# Compositional achievement ÷ life-span



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

(Perhaps the first of a multi-part series)-

Recent posts in a couple of threads have interested me in the topic of composers' relative achievements at comparable ages. As a "jumping-off" point for this topic, I'd like to first examine output relative to life span.
Without going into a whole lot of supporting detail at this time, I'm convinced that *Mozart* and *Schubert* stand alone at the summit of this metric. I think the composer who stands the best chance of being mentioned in the same breath as those two, as measured in this manner, is Mendelssohn.

I'd like my list to go ten-deep. Of course, we'd consider many of the most prominent composers who died before the age of 40- or not much after that time- the list might include (in alphabetical order) Bellini, Bizet, Chopin, Gershwin, Mussorgsky, Pergolesi, Purcell, Weber- maybe Hugo Wolf. Still, in what order would you place them? Is there anyone who would dislodge any of the above names from the list?


----------



## PianoMan (Mar 13, 2005)

If the point is output relative to lifespan, would we not also have to consider composers who lived long lives but also produced enormous amounts of music, like J.S. Bach? He may have been 75, but he wrote well over a thousand works (around 1100ish according to wikipedia). So, according to my very rough calculations, Mozart wrote about 17.89 works per year during his life (assuming 626 works, just went by the number of K's), and Bach wrote 14.67 (assuming 1100 works) per year during his. I haven't done the math on the rest of these guys, but I'm just guessing that Bach's output is up there despite his longer lifespan.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Quality and not just quantity of output need to be brought into the assement, but how do we measure quality? A pure number count of works is obviously not sufficient, as length of work must be brought into the picture as well. Whole life span is not appropriate because some composers may have reached stopped composing long before they died (e.g. Sibelius), and some may not have started composing as a full time job until relatively late in life. It would therefore be better to take length of composing career, not life span. Ideally, you need a ranked list of classical works and a corresponding list of the age of the composer at the time the work was produced. Then using some suitable statistical procedure it might be possible to come up with some results. I would suspect that Mozart and Schubert would come on top. But I reckon that various composers who died at well over age 40 might perform a lot better than the likes of composers such as Chopin, Mendelssohn and others mentioned in the OP who were under 40. It wouldn't surprise me if Beethoven came out very high, and possibly Bach, Wagner and Brahms too, even though they were well over 40 at time of death, since they each had many high ranked works which would probably offset the age factor alone.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Well is it possible that a talented genius composer of his young age, become a talentless nuisance in his old age and run out of idea? That was an assumption, but it's possible.

As many composers have good stuff in their 20s and 30s and their works became much greater in their old age, like Dvorak and Haydn, the reverse might be possible.

Anyway it's a cheat for Schubert and Mozart ... I refuse to accept!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*For Friendly Reference-*

Life-spans of composers mentioned in this thread, so far:

Pergolesi- 26
Schubert- 31
Bellini- 33
Bizet- 36
Mozart- 36
Purcell- 36
Gershwin- 38
Mendelssohn- 38
Chopin- 39
Weber- 39
Mussorgsky- 42
Hugo Wolf- 42
Beethoven- 56
Brahms- 63
Bach- 65
Wagner- 69

Secondary impressions: 
1) Of the "over-50" crowd, I'd say Beethoven has the sturdiest claim to _entrée_ into this discussion.
2) I yield to few people in admiration for Wagner's art- but Wagner probably doesn't belong in the conversation.
3) I'd say that Schumann (46) is a more solid nominee than Brahms (63).


----------



## PianoMan (Mar 13, 2005)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Life-spans of composers mentioned in this thread, so far:
> 
> Pergolesi- 26
> Schubert- 31
> ...


Oops! I said 75, my bad! That would up his compositions per year considerably.


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

One of the problems with a simple division is that the first few years of a composer's life are very unproductive, whether the composer is Schubert (31) or Sibelius (92). Even the most precocious geniuses don't have much to contribute before age 10 or so, and when that amounts to about a third of your lifespan it shortens your working career tremendously. Schubert wrote nothing, as far as I know, before age 16, making his working career only 15 years long. Bellini's career was even shorter, running for only ten years.

If we decide to eliminate the first ten years, it increases the cases for Juan Arriaga (19), who left some very impressive music, and for my personal all-time tragic loss champion, Lili Boulanger (24).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

It's all about quantity, not quality ... value for money!

Assess using the Brilliant Classics "Complete Edition" fat box-sets to judge! :lol:

Corelli: only 10 CDs. Obviously a weakling composer writing so little!
Frescobaldi: mere 15 CDs. But 50% more than Corelli!
Chopin: 30 CDs. Getting more beefy!
R. Strauss: 35 CDs. Could do with more!
Tchaikovsky: 60 CDs. Starting to get interesting.
Beethoven: 85CDs. What a whimp! Only 85!

Then we get to the real bulk *quantity* composers.
Haydn: 150 CDs
JS Bach: 157 CDs
Mozart: 170CDs

So the winner is Mozart!


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

To clarify what I suggested previously, what's needed is a double weighting system to make any progress on this matter.

The first set of weights would involve ranking works by quality, regardless of the age of the composer. E.g. using the T-C top works list the first work would be Bach's B Minor Mass, followed by Tristan und Isolde, etc.

The second set of weights would then note the age at which the corresponding work was composed, e.g. 64, 46 etc. (Agreed things can get messy when the composition was spread out over several years, but for simplicity take the date when completed).

Then a weighting system is needed to bring the two together by giving a higher score for works composed at a lower age. Some of the older composers who wrote high quality works (Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner?) would do better than might be imagined at first sight because they have more works listed in the higher reaches of stage 1, even though some of them may be downgraded somewhat by the stage 2 weighting.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

waldvogel said:


> One of the problems with a simple division is that the first few years of a composer's life are very unproductive, whether the composer is Schubert (31) or Sibelius (92). Even the most precocious geniuses don't have much to contribute before age 10 or so, and when that amounts to about a third of your lifespan it shortens your working career tremendously. Schubert wrote nothing, as far as I know, before age 16, making his working career only 15 years long. Bellini's career was even shorter, running for only ten years.
> 
> If we decide to eliminate the first ten years, it increases the cases for Juan Arriaga (19), who left some very impressive music, and for my personal all-time tragic loss champion, Lili Boulanger (24).


Thank goodness, I have been waiting since I joined to see someone mention Arriaga.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> 3) I'd say that Schumann (46) is a more solid nominee than Brahms (63).


Don't forget that Brahms is said to have destroyed a large quantity of his music before his death. He seemed to be overly concerned with his reputation (as compared with many other composers).


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Fascinating short read.. 



> http://listverse.com/2011/02/13/10-great-composers-who-died-young/


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

peeyaj said:


> Fascinating short read..


Oh, and there you are in the comments section.



> Schubert is the greatest loss in music, not Mozart. When Mozart died, he achieved the pinnacle of his genius, while Schubert was just starting over, largely unknown and penniless. Schubert left a large body of work, that is still appreciated today.
> 
> Schubert is probably the most popular and greatest composer in the list. You should discount his chamber music. The String Quintet is probably the most beautiful piece of chamber music ever written. It's Adagio is heavenly and heartbreaking. The Death and the Maiden quartet is one of the best quartet in the repoirtere, while the Trout Quintet is arguably the most popular piano quintet in classical music. The two piano trios in E-flat and B-major are among the greatest trio ever written. Schubert's late chamber music is excellent, and ranks equal in Beethoven's chamber works.
> 
> ...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Work this one out for me:

The composer in question is 14 years old and has been composing since about October 2007. He/she/it is still composing to this day and has produced approximately 140 pieces of music. At what average rate (compositions per year) did this composer compose?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Work this one out for me:
> 
> The composer in question is 14 years old and has been composing since about October 2007. He/she/it is still composing to this day and has produced approximately 140 pieces of music. At what average rate (compositions per year) did this composer compose?


May I have your autograph?


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The composer in question is 14 years old and ........


 Another thing is that this thread is all about composers who have snuffed it, so unless you're dead already we can't assess you. I'm not suggesting you do anything daft to test the situation, just putting you in the picture. Right, carry on composing.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> May I have your autograph?


I need to get it off *Ligeti* first.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Work this one out for me:
> 
> The composer in question is 14 years old and has been composing since about October 2007. He/she/it is still composing to this day and has produced approximately 140 pieces of music. At what average rate (compositions per year) did this composer compose?


Goodness me---who could this be I wonder?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Well, there is a difference between generating sketch after sketch of assemblages of gestural style studies and writing actual pieces.... 

Not to be harsh, but if that youth is now in mid-to late teens it might be time to take more time and compose actual cohesive pieces - to date, all I've heard of what is so far here posted sound like the former, as described above. 

That will probably be the first critical comment they receive upon applying to conservatory or university, given of course, because the native ability is clearly there -- but at that juncture expected to be less self-indulgent and to focus on making an actual piece.

I somehow think the OP was about finished 'workable' pieces, not mountains of sketches.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Well, there is a difference between generating sketch after sketch of assemblages of gestural style studies and writing actual pieces....
> 
> Not to be harsh, but if that youth is now in mid-to late teens it might be time to take more time and compose actual cohesive pieces - to date, all I've heard of what is so far here posted sound like the former, as described above.
> 
> ...


No they are all complete pieces of music. Not sketches at all.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Jehan Alain, who died at about age 29 defending France from the Germans in World War II also had quite a big output for someone so young. BUt it's mainly organ music, and no-one cares about that much, so whatever.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

.. and the opposite phenomenon. Carl Ruggles, who lived 95 years, completed ten works of music (lots of paintings though).


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

_Once more unto the breach …._

The various names mentioned in the OP were all very high quality composers. We are asked to rank them, assuming that Mozart and Schubert occupy the top 2 positions, and to list any others that should be included. I don't believe that the intention of the OP was merely to list other composers who died young, regardless of reputation and amount/quality of their works.

I suggest that most of the replies, except mine, have all been barking up the wrong tree. Some are completely off the wall like the 14 year old who has apparently nominated himself, and the nomination of some weird character who died at 94 and composed virtually nothing, plus the suggestions concerning a few obscure composers who actually died young but whose quantity of output is miniscule and in some cases where quality is very dubious.

What I think underlies intention of the OP, although it wasn't specified in exactly those terms, was to establish an age-weighted ranking of composers, i.e. taking into account both the quality and quantity of their works and the age at which they were composed by giving a premium the lower the age (or discount the older they were at time of composition). The thing that I found difficult was the suggestion of an arbitrary cut-off of age 40 at time of death, as this can be avoided by applying a suitably adjusted "age discount" profile.

I'd say that Mozart and Schubert would come on top, and Chopin, Mendelssohn would come very high too, as too possibly would Schumann. But others like Bach, Beethoven and Brahms and Wagner shouldn't be discounted completely simply because they lived longer lives. They had so many high quality works scattered throughout their lives that it would take a really vicious age discount factor to eliminate them from consideration.


----------



## PianoMan (Mar 13, 2005)

Andy Loochazee said:


> _Once more unto the breach …._
> 
> The various names mentioned in the OP were all very high quality composers. We are asked to rank them, assuming that Mozart and Schubert occupy the top 2 positions, and to list any others that should be included. I don't believe that the intention of the OP was merely to list other composers who died young, regardless of reputation and amount/quality of their works.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I don't think Ruggles was "nominated". And most here seem to agree on the Bach, Brahms, and Wagner front.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*Boldly going where no-one else has gone (yet)...*

1. Mozart
2. Schubert
3. Beethoven

(Here, I'm reminded of a line Bill James used in an analysis of the question "baseball players who've had the most impact on pennant races." When he crunched the numbers, he found that the answer was Babe Ruth. He said that he was hoping it would be Duke Snider or somebody, then conceded "whatever way you measure baseball excellence, Babe Ruth will come out at or near the top." Well, whatever way you measure Classical composition excellence, Beethoven will come out at or near the top.)

4. Mendelssohn Mendelssohn had 2/3rds the life-span of Beethoven. I'd say that 2/3rds of characteristic Beethoven content is a greater accomplishment than Mendelssohn's entire characteristic content.

5. Chopin
6. Schumann
7. Bach

(Bach fans are going to say I valued him too low. Could be. Still, I'm first on the scene to take the list this deep- so I'll stick with this order, for now...)

Have to give a little more of a think to 8-9-10.

Before leaving this post, I had a quick look- and discovered that Tchaikovsky died at age 53. 
I think _that_ puts him squarely and comfortably in the conversation---


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

*31*
...

1. Schubert

*32*
.....

*33*
.....

*34*
.......

*35*
.....

2. Mozart

(In terms of greatest loss potential, I'll rank Schubert first.)

3. Chopin

4. Mendelssohn

5. Schumann


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

peeyaj said:


> (In terms of greatest loss potential, I'll rank Schubert first.)


I don't disagree. In fact, I wouldn't severely quibble with reversing my 1-2 rank order and placing Schubert over Mozart (as long as Mozart-Schubert are 1-2!). Still (at the risk of repetition), it's not the intention of this thread to measure "loss potential," it's to estimate what a composer accomplished, divided by the number of years he lived. It's an imperfect measure, admittedly-- perhaps even intentionally so... which I why I described this as a "jumping-off point" back in the opening post.

Now, at this point, I'm having a hard time decoupling my personal tastes from my judgements for slots 8-9-10. Here, I'd like to point out that Mahler died even earlier than Tchaikovsky (51 as opposed to 53), but I recognize that I value Mahler more than most. Even more fatally, I'm a big fan of Gershwin- can easily convince myself that what he put out is worth more than half of what a number of "all-time-great" composers who lived into their 60s left us... but I know that's absolutely personal bias invading the process. The opera-fan in me wants to give consideration to Bellini (with his 3½ repertory operas written before his death at age 33) and Bizet (whose _Carmen_ is just so freakishly beyond category as to be worth multiple less-popular works).

Oh well-- here goes:
1. Mozart
2. Schubert
3. Beethoven
4. Mendelssohn
5. Chopin
6. Schumann
7. Bach
8. Tchaikovsky
9. Mahler
10. Bizet


----------



## carlmichaels (May 2, 2012)

*How 'bout Telemann?*

At 86, you wouldn't think he'd qualify, and certainly not if we're considering only extant compositions (so about 800), putting him at a paltry 9.3/year. However, if we include all compositions, including lost ones, estimated at about 3000 for Telemann, we get 34.9/year.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> ...
> Now, at this point, I'm having a hard time decoupling my personal tastes from my judgements for slots 8-9-10 ...


Well I think then you should do the maths, vis a vis a composers age compared (like a ratio?) to their output. Just the number of works, that seems objective. None of this what you say with Bizet, eg. counting _Carmen _as more than one work due to your subjective assessment of it (even though it is one of the most popular operas in the canon).

I have mentioned Jehan Alain. I have no time to do such a ratio/tally, but he was quite prolific for someone dying at 29. And not a mickey mouse composer either, people said he could have been like Messiaen had he lived.

But anyway, I kind of think it's wierd someone mentioning Wagner who was in his sixties, and even Tchaikovsky or Beethoven, who were in their fifties when they died. I'd like to see what Alain would have done with similar time on this earth, but forget it. Sacred Cows, here we come, any thread you pick on this forum (almost) ends up with the three B's and (of course) Wagner. Goes without saying, the composer to settle all issues, he's THE GREATEST...END OF STORY.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Sid James said:


> Well I think then you should do the maths, vis a vis a composers age compared (like a ratio?) to their output. Just the number of works, that seems objective.


I could... but then I'd have to change the name of this thread from "Compositional Achievement ÷ Life-Span" to "Quantitative Compositional Output ÷ Life-Span."


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I could... but then I'd have to change the name of this thread from "Compositional Achievement ÷ Life-Span" to "Quantitative Compositional Output ÷ Life-Span."


It would make more sense to call it "Quantitive Compositional Output ÷ Years Spent Composing." Not many composers started from the day they were born and ended the day they died.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Sid James said:


> it's mainly organ music, and no-one cares about that much, so whatever.


only real connoisseurs of music, people of the most refined taste.



> mozart


----------



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

I'd omit Mussorgsky from the original list simply because he left so much of his work unfinished. Apart from Boris, Pictures, St. John's Night, Joshua and his songs there isn't all that much else that he completed that was worth writing home about.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> It would make more sense to call it "Quantitive Compositional Output ÷ Years Spent Composing." Not many composers started from the day they were born and ended the day they died.


But (again), that ain't what _I'_m measuring.

My thread, my yardstick.

I guess the larger point is the opinion that what I'm assessing is a compromised metric- and that opinion has plenty of merit. I don't want to get into a digression concerning the flaws in the framing of the question- because then (to be fair) I'd have to go into the flaws of the proposed alternatives- and that doesn't lead to anything except one grand tangent on the topic of methodology- and the issue of musical accomplishment obscured in the mists...

That being said, there are a few musically relevant things we can discover here in my (admittedly) self-made dross- and perhaps the most important one is that virtually no-one composed any immortal masterworks in the first two decades of life. Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn... that's about it. [Not even Pergolesi had anything approaching their value before age 21.] This truth puts approximately a +20 constant into the age formula- unless you're a centennial prodigy like Mendelssohn, or a millennial one like Mozart.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> ...
> That being said, there are a few musically relevant things we can discover here in my (admittedly) self-made dross- and perhaps the most important one is that virtually no-one composed any immortal masterworks in the first two decades of life. Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn... that's about it. [Not even Pergolesi had anything approaching their value before age 21.]
> ...


I find that quite insulting actually. 

EDIT:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

My first post.
Nice thread - I would like to point out that Mozart's 600 works were issued in Philips set 2 decades ago in about 125 CDs. When we are talking about x number of works per year - 1 of those works might be a grand scale opera like figaro which must be considered against at least a dozen or more of Bach's cantatas - or at least 20 of Schubert's lieder. I do believe, without a full scale study - that Mozart wrote more major works (masterworks) per year of life than any other composer - including Schubert. It is also one of the reasons why I think he should be considered the greatest of all composers - even by those who don't like his music.
Oh and in case you hadn't guessed - I am a Mozart fan


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

Let's just think about what could have been...

Mozart writing into the early Romantic era with increase harmonic chromaticism. He would have been in love.

Schubert writing into mid-Romanticism and further refining his harmonic vocabulary.

Both just blow my mind in what great potential was lost. Had these two kept composing...who knows how we would have revered Beethoven and his 9th symphony today!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Music history would have been different - Mozart was breaking new ground all the time - Beethoven may not have developed in the way he did as he would not doubt have felt the influence of a living master much more so than he did of say Haydn. As for Schubert - there's another painful contemplation on what might have been. It breaks my heart that a mediocre talent like Haydn lived into late years when the two brightest stars of music were snuffed out so prematurely. Sorry Haydn fans but that's how it seems to me though no doubt you will be glad for those 104 symphonies that your man hung on so long.


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

stomanek said:


> Music history would have been different - Mozart was breaking new ground all the time - Beethoven may not have developed in the way he did as he would not doubt have felt the influence of a living master much more so than he did of say Haydn. As for Schubert - there's another painful contemplation on what might have been. It breaks my heart that a mediocre talent like Haydn lived into late years when the two brightest stars of music were snuffed out so prematurely. Sorry Haydn fans but that's how it seems to me though no doubt you will be glad for those 104 symphonies that your man hung on so long.


Haydn mediocre?! Good grief...


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Hadyn mediocre... Ouch!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Haydn mediocre, I agree with the exception of his Sturm und Drang symphonies.


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Haydn mediocre, I agree with the exception of his Sturm und Drang symphonies.


His early sonatas (which are too fun to play!)? His late symphonies? His string quartets? His oratorios? They are all wonderful masterpieces!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I said mediocre talent - it is true that he has masterpieces and I do admire many of the symphonies and quartets - but they are workmanlike - lacking the stamp of genius in my opinion - when compared with the three other germanic great composers Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven. Having said that - I am glad that Haydn was prolofic and he did invaluable work in laying the foundations for Mozart et al to build upon.


----------



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

I think whichever way the formula works Britten should be featured among the best. He hit the ground running while in his teens with some remarkably assured works and for c. 45 years the quality never dropped which is even more of an achievement bearing in mind he produced a large output which covered most categories and was only 63 when he died.


----------

