# Great Composers and Their Theoretical Knowledge



## LenComUsic (Mar 23, 2019)

Hello there.
I am a musician, pianist and an avid classical musician.
I wanted to ask your opinion, and if you can back it up with proofs / facts, I'd love to see them.
Is the level of knowledge of the great composers - Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, etc. ... in theory and harmony - was an insane master level? Did they rule all the laws of harmony at a super-high academic level? If they were musicology students, would they have received Dean's honors in ear training, harmony, and theory?
What do you think - would they not have achieved the same achievements without them?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Well, speaking of Beethoven, he had a huge library of manuscripts by composers such as Mozart, Handel, and many others. He studied them... studied Bach. So there are certain principles that govern composing that I believe the great composers were insanely aware of but also had an instinctive feel for. The understanding of the principles means that they could use them creatively and perhaps even transcend them. All the composers mentioned would deserve an honorary doctorate in composition. Bach was also a great collector of manuscripts by others.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beethoven also studied with the best composers and pedagogues of the time, for literally years -- Haydn, Albrechtsberger, and Salieri were the most notable. He seems to have had a low opinion of conservatories, at least of the Italian variety:



> "The Bohemians are born musicians. The Italians ought to take them as models. What have they to show for their famous conservatories? Behold! their idol, Rossini! If Dame Fortune had not given him a pretty talent and amiable melodies by the bushel, what he learned at school would have brought him nothing but potatoes for his big belly."


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Not much is written about where Bach learned music theory, but it is said he learned from his older brother and uncle who were professional keyboardists and composers. Haydn who was crucial in the development of forms, didn't receive any formal training in music theory, but learned by studying works of other composers. Just learning theory can't teach you to compose great music. It is by applying concepts in creative ways. Also you need a good ear. These composers had that ability and talent to go with it.

I suspect if Haydn went to a conservatory for just learning theory, he wouldn't be exceptional, and less talented composers may have better grades, and be better teachers of theory. Mastering and teaching theory and being a master composer is not the same thing.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I agree with what Phil said, and furthermore (as someone who is a theory enthusiast) theory isn't really that solidly defined anyway once you get past a certain base level. In the end, music theory is generally based around music rather than the other way around. Theory is also constantly evolving. I do think that most of the composers knew a great deal of theory, some more so than others (Brahms was probably one of the most theoretically versed; one has to assume Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven were as well).

Debussy and Ravel apparently had a great deal of theoretical knowledge due to the French conservatory system at the time.

To add on to Phil's post, here's a quote from Haydn:

"I listened more than I studied... therefore little by little my knowledge and ability were developed."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven all studied Fux's 1725 work _Gradus ad Parnassum_. From it they learned voice leading and the various species of Palestrinian counterpoint.

Haydn seems to have embarked on self-study and "meticulously worked out each of its exercises." Mozart was taught from the book by his father Leopold and afterwards always kept his annotated copy handy. And this was the main text used by Albrechtsberger, the teacher engaged by Beethoven when he grew dissatisfied with Haydn*.

I understand the book is still in use today.

*Albrechtsberger possibly used his own _Gründliche Anweisung zur Komposition_, which was based on the Fux work.
​


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven all studied Fux's 1725 work _Gradus ad Parnassum_. From it they learned voice leading and the various species of Palestrinian counterpoint.
> 
> Haydn seems to have embarked on self-study and "meticulously worked out each of its exercises." Mozart was taught from the book by his father Leopold and afterwards always kept his annotated copy handy. And this was the main text used by Albrechtsberger, the teacher engaged by Beethoven when he grew dissatisfied with Haydn*.
> 
> ...


The English translation of Fux's fascinating primer can be found at the IMSLP website under the Latin name of the book. Imagine looking at the same teachings that Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and others studied. Such a book is equivalent to learning the vocabulary of a language so that one can read and speak.

Arnold Schoenberg was equally knowledgeable and wrote his own book on music theory and fundamentals (PDF):

https://monoskop.org/images/d/da/Schoenberg_Arnold_Fundamentals_of_Musical_Composition_nCR.pdf

Only the lazy and the untalented think that they can circumvent the fundamentals as a shortcut to excellence. By being aware of the fundamental principles of music theory, one is better able to transcend or extend them.

Rimsky-Korsakov wrote a book on orchestration that can also be found at the IMSLP website.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

According to CPE Bach, J.S. Bach was largely self taught. He was shown the Fux work and agreed with its concepts, and came to own a copy, but by the time he saw it he was already learned in counterpoint.

In Ravel and Debussy's time musicians were well learned, but not in pre-Baroque music. When Debussy won the Prix de Rome and travelled to Rome, he met Liszt who suggested he stop by one of the local churches to hear some Renaissance music, it was a new experience and something that made a major impact on him.


----------



## LenComUsic (Mar 23, 2019)

I will comment on the things you have written.
First, you say very interesting things here. I really liked the quote that BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist brought to Haydn's words.
I also have to mention Larkenfield's words - I appreciate what you wrote, but be careful when writing a sentence like "Only the lazy and the untalented think that they can circumvent the fundamentals as a shortcut to excellence." As far as I'm concerned, the Beatles brought such wonderful things to the world even though they did not know these fundamentals, so I think this is an inclusion which does not imply everyone. But thanks again for your words.
*I also wanted to ask: Does anyone know about the case of Modest Mussorgsky? I heard somewhere he knew very little about theoretical subjects.*


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

LenComUsic said:


> I will comment on the things you have written.
> First, you say very interesting things here. I really liked the quote that BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist brought to Haydn's words.
> I also have to mention Larkenfield's words - I appreciate what you wrote, but be careful when writing a sentence like "Only the lazy and the untalented think that they can circumvent the fundamentals as a shortcut to excellence." As far as I'm concerned, the Beatles brought such wonderful things to the world even though they did not know these fundamentals, so I think this is an inclusion which does not imply everyone. But thanks again for your words.
> *I also wanted to ask: Does anyone know about the case of Modest Mussorgsky? I heard somewhere he knew very little about theoretical subjects.*


 I am a great fan of the Beatles, but really, this focus was on classical music and no mention was made of what the Beatles knew about music theory. I have no idea what they knew about it. Of all the comparisons!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Is the level of knowledge of the great composers - Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, etc. ... in theory and harmony - was an insane master level? Did they rule all the laws of harmony at a super-high academic level? If they were musicology students, would they have received Dean's honors in ear training, harmony, and theory?"

This implies that this theoretical and harmonic knowledge was academic, and I think not, Schoenberg was basically an auto-didact, but his knowledge of harmony was of the highest level, sometimes (in Harmonielehre) speculation on matters outside the box.
Genius always goes back to square one and questions all the givens. When we hear revelations in Bach, we are listening to his insight, not a take on accepted practice.

The Beatles are a good example of natural musical insight which has not been schooled.

"Only the lazy and the untalented think that they can circumvent the fundamentals as a shortcut to excellence. By being aware of the fundamental principles of music theory, one is better able to transcend or extend them."

This seems to be the complete converse of what I am saying. To "be *truly* aware" of the fundamental principles of music theory, one must "grok" them on a very fundamental level, and not depend on any "givens," otherwise the awareness is not deep enough. Only by speculating, pondering, and questioning can one discover for oneself what these fundamental principle are.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

LenComUsic said:


> I will comment on the things you have written.
> First, you say very interesting things here. I really liked the quote that BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist brought to Haydn's words.
> I also have to mention Larkenfield's words - I appreciate what you wrote, but be careful when writing a sentence like "Only the lazy and the untalented think that they can circumvent the fundamentals as a shortcut to excellence." As far as I'm concerned, the Beatles brought such wonderful things to the world even though they did not know these fundamentals, so I think this is an inclusion which does not imply everyone. But thanks again for your words.
> *I also wanted to ask: Does anyone know about the case of Modest Mussorgsky? I heard somewhere he knew very little about theoretical subjects.*


I listened to McCartney's 2 classical albums. He is clearly out of his territory there, but the 2nd was a lot better than the first. Howard Goodall presented an interesting analysis of the Beatles here. They were great within the song structure and working with chord progressions, which isn't groundbreaking like Stravinsky or Scriabin, so is more based on natural intuition, and Martin (who is classically trained) sure helped add some interesting arrangements.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I suspect if Haydn went to a conservatory for just learning theory, he wouldn't be exceptional, and less talented composers may have better grades, and be better teachers of theory. Mastering and teaching theory and being a master composer is not the same thing. _

As a youngster Haydn was a chorister in the Vienna Choir Boys. He was kicked out for being a prankster. Haydn loved a good time too much to be much of an academician. The only time he pulled in his horns was his years working for the Hungarians -- but he let them know it was time for the musicians to have a holiday during the first performance of the Symphony 45 wheh the musicians, one by one, left the stage during the finale, leaving only a couple at the end.

I agree with ideas that knowing theory doesn't have much to do with inspiration and creativity. In many ways it stifles it. Look at Debussy as an example; plenty of conservatory types told their students they'd be kicked out if they ever played Debussy nonsensical music that didn't reconcile to the tonic.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

larold said:


> _I suspect if Haydn went to a conservatory for just learning theory, he wouldn't be exceptional, and less talented composers may have better grades, and be better teachers of theory. Mastering and teaching theory and being a master composer is not the same thing. _
> 
> As a youngster Haydn was a chorister in the Vienna Choir Boys. He was kicked out for being a prankster. Haydn loved a good time too much to be much of an academician. The only time he pulled in his horns was his years working for the Hungarians -- but he let them know it was time for the musicians to have a holiday during the first performance of the Symphony 45 wheh the musicians, one by one, left the stage during the finale, leaving only a couple at the end.
> 
> *I agree with ideas that knowing theory doesn't have much to do with inspiration and creativity. In many ways it stifles it. *Look at Debussy as an example; plenty of conservatory types told their students they'd be kicked out if they ever played Debussy nonsensical music that didn't reconcile to the tonic.


We've had this conversation in depth on this forum. It brings out some strong opinions, to say the least! :lol:

My take on the argument is, you can use the current rules and work within them to create music people want to hear like Bach. You can also think outside the rules like Debussy and make music people want to hear.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The practice of music-making precedes theory and determines its principles. Harmonic theory during the common practice period was actually pretty simple, and a good musical mind will quickly grasp it with minimal study. In my experience it was useful early on in helping me spot awkward slips in stuff I'd written, but knowing its concepts didn't actually teach me to compose. Counterpoint is tougher from a practical standpoint and requires a little more conscious intellectual work. 

Plenty can be said on how music can be put together, and anyone who wants to compose can profit from investigating what's been said. But it's in hearing and writing music that a composer's real education happens. Major creative achievements take learning for granted but can't be taught.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

larold said:


> _I suspect if Haydn went to a conservatory for just learning theory, he wouldn't be exceptional, and less talented composers may have better grades, and be better teachers of theory. Mastering and teaching theory and being a master composer is not the same thing. _
> 
> As a youngster Haydn was a chorister in the Vienna Choir Boys. He was kicked out for being a prankster. Haydn loved a good time too much to be much of an academician. The only time he pulled in his horns was his years working for the Hungarians -- but he let them know it was time for the musicians to have a holiday during the first performance of the Symphony 45 wheh the musicians, one by one, left the stage during the finale, leaving only a couple at the end.
> 
> I agree with ideas that knowing theory doesn't have much to do with inspiration and creativity. In many ways it stifles it. Look at Debussy as an example; plenty of conservatory types told their students they'd be kicked out if they ever played Debussy nonsensical music that didn't reconcile to the tonic.


In this day and age, I doubt learning theory would stifle creativity, unlike in old times with common practice, considering the variety of methods now. By knowing a technique or concept you can modify it or go opposite to try out something different, but by not knowing any theory at all, composers could fall into reusing clichés unknowingly, or not follow good principles in counterpoint, consonance and dissonance, etc. and create a mess. It is easier to ramble or create a mess than something well put together, even if it is unoriginal.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I doubt if anyone is trying to limit a composer’s creativity with theory. Every composer composes differently. There’s no one way that music has to be created or done. But the people that are usually good at it will study how it’s put together or taken apart. Someone like Debussy broke a lot of rules when he was studying theory and composition under Cesar Franck, but he probably still understood what rules he was breaking and that’s different than a composer just winging it. The idea behind music theory is that if certain principles of composition are followed the music sounds better than everything being discovered through trial and error. There are of course some composers that have an instinctive feel for what sounds good, but even then their music is probably still going to be a reflection of these principles of composition. The OP is about certain composers and what their knowledge was and they weren’t just flying by the seat of their pants. They studied hard the works of other great composers and what made their music sound so good, the knowledge of certain fundamentals. That’s what I meant about not being lazy in seeking excellence. But there are some students and want-to-be composers who think there’s a shortcut to excellence by skipping the study of certain fundamentals, and I don’t think it happens that way, not for true greatness. Talent isn’t enough. Even genius isn’t enough. Look how hard Mozart studied theory and composition as a child, and the knowledge of it can contribute to one’s great efficiency as a composer. Look how prolific somebody like Bach was, or Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven, Chopin, or Brahms. They weren’t struggling with the media but understood the principles in order to transcend them or discover new ones. I believe that some of that discipline was lost during the 20th and 21st century.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Debussy was initially quite turned off by what he was taught at the conservatory, feeling the concept that certain chords and intervals were 'perfect' was flawed. From the start he had a different view of harmony than his peers. Some of the students in his younger days, thought he was a clumsy moron and would never add up to much, but one or two of his teachers saw something special in him early on and tried to cultivate it. Eventually he decided to really focus on learning counterpoint and the rules of harmony the way they were taught before branching out and finding his own path. I believe he spent 12 years at the conservatory, so he was certainly a well learned musician. 

He took inspiration from poetry, the visual arts and gamelan, and applied it to his craft. His artistic break through came when he decided to use one of Stéphane Mallarmé's poems ("Afternoon of a Faun") as the basis for a piece of music. Some of the composers that influenced him were: J.S. Bach, Rameau, Weber, Chopin, Wagner, Mussorgsky, Borodin and Satie.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

tdc said:


> Debussy was initially quite turned off by what he was taught at the conservatory, feeling the concept that certain chords and intervals were 'perfect' was flawed. From the start he had a different view of harmony than his peers. Some of the students in his younger days, thought he was a clumsy moron and would never add up to much, but one or two of his teachers saw something special in him early on and tried to cultivate it. Eventually he decided to really focus on learning counterpoint and the rules of harmony the way they were taught before branching out and finding his own path. I believe he spent 12 years at the conservatory, so he was certainly a well learned musician.
> 
> He took inspiration from poetry, the visual arts and gamelan, and applied it to his craft. His artistic break through came when he decided to set one of Stéphane Mallarmé's poems to music - "Afternoon of a Faun". Some of the composers that influenced him were: J.S. Bach, Rameau, Weber, Chopin, Wagner, Mussorgsky, Borodin and Satie.


I always thought Satie was younger than Debussy...?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I always thought Satie was younger than Debussy...?


He is but some of his compositions from the late 1880's and early 1890's were influential on Ravel and Debussy.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Satie is an example of a composer, who never went to school as a kid, was kicked out of conservatories for laziness, yet still managed to write some excellent, unique and influential music, based on the fragments of knowledge he had retained from school. He later upgraded his musical education, but I'm not sure if his later music is better than his earlier music.


----------

