1769, and nine other children, six of whom survived, in subsequent years: Lucien (1775); Élisa (1777); Louis (1778); Pauline (1780); Caroline (1782); and Jérôme (1784).


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Of course there were people dying in Bach's life, just like everyone else's. So what? Accept the fact that people just don't find it as interesting as Mozart's or Beethoven's.
> 
> Michael Haydn Requiem in C minor
> In just two weeks Michael Haydn composed his work in December 1771, on the occasion of the death of his employer, Prince Bishop Sigismund Count Schrattenbach, who was beloved among the people and was a great patron of the arts. The work was written under the impression of personal tragedy: Haydn's only child, Aloisia Josepha, died in January 1771, before completing her first year of life.


"So what" doesn't help much when it happens to you. What an idiotically callous thing to say, and I didn't say that makes Bach's life any more interesting. At any rate Mozart's would be as "uninteresting" without Peter Shaffer. And yes that's terrible about Michael Haydn as well. Maybe you should concentrate a little less on points-scoring and more on being human.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> "So what" doesn't help much when it happens to you. What an idiotically callous thing to say. And Mozart's would be as "uninteresting" without Peter Schaffer.


Why do you think there was no "Peter Schaffer" for Bach's life-story? 



Face it. With Bach's life story, there's no real issue they could make fuss about. It's why they write articles like https://interlude.hk/the-passions-of-bach/ The music is excellent, no doubt. But when you look at the artist's life, it's only about as interesting as Telemann's.

And again,



hammeredklavier said:


> Even before all the fictionalizing / dramatizing in the modern times, it has fired up imagination in the artists since the 19th century.
> 
> "It had been no empty rhetoric when the German musician in his Parisian tale died professing his faith in Beethoven and Mozart. A biography of Mozart, read to him when he was only six, had made an undying impression on him."
> "He was possessed by a sense of the tragedy of Mozart's life, spent 'as if under the vivisector's knife'. His finest works had been written between present exultancy and anxiety about what the next hour might bring. When Wagner saw an Adoration of the Kings in a church in Siena he exclaimed: 'All these signs of honour in childhood, shepherds and the kings and the angels - where were they later? Mozart suffered the same fate!'"
> < Wagner: A Biography / Curt von Westernhagen / P. 81~82 >


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Why do you think there was no "Peter Schaffer" for Bach's life-story?


Because there's no Salieri figure in Bach's life. And it was Salieri who took home the Oscar, don't forget that.


> Face it. With Bach's life story, there's no real issue they could make fuss about. It's why they write articles like https://interlude.hk/the-passions-of-bach/ The music is excellent, no doubt. But when you look at the artist's life, it's only about as interesting as Telemann's.
> 
> And again,


Honestly, Bach's life is no more or less interesting than Mozart's. The fact that it took a Peter Shaffer shows that. Bach may have been less in need of such since his music is enough of a focus. QED


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The OP is based on a curious premise. I don't know what to make of the conclusion: _'We listen to music not to composers'_ as if someone needed to be reminded of that. When it comes to classical music, I spend far more time listening to the music than talking about the composers. But since IMO some of the best CM comes from a few composers, I can't help but be interested in how that came to be.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

consuono said:


> Because there's no *Salieri figure in Bach's life*. And it was Salieri who took home the Oscar, don't forget that.
> Honestly, Bach's life is no more or less interesting than Mozart's. The fact that it took a Peter Shaffer shows that. Bach may have been less in need of such since his music is enough of a focus. QED


Christian Petzold. Bach got credited for his minuet. They 'could have' both loved Anna. Anna chose Bach over the better-looking Christian Petzold for his talent (a gross assumption). I think there is potential there.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I am also interested in the great composers' private lives but mostly that is not known. For example, I would like to know how did Bach cope with the death of his first wife, his infant children who did not survive infancy, his difficult employers in Leipzig etc. These will likely make me appreciate his music even more. Mozart's surviving letters are most revealing, showing his scatological sense of humor, his anxieties, his happiness, his desperation etc. all of which make perfect sense when studying his music chronologically.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> Christian Petzold. Bach got credited for his minuet. They 'could have' both loved Anna. Anna chose Bach over the better-looking Christian Petzold for his talent (a gross assumption). I think there is potential there.


I get ya I get ya...yeah...and Bach saw in Petzold the authority figure formerly represented by his older brother...and on Bach's deathbed Petzold's first cousin Matthias Augustus is there to copy down the attempted finish of the Art of Fugue...and then fast forward to 1890 in an insane asylum and Petzold's third cousin once removed is talking to a priest...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> I am also interested in the great composers' private lives but mostly that is not known. For example, I would like to know how did Bach cope with the death of his first wife, his infant children who did not survive infancy, his difficult employers in Leipzig etc. These will likely make me appreciate his music even more. Mozart's surviving letters are most revealing, showing his scatological sense of humor, his anxieties, his happiness, his desperation etc. all of which make perfect sense when studying his music chronologically.


Here's a problem though. In one of the documentaries I linked above (the one with Gardiner), a letter by Bach to an old friend of his comes up. In that letter Bach complains of hindrances and vexations in his life and doesn't express anything blameworthy on his own part. Then in the documentary here comes a psychologist. And on the basis of that *one letter* she and Gardiner conclude that Bach must have had a personality disorder to include paranoia. Overall that documentary's very enjoyable though.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

I've never been inclined to objectify people , and mostly can ignore others objectification of my identity . When they do , I appear to have become a respected object of imagination for people who have known me . They make up wild stories .

I've met composers . One I call 'man who cries in beer having fallen out of fashion with major orchestras' .


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

consuono said:


> Here's a problem though. In one of the documentaries I linked above (the one with Gardiner), a letter by Bach to an old friend of his comes up. In that letter Bach complains of hindrances and vexations in his life and doesn't express anything blameworthy on his own part. Then in the documentary here comes a psychologist. And on the basis of that *one letter* she and Gardiner conclude that Bach must have had a personality disorder to include paranoia. Overall that documentary's very enjoyable though.


One letter is hardly enough and I think silly to leap to "personality disorder". But it does share light on Bach's endeavors in life. He often complained about his employers in Leipzig and one could imagine the challenges of raising a large and young family, as a struggling middle class living in a school-church. It's not something I would like. All I can say is I admire Bach even more.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Because there's no Salieri figure in Bach's life. And it was Salieri who took home the Oscar, don't forget that.
> Honestly, Bach's life is no more or less interesting than Mozart's. The fact that it took a Peter Shaffer shows that. Bach may have been less in need of such since his music is enough of a focus. QED







Sure, Bach's life story is interesting from a music connoisseur's point of view, about the same way Handel's is.
But from a common person or non-connoisseur's point of view it's just a generic story of a masterful music craftsman having 60+ years of good life, moving from a palace or church (in some backwater areas of Germany people nowadays don't even care about; "Köthen? Where the f is that anyway?") to another, making contracts with some random princes and patrons (whose names, again, people nowadays don't give a damn about) because he wanted a better working condition.. bla bla..
Understand that for common people in general, this stuff just isn't interesting. 
There's something about Mozart's and Beethoven's life stories that general that holds the public's attention more.

Forget Amadeus and all the fictional stories of Mozart's rivalry with Salieri; 
take a look at this German-language biopic "W.A. Mozart (1991)"- which is jam-packed with interesting stories , such as the young Mozart playing for the Hapsburgs and asking Marie Antoinette to marry him , Mozart copying out Allegri's miserere from hearing it in the Sistine Chapel (regardless of to what extent this story is true, we have K.85, which is what really matters to me regarding this) , Casanova visiting Mozart in Prague to discuss the 'duality' of Don Giovanni , Mozart expressing his own view of life and death (influenced by the freemasonry)*** , etc, etc: 












you can't make a similarly interesting biopic with Bach's life story. Even if you tried, it'll end up being just a "good documentary", just like the ones you cited.



hammeredklavier said:


> "But for whose soul is this requiem?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


***"As death, when we come to consider it closely, is the true goal of our existence, I have formed during the last few years, such close relations with this best and truest friend of mankind, that his image is not only no longer terrifying to me, but is indeed very soothing and consoling! And I thank my God for graciously granting me the opportunity of learning that death is the key which unlocks the door to our true happiness." -Mozart, in letter to his father, 4 April 1787


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I can usually talk about pieces or especially moments within pieces. Every piece or composer is made up of numerous moments. When people start discussing composers alone, or even long works, it gets kind of vague and aimless after a couple sentences. Not really sure the point.

Here's an example of what I like discussing with people. True fundamentals of music. Listen to the bassline in this section of Beethoven's 6th and how it works with the melody. There's real fundamental beauty in the rising and falling of melody in the flute line, the inverted harmonies in the bass, and the 3rd degree at V. Notice how the 3rd degree of the melody later leads to the actual III chord. I feel Beethoven purposefully designed this simply and perfectly to showcase base fundamentals of music appreciation within textural atmospheres. He's using consistent background embellishments like continuing fanciful flute punches even though it's the bassoon part, and rising into string trills that have actual melodic content. It manifests an exceptional flow of development within its vision. There's a lot of tension to start at 2:30, which brings this quieter moment into focus.

*2:33*





Now laying out some kind of example with anchors here, it feels like a discussion one can delve deeper with people, into the moment and how it works, rather than segueying around into contextless topics.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Understand that for common people in general, this stuff just isn't interesting.
> There's something about Mozart's and Beethoven's life stories that general that holds the public's attention more.


 Beethoven's, yeah. The first "individualist artist type" probably (which Mozart was aiming for but couldn't quite pull off...maybe he just didn't have enough time). Mozart's, no, apart from the tragically early death and the fictionalized rivalry.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Beethoven's, yeah. The first "individualist artist type" probably (which Mozart was aiming for but couldn't quite pull off...maybe he just didn't have enough time). Mozart's, no, apart from the tragically early death and the fictionalized rivalry.


Again, it's not necessarily about "having an individualist artist type"; it's about "having a life story that interests the public". There were many Romantics with the so-called "individualist artist type", but do they all have life stories that interest the public? For example, Donizetti? Dvorak? Faure?
Why should I even keep talking with you regarding this. You can't accept there is such a thing as the "doctrine of the affections" in Bach's music. (Not that I'm saying this element in Bach's music is a bad thing). Neither can you accept the fact that Beethoven's most admired idol/hero was Handel. Sometimes I wonder how much you're different from the avant-garde music enthusiasts you accuse for "not seeing the naked emperor", Mr. consuono. 
Even though Bach has been the-most-listened-to classical music composer along with Mozart and Beethoven for almost a century, he doesn't still doesn't have any biopics that match theirs. Again, the music is masterful, but when you look at the artist's life story, there's no real "content" you can "make a fuss about".


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, it's not necessarily about "having an individualist artist type"; it's about "having a life story that interests the public".


And with Mozart it didn't really happen until Shaffer's play. Heck, Schubert and Schumann got the Hollywood treatment earlier.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

1) I don't quite get the OP's point. When I'm choosing a work of art to experience, it makes a difference whether it's Shakespeare or Moliere, Dickens or Thackery, Rembrandt or Grandma Moses, Diaghilev or Balanchine, Brahms or Mendelssohn . . 

2) If I have (arbitrarily) 40 symphonies in my collection, how am I going to classify them? By key? By performer? By length? Number of movements? Color of the jacket? Instrumentation?

3) For the umpteenth time, "Amadeus" was not (and not meant to be) a bio of Mozart.


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

I think there are very good reasons for talking about composers, but in any case, much of the reason people do is that for the non-musicologist it is easier to find something concrete to say about a person than about a piece of music. And in particular on a forum, to talk in detail about a piece of music you either have to cite the score, which means you are already unintelligible to part of your audience, or link to a YouTube video with specific time stamps, which again part of your audience is not going to take the trouble to listen to any way. Whereas if I start a thread called "Who shot Webern?", everyone can get stuck in right away.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

MarkW said:


> ...
> 
> 3) For the umpteenth time, "Amadeus" was not (and not meant to be) a bio of Mozart.


I didn't say it was. But that means there haven't been any that I know of.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Caryatid said:


> I think there are very good reasons for talking about composers, but in any case, much of the reason people do is that for the non-musicologist it is easier to find something concrete to say about a person than about a piece of music. And in particular on a forum, to talk in detail about a piece of music you either have to cite the score, which means you are already unintelligible to part of your audience, or link to a YouTube video with specific time stamps, which again part of your audience is not going to take the trouble to listen to any way. Whereas if I start a thread called "Who shot Webern?", everyone can get stuck in right away.


I agree, you are right. There could be many topics like that, especially on composers private lives, their sexual orientation, why they didn't get along with authority etc. It makes fascinating readership.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> And with Mozart it didn't really happen until Shaffer's play.


Again,



hammeredklavier said:


> Even before all the fictionalizing / dramatizing in the modern times, it has fired up imagination in the artists since the 19th century.
> 
> "It had been no empty rhetoric when the German musician in his Parisian tale died professing his faith in Beethoven and Mozart. *A biography of Mozart, read to him when he was only six, had made an undying impression on him.*"
> "He was possessed by a sense of the tragedy of Mozart's life, spent 'as if under the vivisector's knife'. His finest works had been written between present exultancy and anxiety about what the next hour might bring. When Wagner saw an Adoration of the Kings in a church in Siena he exclaimed: 'All these signs of honour in childhood, shepherds and the kings and the angels - where were they later? Mozart suffered the same fate!'"
> < Wagner: A Biography / Curt von Westernhagen / P. 81~82 >


"Why don't you love Mozart? With regard to him we clearly disagree with one another, my dear friend. I not only love Mozart - I worship him. For me, the best opera ever written is Don Giovanni. With your fine musical sensitivity, you surely ought to love this ideally pure artist. True, Mozart did expend his energies far too liberally and very often wrote not following his inspiration but out of necessity. However, *do read his biography which has been excellently written by Otto Jahn*, and you will see that he had no choice but to do so. Besides, Beethoven and Bach, too, wrote lots of weak works which are unworthy of standing alongside their masterpieces. Such was the force of circumstances that they sometimes had to turn their art into a trade. But take Mozart's operas, two or three of his symphonies, his Requiem, his six string quartets dedicated to Haydn, and the C minor quartet. Do you really not find anything beautiful in all this? True, Mozart does not grip one as profoundly as Beethoven; his sweep is not as broad. Just as in life he was a carefree child to the end of his days, so in his music there is no subjective tragedy of the kind which reveals itself so strongly and powerfully in Beethoven. However, this did not prevent him from creating an objectively tragic figure, indeed the most striking and powerful human figure ever portrayed through music. I mean Donna Anna in Don Giovanni [...]
For God's sake, *do read the bulky but very interesting book on Mozart by Otto Jahn.* You will see from it what a wonderful, irreproachable, infinitely kind, and angelically pure nature he had. He was the incarnation of the ideal of a great artist who creates because of an unconscious stirring of his genius. He wrote music as the nightingales sing, i.e. without pausing to think, without doing violence to himself. [...] Everyone loved him; he had the most marvellous, cheerful, and equable temperament. There was not a whit of pride in him. Whenever he met Haydn, he would express his love and veneration for him in the most sincere and fervent terms. The purity of his soul was absolute. He knew neither envy nor vengefulness nor spite, and I think that all this can be heard in his music, which has reconciling, clarifying, and caressing properties [...]
I could go on talking to you forever about this radiant genius for whom I cherish a kind of cult [...] Apart from you, I have met a few people before who had a fine understanding of music and loved it passionately, but who at the same time would not acknowledge Mozart. In vain I tried to open their eyes to the beauty of his music, but never before have I so wanted to win over someone to the ranks of Mozart's admirers as I would like to win you over now. Of course, in our musical sympathies it is very often accidental circumstances which play an important part. The music of Don Giovanni was the first music which produced a tremendous impression on me. It awoke a holy enthusiasm in me, which would later bear fruit. Through this music I entered that world of artistic beauty inhabited only by the greatest geniuses. Before that I had only known Italian opera. It is to Mozart that I am obliged for the fact that I have dedicated my life to music. He gave the first impulse to my musical powers and made me love music more than anything else in the world." 
-Tchaikovsky, in letter to Nadezhda von Meck, March 1878


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

consuono said:


> I didn't say it was. But that means there haven't been any that I know of.


I didn't mean to jump down your throat in particular -- but a lot of people seem to have that misapprehension.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I am not obsessed with composers, but I have to have some way to organize my collection, in order to find on particular piece I want to hear. Filing them by composer seems to be the most logical method for me.

If I am in the mood for something by one particular composer, I know where to go to find it. 

The OP makes a good point here, "no one exists in a vacuum, and no one individual (or even a list of individuals) can be held responsible for significant stylistic developments in music". But the fact is, all the influences from previous composers, the culture they exist in, their upbringing, and their schooling, etc., still gets filtered through the mind and creativity of that one composer.

And another fact is, those same of similar set of influences, filtered through the minds of 2 different composers, might sound substantially different. 

So, I don't see why the composer shouldn't get the majority of the credit for the music they composed.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

It really has to do with the composer's legacy and greatness. For example, with the famous Pachelbel's _Canon In D_, it is a very popular work, yet most listeners don't care much about Pachelbel the composer. Yet with Mozart, Wolfgang makes fascinating biographical and musicological substance. Why? It's obvious.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Again,
> 
> "Why don't you love Mozart? With regard to him we clearly disagree with one another, my dear friend. I not only love Mozart - I worship him. For me, the best opera ever written is Don Giovanni. With your fine musical sensitivity, you surely ought to love this ideally pure artist. True, Mozart did expend his energies far too liberally and very often wrote not following his inspiration but out of necessity. However, *do read his biography which has been excellently written by Otto Jahn*, and you will see that he had no choice but to do so. Besides, Beethoven and Bach, too, wrote lots of weak works which are unworthy of standing alongside their masterpieces. Such was the force of circumstances that they sometimes had to turn their art into a trade. But take Mozart's operas, two or three of his symphonies, his Requiem, his six string quartets dedicated to Haydn, and the C minor quartet. Do you really not find anything beautiful in all this? True, Mozart does not grip one as profoundly as Beethoven; his sweep is not as broad. Just as in life he was a carefree child to the end of his days, so in his music there is no subjective tragedy of the kind which reveals itself so strongly and powerfully in Beethoven. However, this did not prevent him from creating an objectively tragic figure, indeed the most striking and powerful human figure ever portrayed through music. I mean Donna Anna in Don Giovanni [...]
> For God's sake, *do read the bulky but very interesting book on Mozart by Otto Jahn.* You will see from it what a wonderful, irreproachable, infinitely kind, and angelically pure nature he had. He was the incarnation of the ideal of a great artist who creates because of an unconscious stirring of his genius. He wrote music as the nightingales sing, i.e. without pausing to think, without doing violence to himself. [...] Everyone loved him; he had the most marvellous, cheerful, and equable temperament. There was not a whit of pride in him. Whenever he met Haydn, he would express his love and veneration for him in the most sincere and fervent terms. The purity of his soul was absolute. He knew neither envy nor vengefulness nor spite, and I think that all this can be heard in his music, which has reconciling, clarifying, and caressing properties [...]
> I could go on talking to you forever about this radiant genius for whom I cherish a kind of cult [...] ...



Yes hammered, I know Tchaikovsky was a Mozart worshiper and you've posted that over-the-top passage before. ("The purity of his soul was absolute. He knew neither envy nor vengefulness nor spite..." ??? :lol: How would Tchaikovsky know, anyway?) Yes, as with Raphael, Keats and Shelley Mozart's early death casts a tragic pall over his life story, which was no doubt tailor-made for purple Romantics like Tchaikovsky. But no, I still don't think the story of Mozart the person was as interesting to the listening public as Beethoven's was. And vs Bach, there's simply a lot more documentary evidence from primary sources in the Mozart story...which isn't to say Mozart isn't a fascinating character.

As far as biographies are concerned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_Johann_Sebastian_Bach

By the way, doesn't


> Whenever he met Haydn, he would express his love and veneration for him in the most sincere and fervent terms.


explode one of your latest theses? Or maybe he meant Michael. :lol:


MarkW said:


> I didn't mean to jump down your throat in particular -- but a lot of people seem to have that misapprehension.


Well that movie did spur a lot of interest in Mozart's life though.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> no doubt tailor-made for purple Romantics like Tchaikovsky.


Whatabout Wagner?



consuono said:


> As far as biographies are concerned:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_Johann_Sebastian_Bach
> By the way, doesn't


But did anyone in the 19th century talk of J.S. Bach's life story as being epic?
(It doesn't affect Bach's greatness - Ghandi the pacifist had a more boring life-story than Napoleon the pathological warmonger)



consuono said:


> explode one of your latest theses? Or maybe he meant Michael. :lol:


But it's quite obvious, deep down, Mozart considered Joseph a bit of a bassoon-fart symphonist, and found Joseph's inclination toward pomposity "alien" to his own nature. As I discussed in another thread, it was Michael's music he was far more interested in. 
https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-19.html#post2034349
https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-23.html#post2036234
https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-21.html#post2034598


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Mozart's early death casts a tragic pall over his life story,


But the "power" of his story is quite different from, say, that of Mendelssohn's, Bellini's, or Weber's.




"One of the most touching documents in all of Mozart's life, is that thematic catalogue, where he writes out the beginnings of his pieces from 1784 onwards, and the touching thing about that document, which is in the British Library and can be seen, is not the lists of works, but the fact that when you get to the end of it, there are pages and pages of empty unfilled staves."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Well that movie did spur a lot of interest in Mozart's life though.


One thing that makes some life-stories more interesting than others; there are multiple ways to "interpret" and and they somehow all seem to "make sense": 




"It conjures up this "story" that we want to believe."


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> But did anyone in the 19th century talk of J.S. Bach's life story as being epic?


"Epic"?? As I said, it seems only Beethoven and maybe Liszt and Wagner were viewed that way.


hammeredklavier said:


> But the "power" of his story is quite different from, say, that of Mendelssohn's, Bellini's, or Weber's.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't want to be indelicate about this, but that shows the focus is more on his death than his life.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

When I was around 14 I read _Lives of the Great Composers_, and listened to a number of works mentioned in the book. It didn't long before I didn't need any help in finding classical music that interested me. And eventually I consciously avoided knowing anything about a composer's life or even the context of a work's origin prior to listening.

I still prefer to know nothing about a composer or work before listening to it. But, I periodically have gone back to reading composer biographies and/or books about certain works or periods. But the important thing is that I have a mental Chinese Wall between the background info and the music, which I still prefer to listen to with a blank mind.

I am not a fan of "canons" or lists of great works or composers, and don't even buy into the idea of greatness as an important qualifier attached to a piece of music or composer. I think more people would be better off without buying into to it as well.

IMO, a curious, open, mind (with as few expectations as possible) is the best way to approach listening to music.


----------



## EnescuCvartet (Dec 16, 2016)

Because we are inspired and impressed by other people achieving greatness or, heaven forbid, genius. As an artist, one wants to be remembered for posterity, but I think there is also something to be said for the collective unconscious where we, as humans, seek generativity. Great works of art do this. Would you ask the same question of authors of literature? Do you separate the novel from it's author?

Musically, paying attention to composers, having favorites, etc., tends to help our understanding of their music and of music in general. Not only tracing the course and development of music itself, but of certain composers as well... Seeing the growth and maturation from work to work that exists in all the great composers - it's like a story unto itself. Knowledge about the creation of certain works and about their composers gives us context. It also helps to broaden our critical thinking abilities.

I wonder if we think differently at the fundamental level because this question would never have occurred to me to ask. And the answer seems like it goes without saying, like it's the most natural thing to do.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

EnescuCvartet said:


> Because we are inspired and impressed by other people achieving greatness or, heaven forbid, genius.


I guess if you enjoy a lot of a composer's oeuvre, questions can spark, why is this composer so good in general? This question doesn't spark for me often. It makes me infinitely more eager to talk about qualities within segments of music; theory, and why it works. After all, when I get a sensation from music, it's the sensation of notes and tones organized in a certain way.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There is no more generally useful system for understanding works of music and their musical and cultural significance than to view them as the projects of a single mind with particular artistic goals and methods. Most individual works, even many of the greatest works in the repertoire, are not distinctive enough in themselves to tell us much about the larger sweep of music's development, while looking at a composer's body of work and his overall contribution gives us much information in a convenient package. Besides, its individual artists who introduce new ideas; composers work within their cultural milieus, but without the innovations of individuals nothing changes or develops. If we don't examine a composer's work as a significant artistic entity - A kind of superorganism consisting of the smaller organisms which are individual works - we'll find it harder to orient ourselves and think clearly as we flounder in a seemingly boundless sea of musical diversity, and probably waste time in the process.

A second consideration is the fact that music, although it may to a great extent speak for itself - as it should, if it's any good - can often be illuminated further for us if we know something about its creator, either as an artist with particular views and objectives, or simply as a person. It pays to be cautious about reading what we think we know of a composer's life and personality into his work, but meaningful connections are possible.

Histories of music categorize and discuss music in terms of period, genre, style and composer. All are valuable ways of looking at music, but the last may be the most accessible for the general listener, and - because of the human interest - the most fun. People are interested in people.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Great post. But I think there's much more to it once you become more open and convinced of more perspectives, there's more diversity of greatness to draw conclusions from. It's the phenomena of 'music itself,' one's richer journey of obsession with its parameters and new interpretations. For the invested, it's a personal growth that's not wholly contingent on a few philosophical idols.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I guess I could say the same about performers and conductors. My real question is, _why the sensationalized obsession with the people involved in the production of music (often superceding the music itself)_?


Agree. I no longer care about listening to a dozen versions of a work. If I hear one I like, I stop there. Don't care if it is a name brand orchestra, conductor, performers. They are all good.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Yes hammered, I know Tchaikovsky was a Mozart worshiper and you've posted that over-the-top passage before. ("The purity of his soul was absolute. He knew neither envy nor vengefulness nor spite..." ??? :lol: How would Tchaikovsky know, anyway?)


"Johann Adolph Hasse, a famous German musician who had lived for long periods in Italy, had become the official composer of the court in Vienna in 1764. After examining Wolfgang, he wrote of him, "I took him through various tests on the harpsichord, on which he let me hear things that are prodigious for his age and would be admirable even for a mature man." Hasse adds, "The boy is moreover handsome, vivacious, graceful, and full of good manners; and *knowing him, it is difficult to avoid loving him.* I am sure that if his development keeps due pace with his year, he will be a prodigy."
< Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Biography / Piero Melograni · 2007 / P. 30 >

"Both Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and his father Leopold knew Richter. Mozart would have met him still as a boy on his Family Grand tour in 1763 when the Mozart family came through Schwetzingen, the summer residence of the Elector Palatinate. Mozart met him once again in 1778 on his way back from Paris when he was headed for the unloved Salzburg after his plans to gain permanent employment in Mannheim or Paris had come to naught. In a letter to his father, dated November 2, 1778, Mozart seems to suggest that the by then elderly Richter was something of an alcoholic:
"Strasbourg can scarcely do without me. *You cannot think how much I am esteemed and beloved here.* People say that I am disinterested as well as steady and polite, and praise my manners. Everyone knows me. As soon as they heard my name, the two Herrn Silbermann [i. e. Andreas Silbermann and Johann Andreas Silbermann] and Herr Hepp (organist) came to call on me, and also Kapellmeister Richter. He has now restricted himself very much ; instead of forty bottles of wine a day, he only drinks twenty! ... If the Cardinal had died, (and he was very ill when I arrived,) I might have got a good situation, for Herr Richter is seventy-eight years of age. Now farewell ! Be cheerful and in good spirits, and remember that your son is, thank God ! well, and rejoicing that his happiness daily draws nearer. Last Sunday I heard a new mass of Herr Richter's, which is charmingly written."
However, Mozart was not one to laud lightly. The epithet "charmingly written" can be taken at face value and from someone like Mozart this was high praise indeed." < wiki/Franz_Xaver_Richter >


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> You cannot think how much I am esteemed and beloved here. People say that I am disinterested as well as steady and polite, and praise my manners.


I guess that's the humility there. :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Why the "obsession?:"

So I can find the music I want to listen to? You see, some of us arrange things alphabetically so we know where they are — like those places where they collect important contributions to world culture, you know, the big buildings with classical columns and wall to wall shelves where they put those sheaves of paper bound and sewed into bindings with tiny little ink scratches — what were those places called again? Uh … oh yeah, libraries! The same word they use for collections of CDs or MP3 files when a private individual stores them at home. Do you suggest we arrange them by color?

Because they're the people who write the music we listen to? It's kind of like those people that put ink scratches on sheets made from wood pulp … authors, that's it! Sometimes we really like the way a certain author writes and we want to read more of their writing. Turns out their writing is easier to find if one remembers their names, as obsessive as that might sound.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> There is no more generally useful system for understanding works of music and their musical and cultural significance than to view them as the projects of a single mind with particular artistic goals and methods. Most individual works, even many of the greatest works in the repertoire, are not distinctive enough in themselves to tell us much about the larger sweep of music's development, while looking at a composer's body of work and his overall contribution gives us much information in a convenient package. Besides, its individual artists who introduce new ideas; composers work within their cultural milieus, but without the innovations of individuals nothing changes or develops. If we don't examine a composer's work as a significant artistic entity - A kind of superorganism consisting of the smaller organisms which are individual works - we'll find it harder to orient ourselves and think clearly as we flounder in a seemingly boundless sea of musical diversity, and probably waste time in the process.
> 
> A second consideration is the fact that music, although it may to a great extent speak for itself - as it should, if it's any good - can often be illuminated further for us if we know something about its creator, either as an artist with particular views and objectives, or simply as a person. It pays to be cautious about reading what we think we know of a composer's life and personality into his work, but meaningful connections are possible.
> 
> Histories of music categorize and discuss music in terms of period, genre, style and composer. All are valuable ways of looking at music, but the last may be the most accessible for the general listener, and - because of the human interest - the most fun. People are interested in people.


This is one way to approach listening and appreciation.

But it is not for me, anymore. Nowadays as I am listening, I don't care who wrote the music: it is sound that I either find interesting or not.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Zhdanov said:


> a pile of crap, not music.


----------



## tobacco (Apr 6, 2021)

Why are you trying to take a theoretical stand? Just because we compare or contrast whether or not Mozart is better than the Beatles doesn't mean we are dumbing down music. Or even means that we are saying this person is the king of music. :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I guess that's the humility there. :lol:


"I have spared neither care nor labor to produce something excellent for Prague. Moreover *it is a mistake to think that the practise of my art has become easy to me.* I assure you, dear friend, no one has given so much care to the study of composition as I. There is scarcely a famous master in music whose works I have not frequently and diligently studied." -Mozart (a remark to Conductor Kucharz in Prague, who led the rehearsals for Don Giovanni in 1787).


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> "*it is a mistake to think that the practise of my art has become easy to me.* I assure you, dear friend, no one has given so much care to the study of composition as I. There is scarcely a famous master in music whose works I have not frequently and diligently studied." -Mozart (a remark to Conductor Kucharz in Prague, who led the rehearsals for Don Giovanni in 1787).


Right. And....?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Right. And....?


Does it sound like someone who excessively prides himself on his talents and capabilities? (ie. "See? I can do everything so easily~")


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Does it sound like someone who excessively prides himself on his talents and capabilities? (ie. "See? I can do everything so easily~")


It was kind of a joke, hammered. Good grief. Take a little time off from the Mozart Defense Association every now and then.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What I mean is - why do y'all always sort your music by composer? All this talk about ranking favorite composers, comparing composers, skillsets of composers, ideology/intent of composers, influence of composers, stylistic idiosyncrasies of composers, etc, etc, on and on and on. This is especially apparent when discussing the big guns (Beethoven, The Beatles, Miles Davis), who are often treated as if they may as well have singlehandedly invented music itself.
> 
> The truth is, no one exists in a vacuum, and no one individual (or even a list of individuals) can be held responsible for significant stylistic developments in music. Understanding of a context of a piece requires far more nuance than just an analysis of its composer. The biographical elements are interesting but secondary to the music itself. And the music itself - if it's worth anything - is not primarily an individualistic personal expression or a manifestation of impressive craftsmanship; these are also of secondary importance. So why the obsession with composers? To me it seems like one of a great number of secondary characteristics to talk about when discussing music. We listen to music, not to composers.


I agree. I've had infinite discussions with Beatles fans which believe they basically invented rock music, like Rolling Stones, Cream, Hendrix, the Doors, Pink Floyd, Velvet Underground, Black Sabbath didn't even exist or were inferior. Truth is if we had just the Beatles, we wouldn't have so many genres like we have today. Same goes with classic music. Even if we can indentify 3/5 most influencial composers, they weren't alone and they didn't all by themselves. Wasn't Bach inspired by Pachelbel, Vivaldi and others? Same goes for Handel. I can't imagine Mozart without the influence of Haydn brothers, Bach's sons, Johann Schobert and italian composers, like I can't imagine Beethoven without Mozart, Haydn, Handel, Bach and basically everyone who came before him. Not to mention they were not alone in their own times. Discussions about who's the greatest composer are useless. There simply isn't one!! Beethoven couldn't do fugues good as Bach, couldn't do operas as good as Mozart or Verdi. Mozart did every genre unlike others, but didn't invent a new style like Beethoven because there wasn't the need but he was a greater melodist than Beethoven. So who's the best? Nobody, it depends on what you look at. Who's the most influential? Hard to say, we can't count just symphonies. It's pointless. When I was a child, experts said Beethoven, now they say Bach, tomorrow they'll say another thing. We just want to gratify our ego knowing we listen to the Best and the others are all wrong, thinking it makes us superior and more clever. I see also people beeing like depressing music= intellectual, happy= superficial. Which is a very "teenish" thing. We should discuss more on composers that are underrated or overlooked because of stereotypes. Mozart is overlooked by many because of silly stereotypes, Khachaturian is underrated, etc.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Never once have I thought "I feel like listening to Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite," then go to the Bernstein/NYPhil section of my collection. I go to the Grofe section. Many of the works in my collection I frankly can't even remember who recorded them. Most maddening to me is in one of the few music stores still in existence, they'll sort by both the composer, or the conductor/performer. I have to pick through the entire classical section to not miss anything.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

fluteman said:


> BrahmsWasaGreatMelodist, I'm with you. Sorry, Bulldog, I've reached my limit with this Greatest Composer stuff.


I don't know why you're pointing your finger at me. Most of my games do not involve ranking composers, and I never couch my games in terms of greatness, but in terms of preference.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I know many will disagree with this but Robert Greenberg in his audio course _How to Listen to and Understand Great Music_ provides a possible explanation. European concert music, what we call classical, is a composer centrist medium. European Composers were driven by ego. When they composed something they wanted to be remembered for it. So they developed a notation system so they could record what they composed and take credit for it.

His actual is much more complicated.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> I know many will disagree with this but Robert Greenberg in his audio course _How to Listen to and Understand Great Music_ provides a possible explanation. European concert music, what we call classical, is a composer centrist medium. European Composers were driven by ego. When they composed something they wanted to be remembered for it. So they developed a notation system so they could record what they composed and take credit for it.
> 
> His actual is much more complicated.


I think Greenberg is exaggerating about European composers being driven by ego. For one, I don't think Bach had an ego that was anything like what Greenberg was on about, not even what the Romantic composers might dare to admit.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> I think Greenberg is exaggerating about European composers being driven by ego. For one, I don't think Bach had an ego that was anything like what Greenberg was on about, not even what the Romantic composers might dare to admit.


ArtMusic, I have the course. I am not surprised that there are many things he says in his first lecture that you would object to. For the record I take his word over yours.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Even the 19th century was in many respects more performer-centred than focussed on composers. While there were already star composers in the renaissance with the rise of the opera stars in the 17th century (and so some extent instrumental virtuosi) many composers were more famous as performers and especially the castrati and primadonne were often more famous, popular and richer than the composers (for one composer like Handel who got rich, one could probably name half a dozen singers in that age (1710-40s). In the 19th century one sees at least some composers (like Schubert and Schumann) struggling because they were not also star performers (like Liszt). And Wagner might have failed, had he not met rich sponsors in time. But by the 19th century one could make it as a composer who was not also (mainly) a virtuoso.

Nowadays the structuring by composer seems quite natural. The newbie starts often with anthologies (like greatest classical hits), discovers what he likes and explores more works of the same composer. But not strictly. Most people who first listened to Dvorak's 9th would probably get to Tchaikovsky's 5th symphony before Dvorak's 2nd because "late romantic symphonies" would be the exploration path whereas Dvorak's first 4 symphonies are not so well known. And so on.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

It's like a bunch of children bickering about who made the best drawing...


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

HerbertNorman said:


> It's like a bunch of children bickering about who made the best drawing...


More like painting by numbers. Who can best stay within the lines?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> Even the 19th century was in many respects more performer-centred than focussed on composers. While there were already star composers in the renaissance with the rise of the opera stars in the 17th century (and so some extent instrumental virtuosi) many composers were more famous as performers and especially the castrati and primadonne were often more famous, popular and richer than the composers (for one composer like Handel who got rich, one could probably name half a dozen singers in that age (1710-40s). In the 19th century one sees at least some composers (like Schubert and Schumann) struggling because they were not also star performers (like Liszt). And Wagner might have failed, had he not met rich sponsors in time. But by the 19th century one could make it as a composer who was not also (mainly) a virtuoso.
> 
> Nowadays the structuring by composer seems quite natural. The newbie starts often with anthologies (like greatest classical hits), discovers what he likes and explores more works of the same composer. But not strictly. Most people who first listened to Dvorak's 9th would probably get to Tchaikovsky's 5th symphony before Dvorak's 2nd because "late romantic symphonies" would be the exploration path whereas Dvorak's first 4 symphonies are not so well known. And so on.


reading stuff from back then, it's remarkable that directors would do stuff like swap around movements from different symphonies or cut "boring" movements or sections from works- something which would be almost inconceivable nowadays, where we have much more of an expectation of the integrity of the artist's work.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I read somewhere that.......................................


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> ArtMusic, I have the course. I am not surprised that there are many things he says in his first lecture that you would object to. For the record I take his word over yours.


Parts of it are on Youtube. His teachings make sense on many terms, that music offers powerful historical communication with many examples from Bach to Tchaikovsky. That makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Why the obsession with composers?


For the same reason that in the visual arts there's an obsession with painters and sculptors, or in literature an obsession with writers.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

consuono said:


> For the same reason that in the visual arts there's an obsession with painters and sculptors, or in literature an obsession with writers.


Well I don't get those obsessions either.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Well I don't get those obsessions either.


I don't think consuono cares anymore....see here...

Any way to delete accounts here?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

As a newbie at 14 I was for the first year or so not much interested in composers, it was enough to listen to the music I could get my hands on and these were sometimes mixed anthologies. But backcover texts and popular guidebooks etc naturally had biographical stuff and why would I ignored that. But I never got too much into the biographies and I am usually repulsed by biopics. Nevertheless for a long time it was the most natural thing to focus on certain composers. Back then I usually had to buy a cd and until the mid 1990s these were often expensive, so I would rarely explore music randomly but stick either to composers I already knew or those highly regared etc


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

the question in the OP sounds silly but it's not at all a trivial question

the composer in classical music fulfills the role as the director does in film- eg the auteur. notably, this is not true of other forms of music, many of which have the performer as the auteur. the reasons for this generally boil down to "scholars and historians of music (and film) decided it made the most sense to track the development of the art that way"- generally informed by the cultrual context of how works are engaged with by the actual audience.

we can see the difference in how we approach different genres of music - we _mostly_ see Furtwangler performing the Ninth, and Fricsay performing the Ninth as two interpretations of the same work - these interpretations can also be criticized, and engaged with in the same way as we would music (e.g. critically tracking the art of interpretation over the 20th century) but in terms of placing the music in the context of the history of classical music, the fundamental element still remains the written composition. In popular music, however, critics and historians have made the decision to treat Chuck Berry recording "Promised Land" as a different creative work than the Elvis Presley recording of "Promised Land".

i.e, - the form we're most concerned with, and therefore which party involved in presenting art to us when we evaluate art changes from genre to genre. Basically, historians have decided that it makes more sense to evaluate the history of classical music through the careers of Beethoven/Brahms/Debussy/etc than it does to evaluate it through the careers of Furtwangler/Toscanini/Bernstein, or through the history of the New York Philharmonic/Statskapelle Dresden/etc.

Film: The actual film itself / Theater: The script/book
Popular music: Albums/records / Classical music: Compositions


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

This is a correct distinction. But I don't think it has been a decision of historians, rather a development in the history and it points towards real differences between musical traditions. Another bit of evidence that classical music is not just another genre besides country AND western.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

of course a big part of this is that it's much more common in popular music for artists to record and release their own compositions (or at least compositions which are associated with them)- that, and the importance of record production in much of popular music as part of the artistic statement. We also on a less macroscopic level can reject this framing when we listen to music, or appreciate art ourselves- I might decide, for instance, that I want to listen to Maurizio Pollini, or classic recordings by the Concertgebouw, or (to take a film example), watch films starring Peter Fonda. Even in pop music, I can say "I'd like to listen to albums produced by Phil Spector". The distinction is much more relevant for critics and art historians than it is for listeners.


and even then, some film critics and historians occasionally attempt to challenge the orthodoxy of auteur theory- the lines aren't always cut and dry.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> The truth is, no one exists in a vacuum, and no one individual (or even a list of individuals) can be held responsible for significant stylistic developments in music.


But that is wrong. At least the great composers have all their own composing characteristics which nobody else applied before or after.



BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> And the music itself - if it's worth anything - is not primarily an individualistic personal expression or a manifestation of impressive craftsmanship


Not?



BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> To me it seems like one of a great number of secondary characteristics to talk about when discussing music. We listen to music, not to composers.


The character of the music depends on the composer. Grouping works by the composer is very efficient.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Well I don't get those obsessions either.


Don't you have any musician/artist/director/painter that made a lot of works that you like, and maybe with a peculiar voice that makes his work special in any way? 
I mean, like other has said to me it's an absolutely normal thing. Even if artists don't live in a vacuum as you said and they have their own influences, that doesn't mean that they can have a individual approach and if one happen to really like a lot of their works, that's why the obsession.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Why the obsession with composers? Why not? 

The human psyche is prone to extremes. One might as well direct that propensity toward something harmless.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

I don't have obsessions with composers as the composers don't have obsession with me. :lol: I simply love some composers more than the others.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

fbjim said:


> of course a big part of this is that it's much more common in popular music for artists to record and release their own compositions (or at least compositions which are associated with them)- that, and the importance of record production in much of popular music as part of the artistic statement. We also on a less macroscopic level can reject this framing when we listen to music, or appreciate art ourselves- I might decide, for instance, that I want to listen to Maurizio Pollini, or classic recordings by the Concertgebouw, or (to take a film example), watch films starring Peter Fonda. Even in pop music, I can say "I'd like to listen to albums produced by Phil Spector". The distinction is much more relevant for critics and art historians than it is for listeners.
> 
> and even then, some film critics and historians occasionally attempt to challenge the orthodoxy of auteur theory- the lines aren't always cut and dry.


On the flip side of the coin: in pop music specifically, a song is associated with those who record it, not the writer. Name just about any popular song from the 60s through mid 70s. Chances are, Carole King wrote it...but most people don't know that. Every Motown song is associated with the groups who recorded them, despite the fact the vast majority of them were written by professional songwriters.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

progmatist said:


> On the flip side of the coin: in pop music specifically, a song is associated with those who record it, not the writer. Name just about any popular song from the 60s through mid 70s. Chances are, Carole King wrote it...but most people don't know that. Every Motown song is associated with the groups who recorded them, despite the fact the vast majority of them were written by professional songwriters.


Yup, and even in movies, you have the situation where the average guy on the street can probably name five directors relatively easily but ask him to name a single editor or screenwriter and....


----------

