# Does a recognizable "stamp" tend to be a sign of a composer of solid merit?



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

That is, if you could tell who composed a piece with a little knowledge of how that composer sounds, if you heard a piece blindfolded(not knowing the composer or piece), does that generally indicate merit? It certainly means at the least that the composer has an individual voice. Lets look at some less typically thought of composers in this regard, for example, Dittersdorf, I can usually tell a mature Dittersdorf piece from the way he sequences, his cadences, and his genteel modulations. Martinu, I can spot him from a mile away with his sea woodwinds, and bouncy Czech sounding and syncopated melodies that seem to swim in that sea. Honegger, tends to orchestrate with a lot of muted horns and low brass, sounds kind of big and fat, its hard to describe. Medtner, instantly with his thick pianism, his syncopation, and enormous chords that modulate a certain way. Hovhaness, for his gentle and sometimes bland sounding mystery, like him or not. 

Is this what makes us want to know about a composer? Perhaps some skilled tone manipulators of the past and present lose recognition due to their lack of individuality. 

On the other hand, some know how to cross styles and still sound special with a variety of sound. Is that a sign of a composer of even greater merit?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

It's a sign of distinction, not necessarily quality. Some artists can be distinctly bad.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I like that, RT...it's true,...I don't think it's either a flaw or a sign or greatness,...rather, simply a 'stamp', like you said...I get most confused within the classical period with this...I'll be listening to pandora or other internet classical radio and suddenly hear something I'm not familiar with and I'll start to try and guess,...when I go up to the screen to check it out I will sometimes be completely off...it's fun and educational!

Chopin sometimes throws me off,...I'll be like, "oh, that's Chopin" and it turns out being someone different. Rarely.


----------



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

I reckon it should be possible to deduce that certain works were written by Philip Glass - my difficulty would be in actually telling them apart.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The signature stamp is something that is probably being lost today due to the massive exposure of all music to millions of listeners and musicians around the world. I do prefer to listen to music that I can identify with the composer, whether it's Beethoven, Stravinsky, or Zappa.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I asked this question on Yahoo, in the classical section as well, and quickly received an interesting answer. When my computer stops acting up with that site, maybe I can link it.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

It really depends. Sometimes there are composers that pull off the signature and I really like it. It's sort of that feeling like "Oh man, haha that is SO Mozart" or insert any other composers name in place of Mozart. 

On the other hand, there are composers, that don't pull it off very well. For example, I have a hard time listening to Penderecki's neo-romantic stuff because I can hear him doing the same thing in all the pieces, like he just tore up the score to the last piece he wrote and glued it back together in a different order or something. With him I get the feeling like "Oh, he's doing this thing again...wow.."


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

^^^^^^^^^
Perhaps some composers have what it takes to develop their voice, but not what it takes to move on from there, they get content with what they have and don't grow enough.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> Perhaps some composers have what it takes to develop their voice, but not what it takes to move on from there, they get content with what they have and don't grow enough.


Perhaps, or maybe there's just a very fine line between having an recognizable voice and just straight up plagiarizing yourself.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Perhaps, or maybe there's just a very fine line between having an recognizable voice and just straight up plagiarizing yourself.


Some other examples, Hovhaness listed above certainly had that problem. Some don't even like what he started out as. I kind of enjoy it, but when he kept at it for the next 400 op., you start to really wonder. Handel is a great, who's full of rehash, but that was somehow more acceptable in the baroque. Plus Handel had a lot of skill, I think.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

violadude said:


> ...
> On the other hand, there are composers, that don't pull it off very well. For example, I have a hard time listening to Penderecki's neo-romantic stuff because I can hear him doing the same thing in all the pieces, like he just tore up the score to the last piece he wrote and glued it back together in a different order or something. With him I get the feeling like "Oh, he's doing this thing again...wow.."


Yes, that's what I call rehash, and I dislike it intensely. It's the composer treating the audience as a fool (that's what I feel about this, anyway). I don't mind Penderecki's more recent things, but I haven't listened to a whole lot of them. However, Arvo Part takes the cake imo for being the "master" of rehash. So as you say, the signature sound or "stamP" of a composer can go way too far. It can turn into rehash, cliche and using the carbon paper too much until it wears out.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

To be more positive, good arrangers can kind of copy the sound of a composer, esp. if they know and work with the composer. One was Rudolf Barshai, who did very idiomatic arrangments of music of guys he personally knew - Shostakovich & Prokofiev. Also, Malcolm Arnold, who Walton asked to arrange his string quartet into the version for string orchestra. This is Walton's _Sonata for strings_, and Arnold arranged a movement or two of that.

I really don't know how these guys do it exacatly, but I'd guess it's working with and talking to the composer about how to arrange their piece to kind of perfectly replicate their sound. Of course, if he was still living, the composer can make changes to the arrangement.

Another great arranger was Schoenberg, eg. his orchestration of Brahms'_ Piano Quartet #1_ was dubbed by some to be Brahms' _fifth symphony_. It does sound very Brahmsian throughout - that signature autumnal feel - but in the final movement Schoenberg spices things up a bit with expanded percussion section (eg. xylophone, which Brahms never had access to use) and also sliding glissandos on the brass, a new technique of the 1930's. But Schoenberg was not a fan of dry authenticity, he thought music was a living art, so his arrangment in part reflects this as well as being faithful to Brahms' vision overall...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

violadude said:


> Perhaps, or maybe there's just a very fine line between having an recognizable voice and just straight up plagiarizing yourself.


True. A composer can have a personal sound and continue to be inventive, or they can do rehash.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

@Sid James

Tchaikovsky did a mean copy of classicism in his opera, Queen of Spades for this one ballet scene. There's definitely something to be said for that. A certain flexibility that some great composers probably had more than others.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Another interesting take on this is that I bet any composer that you become deeply delved in could start to sound instantly recognizable to you. For example, I probably couldn't tell a Schumann piece was Schumann right off the bat if I heard a piece by him I had never heard before, but I bet Klavierspieler could.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Another interesting take on this is that I bet any composer that you become deeply delved in could start to sound instantly recognizable to you. For example, I probably couldn't tell a Schumann piece was Schumann right off the bat if I heard a piece by him I had never heard before, but I bet Klavierspieler could.


And a baroque, classical or renaissance specialists can often differentiate between composers, picking up on subtleties that go right by those who are more interested in Romantic, 20th century, and popular music, so on.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Even though I don't listen to a lot of baroque music, I can usually recognize JS Bach. There's something about it than sounds richer, more inventive, and musically superior to some of the other stuff from that era.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Even though I don't listen to a lot of baroque music, I can usually recognize JS Bach. There's something about it than sounds richer, more inventive, and musically superior to some of the other stuff from that era.


As much as I used to not care for a lot of the heavy Bach and how much I liked the lighter baroque, I now find that to be very much true.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Here was an interesting response that I got from posting this query elsewhere, the user who posted it chooses to remain anonymous. There are some interesting thoughts in here, it kind of sums up a good portion of this conversation.

"LOL. I'm glad you made the call on the 'status' of those composers.

Another who in what used to be called a 'drop the needle' test (old LP's - music appreciation or literature class quizzes and exams) is easy to identify in a second is Paul Hindemith, another 'great' but 'second tier' (and fading from that status as we speak) composer.

Though he can surprise from one piece to another at times, I consider Poulenc another most always instantly identifiable composer, but personally place him 'very much higher' than Hindemith.

That identifiable quality could also mean they just never 'grew' much, as it were, or were not as adventurous, say, as was Stravinsky, whose music is heavily 'fingerprinted' throughout his output while the music nonetheless was taken in very different directions at times. He is a composer who, if you do not know all the work, could elicit from you upon hearing a work of his unknown to you, "THAT is Stravinsky?

While I think it vitally important to have a fingerprint, an M.O. as you put it, I think 'one identifiable sound' is more a commercial 20th century concern. (viz Film composer John Williams or the choral composer “Whitachords” – i.e. not necessarily a Good Thing!) 

Where I would agree to a point is those identifiable composers you mention have Distinct Musical Traits which are 'unique' and idiosyncratic to them. That equates with a distinct 'personality.' ( All artists in training are constantly being reminded they should find and develop ‘a unique voice.’)

I think if you are beyond just a good craftsman, you can subsume yourself to making a table or a symphony and the end result, as a piece, will have its own distinct personality which inevitably has the individual makers stamp on it as well, since that work came 'through' the craftsman. Pieces without that, no matter how 'well crafted,' lack that animation which makes us perk up and pay attention: they may be well-crafted but lack ‘vitality,’ and seem bland and generic. (In art, that = ‘why bother?)

I think any craftsman who makes something which truly has its own personality must, surely, be considered some level of 'Master.' When that quality is present in the most absolute and abstract of the plastic arts that is one amazing demonstration of 'mastery.'

I suppose that construct would have to include Hovhaness, whom I consider one of the most worthless of composers who has a reputation. As much as it is readily identifiable, I find it 'dreadful' and don't consider it, regardless of his craft, worthy of discussion or inclusion in a talk of great or even greatly lesser art.

To offset that wholly personal opinion:
In classical music's history and its body of literature there is a true 'Embarrassment of Riches' of many more than a mere handful of Extreme and Genius masters: Monteverdi, Rameau, Mozart, Schubert - it does go on and on... and because of that more than modest handful, the other masters seem by comparison very much 'less' indeed.


Best regards."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I will be blunt, I think that article you posted above is on the whole rubbish, clavi. Re that HIndemith is "second tier," that doesn't match with my experience. His violin concerto can give some of the better known ones of 20th century a huge run for their money. So much emotion in that, and it speaks to its times and our times. I sent a copy of it to a friend overseas, and this person had little experience with such modern music. The response I got was "this music is so emotional." So with an ability to reach out to people like that with such complex and sophisticated, innovative (etc.) music, would I call Hindemith second tier? You bet your bottom dollar I wouldn't. The person with that opinion is maybe second tier and insecure himself. HIs opinion of Hovhaness is similarly showing a lack of understanding of that composer (& dare I say, the basics of music appreciation)...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> Here was an interesting response that I got from posting this query elsewhere, the user who posted it chooses to remain anonymous. There are some interesting thoughts in here, it kind of sums up a good portion of this conversation.


That anonymous poster is merely expressing his preference, like we all do, which is fine. But his "analogies" are just pure fluff dressed up to support his preference.


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

I don't think it's necessary, but it's really wonderful when the stamp is recognizable. For example, I love Sibelius' distinctive sound. There's no other composer like him. But the sound alone wouldn't mean much if he didn't composer great music to go along with it, of course.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

You know you have forged a distinctive style when, for better or for worse, you can be parodied. (I think it's an affectionate parody, though - "We laugh, but we love you.")


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> ^^I will be blunt, I think that article you posted above is on the whole rubbish, clavi. Re that HIndemith is "second tier," that doesn't match with my experience. His violin concerto can give some of the better known ones of 20th century a huge run for their money. So much emotion in that, and it speaks to its times and our times. I sent a copy of it to a friend overseas, and this person had little experience with such modern music. The response I got was "this music is so emotional." So with an ability to reach out to people like that with such complex and sophisticated, innovative (etc.) music, would I call Hindemith second tier? You bet your bottom dollar I wouldn't. The person with that opinion is maybe second tier and insecure himself. HIs opinion of Hovhaness is similarly showing a lack of understanding of that composer (& dare I say, the basics of music appreciation)...


To be honest, I wasn't totally sure what he was saying, but I overlooked much of his opinions when he talked about the truth of what I said. Perhaps he inversely proves there is some truth to what I said, he couldn't bury it despite all his qualifications.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Well, historically speaking, all the great composers have their own stamp and seal. Faceless composers tend to be poor composers. However, some composers have ugly faces.


----------



## Operadowney (Apr 4, 2012)

A classic example is Rossini, to the point that he freaked out when people wanted to publish a Collected Works edition of his music. He knew as well as anybody else that he stole from himself. I think once it gets to that point it's not okay, but I love identifying music based on stylistic characteristics!


----------

