# pursuing composers



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Perhaps we talk more about composers than compositions: who are your favorite composers, composers that intimidate you, greatest composers, composer guestbook, living composers, what would dead composers ask if we brought them back to life.... 

I suspect this is in large part a legacy of the romantic infatuation with the idea of genius, and not very helpful to us, since it could lead us to spend a lot of time listening to a "great composer's" mediocre works rather than listening to a mediocre composer's great works. I see, for example, in the new opera project a lot of fairly obscure operas by Verdi and Rossini beating out great works by more obscure composers like Krenek, Birtwistle, Literes, Schulhoff, Ullman, Henze, Dallapicolla, Enescu.... Perhaps that's as it should be... 

But perhaps not. Tentatively, I'd like to advocate focusing on compositions rather than composers. 

Do you think it would work? Or, is our focus on composers rather than specific compositions somehow essential to "classical music?"


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2015)

I agree 100% with 15 characters.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I think I focus on specific composers because of their specific compositions. It's a nice connection that keeps going back and forth.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

So, are you suggesting the future thread, Favorite Composition?

I think we have plenty of those, don't we? I think we are fairly good at highlighting lesser known composers _and_ their works.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

science said:


> I suspect this is in large part a legacy of the romantic infatuation with the idea of genius, and not very helpful to us, since it could lead us to spend a lot of time listening to a "great composer's" mediocre works rather than listening to a mediocre composer's great works. I see, for example, in the new opera project a lot of fairly obscure operas by Verdi and Rossini beating out great works by more obscure composers like Krenek, Birtwistle, Literes, Schulhoff, Ullman, Henze, Dallapicolla, Enescu.... Perhaps that's as it should be...
> 
> But perhaps not. Tentatively, I'd like to advocate focusing on compositions rather than composers.


"

What is a great opera is different from person to person. Is it that horrible that people nominate an opera like Stiffelio full with earworms from around the same time as La Traviata, Rigoletto or Il Trovatore. Or what about an opera like Atilla the subject is interesting enough that it is also a superstrutty Italian early Verdi opera makes it just fascinating. Just because someone likes a less known work by a famous composer it is not the same as they like it because it is by that composer. They might have heard it because it is by a certain composer but if they like it they like it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I do agree, but I don't agree...


By discussing composers in particular we get to delve into both their more famous works and their obscure works, we get to understand their aesthetic, their intentions and how they developed throughout the course of their career. The downside is the idea of the 'genius' which is utter rubbish and absolutely meaningless when discussing music. 

By discussing compositions there is more of a focus on individual works (obviously), recordings, performances and interpretations of those works...and maybe less focus on the music history side of things where there are a lot of interesting things to explore

I only think the concept of 'genius' is silly above everything else. Treating composers like gods instead of human beings. Human beings can use their minds in very interesting ways and we can certainly hear that in music. I think there are many interesting discussions to be had about the philosophies of certain composers, the approaches and intentions of composers rather than what people's 'favourite composers' are.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

nathanb said:


> I agree 100% with 15 characters.


I second this


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

CoAG said it! :tiphat: I like to explore a composer's œuvre to hear the famous and the obscure works. Obscure is not mediocre. Even the most accomplished wrote some lesser stuff, no doubt, but does that make it bad or unworthy of hearing? I've often made a parallel between having a favourite composer and having a favourite author. The short stories might not be the epics that the novels are, but they're great short stories.

I was going to say exactly that about the idea of genius making a composer nearly a god. I don't like it! I understand it as shorthand for saying that one likes the individual's work a lot. Instead of the work being a masterstroke the creator becomes a genius.

But, as for focussing on compositions... don't we? Generally one hears a work or a few by a composer before listening to another composer. Few of us would listen to the entire output of one composer before moving on to the next. No, we select a piece or a few.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I think the focus on composers is mainly due to the simple fact that composers are people, while their compositions are just things. Ultimately we'll tend to relate more to a fellow human than to an artefact. Perhaps when the machines take over they'll have different priorities.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

How many string quartets by Haydn or Mozart or Beethoven or Dvorak or Schoenberg or Bartok should we know before we try out a quintet by Boccherini or Spohr's octet or nonet or Arensky's piano trios? And when we try Spohr's nonet, should we really listen to many more hours of Spohr's compositions before trying out Lekeu's violin sonata? And when we try Lekeu's violin sonata, should we really listen to many hours of Lekeu's other compositions before trying out Weinberg's string trio? 

How many of Bach's organ works should we know before we try some of Franck's or Reger's or Dupré's? When we do try some of Franck's organ works, is it really helpful to listen to many hours of his other compositions before trying out something by Hindemith or Pachelbel or Vierne? 

How many piano sonatas by Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven should we know before we try Dukas's or something by Clementi? 

How many of Mozart's piano concertos should we know before we try Busoni or Pierné or a mass by Josquin? 

How well should we know Vivaldi's violin concertos before trying out something by Zelenka? Is it helpful to hear many hours of Zelenka before trying something by Biber or Schutz or Telemann?


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2015)

Does it have to be either/or?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

science said:


> How many [x]s by [Y'] should we know before we try out a[n x] by [Y"]?


It depends on who you are, your relationship to classical music (performer, academic, devotee, etc.) and what you are aiming for by listening. A year or two ago, someone asked whether we 'go deep or go wide'. For me, I want to know all of Schoenbergs SQs, for example, but all of Haydn's would be too many to achieve in a year or two. And I like Schoenberg's enough that I'd kind of like to hear them with a certain degree of regularity (once a year? twice?), and that goes for a fair bit of other classical music, too. I have no choice but to specialize to a certain degree.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brotagonist said:


> It depends on who you are, your relationship to classical music (performer, academic, devotee, etc.) and what you are aiming for by listening. A year or two ago, someone asked whether we 'go deep or go wide'. For me, I want to know all of Schoenbergs SQs, for example, but all of Haydn's would be too many to achieve in a year or two. And I like Schoenberg's enough that I'd kind of like to hear them with a certain degree of regularity (once a year? twice?), and that goes for a fair bit of other classical music, too. I have no choice but to specialize to a certain degree.


It does depend, like almost everything, on who one is.

Where I am is: I'd like to know the most famous works, regardless of the fame of their composers. I'm glad that a few people feel the same way!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think there are more interesting biographies of dead composers maybe because a lot of it is not from original sources, so a lot of speculation, hearsay and speculation have been mixed in. Beethoven is a great example. He would be a fascinating "odd ball" to have around for a guest at home for dinner.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

we talk about composers or compositions. Both of them are approaches to listening to music. How about genres? following genres and it's rather educative as well, compare different sonatas da camera or sonatas da chiesa, ( I took this example just randomly , may be because I'm listening to them right now) then probably go for ouvertures , then symphonies, because as we know both genres (sonatas da camera and da chiesa +ouverturas) were prediecessors of symphonies as we know them now. Explore by genre , how it developed through ages, it's very interesting to follow all twists of such development as an example could be operas with its numerous "reforms".

This approach gives another benefits as for knowing less known composers who contributed to a specific genre. To understand better Mozart's symphonies ( well, not just "like" as I know we all like them ) and a genre of a symphony as such we could explore composers of Mannheim's school which are known for contributing to this genre and to a development in orchestra technique and they also influenced various composers. There are many examples which could illustrate this approach has its undeniable pros


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I just created two threads, one which is 'composer-based' and one which is 'composition-based.' Let's see which one gets more comments....


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I just created two threads, one which is 'composer-based' and one which is 'composition-based.' Let's see which one gets more comments....


I have no doubt the composer one will (edit: unless they are exceptional threads). But the question is, should it be that way? Is it good for us?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

For me it depends. For symphonic works I stick to a small set of composers (Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and recently added Brahms). For piano sonatas I'll stick with Beethoven (plenty to occupy my time). For violin concertos, I will go to many composers. I pretty much avoid other instrumental works, with the exception of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition. For opera, I'll take them by my desired subjects regardless of composer. For religious works I largely stay with Handel's Messiah, but also listen to a variety of Biblical oratorios and other works, particularly Vivaldi, Beethoven, and Mendelssohn.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Florestan said:


> For me it depends. For symphonic works I stick to a small set of composers (Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and recently added Brahms). For piano sonatas I'll stick with Beethoven (plenty to occupy my time). For violin concertos, I will go to many composers. I pretty much avoid other instrumental works, with the exception of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition. For opera, I'll take them by my desired subjects regardless of composer. For religious works I largely stay with Handel's Messiah, but also listen to a variety of Biblical oratorios and other works, particularly Vivaldi, Beethoven, and Mendelssohn.


I actually find it really interesting to find out which symphonies or recordings of symphonies you are getting into and seeing how it progresses. Like the time you were purchasing heaps of Beethoven complete symphonies, Fidelio DVDs etc. It's easy to follow because of your pace and the amount of depth you go in terms of number of recordings. Do you think you might get into Schubert or Schumann symphonies?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

science said:


> I have no doubt the composer one will (edit: unless they are exceptional threads). But the question is, should it be that way? Is it good for us?


I feel that the composer thread will end up being more popular because people might rather speculating about people rather than pieces of music. People relate to people better in one sense.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Somebody needs to make the lame and obvious joke....


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I actually find it really interesting to find out which symphonies or recordings of symphonies you are getting into and seeing how it progresses. Like the time you were purchasing heaps of Beethoven complete symphonies, Fidelio DVDs etc. It's easy to follow because of your pace and the amount of depth you go in terms of number of recordings. Do you think you might get into Schubert or Schumann symphonies?


Yeah, I tend to work with clusters. Schubert and Schumann are possibilities, even Mahler. May not happen for a while (year or so), all depends on where my clustering takes me. The Brahms thing, though, was spur-of-the-moment. I had tested the waters in the past and knew it worked, so one day, wanting to buy something, I just started looking for Brahms symphony sets. I did give it one more listen before hitting the trigger though.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

science said:


> I have no doubt the composer one will (edit: unless they are exceptional threads). But the question is, should it be that way? Is it good for us?


I'm not going to take the collectivist route. I know what's good for me, and I trust that science knows what's good for science. That's about it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Since we do focus on composers rather than compositions, at what point do we get to Lekeu, Willaert, Oliveros?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

science said:


> Since we do focus on composers rather than compositions, at what point do we get to Lekeu, Willaert, Oliveros?


Let people find music in the way they want to.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sloe said:


> Let people find music in the way they want to.


I love this answer - you're totally right.

I personally am still a little put off by the focus on "great composers" rather than "great works," and I think it distorts our priorities. However, you're totally right. It's basically none of my business, and I should worry more about myself and less about other people.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

The lesser known sometimes need a great voice... for example The Cloud Messanger by Holst


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

science said:


> I love this answer - you're totally right.
> 
> I personally am still a little put off by the focus on "great composers" rather than "great works," and I think it distorts our priorities. However, you're totally right. It's basically none of my business, and I should worry more about myself and less about other people.


Thank you. It is really not that strange if someone hear something they like they want to hear more of the same every composer have their own style even the composers that are considered unoriginal. This is how I reason. If you like Haydn´s symhony number 63 it is a higher chance that you will like Haydn´s symhony number 91 than Segerstam´s symphony number 145.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

science said:


> I see, for example, in the new opera project a lot of fairly obscure operas by Verdi and Rossini beating out great works by more obscure composers like Krenek, Birtwistle, Literes, Schulhoff, Ullman, Henze, Dallapicolla, Enescu.... Perhaps that's as it should be...


The thing is, there's a lot of fairly obscure music by Verdi and Rossini that's better than anything by any of those people.

I would say efforts to revive the likes of Krenek are focusing on _composers rather than compositions_. If we could somehow forget who wrote Verdi's _Luisa Miller_, we would consider the work a miracle by an otherwise unknown genius. In the case of minor composers, on the other hand, the value of reviving their work is in hearing a voice that we haven't heard much, even if it isn't as distinguished as the voices we hear all the time.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Endnote said:


> The thing is, there's a lot of fairly obscure music by Verdi and Rossini that's better than anything by any of those people.


Dallapicolla composed several good operas. He was also an admirer of Verdi.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

I'm not saying Dallapicolla isn't good. I'm saying many of Rossini's and Verdi's obscurities are better.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sloe said:


> Thank you. It is really not that strange if someone hear something they like they want to hear more of the same every composer have their own style even the composers that are considered unoriginal. This is how I reason. If you like Haydn´s symhony number 63 it is a higher chance that you will like Haydn´s symhony number 91 than Segerstam´s symphony number 145.


But I don't care about the odds!


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2015)

To be honest, for the last several months, I've put both composers and works on the backburner. I've been pursuing labels, and finding my new composers and new works that way. KAIROS, NEOS, ECM, Col Legno, Aeon, Stradivarius, Verso, Mode... how do they do it...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Endnote said:


> The thing is, there's a lot of fairly obscure music by Verdi and Rossini that's better than anything by any of those people.
> 
> I would say efforts to revive the likes of Krenek are focusing on _composers rather than compositions_. If we could somehow forget who wrote Verdi's _Luisa Miller_, we would consider the work a miracle by an otherwise unknown genius. In the case of minor composers, on the other hand, the value of reviving their work is in hearing a voice that we haven't heard much, even if it isn't as distinguished as the voices we hear all the time.


That's a great argument....

I'm pretty sure I disagree, though. Is Beethoven's 3rd piano sonata really that much better than Dukas's or Ives's? Is Beethoven's 2nd violin sonata really that much better than Lekeu's or Enescu's 3rd? Is _Christ on the Mount of Olives_ really that much better than Cherubini's Requiem or Zelenka's Missa Votiva or Martinu's Battle Mass or Schmidt's _The Book with Seven Seals_?

I'd argue in reverse - if Cherubini's Requiem had been attributed to Beethoven, it'd be one of the most popular works in the repertoire; if Enescu's 3rd violin sonata had been attributed to Bartok, it'd be one of the most popular violin sonatas of the 20th century. And so on!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

nathanb said:


> To be honest, for the last several months, I've put both composers and works on the backburner. I've been pursuing labels, and finding my new composers and new works that way. KAIROS, NEOS, ECM, Col Legno, Aeon, Stradivarius, Verso, Mode... how do they do it...


That's a really interesting approach. At first glance, I love the idea.


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2015)

science said:


> That's a really interesting approach. At first glance, I love the idea.


Not much use with really big labels. But the labels still small enough to maintain a theme (whether it be era, nationality, or whatever)... those labels are a gift to us systematic listeners.

Example: I never knew that the Spanish avant-garde was so fruitful until I got a glimpse from KAIROS. By looking into all of the Spanish composers on KAIROS, I found that many had discs on the label Verso, which I now browse regularly every time I'm thinking Spain (in the same way one might browse Ondine with Finland on the mind, and so on).


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

nathanb said:


> Not much use with really big labels. But the labels still small enough to maintain a theme (whether it be era, nationality, or whatever)... those labels are a gift to us systematic listeners.
> 
> Example: I never knew that the Spanish avant-garde was so fruitful until I got a glimpse from KAIROS. By looking into all of the Spanish composers on KAIROS, I found that many had discs on the label Verso, which I now browse regularly every time I'm thinking Spain (in the same way one might browse Ondine with Finland on the mind, and so on).


That's nice. I occasionally check out new releases from Mode (for New York school / experimental music), Neos & Kairos (for avant-garde), and New World Records (for American new music). I'm purchasing almost anything from Cold Blue Music - a label of 'California school' or West coast minimal/post-minimal music, mostly sweet and pretty, some are experimental.


----------

