# Composers without a unique style?



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Most composers, it seems to me, have a unique style. By that I mean that, at some point, they have developed a style which is distinct and recognizable. A certain trademark sound, a personal idiom, which shapes their works. I would think this applies to Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner, Bruckner, Strauss, Ravel, Sibelius, Ligeti, Reich, Pärt, etc. Of course, individual styles evolve, and many composers have deliberately written works in a style different from their own. But still.

I find it difficult to think of a well-known composer without a distinct style. Maybe because that would be a contradiction in itself? Maybe that's because certain composers don't "make it"?

Are there composers of notable stature who did not form a unique style? Perhaps this would require times of great stylistic conformity. Did they exist? The rococo? Late romanticism?


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Since you didn't add Mahler in that list, I would personally add him in the list of composers with a unique sound. Quite frankly, I've never heard anything like Mahler, he has a truly unique sound.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Since you didn't add Mahler in that list, I would personally add him in the list of composers with a unique sound. Quite frankly, I've never heard anything like Mahler, he has a truly unique sound.


I'd also add:

Jason Eckardt
Witold Lutosławski
Karlheinz Stockhausen
Iannis Xenakis
Anton Webern
Milton Babbitt
Olivier Messiaen
Edgard Varèse
Igor Stravinsky
György Kurtág
Harry Partch
Richard Barrett
Michael Finnissy
Brian Ferneyhough
James Dillon


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

The one that comes to mind, is Georg Philipp Telemann (1681-1767). He was a very prolific Baroque composer, who composed in the national styles of the time, whether it was Italian, French, or even Polish. I suppose the personal style he had was subordinated to the needs and desires of his clients. Numerous Baroque composers were pretty mercenary though.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Since you didn't add Mahler in that list, I would personally add him in the list of composers with a unique sound. Quite frankly, I've never heard anything like Mahler, he has a truly unique sound.


I sure could have listed him, as well as Debussy, Prokofiev, Gershwin, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, ... really, the list is endless. That's why I was interested in composers that maybe didn't fit in, because I couldn't think of any.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

I think Shostakovich's style is pretty easily identifiable. I can normally guess a piece is by Shostakovich within a couple seconds of listening, even when it's a piece I've never heard before.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

Schubert is one of the most unique IMO.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

They're probably hard to pin down because if their music wasn't unique it wasn't likely to stand the test of time. My bet would go on Salieri


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I find Saint-Saens stylistically elusive. _Samson et Dalila_, the concertos, the chamber music, _Carnival of __the Animals_, the organ works, the symphonies, the tone poems, the piano music, the songs... Listen to enough of them long enough and some sort of personality comes through - or does it? Expertise second to none. But who is Camille Saint-Saens, and would I know him in a blind experiment? I'd guess not, as often as not.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sometimes you hear something of very high quality, but the composer's identity doesn't jump out at you. In such cases, "Mendelssohn" or "Saint-Saens" is probably your best bet.


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Sometimes you hear something of very high quality, but the composer's identity doesn't jump out at you. In such cases, "Mendelssohn" or "Saint-Saens" is probably your best bet.


So you are saying Mendelssohn doesn't have a unique style?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMuller said:


> So you are saying Mendelssohn doesn't have a unique style?


Overall (aside from some of his specific developments) I'd say not. Certainly not to the extent of other major composers of the 19th century.


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Overall (aside from some of his specific developments) I'd say not. Certainly not to the extent of other major composers of the 19th century.


It's funny, the other day I heard I piece that I liked very much and I thought: that sounds like Mendelssohn, I bet it's Mendelssohn. Turns out it was Mendelssohn. I had never heard this piece before. That must have been a lucky guess then.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMuller said:


> It's funny, the other day I heard I piece that I liked very much and I thought: that sounds like Mendelssohn, I bet it's Mendelssohn. Turns out it was Mendelssohn. I had never heard this piece before. That must have been a lucky guess then.


Or (let's be charitable) you're an exceptionally discerning person!


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Or (let's be charitable) you're an exceptionally discerning person!


I doubt it.  Sorry for the sarcasm earlier, I'm just partial to Mendelssohn's music. I do agree with you on Saint-Saens though.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMuller said:


> I doubt it.  Sorry for the sarcasm earlier, I'm just partial to Mendelssohn's music. I do agree with you on Saint-Saens though.


Depressing that I missed the sarcasm. Definitely slipping here, maybe it's age! I'm partial to Mendelssohn too.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2014)

I don't know about Saint-Saens, Mendelssohn, etc, but if you look at composers that didn't quite make it to the repertoire, this becomes a common issue. I enjoy listening to a few obscure romantics, but I'm not sure that, for example, the Swedish and Norwegian symphonic schools did much to separate themselves before modernism came around and gave everyone more opportunity to find a personal voice. With the Swedes, I can typically sense a German counterpart (especially Berwald and Stenhammar), and Norwegians like Svendsen are pretty similar to Grieg, to me...

And let's not even get started on the classical era.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think all composers have a generic style until you get to know them, then the little musical gestures become apparent, like a signature. 

I think I could identify Mendelssohn in a blind first hearing. He is often frenetic with motifs tossed back and forth between instruments more rapidly than might be comfortable for other composers of the time -- often more rapidly than is comfortable for me! This might hold more true for his chamber works than his large orchestral works.

Schumann might give me a little trouble identifying, but probably not to bigger Schumann fan. 

Then there a composers who had other composers' styles such as Joseph Suk sounding very much like Dvorak to me. This is not to say he wasn't wonderful or even derivative. But you can surely hear the influence.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

arcaneholocaust said:


> I don't know about Saint-Saens, Mendelssohn, etc, but if you look at composers that didn't quite make it to the repertoire, this becomes a common issue. I enjoy listening to a few obscure romantics, but I'm not sure that, for example, the Swedish and Norwegian symphonic schools did much to separate themselves before modernism came around and gave everyone more opportunity to find a personal voice. With the Swedes, I can typically sense a German counterpart (especially Berwald and Stenhammar), and Norwegians like Svendsen are pretty similar to Grieg, to me...
> 
> And let's not even get started on the classical era.


What do you make of Allan Pettersson? Haven't yet encountered anyone who I can justifiably refer to as his counterpart. Of course, the are countless other composers I've yet to hear. Anyway, Pettersson was one miserable SOB, as evidenced in his output and in that regard, Shostakovich is a fine, spiritual comrade.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> What do you make of Allan Pettersson? Haven't yet encountered anyone who I can justifiably refer to as his counterpart. Of course, the are countless other composers I've yet to hear. Anyway, Pettersson was one miserable SOB, as evidenced in his output and in that regard, Shostakovich is a fine, spiritual comrade.


I'm relatively new to Pettersson, having only listened to a few of his symphonies so far, but I love it so far. I was referring more to the romantic era folks. But they are perhaps obscure for a reason.

I agree about the misery of Pettersson, though... Perhaps there's an element of subconscious hesitancy there for me. I love dark music, but I've tried to distance myself a bit here and there from certain fathomless depths of despair over the last year or two.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Or (let's be charitable) you're an exceptionally discerning person!


Are you suggesting that you are not? Really? Extraordinary.

Anyway, Saint-Saens has a distinct sound as well. I was just about to say "unmistakable," but then I realized that mistakes can, and will, be made.

Like the one people seem quite prone to make about Pettersson (and Shostakovich, too). He had, apparently, a pretty miserable life. Lots of physical pain. His music, however? It's music. It's not autobiography. If Pettersson had wanted to write his autobiography, my guess is that he would have written a book, not a bunch of symphonies.

We so badly want music to mean something. And "meaning" always means linguistic meaning. But music is not words. Whatever music "means," it's not translatable into language, Strauss's cutlery notwithstanding. But we want to talk about it. And that means using words. Should make us very very cautious. What happens, in practice, is that caution is thrown to the winds.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I really cannot think of one. Perhaps the "most correct" answer I can give are composers of plainchant......


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Overall (aside from some of his specific developments) I'd say not. Certainly not to the extent of other major composers of the 19th century.


I'm not so sure I agree with that. When I listen to Mendelssohn I can usually tell pretty easily that it's him, and not just because I love Mendelssohn. I can see how some people hear his music and it sounds a lot like music any other traditionalist during the Romance era would have written. However, I don't think it means I'm all that exceptional in discernment. Mendelssohn has a number of things he does that are unique to him that just scream "hey it's me", yet when someone else listens they may not notice them at all.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

some guy said:


> Are you suggesting that you are not? Really? Extraordinary.
> 
> Anyway, Saint-Saens has a distinct sound as well. I was just about to say "unmistakable," but then I realized that mistakes can, and will, be made.
> 
> ...


Some composers clearly did write with things from their own lives in mind, or definite concepts, themes, stories, ideals, or pictures they wanted to communicate. And some didn't. Some listen and enjoy observing all of this. And Some Guy likes to listen without any of that in mind, I guess. That doesn't mean that enthusiasts like myself say "well this is necessarily so" with it all, so much as we say "this could be so" and stimulate ourselves with that thought.

It seems like a number of classical music enthusiasts have been behind this "grand tradition" of humanizing, generalizing music, making it into pure aesthetics as if that makes music something greater, and as if programmatic, and liturgical music especially, are honestly kind of dull/barbaric. What I don't see is why they think this is opening us up into a wider view of music. There isn't anything wrong with saying to yourself "well this is a good way to look at it, and regardless I find it stimulating to think about it this way and that". Neither are different approaches mutually exclusive. And like others have observed in the schoenberg/stravinsky thread there was even a movement in music for some time that was against the notion that emotion is necessary or even good in music, seemingly as a response to the excessive mellodrama often involved with Romantic art.

You're right, music isn't words. It isn't anything in particular at all, just vibrating air waves. But *it can be* whatever we want it to be.


----------



## thetrout (Jan 28, 2012)

I agree that it tends to be a problem for composers who do not quite make it. Between Purcell and Elgar, England produced tons of Handel and - later - Mendelssohn clones.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

some guy said:


> Like the one people seem quite prone to make about Pettersson (and Shostakovich, too). He had, apparently, a pretty miserable life. Lots of physical pain. His music, however? It's music. It's not autobiography. If Pettersson had wanted to write his autobiography, my guess is that he would have written a book, not a bunch of symphonies.
> 
> We so badly want music to mean something. And "meaning" always means linguistic meaning. But music is not words. Whatever music "means," it's not translatable into language, Strauss's cutlery notwithstanding. But we want to talk about it. And that means using words. Should make us very very cautious. What happens, in practice, is that caution is thrown to the winds.


You make a mistake in assuming that all music is not imbued with _some_ meaning; that it is nothing beyond composed/ordered sound. Human beings are emotional creatures by design, otherwise we'd be a race of sociopaths and would have ceased to exist long ago (though we're not far off). If you doubt this, look to what some great composers have written or said about their own work. Great music is the language of the human soul and communicates that which words cannot and if you fail to see this, I am afraid you're robbing yourself of significant joy. To each his own, I suppose.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

some guy said:


> His music, however? It's music. It's not autobiography. If Pettersson had wanted to write his autobiography, my guess is that he would have written a book, not a bunch of symphonies.
> 
> We so badly want music to mean something. And "meaning" always means linguistic meaning. But music is not words. Whatever music "means," it's not translatable into language, Strauss's cutlery notwithstanding. But we want to talk about it. And that means using words. Should make us very very cautious. What happens, in practice, is that caution is thrown to the winds.


If Pettersson were a writer, he might have written a book. However, he was a composer. So he wrote a bunch of symphonies.

Wanting music to mean something appears to have been the failing of innumerable composers. Most of them, I'd say.

Meaning only means linguistic meaning when it is expressed in words. If meaning did not exist before its expression in words, words would never be found to express it. "That [the meaning that was there before I expressed it] was what I meant to say."

Some meanings cannot be expressed, or fully expressed, in words. That is where music lives.

Speaking of music, it will be there, speaking of itself, whatever we speak about it. But however inadequate words may be, I say speak freely about what music does, could, or might mean. Caution? Let the winds have it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> If Pettersson were a writer, he might have written a book. However, he was a composer. So he wrote a bunch of symphonies.
> 
> Wanting music to mean something appears to have been the failing of innumerable composers. Most of them, I'd say.
> 
> ...


"_Est ergo sum_," and not, "_Cogito ergo sum_."

Totally.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> You make a mistake in assuming that all music is not imbued with _some_ meaning; that it is nothing beyond composed/ordered sound.


You make your own mistake right here. What I think is that all music is imbued (though I would never say it like that) with meaning. It's just not linguistic meaning. Or psychological meaning. Or autobiographical meaning. Or political meaning. It's full of, surprise!, musical meaning. As you say, it communicates (though I would even more neverly say it like that) what words cannot. Exactly. And what we've seen on this thread is music presented as if it were saying what words can say, things about the composer's life or feelings or whatever. And my response to this was to say that if Pettersson had wanted to express his autobiography, he'd have written a book. He did not. He wrote, among other things, a bunch of symphonies. And symphonies express musical meanings, not linguistic ones.

What we usually mean when we say "mean" is linguistic meanings. What I was proposing was that music means, but what it means are musical meanings. Talking about musical meanings is possible with words, though difficult. Investing music with non-musical meanings is easy, though impertinent.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> "_Est ergo sum_," and not, "_Cogito ergo sum_."
> 
> Totally.


Why not just 'sum'?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Jobis said:


> Why not just 'sum'?


Because existence precedes essence. . . or something like that.

_;D_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> What happens, in practice, is that caution is thrown to the winds...


... and the poor strings and percussion sections were just given a bowl to go beg on the streets for their caution.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2014)

...has some guy even listened to Pettersson?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Oh, the disheartening search for objectivity in a relative world.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

some guy said:


> Are you suggesting that you are not? Really? Extraordinary.
> 
> Anyway, Saint-Saens has a distinct sound as well. I was just about to say "unmistakable," but then I realized that mistakes can, and will, be made.
> 
> ...


Music may not be autobiography in a literal sense, but it's definitely informed by one's life and experiences. And that is how music is unique to the person creating it, because it is coming from a wholly personal idiom. I hope you are only trying to say that it is difficult to see how the music has a one-to-one connection with the events of the composer's life, because this is probably true. Obviously music means something - otherwise it's merely academic. Even when you want to fervently study music and get into its secret codes, you cannot deny the role of the personality of the composer in the creative act. In fact, that is precisely the difference between the composer and the musicologist. The musicologist never wants to acknowledge the more personal matters of creation, but only the distant and impersonal ones - because he is precisely there - distant and far from the actual creation.

Just matters of perspective, in my opinion. Because, if it had nothing to do with life, then why do we care about music? Please, it's not just ear candy.


----------

