# The listener's idea of a Composer's "obligations" or, their "duty to their audience."



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*The listener's idea of a Composer's "obligations" or, their "duty to their audience."*

From this article (The story behind the posthumous premiere of Górecki's Fourth Symphony)
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/apr/11/gorecki-third-story-posthumous-fourth-symphony-premiere

This quote:
*Górecki wasn't interested in pleasing his audience or pandering to their tastes for commercial gain. As he said in 1994:
"I never write for my listeners … I have something to tell them, but the audience must also put a certain effort into it"*

Well aware there are varied opinions, expectations of what past composers _may have thought about what they make and their relation to the audience._ But here we have it from one of the horse's mouths that, *put less politely, Górecki plainly did not have one thought for or give a tinker's damn about the listener when he was composing.* _I think this is more the real state of being when most classical composers sit down to "write what they write."_

Certainly, there are documents about one or another composer's very keen concern on the sales of copies of their works, including the romantic era's big market for sheet music then taken to and played in the home (-- all prior the technology of recordings in the home, now pretty much evaporated.)

So to bump a debate which seems to prompt high feelings, indignation and rage....

_What do listeners think about the point addressed in Górecki's above quoted statement?_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

How could anybody disagree? A composer has no duty or obligation to the audience, and the audience likewise has no duty to put much effort into "getting" the music, or in fact even to bother listening to it. Gorecki may expect me to "put effort into it," and maybe I will, maybe I won't. I certainly don't owe it to him, and there are already plenty of things in life that require effort, maybe with greater probable rewards.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> How could anybody disagree? A composer has no duty or obligation to the audience, and the audience likewise has no duty to put much effort into "getting" the music, or in fact even to bother listening to it. *Gorecki may expect me to "put effort into it," and maybe I will, maybe I won't. I certainly don't owe it to him, and there are already plenty of things in life that require effort, maybe with greater probable rewards.*


That is one very firm _*harumph*_ vote in.

The polls are still open


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"I never write for my listeners". Is that an idiomatically correct translation into English? If so, "my listeners" seriously weakens "I never write for". "I have something to tell them," he says, if they will put some effort into getting the message. All of that indicates to me that the man was composing with the expectation of being 'understood' by at least some of his listeners.

Not a good example of The Composer Writing For Himself, though I understand the convenience of having the quotation at hand. A much better TCWFH would be Artur Schnabel in his late works. He explained in general terms what he was doing, but not how the music should be approached by the Listener. It was pretty much 'This is how I'm doing it, you're on your own, Bub."


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

PetrB said:


> That is one very firm _*harumph*_ vote in.
> 
> The polls are still open


You can add mine: I quite agree with KenOC.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ukko said:


> "I never write for my listeners". Is that an idiomatically correct translation into English? If so, "my listeners" seriously weakens "I never write for". "I have something to tell them," he says, if they will put some effort into getting the message. All of that indicates to me that the man was composing with the expectation of being 'understood' by at least some of his listeners.
> 
> Not a good example of The Composer Writing For Himself, though I understand the convenience of having the quotation at hand. A much better TCWFH would be Artur Schnabel in his late works. He explained in general terms what he was doing, but not how the music should be approached by the Listener. It was pretty much 'This is how I'm doing it, you're on your own, Bub."


As I've repeatedly said, most composers are really writing "what they can" and _hoping_ that it will communicate something to others. Often, they cannot truthfully tell you 'what was on their mind,' or much of the rest of the mystery of 'what the work means,' but can only speak of some technical approach they remember coming up with or deploying. They are so often not the ones to ask about the whys and wherefores of a piece that it is usually a very bad -- or wasted -- question to ask of them. When asked, the results often yield some gobbledygook of rhetoric or of some ideological cant which demonstrates it is best _not_ to ask much of them other than the works they produce


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianvds said:


> You can add mine: I quite agree with KenOC.


_That is now two very firm *harumphs*, then._

The polls are still open


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

"Duty" I hate that word and everything that is imposed by irrational, unjustified rules. It is a parent's duty to take care of their kids, it is a government duty to assure equal opportunities for all their citizens. It is must be not someone's duty to look this way or another, to kill people or do anything that goes against basic human rights. But in the world we live in anyone who has access to enough power can impose their own irrational s#it over the rest which makes the issue more complex. 

I agree with KenOC's message above on this particular issue.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I agree with KenOC's message above on this particular issue.


Good heavens. We seem to he a heckling horde of harumphers! But...the polls are still open.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> "Duty" I hate that word and everything that is imposed by irrational, unjustified rules.
> 
> I agree with KenOC's message above on this particular issue.


I agree with you about the word _duty_ and toss into the same bag both _obligation_ and _loyalty._ In themselves, not bad words, but for many of us (you might agree) those words are most often heard in a context as coming from people, businesses, and institutions who expect it of the person to whom the word is spoken while it is patently clear the speaker of those words will not be offering anything like in return when they call upon you for 'your duty / obligation / loyalty.' In practice, the words and principles they represent have been obscenely corrupted.

I put up the quote because there has been much cant and rant on TC in various threads exactly about "the composer's duty / obligation" to the audience -- often coming from the listeners and in direct relation to modern and contemporary classical composers. Those often carried a strongly implied -- or flat out stated -- attitude that the artists are _obliged and have a duty_ to be at the beck and call of the public and public tastes, like servants (and the sociopolitical ideologies abounded along with those comments.)

It works both ways, of course, when the whining complaints about unfilled obligations, duty to, etc. pour in from either the artists or the audiences. The audience has no 'right' to expect anything from artists but what the artists make: the artists have no 'right' to expect audience or other support simply because they have made something 

[I've purposely omitted any "issues" about funding of the arts, because at least in the United States no matter what an individual's tax bracket, that amount which does go toward arts funding (not just music) is a miniscule fraction of one penny (maybe millionaires who pay that much more tax are actually 'losing' two or three cents of their tax money to arts funding -- certainly no more.) The complaint or protest, then, is a weak one even if it is on a 'moral' plank, and not to be considered at all if it is simply a miserly one -- i.e. we all fund, via taxes, something we find reprehensible or a plainly useless or silly nonprofitable project.]


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I think we're all fine with Gorecki's statement. I also utterly agree with PetrB's further thoughts on the matter - it's the different reactions that I find telling. Some will bristle at the suggestion the artist doesn't care but I just think that's the nature of art - the path to artistic fulfilment is not acclaim, it's creating something one thinks is freakin sweet. Also this does not equal a two fingered salute to the listener - just makes "them" - whoever they are - a peripheral player at best in the creative process. It was useful for me to think of composers as wanting to listen to their own music - consider the composer as the listener they want to please, perhaps?)

BTW - here's a snippet of LSO rehearsing for the world premiere of his posthumous Symph 4: 



 - not exactly appetising!?


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Art for arts sake
Problem comes though with putting bread on the table then perhaps views change


----------



## peterb (Mar 7, 2014)

Making the reasonable assumption that composers are constitutionally similar to writers and visual artists, I think we can safely assume that when they _say_ "I don't care what my listeners think" what they _mean_ is "I live only for the approval of other people, obsessively read my reviews, and when no one is watching I am brought to the verge of tears by public criticism."

That's my experience of most writers and visual artists. I have no reason to think that composers are any different.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Artists have to please themselves first, but they better hope there's *someone* out there that appreciates their work or they aren't going to get very far.

If you truly don't care about serving an audience it would be a very good idea to write your own obituary. You better not depend on the audience to care any more about your legacy than you cared about them!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Good heavens. We seem to he a heckling horde of harumphers! But...the polls are still open.


There _must_ be a collective plural for "heckling horde of harumphers," but if there is, it should have the same alliterative appeal as your phrase


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

peterb said:


> ...when they _say_ "I don't care what my listeners think" what they _mean_ is "I live only for the approval of other people, obsessively read my reviews, and when no one is watching I am brought to the verge of tears by public criticism."


Some artists have a stronger reaction. Beethoven (who _always _read his reviews) scrawled across a nasty review of Wellington's Victory, "Was ich scheisse, ist besser als du je gedacht." He could always make himself clear, it seems.


----------



## Whistler Fred (Feb 6, 2014)

PetrB said:


> From this article (The story behind the posthumous premiere of Górecki's Fourth Symphony)
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/apr/11/gorecki-third-story-posthumous-fourth-symphony-premiere
> 
> This quote:
> ...


I think the first line (from the Guardian article) gives a context here. There may be a thin line between writing for your audience and pandering to them. Having seen a lot of futile attempts to make classical music "relevant" (i.e. marketable) and the pandering that goes on in the process, I can appreciate a composer that would rather stay true to his own muse, hoping he can communicate something to those able and willing to listen (hence, the "I have something to tell them..." part of the quote).

So, no "Harrumphs" from me!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Makes you wonder -- right now on the radio there's a broadcast of John Williams, 82 years old, conducting his own music with the Houston Symphony Orchestra. Harry Potter excerpts playing now. Pleasant listening, and the audience seems entertained and enthusiastic. Here's a guy who has been very successfully "pandering" to mass tastes for years, and his music shows no signs of wearing out. Is he somehow "betraying art"? Will his music outlive Gorecki's 4th?

Hmmmm...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It's obvious that the composer has no duties to the audience, and I don't think most of us here are in any danger of forgetting that. 

It's equally obvious that the audience has no duties to the composer, and this is overlooked rather more often.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Makes you wonder -- right now on the radio there's a broadcast of John Williams, 82 years old, conducting his own music with the Houston Symphony Orchestra. Harry Potter excerpts playing now. Pleasant listening, and the audience seems entertained and enthusiastic. Here's a guy who has been very successfully "pandering" to mass tastes for years, and his music shows no signs of wearing out. Is he somehow "betraying art"? Will his music outlive Gorecki's 4th?
> 
> Hmmmm...


Is this is a bit of a non-sequitur? Hmmmm indeed!


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

science said:


> It's obvious that the composer has no duties to the audience, and I don't think most of us here are in any danger of forgetting that.
> 
> It's equally obvious that the audience has no duties to the composer, [/B]and this is overlooked rather more often.[/B]


I'm quite surprised by this second part - I'm interested in what you mean since I don't see any duty on the audience's part playing out. I think the audience has a duty to performers, on the other hand, to behave respectfully in performance and I suppose that de facto extends to composers whose works are being performed


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

dgee said:


> I'm quite surprised by this second part - I'm interested in what you mean since I don't see any duty on the audience's part playing out. I think the audience has a duty to performers, on the other hand, to behave respectfully in performance and I suppose that de facto extends to composers whose works are being performed


I think that behavior is a duty to the other audience members as much as anything. We all paid to be here, let's let each other enjoy the music.

But no, the audience has no duty to the composer. If I see that, for example, Gorecki's 4th Symphony is being performed, I owe Gorecki absolutely nothing. I don't have to try it if I don't want to. And if I don't like it, I haven't wronged him any more than he's wronged me.

I get no end of ****ed off when I see people telling each other things that imply that they've failed their duty to the composer. No one is entitled to anyone else's attention or approval.

When we do happen to get together, though, it's beautiful. But that is a meeting of the minds, not a duty fulfilled.

On the other hand, just for my own self, I would like to appreciate whatever is out there. That's not something I owe the composer, I owe the composer not one godflacking thing, it's just something I want to achieve for my own reasons.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

dgee said:


> Is this is a bit of a non-sequitur? Hmmmm indeed!


I don't understand your post. Can you elucidate? Without being unseemly, of course...


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Science, I agree with most of what you've said but I'm completely stumped by:

_I get no end of ****ed off when I see people telling each other things that imply that they've failed their duty to the composer. No one is entitled to anyone else's attention or approval. _

...since I'm not aware of any duty to composers. Is this code for perceived slights around people "not getting" music? Or is it something else I'm just not aware of?


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I don't understand your post. Can you elucidate? Without being unseemly, of course...


I just don't see the relationship between what you said to what Gorecki or PetrB said initially about composers and audiences and John Williams' career and betraying art - especially the latter!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

dgee said:


> I just don't see the relationship between what you said to what Gorecki or PetrB said initially about composers and audiences and John Williams' career and betraying art - especially the latter!


The OP seemed to suggest a "duty" on the part of the listener to make a special effort to meet the composer more than halfway (not stated, but that seems to be a theme of this poster). John Williams is a composer who goes well more than halfway in the other direction, and who has frequently been criticized on this forum for being a hack because of that. Yes, a betrayer of "art" (whatever that is).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

dgee said:


> Science, I agree with most of what you've said but I'm completely stumped by:
> 
> _I get no end of ****ed off when I see people telling each other things that imply that they've failed their duty to the composer. No one is entitled to anyone else's attention or approval. _
> 
> ...since I'm not aware of any duty to composers. Is this code for perceived slights around people "not getting" music? Or is it something else I'm just not aware of?


It's not code, it's what I mean.

If someone doesn't get Gorecki, that's ok. If someone doesn't even want to try, that's ok too. They don't owe him anything. They don't owe his fans anything. There's enough room for all of us to do our own thing, and thank whatever gods exist most of us live in free countries.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> There _must_ be a collective plural for "heckling horde of harumphers," but if there is, it should have the same alliterative appeal as your phrase


I recommend "heckling horde of harumphers."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ultimately an artist has to express his own values in his work simply in order to produce his best work. For an artist with a strong vision, worrying about the expectations of others may produce internal conflict, short-circuit the flow of ideas, and result in a mediocre product, or no product at all. Of course this isn't a problem if the creative mind is mediocre to begin with, or if some practical exigency interferes with an artist's pursuit of his ideal. In such a case the artist may as well just figure out what the public wants, give it to them, and make some money. Every artist has to decide where he will come down between these two paradigms, and any decision he makes may be legitimate.

That said, there's never anything wrong with taking pleasure in giving pleasure. A f*** the public attitude is not a hallmark of artistic integrity.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

An artists only obligation is to himself, but there are as many motives as there are artists. Jackson Pollack never expected to be asked to do a Saturday Evening Post Cover. Joyce never expected Ulysses to be on the Times Best seller list. But Stephen King and John Grisham write expressly for the sales. And Copland developed his "American" style in part for populariy and money, but nevertheless didn't disavow his other music. Beethoven wrote Wellington's victory expressly for the money, and wrote the alternate finale to Opus 130 with sales in mind. But he was still proud of the Grosse Fuge and the Hammerklavier sonata, whether or not many people could understand them. Goreckii did not expect his Third to be a runaway hit (me either), but was gratified I'm sure.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

In terms of the audience's duty to music...I would say there is no inherent duty of the audience to listen to a composers music.

There is however, a duty for an audience member to listen, and learn something about the methods of a composer before they start making ignorant, baseless comments against them...


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2014)

violadude said:


> In terms of the audience's duty to music...I would say there is no inherent duty of the audience to listen to a composers music.
> 
> There is however, a duty for an audience member to listen, and learn something about the methods of a composer before they start making ignorant, baseless comments against them...


Quite. No obligation to go to the gallery, but once there, give the art on show a little consideration at least!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

violadude said:


> In terms of the audience's duty to music...I would say there is no inherent duty of the audience to listen to a composers music.
> 
> There is however, a duty for an audience member to listen, and learn something about the methods of a composer before they start making ignorant, baseless comments against them...


The listener has the right to like or not like whatever he happens to like or not like without an obligation to educate himself about what he doesn't like. As long as he keeps his comments on the level of, "That's not my thing," then he's fine. When, as is inevitable, we push him, he's allowed to offer a hypothesis why he doesn't like it, or to say he doesn't know. Of course it is also inevitable that we will insult him for not knowing more than that, and then we are out of line, imagining that our tastes are inherently superior or that our knowledge of music has some objective value, and the listener is within his rights to hate us for our arrogance. At that point, he has the moral high ground, and we deserve to be put in our place, perhaps even violently.

But, whether the listener likes the music or not, if he wants to talk about it at a deeper level, with more detail or some objectivity rather than pure subjective "like and dislike," then of course he should begin by learning about the thing he wants to talk about. If he doesn't do that and insists on treating his uninformed ideas as if they were valuable, then in this case he is the arrogant one, and we're within our rights to ignore him and even to let him know that he's ignorant. When he hates us for that, we can shrug it off, because he's ignorant. We hold the moral high ground. He deserves to be put in his place, and as he was aspiring to our respect, our scorn should be enough to put him there.

But as soon as we begin scorning his subjectivity as well, we're out of line and we fully deserve his hate. If both things are going on, then everyone has surrendered the moral high ground, and both we and the listener ought to be scorned by someone who is above all that.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

science said:


> The listener has the right to like or not like whatever he happens to like or not like without an obligation to educate himself about what he doesn't like. As long as he keeps his comments on the level of, "That's not my thing," then he's fine. When, as is inevitable, we push him, he's allowed to offer a hypothesis why he doesn't like it, or to say he doesn't know. Of course it is also inevitable that we will insult him for not knowing more than that, and then we are out of line, imagining that our tastes are inherently superior or that our knowledge of music has some objective value, and the listener is within his rights to hate us for our arrogance. At that point, he has the moral high ground, and we deserve to be put in our place, perhaps even violently.
> 
> But, whether the listener likes the music or not, if he wants to talk about it at a deeper level, with more detail or some objectivity rather than pure subjective "like and dislike," then of course he should begin by learning about the thing he wants to talk about. If he doesn't do that and insists on treating his uninformed ideas as if they were valuable, then in this case he is the arrogant one, and we're within our rights to ignore him and even to let him know that he's ignorant. When he hates us for that, we can shrug it off, because he's ignorant. We hold the moral high ground. He deserves to be put in his place, and as he was aspiring to our respect, our scorn should be enough to put him there.
> 
> But as soon as we begin scorning his subjectivity as well, we're out of line and we fully deserve his hate. If both things are going on, then everyone has surrendered the moral high ground, and both we and the listener ought to be scorned by someone who is above all that.


This all is basically what I meant with my comments. Ya, "I don't like Schoenberg" is fine. "Schoenberg has no themes" is a baseless and ignorant assertion.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I should add, that latter position is in fact mine, and why I hate most of the people who engage in the pro- and anti-contemporary music debates.

The the anti- side usually disgusts me and makes me proud to like the music they hate; but then the pro- side shows up and usually disgusts me just as much and makes me wish I _didn't_ like the music.

Fortunately quite a few - maybe a minority actually, but enough - people manage to accept each other's tastes and preferences and differences of experience with grace and dignity. I really, deeply appreciate those people, especially when they also happen to be knowledgeable and helpful to me in my own exploration of music.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

PetrB said:


> _That is now two very firm *harumphs*, then._
> 
> The polls are still open


add another from me. If we could, I'd play my joker for this one too


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm inclined to join the harrumphers on this one, but let me try this for size: If a composer has an audience who likes his work, it's because they share some artistic common ground with him: his idea of "good music" overlaps with theirs. So the fact that the audience continues to like the composer's work might in fact be an indication to the composer that he's remaining true to his artistic vision, and an unexpected chorus of boos might warrant a pause for reflection rather than a "f*** 'em" response. Now, the latter might indeed be the most appropriate response in a given situation, and producing work that the audience likes isn't the same as setting out to give the audience what they want. But the audience's feedback shouldn't be ignored.

So I suppose I'd say in theory nobody owes anyone anything, but in practical terms, once the composer has found an audience it's more likely a two-way street.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

.... and it isn't just the composer, the performer can also suit her/himself.

There's an anecdote that Sviatoslav Richter once asked Maria Yudina: "Why do you play this Bach prelude so loud?" her answer: "Because there is a war on!"









At another time, Richter commented that she distorted the composer's intentions so much that you didn't listen a performance of Schubert or Chopin, but a performance of Yudina. In particular he complained that her interpretation of the second Chopin Nocturne was so heroic that it no longer sounded like a piano but a trumpet.

Same thing applies as in the OP, if I don't like it, I don't like it and I shouldn't feel compelled to like a particular performer if its not to my taste. (BTW - I find Yudina to be remarkable and very enjoyable!)


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I think trying to write your music in order to please an audience is a bad idea. All a composer has to do is write in the style that they feel suites them and an audience will come to them. It's like when you're an awkward teenager trying to attract a mate and you try to be someone you're not in order to seem more attractive. It never works. You just have to be yourself and someone will come to you eventually.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I don't think that the composer is in an opposite field considering the audience. He's part of the audience too. It's the music that is on the opposite part. I suspect that many of those who have the idea of music just as "something new" are those who care more about the audience, and exactly that part of the audience formed by their fellow composers.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

violadude said:


> You just have to be yourself and someone will come to you eventually/


or turn into a hermit :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Headphone Hermit said:


> .... and it isn't just the composer, the performer can also suit her/himself.
> 
> There's an anecdote that Sviatoslav Richter once asked Maria Yudina: "Why do you play this Bach prelude so loud?" her answer: "Because there is a war on!"
> 
> ...


I think this gets into some more complicated terrain.

I personally want to hear some performers do their best to recreate what they believe the composer's intentions were, and to hear other performers (or perhaps the same performers at different times) play it the way they want to play it, not necessarily precisely what the composer wanted. I know that some listeners won't be happy with some performers' interpretations, but here again we don't owe each other anything!

And yet, to me, the definition of classical music is that it is composer-centric rather than (as with pretty much all other music) performer-centric. I know that other definitions are possible and that there are good arguments for them, but to me this gets to something important about classical music, and when the performers get _really_ free with their interpretation I won't mind someone arguing that it isn't "classical music" anymore. That's fine of course - no one owes "classical music" anything either! - but it is something to consider.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I must just be reading this differently to the harrumphers because at no stage do I see any demand for anything by Gorecki or implicit condemnation of the audience. It's just a fact, more or less, of how many create art - so actually, there's no particular "stance" to harrumph about


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

peterb said:


> Making the reasonable assumption that composers are constitutionally similar to writers and visual artists, I think we can safely assume that when they _say_ "I don't care what my listeners think" what they _mean_ is "I live only for the approval of other people, obsessively read my reviews, and when no one is watching I am brought to the verge of tears by public criticism."
> 
> That's my experience of most writers and visual artists. I have no reason to think that composers are any different.


I can see where that perception might be gotten, in recalling the group of people going into or toward those professions when I, and they, were all in their very early twenties... many of whom neither had it or were quite driven enough to fully go the distance of another decade to even find out if what they were hoping to do would have any success, even nominally getting them by without other means of support.

That picture began to radically change by the time the average age of that group reached the ages of twenty-seven to thirty (with many who were part of the original group in their early twenties having then already dropped by the wayside). After that, all those who really would not have done were out of the picture; the perception you would get of those remaining after the rest had dropped out, i.e. those who were actually doing it, is a very different picture than the one you paint -- which, btw is redolent of sour grapes in advance of trying to continue leaping long enough to gain the strength and stamina to jump high enough to obtain the goal -- i.e. it sounds like you know no real and successful composers, writers and visual artists say, in their later tweneties or up.

If the successful ones you know who are ca. thirty years old and up are as you describe, I'd suggest dropping them and looking for other acquaintances -- they sound like an exceptionally dreary lot


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

A composer writes what they want to write. First and foremost: the audience they have in mind is themselves. Composers create art, and just like any other form of art a composer would tweak and perfect their compositions until the aural aesthetics of the work seem just right for them.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Haydn man said:


> Art for arts sake
> Problem comes though with putting bread on the table then perhaps views change


Like Beethoven's radical about face when his later string quartets and sonatas had a smaller audience, and less people buying the scores to play at home.

Like Ludovico Einaudi's about face of writing hard-core contemporary music, studying with Berio and then cranking out the hits like his "Primavera."

Like John Adams wrenching decision to write tonal music after his lifelong inclination and pursuit to write atonal music?

Like....


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Quite. No obligation to go to the gallery, but once there, give the art on show a little consideration at least!


And...

No, your kid could not have painted that.

No, your kid could not have spattered ink on music manuscript paper and come up with that same piece.

:lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> I'm inclined to join the harrumphers on this one, but let me try this for size: If a composer has an audience who likes his work, it's because they share some artistic common ground with him: his idea of "good music" overlaps with theirs. So the fact that the audience continues to like the composer's work might in fact be an indication to the composer that he's remaining true to his artistic vision, and an unexpected chorus of boos might warrant a pause for reflection rather than a "f*** 'em" response. Now, the latter might indeed be the most appropriate response in a given situation, and producing work that the audience likes isn't the same as setting out to give the audience what they want. But the audience's feedback shouldn't be ignored.
> 
> So I suppose I'd say in theory nobody owes anyone anything, but in practical terms, once the composer has found an audience it's more likely a two-way street.


Dead wrong, because not every one gets everything.

Whether it is the / an audience or the composer who comes up with the "f*** 'em" response," that is -- imo -- for the severely immature or the [either postured or career] nihilist


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> This quote:
> *Górecki wasn't interested in pleasing his audience or pandering to their tastes for commercial gain. As he said in 1994:
> "I never write for my listeners … I have something to tell them, but the audience must also put a certain effort into it"*
> 
> [/I] But here we have it from one of the horse's mouths that, *put less politely, Górecki plainly did not have one thought for or give a tinker's damn about the listener when he was composing.*


Your interpretation of what Górecki meant has no connection to the reality of the situation. After the third symphony, wasn't Górecki roundly criticized in some circles for having pandered for commercial gain? His statement must be understood in that context. A more generous appraisal would be that he was simply trying to defend himself against lingering questions about his artistic integrity. I don't hear any disrespect or disregard for his potential audience at all.


----------



## peterb (Mar 7, 2014)

PetrB said:


> i.e. it sounds like you know no real and successful composers, writers and visual artists say, in their later tweneties or up.
> 
> If the successful ones you know who are ca. thirty years old and up are as you describe, I'd suggest dropping them and looking for other acquaintances -- they sound like an exceptionally dreary lot


I don't really understand why you feel the need to get personal, especially in a thread that you admitted up front is likely to generate lots of heat. Could you please stop? Thanks in advance.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I agree completely with the view that the audience owes composers nothing, and similarly the composer owes the audience nothing.
But I think Gorecki's comment about the audience is not really in disagreement with the "harumphers" views. I don't take Gorecki's view to mean that anyone who listens to his music _ought_ to put effort into understanding it. I interpret him as saying, "I have something to tell them, _and if they wish to understand or properly hear what I'm saying_, they might have to expend some effort." That's true of many things in life - science, economics, and even other people's views.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Dead wrong, because not every one gets everything.
> 
> Whether it is the / an audience or the composer who comes up with the "f*** 'em" response," that is -- imo -- for the severely immature or the [either postured or career] nihilist


Dead wrong?
Dammit, I was aiming for 80% wrong, I guess I overshot.

No.

Not everyone gets everything.

Clearly.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

peterb said:


> I don't really understand why you feel the need to get personal, especially in a thread that you admitted up front is likely to generate lots of heat. Could you please stop? Thanks in advance.


I don't 'really understand' why you consider disagreement with your view as 'getting personal'. There was no disparagement of your intelligence, ancestors, or even your choice of cologne. I would appreciate your elucidation here, because my incomprehension has repeatedly resulted in 'points' from the Team. The Team is notoriously uncommunicative regarding the fine points of social decorum. I hope you will be more forthcoming.

:tiphat:


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Now we are starting to get personal so let's stop and go back to the discussion.


----------

