# Sane musicians



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I am not trying to make a point. I just want to know of a sane musician. "Well adjusted" or something like that, in accordance to the broadest(but not un moderately broad) societal and human standards we have as you understand them.

A sane musician who is still well in touch with what it means to know real musical feeling.

Is a good role model for general living purposes and good music too much to ask for from any one person? Probably not, but in classical music?

I heard Clementi was a decent dude though something is pretty wild about how he could write that much music and start a piano manufacturing business and teach that many students...ect. 

I tend to fantasize that baroque and other early musicians and composers had better working conditions in sense of just trying to be an "employed musician," but also combined that baroque aesthetic which some of us find so pleasing(whether inherently or due to some sick nostalgia I can't tell).


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Frank Zappa? Righteous down-to-earth person.

Maybe not always the nicest, but certainly very sane.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

lol.. I think History exaggerates the foibles of individuals in an effort to explain said individual's motivations.

I think in reality.. a lot of these artists were pretty normal. 
Any insanity present was probably in the same mold as what we can observe in our current celebrity stock. They become so 'famous' for want of a better word, that they think they are above normal rules of society.
Or they get so used to being called Maestro, that they become bedevilled Divas.

Obviously there are some genuinely maladjusted artists down the ages. But it wasn't and isn't a pre-requisite.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Frank Zappa? Righteous down-to-earth person.
> 
> Maybe not always the nicest, but certainly very sane.


Hmmm, what do I want, sane or nice? Nice might be a better thing ultimately(as long as its not some learned behavior that isn't infused with actual intent to be nice)...I can't tell though.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

MagneticGhost said:


> lol.. I think History exaggerates the foibles of individuals in an effort to explain said individual's motivations.
> 
> I think in reality.. a lot of these artists were pretty normal.
> Any insanity present was probably in the same mold as what we can observe in our current celebrity stock. They become so 'famous' for want of a better word, that they think they are above normal rules of society.
> ...


Its just that they say power corrupts right? I don't know. How is it a normal experience for a sizable number of people to think you are great and others hating you, but many are expressing an opinion?

It is a nice thought though to think that there are composers out there just writing music because they like to write music and they aren't being grilled with wild angst(unless the angst is due to some outrage at something legitimately off, or can be turned into a slightly tongue and cheek thing) as they do it. And the music turns out nice and entertaining, even enriching.

Or maybe they write music because they are bored and its what they know how to do and it makes them feel cool and they like looking at patterns of logic in sound...

I like your signature quote btw.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Maybe we could help define this by looking at the opposite type of musican, who were cleary insane. Plenty of them to choose from.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well I don't know if there's more insane composers or musicians as compared to the other professions (or the rest of the population generally) but here are some facts that I think are related to this.

1. Music is one of the most anti social professions - hours of study, practice, rehearsal focussed on one small subset of skills which have little to do with the wider society.

2. Having to deal with colleagues who have egos the size of skyscrapers, are bullies, passive aggressive people, control freaks, hardened cynics etc. certainly doesn't help a musician in terms of mental well being.

3. The ivory tower syndrome (also the cliques). Being separated from the wider society, again focussing on a very narrow thing most people care little about.

4. Competition for scarce resources/funding. Having to be the "best of the best" everytime, every performance, every recording. Otherwise you got critics and fans pulling you down at the drop of the hat.

5. Restrictions imposed on musos. Again, can be funding, but also politics (not only today but in the past). Declining and ageing audience of classical today. You're fighting for a piece of a pie that's getting smaller.

Anyway I can give more but that's enough. Maybe enough to drive a man insane. Probably a bit of it not strictly within the scope of this thread.

Bottom line is that I don't envy musicians, its a very hard job. At the end of the day though, the music is wonderful, but many of these other things (significant issues which affect personal and mental wellbeing of musicians and those in the industry) are big challenges indeed.

Thats why I try to go easy on musicians. I'm not in their shoes (nor do I want to be).


----------



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

Haydn was the first name that came to my mind. He worked diligently and seemed to have lived well within his means even when he made more money later in life after his 'liberation' from the house of Esterhazy. On top of that, he seemed to be consistent and moderate both in temperament and in habit, didn't suffer from the usual ailments like consumption or syphilis, courted little or no controversy with either his music or his lifestyle (apart from the odd bit of adultery that was probably carried out discretely for the standards of the era - sadly his marriage was never really a love-match) and topped it all by living well beyond the average lifespan of the day. 

The only negative aspect I can think of that can be attributed to him is that he could be difficult over money matters during his freelance years - maybe this was a self-protective reaction from the days of working for a modest salary for so long but it certainly doesn't imply that he was miserly or ungenerous.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I think you need to say what level you're working at. Do you mean musicians who are performing for their livelihood - in the past, or in the present? Or composers, in the past or in the present? If you just mean 'people who earn their living through music', then music teachers, for example, seem to be be very well-adjusted people. And if we're looking at the past, we may not have enough information to say whether William Byrd, for example, was 'loopy'. He must have had his wits about him, a Catholic composer for Elizabeth I.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Music doesn't have anybody in the Richard Dadd league - totally batty but a brilliant artist. There has been the odd murderer or two.

Maybe this means that music helps to ground you or that if you are not sane you can't write (or perform) "properly"?


----------



## dstring (May 14, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> Hmmm, what do I want, sane or nice? Nice might be a better thing ultimately(as long as its not some learned behavior that isn't infused with actual intent to be nice)...I can't tell though.


If someone is nice without actual intent to be nice, he or she isn't nice but fraudulent.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Its just that they say power corrupts right? I don't know. How is it a normal experience for a sizable number of people to think you are great and others hating you, but many are expressing an opinion?
> 
> It is a nice thought though to think that there are composers out there just writing music because they like to write music and they aren't being grilled with wild angst(unless the angst is due to some outrage at something legitimately off, or can be turned into a slightly tongue and cheek thing) as they do it. And the music turns out nice and entertaining, even enriching.
> 
> ...


Well there you are,Ralph Vaughan Williams was pretty sane as far as I know.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Maybe we could help define this by looking at the opposite type of musican, who were cleary insane. Plenty of them to choose from.


But I think that's the whole point of Clavi's thread, they have been talked about ad nauseum.


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Music doesn't have anybody in the Richard Dadd league - totally batty but a brilliant artist. There has been the odd murderer or two.
> 
> Maybe this means that music helps to ground you or that if you are not sane you can't write (or perform) "properly"?











oh, he was batty too

Dadd batty


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

You'd have to define sane. I think that most of us who settle for a _nine-to-five_ existence are actually insane and not looking at life as being anything more than a series of labouring functions. In that sense, because they're different, insightful, inspired and striving to fulfil themselves, I think most great composers are so sane it's mad!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Kieran said:


> You'd have to define sane. I think that most of us who settle for a _nine-to-five_ existence are actually insane and not looking at life as being anything more than a series of labouring functions. In that sense, because they're different, insightful, inspired and striving to fulfil themselves, I think most great composers are so sane it's mad!


Most of the folks I know 'settled for a _nine-to-five_' job, not a nine-to-five _existence_.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Richard Strauss: quite a well adjusted chap, fond of his home life. He even wrote a (crappy) symphony about it.
Olivier Messiaen: a charming, stable, lovable chap by all accounts, despite having lived through several experiences that could drive anybody 'round the twist.
Anton Bruckner: a quiet, modest man. Always quick to acknowledge his predecessors, and held no venom for his critics.
Maurice Ravel: he kept to himself, but he was very eloquent, took good care of himself, and was beloved by his students.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I think a good standard for someone who is sane is someone who is able to cope with immense stress. Those who are suffering from stress-induced anxiety, depression, and other physical ailments are definitely suffering from degrees of insanity. Musicians have to cope with _immense _amounts of stress, more than many other professions. You think public speaking is tough? Presentations? Try playing an instrument in front people a great deal more important than just a boss, namely the best teachers and musicians in the _country_, and vying for either a competition title or admittance to a school. Not to mention 100 people just like you have the same idea. And once you get through that hoop, you have the stress of being in high pressure situations such as principal positions, scrutiny by a tough professor and/or conductor, and highly difficult music. Hours of practice, until a major concert. And then... hundreds, even thousands of people watching you, not all of them that easy-going.

Believe me, whenever I've done a college speech or presentation in front of people on topics nothing to do with the flute, it's _nothing_.

This reality scares many people away from the music world. You gotta be crazy to want it, right???  Actually, the people that really get up there are the _most _sane, because they went through the fire, and survived without quitting, having a nervous breakdown or other issues. They submitted to the reality that they aren't control of their lives, that there are greater forces at work, and all they've got to do is go with the flow. Some musicians are conniving and strategic, making elaborate plans how to get where they want, but that's what destroys the nerves, especially when it still doesn't work out. I've noticed that when I've met some really big shot flutists, namely teachers of conservatories, they have this aura of humility and brokenness around them, it's almost like they're saying, "I can't believe I got here, after so much, because in the end I wasn't controlling a thing. I can never be more grateful for my good fortune."

I'm currently in this process of breaking my spirit. It's not the same as becoming disenchanted with music, that's a separate process that I hope doesn't consume me. The breaking of the spirit is the breaking of pride. You dive into it all so confidently, but when you really go through the fire, there's less pleasure in the simple accomplishment than the extreme gratitude for what good happens to you. You have to know a lot of failure as a musician before you know success. And if you can make it through failure with humility and submission and _without _despairing and going into raving hysterics, you are a sane musician.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Most musicians I have met are pretty decent*

As an amateur musician, I have had the opportunity to play with many other amateur and professional musicians. The vast majority are pretty decent.

Some of conductors I have played for are Frederick Fennell, Donald Hunsburger and Harry Begian. I played for Arthur Fiedler once and he was a complete jerk.

Some well known band composers I have played for are Francis MacBeth, James Barnes, Mark Camphouse and David R. Holsinger. They were all real decent people. The one composer that I played for that was a real egotistical moron was Stephen Melillo. Note: His music was still OK.


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> As an amateur musician, I have had the opportunity to play with many other amateur and professional musicians. The vast majority are pretty decent.
> 
> Some of conductors I have played for are Frederick Fennell, Donald Hunsburger and Harry Begian. I played for Arthur Fiedler once and he was a complete jerk.
> 
> Some well known band composers I have played for are Francis MacBeth, James Barnes, Mark Camphouse and David R. Holsinger. They were all real decent people. The one composer that I played for that was a real egotistical moron was Stephen Melillo. Note: His music was still OK.


Arthur Fiedler!









Melillo

the beans. Spill them


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

Mendelssohn was pretty sane. He was a bit restless sometimes and had mood swings, but still, he was aware of these traits and was quite sane.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ingenue said:


> I think you need to say what level you're working at. Do you mean musicians who are performing for their livelihood - in the past, or in the present? Or composers, in the past or in the present? If you just mean 'people who earn their living through music', then music teachers, for example, seem to be be very well-adjusted people. ....


In my earlier post, I was referring to the big league, those that make their money from music (and those that have the biggest slice of the pie, those with a 'permanent' chair in symphony orchestras, those who can make a living out of it). I'm not talking of those doing it mainly as a hobby or in community orchestras that do have trained musicians, but get much less funding that the flagship groups (and ironically, their programs often tend to be more interesting and varied than those of the flagships).

There's also those who work in the classical music industry but don't get much of the limelight (but equal the stress), such as casuals, stand ins (understudies), people like that.

Even those in 'permanent' chairs have to do a audition once a year to make sure their skills are up to scratch. Watched by experts in the field like professors. This is stressful.

Teaching music can be mixed with playing it. There are those who work casually in orchestras or ensembles who teach as their main income. Again, if you can get on the staff of a university that's pretty good, but some people do it privately (eg. from home). Others are in the school system, eg. high school.

I suppose I was narrowing it down to the big guns in my earlier post. Read any biography of a composer or musician and they will reflect on what we today call bullying. Back in the old days it was just called difficult behaviour, or people who are difficult to work with. They abound in music, but now bullying is outlawed, so you get more covert rather than over types of bullying. Even Yehudi Menuhin, who went by the credo of 'if you don't have anything nice to say about a person, then don't say anything,' in his autobiography he has some mild criticisms of Jascha Heifetz. Not on musical grounds, but basically cos the man was a bully.

Heifetz was not a team player - often when he worked with a conductor, he'd have the nerve to ignore the conductor and direct the orchestra from his bow, expect them to follow, and run the rehearsal. Some conductors put up with it, others would have none of it. When Heifetz commissioned Walton's violin concerto, he actually sent back the score from the USA to the UK with his "corrections." Not of technique but of musical substance. Ironic how the corrected score sunk to the bottom of the ocean, the boat didn't make it to the UK! Walton even said that he'd rather work with a less high profile violinist and get paid less for such a commission, as long as the violinist left him alone to just compose what he wanted.

You get this many times in music, people not being team players. Maybe fine for a pianist who works on his own, but for those who work with other musicians, its a no-no. But the classical music being turned into a kind of cult or religion unfortunately can aid this type of attitude amongst high profile musicians. They basically think they can do whatever they want, they are basically God.

Its gotten to the stage where i think its better not to know these things. Just listen to the music. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

(But thankfully, there are those in the field that continue to inspire me, who thought of more than just numero uno - this thread I made touches on that!: http://www.talkclassical.com/22547-humanitarians-classical-music.html).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

ahammel said:


> Richard Strauss: quite a well adjusted chap, fond of his home life. He even wrote a (crappy) symphony about it.....


Well in terms of personality, yeah what I know about him, he was just like anybody. I wouldn't call him ''insane" by any means. Nor a control freak or a bully, etc. But his role during the Nazi era was controversial. Don't want to make this thread into an attack on him, cos usually that becomes interpreted as an attack on his fans here. In any case, my favourite work by him is Metamorphosen, written after the war when he was an exile in Switzerland. He wrote 'In Memoriam' on the score. Its a mystery who or what its in memory of, but undoubtedly there is remorse, regret, sadness (all that stuff) for what happened. For one, he let the mask slip, and chanelled some type of personal emotion in his music. Though I have been critical of his relationship with the Nazi regime, I have to understand that maybe had he not gone through that emotional trauma, he would not have produced this masterpiece.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Sid James said:


> ... When Heifetz commissioned Walton's violin concerto, he actually sent back the score from the USA to the UK with his "corrections." Not of technique but of musical substance.* Ironic how the corrected score sunk to the bottom of the ocean, the boat didn't make it to the UK!* Walton even said that he'd rather work with a less high profile violinist and get paid less for such a commission, as long as the violinist left him alone to just compose what he wanted.
> 
> ....


A correction on my part here of the bolded bit above. It was Heifetz's recording of the work after its USA premiere, as well as the score with annotations (technical directions for the violinist who was to premiere it in the UK), that was sunk by the GErman Uboat during the war.

However all else is correct. Walton didn't enjoy working with Heifetz. But to give credit to Jascha, he played the piece for long after the 2 years he had the sole performing rights to it. Walton needed the 'star pull' of Heifetz.

But the point is that its not a question of such people's talent or ability - they have it in droves! - its how they do things thats questionable and leads to angst for their fellow musicians.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Re Huilu's post...you are almost inspiring me to stick with music. Thank you.

I definitely have nervous issues, though I don't think I've made any secret about that. Its possible that I just overdid it this year(or didn't try hard enough in the right ways).


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> In my earlier post, I was referring to the big league, those that make their money from music (and those that have the biggest slice of the pie, those with a 'permanent' chair in symphony orchestras, those who can make a living out of it). I'm not talking of those doing it mainly as a hobby or in community orchestras that do have trained musicians, but get much less funding that the flagship groups (and ironically, their programs often tend to be more interesting and varied than those of the flagships).
> 
> There's also those who work in the classical music industry but don't get much of the limelight (but equal the stress), such as casuals, stand ins (understudies), people like that.
> 
> ...


There are and were, and always will be ambitious and people who are difficult to work with. That's a fact of life. But to disdain the artists/composers on just this account, while not even acknowledging their statue as an artist is also bullying, in my opinion. Hiefitz in this example, Richard Wagner in others; fact is, their art lives on. Opinions come and go.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Between the massive over-emphasis, starting in early school, of that handful of very great, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, yada yada, the major sentimental press about Beethoven's sob hardship, Berlioz taking laudanum, etc. _and_ the whole very American perspective that wild public success is the only success, there is a lot to battle -- or simply let go of -- in realizing yourself as "a musician."

When I, well out of school, working, would find myself in standard sports-jacket etc. attire at some adult gathering, surrounded by other professionals in various fields, the first very American question is "What do you do?" This means your profession, _with the very real subtext of then rapid estimates of how much you make per year _

I was in a region with one of the highest per-capita in the population of PhD's and Millionaires, yet, when asked what was my profession, the common response was "No, I asked about your profession, not your hobby." the next most common, "Can you really make a living at that?"

So.... gird your loins and wear that virtual belt ALL THE TIME.

What gets you, anyone over that hump? To be successful really means just that: competent, reliable, etc. There is often attached to out trade many things which should not be attached, and are certainly never 'part of who you are.'
Here are the three most readily recognized by the layman formats of success for musicians.
1.) famous
2.) tenured at a university / in an orchestra
3.) having played or been performed in New York 

Those music history eras pre the post-romanticization of Beethoven, the lone struggling artst as near alienated individual (what a serious load of dripping steaming pony dung -- _people love it_) had a workaday aesthetic and ethic.

I urge you to not ponder the question and instead urge you to think of yourself as a craftsman, with all the mettle and integrity that word carries, and forget and never use the word "Artist" in referring to composer or performer. (Artists make visual things, use physical materials, pigments, easels are often involved, etc.)

"Musician" is quite good enough.

Whatever their quirks, I would have to say that any of the composers who wrote any amount of music worth calling a "body of music." were well functional enough that we have to pretty much dismiss the quirks. God knows there are as many with the same quirks who have made much less of interest by comparison.

Craftsman, Musician; serve the craft the best you can, ditch the rest "all about you, my identity." and all that.

Your identity happens eventually, just like your composer's "individual voice" happens gradually. I.e. they arrive while you are busy at work, make themselves known after the fact, and by the time you do realize they are present, they barely matter.

With the kindest intention, I suggest every time such a question / dilemma comes up within, that you adopt this handy mantra, to be recited until those bitch goddess elements and questions die a natural death: "Get over yourself and just get to work."

Worked for me; others whom I've asked about these dilemmas have come to similar conclusions. So, when the thought comes, it is a good idea to tell it, "Eff off, I'm busy here."


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

There are no 'sane' musicians just like, in general, there aren't any 'sane' people. We're all crazy in one way or another.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dstring said:


> If someone is nice without actual intent to be nice, he or she isn't nice but fraudulent.


I can't think of another way to frame what you've said to sound as extremely false -- a kind of excellence in the "that is just so wrong" category by accident, then.

Actual intent to be nice means the intender is looking for some sense of reward or well-being for being nice to the attendes.

The guileless are the ones who should get the awards for niceness, but being guileless, they get no notice.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well I don't know if there's more insane composers or musicians as compared to the other professions (or the rest of the population generally) but here are some facts that I think are related to this.
> 
> 1. Music is one of the most anti social professions - hours of study, practice, rehearsal focussed on one small subset of skills which have little to do with the wider society.
> 
> ...


My goodness! What an over-emphasis and proportionately distorted picture you point out.

If the vast majority in the profession were as the few you describe above, if the negatives were as constant and many as you describe above, almost nothing would ever get composed or performed by those mostly cooperative, non ego-laden musicians who are the vast majority of those on the scene.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> My goodness! What an over-emphasis and proportionately distorted picture you point out.
> 
> If the vast majority in the profession were as the few you describe above, if the negatives were as constant and many as you describe above, almost nothing would ever get composed or performed by those mostly cooperative, non ego-laden musicians who are the vast majority of those on the scene.


Well take out point 2 in that post (which is about big egos, bullying as an occupation hazard). What do you think about my other points? I think point one is hard to refute (the anti social aspect).

But in my second post I emphasised that the bullying thing more aptly applies to the high profile area, the high flyers. I mean I don't need to say who where the bullies in 20th century music. I can give you a long list. Better for me not to do that though. Most people on this forum know the likes of Heifetz, in a way singling him out was unfair. There's many like him among the big guns, and less like Yehudi Menuhin. But music is not alone among the arts to be a place of careerism, intrigue, backstabbing and bastardry. Maybe without those things, bad as they are, it would be a bit dull for all of us? But I read some anecdotes of how these people worked, and it looks like a minefield. An unenviable task. We're getting into Machiavellian territory sometimes, almost as bad as politicians. But anyway...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Neo Romanza said:


> There are no 'sane' musicians just like, in general, there aren't any 'sane' people. We're all crazy in one way or another.


Yeah, am I going mad, or conducting Mahler's 5th? Not much difference is there? :lol:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Well I don't know if there's more insane physicists or researchers as compared to the other professions (or the rest of the population generally) but here are some facts that I think are related to this.
> 
> 1. Physics is one of the most anti social professions - hours of study, practice, problem solving focussed on one small subset of skills which have little to do with the wider society.
> 
> ...


Fixed something. :lol:


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

dstring said:


> If someone is nice without actual intent to be nice, he or she isn't nice but fraudulent.


Not sure I agree; human motivation's a complex thing.
If they said cynically to themselves 'being nice is good for business' and put it on, at first they'd just be a big hypocrite, but after a while I think the nice act would rub off on them and they'd become ... nice.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> ...But music is not alone among the arts to be a place of careerism, intrigue, backstabbing and bastardry.
> ... But anyway...


Music a place for careerism, intrigue, backstabbing and bastardry? Give us a break! These you mentioned are *human* attributes. Yes, but anyway ...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well take out point 2 in that post (which is about big egos, bullying as an occupation hazard). What do you think about my other points? I think point one is hard to refute (the anti social aspect).
> 
> But in my second post I emphasised that the bullying thing more aptly applies to the high profile area, the high flyers. I mean I don't need to say who where the bullies in 20th century music. I can give you a long list. Better for me not to do that though. Most people on this forum know the likes of Heifetz, in a way singling him out was unfair. There's many like him among the big guns, and less like Yehudi Menuhin. But music is not alone among the arts to be a place of careerism, intrigue, backstabbing and bastardry. Maybe without those things, bad as they are, it would be a bit dull for all of us? But I read some anecdotes of how these people worked, and it looks like a minefield. An unenviable task. We're getting into Machiavellian territory sometimes, almost as bad as politicians. But anyway...


Aren't those who hold jobs in some sort of corporate structure at least as subject to performance reviews upon which their posts hang?

All those bullies -- just as the newspapers report more dramatic and bad news, all the good non-dramatic workaday people in any field get little or no press.

Those very high-profile performers who are nasty? They have to be la creme de la creme before they can get away with it... otherwise there are too many waiting in the wings who can readily take that place. It is wrong they are put up with, but they have that leverage. Again, they are a tiny minority.

Music is not the only craft where people work by themselves, or in smaller groups. Nor is it the only trade where a person can pretty much do their work and be (somewhat) left alone to do it. Are all construction workers, gardeners, house painters, temp office workers, etc. "antisocial?"

[The world has gone from a culture of farms, then small shops, to larger businesses to corporations... _I think the contemporary notion of anti-social has been radically "adjusted," and none too healthily, to accommodate a modern construct_, in hopes people will adjust to / accept the idea of corporate workplace as village community, the employer the lord, the workers the serfs, trapped within the construct. (In America, that is where you go for a job if you want health insurance -- if not, you pay that much more as an individual than is paid by employee and company.) Work for yourself, freelance, or set up a small business, you disproportionately pay through the nose for health insurance, and reminding our non-American members, there is no other real available Public Health in the states.]

A lot of glamorization going on about the high-profile bad boys 'n' girls, not just in your post, but because of the dramatization about the bad boys and girls, we get often enough all the generalizations as found in your post: that they are well-founded in truth is not in dispute.

(The late Janos Starker was so ungenerous a performer with fellow musicians that he was isolated early on, became a teacher for the most part -- big personality problem. Every other Slavic Male of a certain generation was notoriously maximally chauvinistic, autocratic, pig-headed stubborn, ill tempered and blusterous... this should not be news when a few of them end up being conductors and are reported as being serious ******** 

Work, any work, and standing out _is tough_. I often wonder what effect the Politically correct movement, along with the notion of telling every child well through high-school that their work is "just wonderful," has on the general society and people's expectations of what real life, some sort of "competition" are like.

Said before: if the least majority of those musicians at the top were all the negatives you described, there would barely be an orchestra, recording industry, or all the rest.

I hear far more regular reports of the bully boss, the jerk boss, the nasty supervisor, the backstabbing well-poisoning colleagues in everyday workplaces not involving music. One has to work literally _in concert_ with others to make music a going concern -- and that is what the vast majority of musicians do... work in concert.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

[I pre-prepared this post as a reflection on what's been said here yesterday, but yes agree re cultures of Central-East Europe - many prominent musicians coming from there like Starker can be described as bullies, esp. of that generation that did go through a lot of what we can call 'bad history.' Anyway, I think some of this post addresses what you say PetrB and also clavi's general 'issues.' I am sorry I don't have much time to spend here now, but get out of this what you can/will]...

As regards to what PetrB said earlier about the need for a composer to ultimately just compose, and what clavi says about focusing on the music too, I thought I'd put this quote by Richard Meale for people to think about.

Meale was one of Australia's leading composers from about the 1960's until his death a few years ago. I see him as like an Australian Stravinsky, since Meale made many stylistic changes throughout his career. First in a post-Serialist style, moving to freer atonality, to minimalism, to neo-Romanticism and neo-Classicism.

Every time he changed style, of course there where howls of "betrayal" from various cliques in the music world - namely critics and academics. This was difficult for Meale as he taught in universities himself, but he tried to avoid the ideological battles there.

In the end, he moved away from the city into the bush, lived out his semi-retirement in a property he bought away from the big lights and crowds. There, he was able to focus on music, on himself, so looking inward and bringing art out in that way. A number of composers took time out from music, or from the world, to discover themselves. Meale is one, another is Arvo Part, also Australia Ross Edwards, and Howard Blake, who I talked about this week here. The common theme here is getting away from the dogma and infighting which has plagued music, esp. in the 20th century.

In this quote from an interview he did with Andrew Ford in 1990, he doesn't hold back on what he sees as destroying music - the infighting and ideology. He doesn't come across as missing the city, or working in academia, one bit. In fact, he looks back in anger, lets it all out. Overall though Meale was a shy and private man. Notice how he avoids naming names (a wise thing to do!).

What it brings to my mind is that if those in the industry are candid as this, many don't hold back on the minuses (what makes them insane!) about the classical music industry.

Another thing is the 'siege mentality' of much Modernist ideology and rhetoric. Sure, they where battling with Nazism and Stalinism back then, but are they now? Is there a need to be as aggressive and vitriolic as they so often are? Is this a real war or a phony war? Does it even matter now? Is it doing more harm than good to fellow composers and musicians?

Anyway, here is the Meale quote, in green. Apologies if I've posted it before on the forum! But when I read this interview, Meale took the words right out of my mouth. I think it's the best interview in the book, and there's around two dozen in it with major international and Australian composers.

If its not of any use to you, clavichorder, I hope it is to others, especially those who are routinely attacked here for composing music that doesn't match certain ideological positions on music. Or just for saying their opinions on certain types of music.

FORD: …The change that has come about in his musical style is certainly something he has in common with many other composers. What about the associated polemic about complexity in music: 'new complexity' versus 'new simplicity.? How does Meale stand on this debate?

MEALE: Who cares? Who gives a bum? Music goes about its business despite all this and that's why I say it's only in the doing of it that music is of any significance.

I'm living my life. I have no religious or spiritual belief in music, no sense that "this is right" or "we are developing" - pack of b----s---! You do certain things at certain times and that's all there is to it. The music of Beethoven is as valid as the music of Xenakis - to put it perhaps the wrong way around.

I do believe today that composers have stupid, ill-informed concepts of "world." Very few of them have much perception of what actually exists; in terms of how we view ourselves in the world, a lot of them are up themselves. That's why things have been very spiteful for a few decades. Instead of writing, performing and living, there's been a considerable amount of soul-searching, resulting in pseudo-philosophy.

Because it seems that most composers are not very well up on other matters, what they're doing is arithmetic of a very low order and believing that, if they make an analogue with some arithmetic structure, that structure will enhance their work. And then it becomes almost voodoo once you get into that area, and I think composers today are tending to speak in a very primitive fashion about their totems. One of the reasons I've ended up in a forest is because I don't feel in key with a lot of my colleagues today.

There is no progress in music, there's only change. Change and difference are perfectly adequate words to describe what happens. The practice of art is its existence.

FORD: In spite of a certain disillusion with the conduct of contemporary music, Meale's 'retreat to the forest' (as he refers to it) has principally been to allow him more time to work.

MEALE: It's my life and it will be my death. Music is my existence. I've certainly been resentful sometimes because I feel it may have cut me out from a lot of normal living. However, that's the way it is. It seemed to me that by going to Mullumbimby at least I'd have the latter part of my life to explore the urges, the things that are in myself.

I don't believe in causes so much any more. I don't trust beliefs because it seems they lead to very destructive ends - look at Eastern Europe. Freedom is what I'm advocating and what I've sought for myself, freedom to be. And I think art should be a celebration of freedom…

Source: Ford, A. (1993). Composer to composer: Conversations about contemporary music. Australia: Allen & Unwin publishers.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I thought I'd put this quote by Richard Meale for people to think about.
> 
> Meale was one of Australia's leading composers from about the 1960's until his death a few years ago. I see him as like an Australian Stravinsky, since Meale made many stylistic changes throughout his career. First in a post-Serialist style, moving to freer atonality, to minimalism, to neo-Romanticism and neo-Classicism.
> 
> ...


I may not care for a note of anything this man has written (now I have yet another unknown to me composer to check out  but he has said about everything worth saying, and well enough.

Post WWII is not just a hangover from all sorts of ideologies: what is often not taken into account, and a FORCE MAJEUR is the powerful influence, in all public areas, of advertising, rank flat-out commercialism, verbal and pictorial spin / hype to get yourself or the product noticed.

*"Pseudo-philosophy"* is deathly accurate.

*"There is no progress in music, there's only change. Change and difference are perfectly adequate words to describe what happens. The practice of art is its existence."* Yep. all else, including of thinking "who you are writing for" is false, a lie, detrimental to making anything of any worth insofar as "art" is concerned.

Thanks for the quote, Sid. I hadn't seen it before. Pretty terrific. (of course because I agree with almost all of it


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Richard Meale - more a minor composer whose works will likely be forgotton, not that he made much stance on the international classical music scene so far anyway.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> *"There is no progress in music, there's only change. Change and difference are perfectly adequate words to describe what happens. The practice of art is its existence."* Yep. all else, including of thinking "who you are writing for" is false, a lie, detrimental to making anything of any worth insofar as "art" is concerned.


Worth repeating yet again (and so I repeat it).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Rapide said:


> Richard Meale - more a minor composer whose works will likely be forgotton, not that he made much stance on the international classical music scene so far anyway.


of the three (3!) pieces up on Youtube, nothing impressed, nor seemed 'memorable.'

Umberto Eco said that Copland writing on music was much better than Copland's music


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> of the three (3!) pieces up on Youtube, nothing impressed, nor seemed 'memorable.'
> 
> Umberto Eco said that Copland writing on music was much better than Copland's music


Well they're not the ones I mentioned on my post above. However I deleted that post entirely as its probably off topic. If you want to talk about Meale, give me a PM.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

PetrB said:


> of the three (3!) pieces up on Youtube, nothing impressed, nor seemed 'memorable.'
> 
> Umberto Eco said that Copland writing on music was much better than Copland's music


You would also struggle to find more than three CDs / recording of Meale's music recorded.


----------

