# Quantity, Quality, and Time: Please Discuss



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

They say, in the field of engineering, that any project has three variables 1) Cost, 2) Time, and 3) Quality. The client can control two of the three variables but not the third._

(Examples: If you want it done fast and with high quality then you won't be able to control the high price tag. If you want it cheaper and high quality the project may take a long time to complete. If you want it done fast and cheap then you better be alright with poor quality.)_

I've been thinking about prolific composers vs composers who compose much fewer compositions. Is there a relationship between quantity and quality and time for compositions and composers?

I think some of the "greats" such as Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Bach were able to be prolific with high quality. *BUT, I think they are the exception, rather than the rule. I would hypothesize that for most composers, as output increases and creation time decreases the quality also decreases.*

Some of those I think about are: 1) Darius Milhaud who composed a ton of music, but is generally seen as having composed very few "masterpieces." 2) Wolfgang Rihm who has composed so much music, one has no idea where to begin when exploring his music. No single piece seems to stand out. 3) Sibelius, who spent years perfecting Symphony no5 and as a result it is MAGNIFICENT!, but who also composed a lot of schlocky junk that, I believe was probably composed too quickly.

Is it better to write a small handful of gems or a truck full of mediocre?

Any thoughts appreciated. I enjoy hearing from all of you!


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

20centrfuge said:


> Is it better to write a small handful of gems or a truck full of mediocre?


Edgard Varese completed a small _oeuvre_. I think all of his dozen (or thereabout) works are quality gems, but no doubt there are a lot of people who consider his pieces as ugly noise (especially people who listen to pop music/songs for the enjoyment of such tunes and/or dancing).

Ennio Morricone has composed more than 475 film scores, yet Morricone fans and soundtrack collectors would most likely not consider his lifetime output as mediocre.

As a listener, you are either sympathetic to a composer's aesthetics or not. The music either resonates with your sensibilities or it doen't (or it will resonate later on when the listener's encounters and tastes have expanded beyond current parameters).

Another thing to discuss is when does a musical work traverse through a threshold to elevate itself above the "mediocre" and attain "quality"?

Perhaps quality fluctuates based upon the number of people who consider something as being "good". If a lot of people don't care for something, it's labeled as mediocre (even though it possesses qualities).


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Bohuslav Martinů is another composer whose output has been criticized in much the same way as with Milhaud.

Yet, "The Epic Of Gilgamesh" by Martinů is one of my favorite 100 musical works and my favorites list contains no Maurice Ravel.

Who is to say that Ravel's "Bolero" or "Daphnis et Chloé" is _better_ than Martinů's Gilgamesh oratorio?
The Ravel pieces have had more exposure than Martinů pieces - thus, "Daphnis et Chloe" has entered standard repertoire whilst a Slovak language cantata needs help from the Supraphon label simply to get itself 'out there' for folks to discover.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Excellent points. Qaulity is a very subjective variable. I am sure there are many examples of composers whose work at one point in time was viewed as mediocre and at another time was viewed as extraordinary. If memory serves, Bach was one of those. Didn't Mendelssohn 'revive' Bach's music?


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

20centrfuge said:


> Didn't Mendelssohn 'revive' Bach's music?


Don't know. To me, anything written before the 1870s is junk.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Prodromides said:


> Don't know. To me, anything written before the 1870s is junk.


LOL. You're (almost) preaching to the choir!

It takes some effort for me to listen to anything pre-Debussy/Elgar/Faure/Puccini (which is about 1870).


----------



## Saintbert (Mar 12, 2015)

20centrfuge said:


> Excellent points. Qaulity is a very subjective variable. I am sure there are many examples of composers whose work at one point in time was viewed as mediocre and at another time was viewed as extraordinary. If memory serves, Bach was one of those. Didn't Mendelssohn 'revive' Bach's music?


Mendelssohn's performance of Bach's St Matthew Passion did much to bring attention to Bach as a composer of large scale, serious music... Whereas before, as I understand it, his work was known to have great practical use in teaching composers and players. Nowadays, we hardly look at something like the Well-Tempered Clavier primarily as an aid to study.

EDIT: Which of course makes me think, a Carl Czerny revival must only be a matter of time!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

The Sibelius example is failing by not taking in account that most composers have to earn a living, the "junky music" You refer to is what sustained Sibelius through his life, it put vodka and pickled herring and bread on the table, it built Ainola, without these no divine inspiration and no master pieces!, I would wager (despite it being 20 years since I last read Tawaststjerna's seminal Sibelius biography) that the Junky music earned him more money then any of the "master pieces", I have a faint memory that Tawaststjerna writes somewhere that just "Valse Triste" earned him more then the Symphonies and Violin Concerto during his life time! (_I think that this would apply to just about any worth while composer!_)

So despising junky music by famous composers will only blow up in Your face! 

/ptr


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

ptr said:


> The Sibelius example is failing by not taking in account that most composers have to earn a living, the "junky music" You refer to is what sustained Sibelius through his life, it put vodka and pickled herring and bread on the table, it built Ainola, without these no divine inspiration and no master pieces!, I would wager (despite it being 20 years since I last read Tawaststjerna's seminal Sibelius biography) that the Junky music earned him more money then any of the "master pieces", I have a faint memory that Tawaststjerna writes somewhere that just "Valse Triste" earned him more then the Symphonies and Violin Concerto during his life time! (_I think that this would apply to just about any worth while composer!_)
> 
> So despising junky music by famous composers will only blow up in Your face!
> 
> /ptr


Good point. Composers have to make a living too, and sometimes it is the money from the weaker compositions that makes the masterpieces possible. It's all understandable.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Mozart wrote his share of pleasant but inconsequential works as potboilers , and none of his early works could be called an immortal masterpiece . But this doesn't in any way diminish his overall stature as a composer .


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The earlier composers had a job to do, to write music because that was required from them, from a "production" point of view. The truely great ones were so prolific and were able to maintain quality, which explains why they are revered even today.


----------



## JohnnyRotten (Aug 10, 2013)

I don't know how much available time Vivaldi, Bach and Handel had (I imagine a fair bit as it was their job), but they certainly turned out lots of good quality gear in their respective market places.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Think of how much time is saved by modern composers with computers. They can literally play something on the piano and have it notated for them. They push a few keys and they can copy a part from one key to another. I bet it saves at least 50% of the time it would take to write it all out on manuscript.


----------



## JohnnyRotten (Aug 10, 2013)

But that's the same in all of our jobs, isn't it?


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Telemann, I think, wrote about 3,700 works; the only one that anyone seems to have heard of is _Tafelmusik_.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

superhorn said:


> Mozart wrote his share of pleasant but inconsequential works as potboilers.


So did the other three composers mentioned in the first post, some of Bach's secular cantatas, Beethoven's patriotic cantatas, Mozart wasn't unique in writing potboilers. Despite that, he still has more works that are high enough in quality to be represented in the standard repertoire than any other composer except perhaps Bach. Acknowledging his lesser works doesn't really contradict anything brought up in the OP.



> and none of his early works could be called an immortal masterpiece


The last 3 violin concertos, the bassoon concerto, the Exsulate Jubilate motet, the first of the viola string quintets, and symphony 29 are all considered early works from his late teens that are masterpieces.


----------



## Saintbert (Mar 12, 2015)

20centrfuge said:


> Think of how much time is saved by modern composers with computers. They can literally play something on the piano and have it notated for them. They push a few keys and they can copy a part from one key to another. I bet it saves at least 50% of the time it would take to write it all out on manuscript.


Back in the day, a composer of decent standing (Bach for example) would have assistants doing most of those things. I do a lot of writing (as in fiction and non-fiction), and I'm so accustomed to doing it on computer that it's become part of the creative process, that act of moving things around. Still, I think the basic impulses and insights that make a writer and keep him/her at it are pretty much the same throughout the ages, from the Greeks reciting their poetry to Milton dictating his, from Shakespeare's quill to Hemingway's pencil and the typewriter.

One area of Bach's work that seems to go into a mini-revival every now and then are the cantatas. He had very little time to write them. His schedule and the purpose of the work had little to do with him, and had they come from lesser hands, we wouldn't have heard them since. But they are I think brilliant and show a lot of personality.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Out of all the "greats" Bach comes first in quality and quantity. I don't think any of the modern composers are even remotely close and that's kind of sad because I'd love to hear more from György Kurtág, but he's 89 and his output thus far is very small.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I would say those with greater output may have a better chance of getting to use that inspiration, and those with less output may focus more on their inspiration. Quantity may have no impact either way.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Prodromides said:


> Who is to say that Ravel's "Bolero" or "Daphnis et Chloé" is _better_ than Martinů's Gilgamesh oratorio?
> The Ravel pieces have had more exposure than Martinů pieces - thus, "Daphnis et Chloe" has entered standard repertoire whilst a Slovak language cantata needs help from the Supraphon label simply to get itself 'out there' for folks to discover.


Are you seriously comparing Bolero with Daphnis et Chloé and those two with a Martinů cantata?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

JohnnyRotten said:


> Cor, that's a bit harsh on old Telemann! He did write a few good trio sonatas which I often play on my van's top notch sound system (cassette player)


Telemann was a giant during his day, and the fact that his music is still performed, recorded and studied today shows his music is of quality. There are numerous composers today less popular than Telemann.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

> I've been thinking about prolific composers vs composers who compose much fewer compositions. Is there a relationship between quantity and quality and time for compositions and composers?


I think that the engineering maxim is not relevant to what amounts to human creativity. The fact that so many contradictory cases exist would be sufficient to render it invalid.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Are you seriously comparing Bolero with Daphnis et Chloé and those two with a Martinů cantata?


Yes, I am serious and I do compare works. "The Epic Of Gilgamesh" has been a favorite of mine since I had gotten it on a Marco Polo CD around 1994, and it gets played by me on a regular basis.
Works by Ravel collect dust in my collection - year 2012 was the most recent time I listened to Ravel.

Keep in mind, I'm referring to what I like - not what we're supposed to like according to others.

There's likely more people who listen to Nicki Minaj than Bach. Does this imply that music by Minaj is _better_ than music by Bach (by relying upon demographic data)?
Popularity is no barometer of quality.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Well, it was not necessarily a conscious effort. Most Baroque composers were only required to produce something listenable --Vivaldi, Telemann, etc. were quite facile but not consciously trying to produce masterpieces. That Bach could be both prolific and a profound composer was due simply to genius. Similarly, music on demand drove Haydn and Mozart -- who also just happened to be really good. Beethoven agonized over a lot of his better compositions -- as seen in his notebooks -- and may have been the first to place both originality and profundity on a plain to be strived for. The problem was, with those as examples, writing music became hard for many succeeding composers. Schubert's natural ability as a songwriter had him producing 100s of magnificent lieder -- but even he slowed down when he tried to emulate (in his own way) Beethovenian instrumental works. The trick is, what is a given composer striving for and what is his (her) natural facility? Milhaud, for instance, is clearly a facile writer of music. So was R. Strauss. Both made their living at it, but both clearly recognized that they weren't Beethovens. (I think Strauss even said as much). I think the appropriate considerations in most cases were not quality/quantity/cost -- but mostly just making a living.


----------



## JohnnyRotten (Aug 10, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Telemann was a giant during his day, and the fact that his music is still performed, recorded and studied today shows his music is of quality. There are numerous composers today less popular than Telemann.


Asolutely, ArtMusic! Rather underrated he is, an absolute treasure trove he is!


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2015)

Morimur said:


> Out of all the "greats" Bach comes first in quality and quantity. I don't think any of the modern composers are even remotely close and that's kind of sad because I'd love to hear more from György Kurtág, but he's 89 and his output thus far is very small.


Maybe he spends ages wrestling with every nuance of every note


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

MarkW said:


> Well, it was not necessarily a conscious effort. Most Baroque composers were only required to produce something listenable --Vivaldi, Telemann, etc. were quite facile but not consciously trying to produce masterpieces. That Bach could be both prolific and a profound composer was due simply to genius. Similarly, music on demand drove Haydn and Mozart -- who also just happened to be really good. Beethoven agonized over a lot of his better compositions -- as seen in his notebooks -- and may have been the first to place both originality and profundity on a plain to be strived for. The problem was, with those as examples, writing music became hard for many succeeding composers. Schubert's natural ability as a songwriter had him producing 100s of magnificent lieder -- but even he slowed down when he tried to emulate (in his own way) Beethovenian instrumental works. The trick is, what is a given composer striving for and what is his (her) natural facility? Milhaud, for instance, is clearly a facile writer of music. So was R. Strauss. Both made their living at it, but both clearly recognized that they weren't Beethovens. (I think Strauss even said as much). I think the appropriate considerations in most cases were not quality/quantity/cost -- but mostly just making a living.


Truly, an excellent post. It has been tough on composers, in general, to try to 'live up to' Beethovenian standards.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Becca said:


> I think that the engineering maxim is not relevant to what amounts to human creativity. The fact that so many contradictory cases exist would be sufficient to render it invalid.


What are some of those contradictory cases? I am honestly not sure which ones you are referring to. All I can think of is Schubert's ability to compose artsong with apparent ease. I wonder how much time and effort was spent on his large scale orchestral works?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

20centrfuge said:


> What are some of those contradictory cases? I am honestly not sure which ones you are referring to. All I can think of is Schubert's ability to compose artsong with apparent ease. I wonder how much time and effort was spent on his large scale orchestral works?


I am referring to the various examples listed in the (so far) 28 posts of this thread. Admittedly they are subjective but then most of what is in TC is personal opinion. If you want a specific example, try Haydn and his 104 symphonies, or Mozart and his 41. How about Rossini & Donizetti for opera. Verdi also although I personally have doubts about his earlier works.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Becca said:


> I am referring to the various examples listed in the (so far) 28 posts of this thread. Admittedly they are subjective but then most of what is in TC is personal opinion. If you want a specific example, try Haydn and his 104 symphonies, or Mozart and his 41. How about Rossini & Donizetti for opera. Verdi also although I personally have doubts about his earlier works.


Respectfully, I don't see how just because Mozart wrote 41 wonderful symphonies or Haydn 104 symphonies -- they were not subject to the issues of work, time, quality, etc. These are people after all. Even though they have creative genius they still have to produce something and that requires work. Time is a crucial element.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The variables seem philosophically sound to me, but one complication I'd add is that some people might've simply had more talent for one kind of thing than another kind of thing - with an analogy to literature, perhaps there are people who can compose an epic poem more easily than they can invent a thousand clever couplets, and others who can turn out brilliant couplets by the score but struggle with a sonnet.


----------

