# Two "Strains" of Composers?



## JohannesBrahms (Apr 22, 2013)

Lately I have been reading about two theoretical strains of composers starting at J. S. Bach.

The first strain starts with Bach and moves through Mozart, Schubert, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Debussy, Scriabin, and Rachmaninoff, among others. It contains the composers who were inspired by the voice and aimed for a vocal sound in music.

The second strain starts with Bach and moves through Haydn, Beethoven, Schumann, Liszt, Brahms, Dvorak, and Tchaikovsky, among others. It contains the composers who were inspired by the orchestra and, when composing for the piano, aimed for an orchestral sound.

Does anybody here agree with this concept? It seems somewhat logical, and the composers in each strain seemed to admire the ones who came before them in the same strain. For example, Chopin greatly admired Mozart, and Rachmaninoff admired Chopin. Brahms and Liszt both greatly admired Beethoven as well. This is not to say that composers never liked anybody from the other strain; Rachmaninoff's love of Tchaikovsky and Liszt's admiration of Chopin put an end to that argument.

So what do you all think about this? Which of the "strains" do you yourself tend to align with?


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2013)

Well, I think that whoever it is you've been reading--whoever is it, just by the way?--has been doing some straining. At a gnat.

And has swallowed a camel.

For one, at least two of the composers on the "orchestral" list were opera composers. Not how we think of them today, but how they thought of themselves. And you can't get too much more vocal than opera.

For two, while oversimplifying a complex situation can help a neophyte understand the situation, its utility is temporary. The "two strains" idea seems to be headed towards being a permanent explanation of something that cannot be so blithely explained. Your last sentence, in fact, assumes its permanence and asks us to collude.

For three, "aimed for an orchestral sound" in their piano music sounds very much like a theory made up and then applied to whatever the maker upper sees fit. In science and in intellectual circles generally this is known as "a bad thing."

What is "an orchestral sound" for a piano? And in what way does the piano music of Mozart, Schubert, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Debussy, Scriabin, and Rachmaninoff not have this sound? In what way does the piano music of Haydn, Beethoven, Schumann, Liszt, Brahms, Dvorak, and Tchaikovsky have it? More people on the first list have a significant solo piano oeuvre than on the second list.

Lastly, what understanding of the music of these people does this theory promote? I fear sadly none. Anyway, if we talk about this further, it will help to know which book or books or articles you've been reading. And it will help immeasurably to elucidate "orchestral sound." That is, if it can be elucidated.

And the final lastly, no, I do not know myself why this topic has called out all those multisyllabic words from my vocabulary. No idear.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I don't know. Tchaikovsky wrote very well for the voice. Quite a few operas.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2013)

Yep. Tchaikovsky is one of the two I referred to.

Dvorak is the other.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes. Dvorak too.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Schumann and Brahms were both important composers of _lieder_. Liszt also composed some 6 dozen _lieder_ and somewhere north of 100 choral works. Everybody else on the 'orchestral' list composed at least one opera.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

So goes that theory!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

What's interesting though is the idea that J S Bach is the fons et origo.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2013)

JohannesBrahms said:


> Lately I have been reading about two theoretical strains of composers starting at J. S. Bach.


You should have given the references to whichever sources you are referring to. Can we have them please?

Pending any further clarification from the source material, it all sounds highly implausible to me. As soon as I saw reference to Tchaikovsky being included in the the "second strain" which includes Beethoven, it was quite obvious that this makes no sense since it's well known that Tchaikovsky's "god" was Mozart (who is part of the so-called first strain), and definitely not Beethoven.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

This discussion reminds me of threads concerning "melodic" composers, which also engendered a lot of hostility (for reasons I don't really understand). One criticism seems a bit out of place: composers in the 2nd "strain" might compose good vocal works without writing instrumental works that sound like singing. The "two strains" approach seems like a fairly conventional way to contrast, for example, various works by Mozart and Haydn (who also composed amazing vocal works, of course). 

Like others, I'd appreciate a mention of the work that inspired the thread.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Blancrocher said:


> This discussion reminds me of threads concerning "melodic" composers, which also engendered a lot of hostility (for reasons I don't really understand). One criticism seems a bit out of place: composers in the 2nd "strain" might compose good vocal works without writing instrumental works that sound like singing. The "two strains" approach seems like a fairly conventional way to contrast, for example, various works by Mozart and Haydn (who also composed amazing vocal works, of course).
> 
> Like others, I'd appreciate a mention of the work that inspired the thread.


Your approach sort of works if the 'strains' were compositions; doesn't work for composers though.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Ukko said:


> Your approach


I dispute that :lol:


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> One criticism seems a bit out of place: composers in the 2nd "strain" might compose good vocal works without writing instrumental works that sound like singing.


If the issue is song-like vs. non-song-like melodies in instrumental works, then, as Ukko points out, we should probably be talking about pieces of music rather than composers. There are certainly composers who habitually used song like melodies (Schubert), but I'd say tht most probably included or omitted them as it pleased them from piece to piece.

Making Bach the origin of both schools also seems really weird to me, as I can't think of any Bach instrumental works with especially song-like melodies. EDIT: ok, I can think of one, but it was a joke.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> What's interesting though is the idea that J S Bach is the fons et origo.


Well, the entire notion presented in the OP is mildly screwy to begin with -- or yet another weirdly simplified reductive device for the lazy, so why not have the composer who is often considered the author of some of the most 'artificial / synthetic' writing for either voice or instruments as the _fons et origo?_

At any rate it makes as much 'sense' as the rest of it...

I was looking forward to something more interesting or bizarrely funny, like an "Andromedra Strain" amongst the composer population


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Considering that he wrote more than 600 songs, it's ironic that in most of Schubert's solo piano works, he aims for more "orchestral sound" than "song-like melody". Example would be the Wanderer Fantasy and the piano sonatas.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

JohannesBrahms said:


> Lately I have been reading about two theoretical strains of composers starting at J. S. Bach.
> 
> The first strain starts with Bach and moves through Mozart, Schubert, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Debussy, Scriabin, and Rachmaninoff, among others. It contains the composers who were inspired by the voice and aimed for a vocal sound in music.
> 
> ...


J. S. Bach's music was instrumental in idiom, not vocal, even though he wrote a lot of vocal music.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I was looking forward to something more interesting or bizarrely funny, like an "Andromedra Strain" amongst the composer population


Well, we could of course classify composers into two groups: those who died of infectious diseases, and those who died of something else.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

brianvds said:


> Well, we could of course classify composers into two groups: those who died of infectious diseases, and those who died of something else.


Berg died of sepsis, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. It's a small school.

EDIT: Schubert, duh. Where is my head this evening?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianvds said:


> Well, we could of course classify composers into two groups: those who died of infectious diseases, and those who died of something else.


I like the premise of any and all of the true 'genius' composers as aliens who were engineered and slipped into the general population, us earthlings being none the wiser -- rather like Erich von Daniken's underlying premise of his Chariots of the Gods, i.e. if a white European male did not come up with the genius of the non-white and non-European cultures, it requires an attribution crediting sentient non-earthlings.

*All great genius composers were and are aliens, how else could they so transcend the usual limitations of us mere mortal earthlings?* Its as good whack as many another similar more earth-bound premise


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

brianvds said:


> Well, we could of course classify composers into two groups: those who died of infectious diseases, and those who died of something else.


I recently toted up the composers who died (actually or probably) of the Big S. Amazing number. And a lot of the others died of the Big T. No Obamacare in those days! [and of course it might not have helped]


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I don't align myself with any _strain_. I listen to music I'm obviously attracted to and forget about the music I have no interest in.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Berg died of sepsis, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. It's a small school


According to a Mozart biography I read, he died of rheumatic fever. Probably. And Schubert died of typhus, if memory serves. Oh, and then there is Chopin: victim of TB.

I would think that infection played a role in the deaths of many, in the days before antibiotics.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

It's my impression that Mozart's COD is a matter of much debate. Rheumatic fever is not unlikely, though.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The general view seems to be that Schubert died of tertiary syphilis. He had first shown symptoms in 1823, and some of his later symptoms were consistent with mercury poisoning (mercury being used to treat syphilis at the time). At that time, cause of death was often ascribed to something else, to avoid opprobrium.

I believe that Mozart officially died of miliary fever, which is not defined in today's medicine.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

ahammel said:


> It's my impression that Mozart's COD is a matter of much debate. Rheumatic fever is not unlikely, though.


Probably more likely than acute Salieritis anyway. 

Another victim of infection occurs to me: Lully. Not sure though whether one should consider his COD as infection, or the accidental self-inflicted wound that went septic.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Berg died of sepsis, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. It's a small school.
> 
> EDIT: Schubert, duh. Where is my head this evening?


Scriabin: "In 1915 ... from septicemia as a result of a sore on his upper lip. He had mentioned the sore as early as 1914..."

_Don't scratch it, don't open it, and see a doctor._


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> The general view seems to be that Schubert died of tertiary syphilis. He had first shown symptoms in 1823, and some of his later symptoms were consistent with mercury poisoning (mercury being used to treat syphilis at the time).


As far as I know, some are of the opinion that Schumann also died of syphilis.

I heard a story once that when it was suggested to emperor Joseph (he of the phrase "well, there it is" in the film _Amadeus_) that prostitution be legalized in Vienna, he replied that building the walls of all the brothels would be easy, but building a roof would be almost impossible since the entire city would have to get one big roof.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianvds said:


> Probably more likely than acute Salieritis anyway.
> 
> Another victim of infection occurs to me: Lully. Not sure though whether one should consider his COD as infection, or the accidental self-inflicted wound that went septic.


At the end it is all heart failure, of course. 
Lully: accident cause of wound (many others cut their foot, etc. and survived); infection "the taker."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

brianvds said:


> Another victim of infection occurs to me: Lully. Not sure though whether one should consider his COD as infection, or the accidental self-inflicted wound that went septic.


That caused me to look up gangrene. Urgh. Be careful when you're conducting! Wiki has a picture of a gangrenous foot (probably not Lully's!)


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

*Case no 1:* S strain

Delius
Schubert
Donizetti
Wolf
Joplin

*All dead. No penicillin invented then.*


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Mahler died of heart problems very shortly before penicillin was invented


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Getting back to the original post. The problem is with such generalisations is that he put so much strain on the credibility. True that there were composers whose chief inspiration and genius lay in a certain area. But to confine it just the voice or the orchestra seems incredible. I mean, Chopin was first and foremost a pianist and was inspired by the piano. So was Rachmaninov.

Probably someone trying to pick up a PhD and had to think he did something original.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Where this falls apart all too readily is with many a composer, but let's take Rachmaninoff or Prokofiev:

Both wrote wonderful music for the piano, idiomatic to the piano to the Nth degree, and certainly in that interior mode of conception and execution, fully for and about the piano.

Then you get to their orchestral work, where exactly the same quality of idiomatic, for and about the orchestra and its instruments is equally true.

Which are they, then?

The 'Melody' factor, so often brought up, is as often sneered at -- or at least rightly discounted -- because a melody, per se, is a self-contained series of intervals, with its own Q & A within, and really independent of needing any further harmonic context. It is usually mentioned by people who think of melody near exactly like that, and probably hear a lot of their classical music more in that listening mode than following the play of motif or all the inner workings of what most often distinguishes classical from popular music.

Mozart could certainly write a memorable tune, as could Beethoven and many another. The fact the majority of their works is more about a brief and open-ended motif, _or that they have a lyric quality_, is something quite else other than 'just a tune.'

Here is the adjectival half of the definition of LYRIC:
lyr·ic
ˈlirik/
adjective
adjective: lyric

1.
(of poetry) expressing the writer's emotions, usually briefly and in stanzas or recognized forms.
(of a poet) writing lyric poetry.
2.
(of a singing voice) using a light register.
"a lyric soprano with a light, clear timber"

The second part is the most important as to 'having a quality of being sung.' The perception of that quality is very much dependent upon the listener's conditioning and habit. The smaller the intervals adjacent to each other, the more likely many are to think those notes could be something sung.

The empfindsamer stil middle movement of Bach's Italian Concerto, and the Andante of Mozart's piano concerto 21, C major, K. 467, are both like idealized arias far outside the confines of the human voice, both its range and in length of continuous phrase where a singer would have had to take one or more breaths. They are so musically sophisticated, and not 'self contained memorable ditties,' that I think it a huge mistake to think of them as a melody. They are both lyric, without a doubt.

Here, then, from Bach and Mozart (just two examples by way of being well-known to all) is music which is both instrumental and lyric, not necessarily driven by either as a polarized way of thought or approach.


----------

