# Composer on Composer Quotes



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

We see a lot of those thrown around for validation of one's views in the forum. How dependable are they? My own opinion is they are mostly reactionary like Saint-Saens on Debussy, which recently discussed. 

What are some quotes you agree or disagree with? 

Here's one I somewhat agree with (Tchaikovsky on Brahms): “It angers me that this conceited mediocrity is regarded as a genius”

Here's one I find bewildering, given who is saying it (Prokofiev on Stravinsky): "Bach on the wrong notes"


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Here's one I totally disagree with (Tchaikovsky on Brahms): “It angers me that this conceited mediocrity is regarded as a genius”.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Prokofiev on Debussy's music: "gelatine, absolutely spineless music...." Prokofiev on Ravel: "the only composer in France who knows what he is doing is Ravel".


----------



## brahms4 (May 8, 2017)

Brahms was famously self-effacing.He had zero conceit.Nothing mediocre about his talent in my opinion.In fairness,Tchaikovsky was also anything but conceited and a great composer himself.


----------



## brahms4 (May 8, 2017)

Stravinsky on Villa-Lobos: "Why is it that every time I hear music that I do not like,it is always by Villa-Lobos"!?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I've always been much more inclined to take note of quotes that are positive than those that are negative.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Boulez has some great ones:



> He accused Schoenberg, after his death, of the "most ostentatious and obsolete romanticism." Webern was "too simple." Berg suffered from "bad taste," Ravel from "affectation." Twelve-tone music in its extant form was overrun by "number-fanatics" who engaged in "frenetic arithmetic ************." Boulez's teacher, Olivier Messiaen, produced "brothel music." John Cage, who was at one time an ally of Boulez, became a "performing monkey," and Karlheinz Stockhausen, likewise, a "hippie." The American minimalists displayed a "supermarket aesthetic," the American serialists had a "cashier's point of view." Brahms was a "bore," Tchaikovsky "abominable," Verdi "stupid, stupid, stupid!" And so on.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

Conductors talking to musicians are much worse than even the most jealous and mean-spirited composer vs. composer bitch slap rapping - wasn't it Beecham that said to a woman cellist in his orchestra: 
"Between your legs you have the most wonderful instrument and all you can do is scratch it!"


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

flamencosketches said:


> Boulez has some great ones:
> 
> He accused Schoenberg, after his death, of the "most ostentatious and obsolete romanticism." Webern was "too simple." Berg suffered from "bad taste," Ravel from "affectation." Twelve-tone music in its extant form was overrun by "number-fanatics" who engaged in "frenetic arithmetic ************." Boulez's teacher, Olivier Messiaen, produced "brothel music." John Cage, who was at one time an ally of Boulez, became a "performing monkey," and Karlheinz Stockhausen, likewise, a "hippie." The American minimalists displayed a "supermarket aesthetic," the American serialists had a "cashier's point of view." Brahms was a "bore," Tchaikovsky "abominable," Verdi "stupid, stupid, stupid!" And so on.


Perhaps Boulez stopped liking music.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

“He gives me the impression of being a spoiled child" -Clara Schumann (on Liszt)”


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

People before the 20th century usually had only one letter to express everything. A misunderstanding could remain toxic and uncorrected for months or longer, and indifference or dislike very hard to repair. That's why they were so courteous, and in their praise---so hyperbolizing at times. Meanwhile negative comments were very frequently based on ignorance of the type that is hard to comprehend for us, in the Librarian Period of classical music---namely on hearing only singular performances of singular pieces, often by clueless or distortingly individualist conductors and orchestras of lower standards than what we imagine now. The amount of reading of unknown music they could have done was also limited by a myriad of factors.

That's my general thought about such historical records of opinions.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

How faint can praise be?

Wagner on Brahms: "He shows what can still be done with the old forms by one who knows how to handle them."

Brahms on Wagner (upon hearing the _Siegfried Idyll_): "Yes, yes, but...one CAN'T have music like that ALL the time!"


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Bizet re Gounod: "To be a great artist it is not necessary to be an honorable man"

Debussy on Grieg: "One has in one's mouth the bizarre and charming taste of a pink bonbon stuffed with snow"

Tchaikovsky on Mussorgsky: "His nature is not of the finest quality; he likes what is coarse, unpolished, and ugly."

Cesar Cui on Richard Strauss: "His absurd cacophany will not be music even in the thirtieth century."

Rimsky-Korsakov on Debussy: "Better not listen to it; you risk getting used to it, and then you would end up liking it."


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

"Never ask a composer about another composer." In most of the above quotes, the composers were close enough in time to be contemporaries, therefore _competitors_ and capable of trash talking.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

For example:
1. Should we just assume every great artist after Beethoven in history absolutely loved Beethoven's Op.106 and Op.111 and found them inspirational and impressive (more so than Beethoven's own Op.57) and had absolutely no problem appreciating them whatsoever and even drew inspiration from them.
OR 
2. Should we go through and check proper facts and accept that appreciation for the late sonatas is a pretty "modern" thing and the late sonatas did not inspire and influence the later artists through history as we would like to believe. 
(I'm not trying to unfairly bash Beethoven here, I also uphold Berlioz's opinion Beethoven Op.57 was the greatest piece of music ever written)

"1" seems more like "wishful thinking" than "2" to me. Some people even claim that the sonatas don't belong in Classical or Romantic traditions. But how can a composer and his work not be a part of the tradition and still be influential in it?



Phil loves classical said:


> 1. Beethoven's solo keyboard works are way more significant than Mozart's. There is expression more fully realized and instrumental technique there not found in Bach, Haydn or Mozart. Who's solo works had more influence on Liszt's technique?


You once pointed out the "technique" of the Beethoven sonatas to argue that they were very influential. But a contemporary of Beethoven, Hummel was just as influential, if not more, in that regard. I think a more reasonable view would be "pianist-composers in Beethoven's time were _expected_ to write with that kind of technique and Beethoven's technique was not really that special (as you made it out to be) in that regard."

<Hummel and the Romantics>:
https://www.earlymusicamerica.org/files/EMagSummer07Hummel.pdf

14:00










reminds me of

2:30










1:00


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^ I think your GPS malfunctioned and you ended up in the wrong part of town.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> Prokofiev on Debussy's music: "gelatine, absolutely spineless music...."





Phil loves classical said:


> Here's one I find bewildering, given who is saying it (Prokofiev on Stravinsky): "Bach on the wrong notes"


Imagine what Prokofiev could've been if he had good taste.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner on Brahms: "He shows what can still be done with the old forms by one who knows how to handle them."


Didn't Wagner say "Brahms wished he could compose like Bach"



Woodduck said:


> ^^^ I think your GPS malfunctioned and you ended up in the wrong part of town.


My post addresses the OP's question _"We see a lot of those thrown around for validation of one's views in the forum. How dependable are they?"_ I think they're something to keep in mind when discussing influence.


----------

