# The most humble composers and the most arrogant composers



## ScipioAfricanus

Here is my list for the humble. Haydn, Chopin, Bruckner, Bach and Bizet.
The most arrogant, Wagner, Mozart, Brahms, Beethoven.

What sayest thou


----------



## Aramis

Why do you think Chopin was humble? It is said that he was very supercilious towards other composers. 

Tchaikovsky was very arrognant. So was Scriabin. 

I have nothing against arrogance, great composer must know his value. Only Brahms is annoying, he makes impression of acrimonious old geezer that hated everything new.


----------



## TWhite

Hm, I don't know that I'd call Brahms 'arrogant', exactly. Irascible, perhaps, but not arrogant. He had an acerbic wit, certainly, but he was well liked by his compatriots. He wisely chose to distance himself from the "Brahms/Wagner" opposing camps (which was started not by him, but by the music critic Eduard Hanslick), and in fact attended Bayreuth several times for Wagner performances--it is said that he liked "Parsifal" quite a bit. 

But someone who would describe his own massive Second Piano Concerto to a colleague as "A tiny piano concerto with a tiny, tiny wisp of a Scherzo", or ask the orchestra to wear black mourning armbands at the premiere of his Second Symphony--well, this does not strike me as an 'arrogant' composer at all. 

Now, Chopin, on the other hand----exactly how arrogant do you want to get?

Tom


----------



## Nix

I'm not sure how humble Bach was... didn't he get fired from his first organ post because he wouldn't stop improvising really complex stuff during hymns? And I thought he was always complaining about the quality of players he had to endure. 

Maybe he was more humble as just a composer, but I don't think in other respects. He was recognized as the finest organist in Europe, and he thought himself as such.


----------



## Weston

I think arrogance can arise from the presumption of superiority. In Beethoven's case, that was not a presumption. That probably applies to most others on the list as well.

On the arrogance side I might include Rameau and Bernard Hermann. Both were reputed to be ill tempered anyway. I don't know if that equates to arrogance.

On the humility side I might add D. Scarlatti who dismissed his compositions as fun little trifles. I think that John Cage had a considerable endowment of humility - as well he might considering what he was doing. In the case of Bruckner I think it was unfortunate. There is no definitive version of his symphonies as he kept revising them. One could say this is great - we have more versions of them, but some of us like our collections a little neater.


----------



## 151

I'll reserve my judgement until I get a chance to meet them.


----------



## Mayerl

Thank God!!! A sensible comment. Are we here to discuss music or carry out character asassinations on people whose (musically, at least), boots we are not fit to lick. Will be interesting to see how many times Wagner's name appears purely and simply for his lack of, shall we say "political correctness" in certain quarters.


----------



## Argus

The most humble I can think of would be John Cage. Schoenberg is up there as well. Schubert, Mendelssohn and Schumann seemed pretty humble too. 

It's hard to get past Wagner as the most arrogant. Apparently Handel was a bit of an **** as well. 

Richard Strauss gave a somewhat humble description of himself near the end of his life as a 'first-class second-rate composer'.


----------



## Mayerl

Need a while to work out why the name John Cage appears in a list of composers.


----------



## Head_case

151 said:


> I'll reserve my judgement until I get a chance to meet them.


But most of them are dead.

And I just don't have those kinds of connections


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Pretentious Composers: Mahler, Stravinsky

Just plain proud: Prokofiev wahaha

Unpretentious Composers: Sibelius, Schubert, Dvorak

Humble to the point of inferiority complex: Glazunov indeed, except when comparing his music to the recherche cacophonists haha

This is only what I can tell by listening to their music. By personal life, the only one I'm sure of is Prokofiev, whose favorite thing was to write out and _reread _his whole life story in his diaries so _other _people would read them like a book. He already got to doing that when he was a teenager I think.

Rachmaninoff was pretty humble too, but he was also self-critical to a negative level.

Paul Dukas, if you've heard his story, was so critical of himself that he burned most of his works (incompleted, or just disliked) before his death. That is almost a kind of pride in itself, as if his own music wasn't good enough for him.


----------



## Chris

I've heard it said that Benjamin Britten denigrated rival composers when he was younger and establishing himself


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

@151, we can from reading composer's biographies, and their quotes tell what type of personalities they had. To say you have to wait until you meet someone to tell what type of person they are is to defeat basic investigatory methodology. "Because I never met Stalin, I will withhold judgment on him as to whether he was evil or not."


I read some quotes of Wagner, that man takes the cake. He ripped into Schumann's symphonies by saying that they are a sort of jargon that has the appearance of profundity but it is of my opinion just as bereft of content and meaning". Brahms was pretty insensitive and callous. He rejected Hans Rott's symphony which such negativity that poor Hans snapped. And his rejection of Hans Rott symphony was merely because Anton Bruckner thought highly of Hans. Chopin is said to have commented once that he can only compose for the piano. Beethoven's temper is common knowledge commencing from his dispute with Haydn over the publication of his (Beethoven) early piano trios. Also Beethoven said that Rossini would have composed better if his mama had spanked him some more. (ouch)

Mendelssohn and Schumann were pretty humble, I could have dinner with them.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Chris said:


> I've heard it said that Benjamin Britten denigrated rival composers when he was younger and establishing himself


it figures. He's a Brit.


----------



## Falstaft

Good question ScipioAfricanus. I think it's difficult not to give Wagner the gold medal for arrogance here. At least (in my book) he was able to back it up.

I get the sense that Ralph Vaughan Williams is a humble and reserved composer. Stravinsky was rather a tool though. Bernstein could be intolerant of other composers -- I'm thinking of his rude dismissal of the music of Hovhaness. 

Certainly the post-war atonalists have a reputation for arrogance: Stockhausen's artistic demeanor was one extreme self-genius promotion. And there's Boulez and his pronouncement "Schoenberg is dead!" A quite different frenchie, Henri Dutilleux was extremely humble and selective in his output.


----------



## Norse

Nix said:


> I'm not sure how humble Bach was... didn't he get fired from his first organ post because he wouldn't stop improvising really complex stuff during hymns? And I thought he was always complaining about the quality of players he had to endure.
> 
> Maybe he was more humble as just a composer, but I don't think in other respects. He was recognized as the finest organist in Europe, and he thought himself as such.


Bach supposedly composed parts of WTK book 1 in jail, where he was because he had hit someone "important", iirc. But I guess ill-tempered and arrogant isn't necessarily related.

Chopin is supposed to have just looked at Kreisleriana (a famous work that Schumann dedicated to Chopin) and just dismissed it as "not music". Hopefully Schumann didn't know of this.

Poulenc, despite his often fun and charming music, is also supposed to have been arrogant, probably in an ironic and "French" way..


----------



## Nix

Charles Ives is another arrogant one that comes to mind, especially when he said to take his music "like a man." 

As for previous posters saying that we shouldn't pass judgement because we never met them, and that attitude doesn't matter, just music does- I don't think thats really true. I can appreciate the music of a composer even if he was known as being arrogant- and knowing the personality of a composer better helps me understand their music.


----------



## Il Seraglio

Mendelssohn, Saint-Saens, Schoenberg and Debussy all sounded pretty arrogant from the descriptions I've heard of them. Mendelssohn especially.

If I was going to call Wagner arrogant, I should probably get some sort of award for understatement of the century.

I don't think Bach ever described himself as the greatest composer of all time so I guess that makes him pretty humble.


----------



## Aramis

> Chopin is supposed to have just looked at Kreisleriana (a famous work that Schumann dedicated to Chopin) and just dismissed it as "not music". Hopefully Schumann didn't know of this.


That was not very rude of him considering that Schumann was the one that claimed that Chopin's second piano sonata is not music.


----------



## Norse

You're refering to Schumann's review, right? Well, if you want to use that sort of "revenge" logic on whether it was rude of Chopin, we should consider that this review appeared in 1841, three years after Kreisleriana. It's not unthinkable that Chopin would have received his copy by then. Plus, it's only the last movement of the sonata that Schumann calls "not music". And personally, if there's one 19th century piece that I find it easy to imagine would seem a "mockery" to contemporary audiences, it's the last movement from Chopin's 2nd sonata. Let's not forget that Schumann was the one who earlier had declared Chopin a genius, and that Kreisleriana was a personal dedication to him.


----------



## Norse

On the humble side, when Schubert was asked if he had any written any orchestral works he thought worthy of performance, he answered no. At this point he had written 6 symphonies and The Unfinished.


----------



## Aramis

> You're refering to Schumann's review, right? Well, if you want to use that sort of "revenge" logic on whether it was rude of Chopin, we should consider that this review appeared in 1841, three years after Kreisleriana. It's not unthinkable that Chopin would have received his copy by then.


Chronology aside, my point was that both composers were capeable of developing such extreme opinions.



> Plus, it's only the last movement of the sonata that Schumann calls "not music".


I remember that in the same review he wrote something like: "Only Chopin writes this way - begins with dissonance and ends with dissonance (...) this can not be praised". Funeral march was also bashed.


----------



## JMJ

Argus said:


> The most humble I can think of would be John Cage. Schoenberg is up there as well.


Cage always seemed super self-absorbed, & he was a no talent musically (even going as far as believing harmony wasn't important, how wrong & limited he was - having a strong foundation in harmony is SO important in order to express deeper things) ... a lot of what he said & did was just plain stupid and a result of that self-absorption, hiding up the fact that he was a musical lightweight. 4'33 is a perfect example of that ... the player(s) do nothing, and the 'liner notes' are a book long explaining & justifying to the audience why that's profound "art". Puh-lease.

And Schoenberg wasn't that humble, he no doubt had a high opinion of himself... once claiming that his system secured the dominance of german music for the next 100 years ... he was pretty off the mark on that claim to say the least, but at least he was musically talented and produced some amazing music - so it wasn't just all pontificating...


----------



## Argus

JMJ said:


> Cage always seemed super self-absorbed, & he was a no talent musically (even going as far as believing harmony wasn't important, how wrong & limited he was - having a strong foundation in harmony is SO important in order to express deeper things) ... a lot of what he said & did was just plain stupid and a result of that self-absorption, hiding up the fact that he was a musical lightweight. 4'33 is a perfect example of that ... the player(s) do nothing, and the 'liner notes' are a book long explaining & justifying to the audience why that's profound "art". Puh-lease.
> 
> And Schoenberg wasn't that humble, he no doubt had a high opinion of himself... once claiming that his system secured the dominance of german music for the next 100 years ... he was pretty off the mark on that claim to say the least, but at least he was musically talented and produced some amazing music - so it wasn't just all pontificating...


You're the guy who said this about Stockhausen:



JMJ said:


> A truly extraordinary figure in the entire pantheon of the western art music legacy, there is nothing quite like him - a true pioneer & visionary


Yet you don't like Cage. I detect extra-musical bias based on personalities and intentions. I'd take take Cage's Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano over the Klavierstucke series anyday. (P.S. I like Stockhausen too)

Cage knew what he wanted to do and did it. He extolled the virtues of sound for sounds sake. He never claimed his way to be the only way and never thought less of other composers who didn't share his views. Explain where the arrogance is there? He does ramble on about mushrooms, anechoic chambers, Meister Eckhart and Zen a bit, mind. I could see a person interpretting that as pretentiousness but I prefer to see it has both an eccentricity and his attempt at sounding philosophical.

I don't remember Cage ever saying harmony was unimportant, but I do recall him saying he wasn't a very harmonic writer of music. I think he even said he was poor at harmony. Sounds pretty humble to me.

As for Schoenberg, after reading all of his writings, the most arrogant thing he seems to do is hold the superiority of Germanic musical tradition over every other nation. He always uses Brahms, Beethoven, Wagner, Mozart, Haydn and his own music as examples in his theory books of the highest quality of harmony, voice-leading, modulation etc. Very little mention of even the Italians or Russians, but this might just be due to his own familiarity with German musical history.

It must be harder to be as radical as Schoenberg and Cage whilst not appearing to be arrogant. People often view breaking with tradition as automatically arrogant, no matter the composer's disposition or intentions.



Norse said:


> Plus, it's only the last movement of the sonata that Schumann calls "not music"


I tend to omit that part of the sonata when listening. I find it to be both bland and excessive after the funeral march.


----------



## Nix

Norse said:


> On the humble side, when Schubert was asked if he had any written any orchestral works he thought worthy of performance, he answered no. At this point he had written 6 symphonies and The Unfinished.


Ha... well he was right. Yet for some reason they still get played. The Unfinished is good... but I mean, it's unfinished- of course he wouldn't have thought that worthy of performance.


----------



## JMJ

Argus said:


> Yet you don't like Cage. I detect extra-musical bias based on personalities and intentions. I'd take take Cage's Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano over the Klavierstucke series anyday. (P.S. I like Stockhausen too) .


Cage wasn't humble. Even Schoenberg told Cage that without a firm root harmonically he'd run into a wall, and severely limit his understanding of what the possibilities would be ... youthfully arrogant Cage shoot back to the wiser & older Schoenberg (who was also a true harmonic pioneer in his own right, so he's talking from real experience & understanding) that he would then happily bang his head against that wall .. and that's 'exactly' what Cage did throughout his career ... foolishly.

Stockhausen is nothing at all like that, the complete opposite in fact ...and was light years ahead of Cage musically. Light years ahead. Cage 'talked' but he didn't have 'the tools' to really back it up. For starts ... he should have listened to his teacher, Schoenberg - for one, instead of thinking he knew better. Cage's flimsy lightweight musical creations illustrate this lack of skill, depth & know-how in spades. .. he would end up in a place, placing more value in 'random sounds' (very child-like) than a Beethoven symphony ... and think what he was doing was somehow 'new'. It wasn't, it was really silly, naive & rootless ...

Cage's S&I's for PP (one of the best things he could come up with), is sonic novelty, take away the screws, bolts etc... and the music itself is skimpy and bores me to tears and is nowhere near the richness & complexity of Stockhausen's piano pieces ... which are amazing & incredibly fresh! (musically)


----------



## elgar's ghost

Greetings all from a rookie to this forum. Lots of thought-provoking subjects to investigate but why not this one for starters?

Most humble composer? Quite a few but I'll stick with the romantics for now. Anton Bruckner gets the gold. I have even more respect for him once I learned of his persecution by the poisonous Hanslick. Appropriately Hanslick's grave is the one without flowers. Silver medal would go to Dvorak or Magnard, I think. Bronze goes to Elgar but I nominate him out of pure bias because I was born in the same city!

As regards proud/conceited/whatever I would say Britten could be precious rather than mean-spirited - OK, he could be up himself a bit but I don't think he would go out of his way to be intentionally vicious towards any of his contemporaries. In this respect I would liken him to Prokofiev but with maybe a little more tact? Both of these composers had a lot of faith in their own abilities but didn't feel the need to blow their own ego trumpets to the degree that Wagner did. 

That's all from me for now - bye bye.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

*Stravinsky* was a catty arrogant little b!+ch, as was *Saint-Saëns*.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

JMJ said:


> Cage wasn't humble. Even Schoenberg told Cage that without a firm root harmonically he'd run into a wall, and severely limit his understanding of what the possibilities would be ... youthfully arrogant Cage shoot back to the wiser & older Schoenberg (who was also a true harmonic pioneer in his own right, so he's talking from real experience & understanding) that he would then happily bang his head against that wall .. and that's 'exactly' what Cage did throughout his career ... foolishly.


Someone telling you that you can't do something, that you don't have the skills to succeed, and choosing to push on anyways...this is arrogance now? I always thought of that as perseverance. You know, a good thing. But whatever makes your argument right?

In my reading of John Cage's writings, in my viewing of interviews with him I've never detected an ounce of arrogance from the man. He always comes across as a complete teddy bear.



> Stockhausen is nothing at all like that, the complete opposite in fact ...and was light years ahead of Cage musically. Light years ahead. Cage 'talked' but he didn't have 'the tools' to really back it up. For starts ... he should have listened to his teacher, Schoenberg - for one, instead of thinking he knew better. Cage's flimsy lightweight musical creations illustrate this lack of skill, depth & know-how in spades. .. he would end up in a place, placing more value in 'random sounds' (very child-like) than a Beethoven symphony ... and think what he was doing was somehow 'new'. It wasn't, it was really silly, naive & rootless ...
> 
> Cage's S&I's for PP (one of the best things he could come up with), is sonic novelty, take away the screws, bolts etc... and the music itself is skimpy and bores me to tears and is nowhere near the richness & complexity of Stockhausen's piano pieces ... which are amazing & incredibly fresh! (musically)


Seeing as how I love the music of both Cage and Stockhausen, I won't bother engaging in extolling the praises of one composer at the expense of disparaging the other. I think Cage's best attribute is his immense musical imagination, and the craft he demonstrated accomplishing his goals. The _Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano_ are brilliant, expressive pieces of considered improvisation. Similarly, in the designs of his elaborate chance-driven systems and straight-forward methods of the "number" pieces, I get the sense of a very unique and beautiful musical mind at work.

But go on hatin', no skin off my back.


----------



## JMJ

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Someone telling you that you can't do something, that you don't have the skills to succeed, and choosing to push on anyways...this is arrogance now?
> 
> In my reading of John Cage's writings, in my viewing of interviews with him I've never detected an ounce of arrogance from the man. He always comes across as a complete teddy bear.


Schoenberg just wisely told him that a deep understanding of harmony would help his musical imagination in ways that the young Cage could not forsee, and open up whole vistas and possibilities musically (he was right) ... but student Cage dismissed the advice altogether and choose a path that lead to a 'blind' alley / dead-end, just like Schoenberg had warned him. So yea ..there is a certain amount of humility & insight required to consider & think what other's are saying, esp. when it's coming from a musical genius/teacher like Schoenberg - who's music does all the talking, and doesn't need lengthy 'explanations' justifying why it's music to the audience. Every interview or wordy indulgence from Cage (which he never backed up with talent manifested in great work which makes him 'all talk') ... reeks of wrongheaded self-absorption, naiveness & uber musical-arrogance, whether he was a soft spoken peaceful guy or not doesnt matter.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

JMJ said:


> Schoenberg just wisely told him that a deep understanding of harmony would help his musical imagination in ways that the young Cage could not forsee, and open up whole vistas and possibilities musically (he was right) ... but student Cage dismissed the advice altogether and choose a path that lead to a 'blind' alley / dead-end, just like Schoenberg had warned him. So yea ..there is a certain amount of humility & insight required to consider & think what other's are saying, esp. when it's coming from a musical genius/teacher like Schoenberg - who's music does all the talking, and doesn't need lengthy 'explanations' justifying why it's music to the audience. Every interview or wordy indulgence from Cage (which he never backed up with talent manifested in great work which makes him 'all talk') ... reeks of wrongheaded self-absorption, naiveness & uber musical-arrogance, whether he was a soft spoken peaceful guy or not doesnt matter.


You're actually blowing the whole exchange way out of proportion. Cage was in no way disrespecting Schoenberg. In fact, regarding having Schoenberg as a teacher Cage said "Well, he was a fantastic teacher and I worshipped him. I believed absolutely everything he said. I tremble ... " Schoenberg was one kind of musical genius, Cage was another. Schoenberg could not forsee a kind of musical aesthetic and compositional approach that would allow a composer to succeed without a complete mastery of harmony, or rather the theories and rules of harmony that are part of the Western Music tradition. Cage then went ahead and used the attributes he did possess --joy in composition, a daring imagination, and a willingness and openness to hear new sounds and explore new approaches -- to become a groundbreaking and successful composer in his own right.

Your bias is clear from the fact that you think Schoenberg's music does all the talking and Cage's doesn't. There are plenty of people who don't understand Schoenberg's music, who often don't even understand it as music but rather as a pure academic exercise in theory. These boards are a prime example of that (there's even a recent thread asking 'how to approach' a work of his). In the view of the larger public, the composers are really not too far apart in that regards.

Again, you must be watching and reading different interviews and writings from Cage than I am. Naivety, über musical-arrogance, self-absorption -- these are all completely absent. In fact, I usually get the complete opposite impression from them. Honest, penetrating, open-minded. Even being honest about his being open-minded, admitting where he isn't in a particular case and doing some self-reflection on it.


----------



## JMJ

It's not bias, it's just reality. Schoenberg (and the best musicians & composers) understood how having a deep knowledge and understanding of harmony would open up the possibilities and allow the musician to see them more clearly , giving them a richer and deeper palette to work with... and it does. Cage's music is narrow, restricted, lightweight, arbitury, there is no profound musical or harmonic imagination at work there ...no matter how many 'random' sounds or elements he wants to throw into the mix, it's naive & trite. No matter how long he wants to pontificate & explain how 4 minutes of silence is music or art, it's not. He's nowhere near the focus you get with 'the best'. The best of history shown Schoenberg how harmony is vital and he in fact built his own rich harmonic approach from that rich tradition, and his own music also backs that up. Can't be argued. Cage didn't move ahead he just fell out and headed down a path that is anything but 'genius' or 'substantial' (in a musical sense), the proof is in the puddin'. Nuff said. He was a product of the times ... where trying to conjuer 'newness' like a rabbit out of a hat was in vogue, the malaise of the time ... he desperately wanted to be original but never really had the 'tools' to produce music of real substance to back up that desire. The fact that he placed little or no value on harmony's profound importance in music making as shown by the best before him was a fatal flaw and proves how wrongheaded and arrogant he 'truly' was, despite however you perceive his demeanor.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

I believe Cage found other equally interesting approaches to music and harmony that broke from the forms of the past. His influence speaks for itself. But you're obviously set on twisting everything to prove that JOHN CAGE WAS SO ARROGANT! HE THOUGHT HE WAS A GOD AND SO IMPORTANT! According to you, the humble manner in which he lived, spoke, and wrote is only a kind of camouflage to a real inner self-absorption. There's obviously nothing that anyone could possibly say that would change your mind.


----------



## Argus

JMJ said:


> It's not bias, it's just *reality*. Schoenberg (and the best musicians & composers) understood how having a deep knowledge and understanding of harmony would open up the possibilities and allow the musician to see them more clearly , giving them a richer and deeper palette to work with... and it does. Cage's music *is* narrow, restricted, lightweight, arbitury, there is no profound musical or harmonic imagination at work there ...know matter how many 'random' sounds or elements he wants to throw into the mix, *it's* naive & trite. No matter how long he wants to pontificate & explain how 4 minutes of silence is music or art, *it's* not. He's nowhere near the focus you get with 'the best'. The best of history shown Schoenberg how harmony is vital and he in fact built his own rich harmonic approach from that rich tradition, and his own music also backs that up. *Can't be argued*. Cage didn't move ahead he just fell out and headed down a path that is anything but 'genius' or 'substantial' (in a musical sense), the *proof is in the puddin'*. Nuff said. He was a product of the times ... where trying to conjuer 'newness' like a rabbit out of a hat was in vogue, the malaise of the time ... he desperately wanted to be original but never really had the 'tools' to produce music of real substance to back up that desire. The fact that he placed little or no value on harmony's profound importance in music making as shown by the best before him was a fatal flaw and proves how wrongheaded and arrogant he 'truly' was, despite however you perceive his demeanor.


Oh, I see. Another person who confuses facts with opinions.

I'll add that plenty of cultures and musical traditions of both past and present, have either no knowledge of or give little importance to harmony. I think the harmony you speak of is the theories that exist that try to organise it. It's not like Cage didn't utilise harmony. Everytime any two differing tones are heard in his music, a harmonic effect occurs. He just didn't follow the preceding theories on its structure and order. Similar in many respects to Schoenberg's 'emancipation of the dissonance'.

The strangest part of your argument is that, as Poppin' Fresh said, I'm sure plenty of people could make very similar accusations of both Schoenberg and Stockhausen along with a fair few other composers, that you are making in regards to Cage.

Or did Cage run over your dog or something?


----------



## Falstaft

Dare I step into the fray here? I don't think Cage is entirely as humble and naive as some of his defenders would have you believe -- a certain kind of arrogance lies behind even the most zen-like veneer when one sees oneself as a radical. But, JMJ, statements like this make me question how fair a hearing you're giving to him:



JMJ said:


> Cage's S&I's for PP (one of the best things he could come up with), is sonic novelty, take away the screws, bolts etc... and the music itself is skimpy and bores me to tears and is nowhere near the richness & complexity of Stockhausen's piano pieces ... which are amazing & incredibly fresh! (musically)


Take away the screws & bolts? Perhaps that's intentional flippancy, but, to state the obvious -- those screws+bolts are the point! It is a testament to Cage's compositional imagination that with _extreme_ precision of preparation, doubtless requiring ungodly amounts of experimentation just to get the right timbre, Cage was able to draw this sound from the piano:






To my ears, this is one of the most impressive pieces from the twentieth century's, and when I've taught it, the student reaction is pretty much uniformly one of astonishment -- not the sneering superiority people usually feel when 4'33 or his writings are dropped on them out of context, but real delight and fascination. Look at the score and one would rightly never imagine that such a mini-gamelan could be produced. Look *only* at the pitches printed on the score, as you suggest, and you're not evaluating his music, just reaffirming your own prejudices. Maybe it doesn't boast the staggering tonal and motivic interconnections and complexities Schoenberg and many of his camp so fetishized. Cage never claimed to be interested in that kind of process, and throughout his lifetime constantly tried to come up with alternative (non-Germanic) musical values. For the prepared piano, certainly among the C20's most important timbral and performative innovation, let's give credit where credit's due.

(Incidentally, I love Schoenberg's piano works and have studied several of them quite intensely. But comparing these works is like comparing apples and mushrooms .)


----------



## JMJ

Falstaft said:


> Take away the screws & bolts? Perhaps that's intentional flippancy, but, to state the obvious -- those screws+bolts are the point! It is a testament to Cage's compositional imagination that with _extreme_ precision of preparation, doubtless requiring ungodly amounts of experimentation just to get the right timbre, Cage was able to draw this sound from the piano:


It's not that hard to do (certainly doesnt require lots of 'shed-time', like one would spend on counterpoint & harmony!), and the idea wasn't his to begin with (nor nothing that imaginative)... it's just surface oriented novelty & tricks, not much content/substance musically under that (like all his music) ... lord few are willing to wreck a high-end instrument with such trashy gimmicks, that don't even 'sound' that great to begin with, let alone play the flimsy music underneath that veneer, seriously ... and you have to be pretty darn arrogant to call yourself a musician or composer & dismiss harmony as not that important, or give musicians a blank score & have them take a stage & sit there playing nothing for 4 minutes and present that as a 'musical composition' to an audience ...


----------



## Falstaft

Well this is obviously going nowhere. Let's return to topic -- humility and arrogance in composers, regardless of how we feel about the quality of their output personally. 

From what I know, Gabriel Fauré was extremely self-effacing (and, in unfortunately many cases, composition-effacing - he destroyed tons of his large scale works). He had no taste for self-promotion. He was constantly seeking colleagues and friends for advice before publishing his music - for some, the constant search for approval is the manifestation of a certain kind of arrogance all its own, but in Faure's case, his interest in the opinions of others was genuine. Apparently, his music criticism was unusually generous, tending to focus on the positive and the unique in the works of his peers, rather than the petty. 

Perhaps this personality is captured in his work, which shies from bold gestures and unnecessary grandoliquence without forsaking sensual power. He was a master of understatement, even in the warhorses of his like the Requiem.


----------



## JMJ

I love Fauré ...


----------



## Sid James

Haha, yet another thread that deteriorates into people arguing about the merits of Cage. Seems like he did make an impact, whatever the conservatives may think, as people are still debating his music long after his death. I think that it is often the way that music makes one think about life and art that makes the difference, not merely the writing pretty "harmonies."

Anyway, I don't really care about whether composers were arrogant or humble. I'm much more interested in their music. Sure, it's interesting to read about their lives, and develop an understanding of what their personalities were like, but (for me) the music takes centre stage, everything else is of much less importance. It wouldn't really make a difference if Wagner wasn't an arrogant #@%*, I think I'd still find his operas (as I do now) quite a drag. But then again, I'm not the hugest fan of opera anyway...


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

You guys probably know of this quote.

"I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless *******! It annoys me that this self-inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius. Why, in comparison with him, Raff is a giant, not to speak of Rubinstein, who is after all a live and important human being, while Brahms is chaotic and absolutely empty dried-up stuff." Tchaikovsky.


----------



## bassClef

Boulez was arrogant as a composer, even looked down his nose at infinitely more talented composers like Stravinsky. I don't think Stravinsky himself was arrogant, as someone posted, I've read he was prone to self-doubt.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

bassClef said:


> Boulez was arrogant as a composer, even looked down his nose at infinitely more talented composers like Stravinsky. I don't think Stravinsky himself was arrogant, as someone posted, I've read he was prone to self-doubt.


good for Boulez, I never liked his music to begin with


----------



## superhorn

Schoenberg declared that Cage was not really a composer but "an inventor of genius".
In fact,Cage was the son of an inventor.
Cage was rather arrogant in that he was always being dismissive about the whole tradition of western classical music and saying that his aesthetic was the right one.
The fascinating loner Harry Partch,(1901-1974) was also very arrogant. He too dismiised the whole tradition of western classical music and hated equal temperment with a passion, and thought that his strange microtonal system,dividing the scale into no fewwr than 43 ! pitches, was the only valid one. His instruments are wondrous to behold,too. His music cannot be played on standard instruments.


----------



## bassClef

ScipioAfricanus said:


> good for Boulez, I never liked his music to begin with


me neither


----------



## toucan

Penderecki is a pompous donkey but Gyorgy Kurtag is humble, never satisfied with his himself, doubtful he is as good as Mozart, Beethoven et al

John Cage is not an inventor of genius.
In fact, John Cage is not even an inventor without genius.
John Cage is not an inventor at all.

The prepared piano was not invented by John Cage it was invented by Maurice Delage, ie Quatre Poemes Hindous, where he was trying to reproduce the sound of one Oriental instrument or the other. And Cage is not the one who introduced the element of Chance into music as the Medievals had already done it.

The invention of Maurice Delage was rendered unnecessary by Olivier Messiaen and Pierre Boulez and others, who quite sensibly thought it more convenient to integrate Oriental instruments into western orchestra, if you like the way they sound that much.

I don't know if Messiaen and Boulez are arrogant people. But I don't care. I enjoy listening to their music. Their personalities, their politics, their religion (if any in Boulez's case), their opinions on any subject, their morality, their favorite dishes, their tics, the underwear they wear - and what have you and what not - are irrelevant


----------



## shaulhadar

I think the most humble one was Chopin, because he was like the best and most influental musician in paris these days, yet he was so quiet. I think the most not humble one whould be Liszt, which used showoff to get to his stature.


----------



## charismajc

Wagner, Wagner, Wagner. He sounds like a monster, based on what I've read about him. He stole or "borrowed" people's wives (Cosima, Mathilde W). His main financial strategy seemed to be to borrow $ and simply never pay it back. Some of his writings are pretty anti-semitic. All in all, it seemed that he just believed that whatever he wanted or needed, the world owed him b/c he was a musical genius. That's beyond arrogant.

To me, Bach seemed to be the most humble, given his stupendous body of work. By humble, I don't mean he didn't think he was an exceptionally gifted composer/organist. He just kept in all in context. Undoubtedly, his faith had a lot to do with it. Here's something he said:

"I have worked hard" he said, "anyone who works just as hard will go just as far"

Can anyone imagine Wagner saying that? I can't.

In the history of music, I think one of the biggest tragedies is that Bach's music (not just his organ playing) wasn't celebrated in his lifetime the way it was for Beethoven, Wagner, Verdi, Rossini, Brahms and various other composers. Most of these guys couldn't musically hold a candle to Bach.

I'm a Bach fan, btw


----------



## Genoveva

charismajc said:


> In the history of music, I think one of the biggest tragedies is that Bach's music (not just his organ playing) wasn't celebrated in his lifetime the way it was for Beethoven, Wagner, Verdi, Rossini, Brahms and various other composers. Most of these guys couldn't musically hold a candle to Bach.
> 
> I'm a Bach fan, btw


There are far bigger tragedies than that. Think of all the esteemed composers who died very young. At least Bach had a good "innings" and a comfortable life.

I too like Bach but is there any need to run down Beethoven and Wagner to make your point that you like Bach? If you think Beethoven cannot hold a candle to Bach you must be very poorly informed. Wagner-bashing is a very trivial pursuit and not one that carries much novelty value as most people are sick to death of hearing about it. Wagner is an extremely highly rated composer and rightly so, whatever you may think about his personal side.


----------



## charismajc

I'm bashing Wagner b/c I'm responding to the title of this thread and supporting my assrtion. Notice I didn't write what I wrote on some random thread. I think most would agree that he sucked as a human being and was an egomaniac to the nth degree. Most would also agree that he was an extraordinary genius. 

I stand by my comment re: Bach. I don't disagree that there are plenty of life tragedies. Mozart, schubert, mendelssohn died too young. I think verdi lost his wife and a few of his children in a very short period of time. Beethoven's hearing wasn't very good. Schumann had a pretty crappy last several yrs. Vivaldi died penniless and homeless (I think). Berg (or was it Webern) was accidentally shot to death.

Ok, so maybe tragedy isn't the right word (heh, heh). Travesty probably is though. He achieved appallingly little recognition for his compositions during his lifetime. For heavens sake, telemann (one of the most boring musicians I can think of) was considered to be the superior composer in his day. Telemann??

Btw, in terms of the candle holding comment, I said most. Beethoven and Bach alternate as my favorite composer. My single favorite musical work happens to be Beethovens piano sonata no 32. So I like beethoven very much and would agree that he stands on the same lofty pedestal as bach and mozart. Not so sure about wagner, even though the influence he had on music was enormous.

What a great forum!


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Brahms, arrogancy*

Well...Brahms was so arrogant that he "decided" that Robert Schumann Violin concerto wasn't good enough and was put it aside for a century or so...

Martin


----------



## Genoveva

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Well...Brahms was so arrogant that he "decided" that Robert Schumann Violin concerto wasn't good enough and was put it aside for a century or so...
> 
> Martin


That's a gross distortion. Brahms and Clara Schumann decided together that the work was probably adversely affected by the onset of Shumann's severe mental difficulties, and they didn't want to risk bringing the composer's name into disrepute by publishing it so it was put away indefinitely. There were several other works by Schumann that were either shelved or torn up completely, mainly at Clara's behest.

The VC was definitely a weird piece for the time at which it was written, and it has mixed audiences today. There are several threads elsewhere on this message board testifying to that. I happen to have several of the various recordings of this work and like it greatly. I couldn't care less even if it was tinged with a hint of madness.

It is ridiculous to suggest that Brahms' involvement was motivated by arrogance. Brahms was a strong admirer of Robert Schumann. It's well known that he famously tore up many of his own works which he considered were not good enough, so it wasn't surprising that he should assist Clara in deciding what was in the best interests of protecting Robert Schumann's reputation given his grave decline into mental illness around the time the VC was composed.

Lest anyone should think that Clara was unfair to her deceased husband or lacking in foresight by, it should be noted that she was her Robert's husband greatest supporter and promoter of his works during the (long) remainder of her life. During her many concerts both in England and across Europe she made a point of playing some of Robert's works, when at times the market was less than enthusiastic for them


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Huilunsoittaja,

I think, humble as I am, that you are starting to talk too much. You seem to know everything about everything...You are very fast to judge...you judge easily...Maybe this is because your young age. When you are older like me, you think twice, you say : I think...instead of saying that thinks ARE like you say.
"más sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo" Martín Fierro, José hernandez, Argentina. You still have a lot to learn, my friend (if you still want to be my friend, of course)

Martin


----------



## elgar's ghost

'Talking too much....' - quoth the guy who has posted 239 times in less than 2 months! Sorry, but I had to laugh there...

No offence meant, by the way...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Huilunsoittaja,
> 
> I think, humble as I am, that you are starting to talk too much. You seem to know everything about everything...You are very fast to judge...you judge easily...Maybe this is because your young age. When you are older like me, you think twice, you say : I think...instead of saying that thinks ARE like you say.
> "más sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo" Martín Fierro, José hernandez, Argentina. You still have a lot to learn, my friend (if you still want to be my friend, of course)
> 
> Martin


I won't fight you. I believe you.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I guess....*

Huilunsoittaja,

I think, humble as I am, that you are starting to talk too much. You seem to know everything about everything...You are very fast to judge...you judge easily...Maybe this is because your young age. When you are older like me, you think twice, you say : I think...instead of saying that thinks ARE like you say.
"más sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo" Martín Fierro, José hernandez, Argentina. You still have a lot to learn, my friend (if you still want to be my friend, of course)

Martin

I won't fight you. I believe you. 
========================================
I guess you were impressed by my Spanish! it is not a big deal, it is my mother tongue....LOL
You are cool!

Martin


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I guess you were impressed by my Spanish! it is not a big deal, it is my mother tongue....LOL
> You are cool!
> 
> Martin


Yeah, I know spanish, I take it at school. Although I actually put that phrase in a translation device


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Cool! My Finnish is inexistent...Just Kitoss. I feel stupid! LOL But my Russian is improving! I love Russian.
Mnye ochien ravitsa Rusky Iazik.

José Hernandez is a "big" Argentinian writer, he wrote in a "gauchesco" style (people in the country) slang...He had to sudy him at school...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martín_Fierro

I like music but I also love reading...I love French litterature a lot: Balzac, Daudet, Zola, Boris Vian
Russian: Dostoyevsky, Pushkin, Turgeniev, Gogol, Chekhov (not Tolstoi), Gorki a bit

Gabriel Garcia Marquez...Philippa Gregory.

I read in English, French and Spanish...not yet in Russian (Alas).

Well..I think I have spoken a lot! LOL.


----------



## starry

I wonder if any of the very best composers have been that humble because really there isn't much need for them to be humble.


----------



## Il Seraglio

charismajc said:


> Ok, so maybe tragedy isn't the right word (heh, heh). Travesty probably is though. He achieved appallingly little recognition for his compositions during his lifetime. For heavens sake, telemann (one of the most boring musicians I can think of) was considered to be the superior composer in his day. Telemann??


I don't believe Telemann was half as boring as people make him out to be -he wrote some great concertos- , but I agree I find it hard to fathom that he could be the most popular composer of his day. His music can be quite austere and difficult. Bach and Handel are way more accessible and palatable to the layperson than Telemann imho.


----------



## clavichorder

Hmmm, I see a recurring theme that Chopin was humble, but as far as I know, he was quite a jerk and premadonna. Liszt on the other hand knew what he was, and was very generous towards other composers, and as far as I know, had an excellent sense of perspective on himself from the things he said, he must've. These things I've listed don't exactly denote humbleness and arrogance, but they are some things to consider. 

Telemann, if you read his autobiography, you find out what a hyperactive guy he must have been, serious case of ADHD and it shows in his music, which is so quirky and lively, but not overly trilly like a french composer.


----------



## kv466

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Yeah, I know spanish, I take it at school. Although I actually put that phrase in a translation device


¿Que esta pasando aqui?


----------



## An Die Freude

Tchaikovsky kind of went from super arrogant to super self deprecating, and Brahms being arrogant I disagree with, because he is reported to have made wholesale burnings of manuscript works.


----------



## Couchie

charismajc said:


> "I have worked hard" he said, "anyone who works just as hard will go just as far"
> 
> Can anyone imagine Wagner saying that? I can't.


Wagner on Mozart:

"_His artistic nature was as the unruffled surface of a clear watery mirror to which the lovely blossom of Italian music inclined to see, to know, to love itself therein. It was but the surface of a deep and infinite sea of longing and desire rising from fathomless depths to gain form and beauty from the gentle greeting of the lovely flower bending, as if thirsting to discover in him the secret of its own nature._"


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Couchie said:


> Wagner on Mozart:
> 
> "_His artistic nature was as the unruffled surface of a clear watery mirror to which the lovely blossom of Italian music inclined to see, to know, to love itself therein. It was but the surface of a deep and infinite sea of longing and desire rising from fathomless depths to gain form and beauty from the gentle greeting of the lovely flower bending, as if thirsting to discover in him the secret of its own nature._"


The difference is that in Bach's quote, he's saying that any John Doe could go just as far as him if he works hard enough. Wagner, on the other hand, is simply praising a great composer who had blue eyes and fair hair and was not Jewish.


----------



## Couchie

HerlockSholmes said:


> The difference is that in Bach's quote, he's saying that any John Doe could go just as far as him if he works hard enough. Wagner, on the other hand, is simply praising a great composer who had blue eyes and fair hair and was not Jewish.


Wagner was actually very aware of Mendelssohn's (Jewish) talents and praised him on occasion, there is a private account in Cosima's diaries where Wagner laments that he is glad Mendelssohn is dead and not around to witness his own comparatively blundering compositional process. Wagner was not really a genetic anti-Semitist so much as staunch nationalist afraid of Jewish influence corroding the German identity; replace the Jews with Muslims and you'll find that even today this is a prevailing sentiment in Western Europe.


----------



## Rapide

Boulez was pretty arrogant. He even gained much disrespect from musicians he was leading as a conductor. I've read so many anecdotes and even from "more official". I love this:-

"Boulez's only concern is with power. He lost the leadership of the avant-guard more than ten years ago to Stockhausen. Now others have moved in. With the need for power, where was he to go? So he chose to be a conductor. He is a wonderful musician, a wonderful intelligence. It's a pity there is no humanity there. Does he have sex? I think not. When men have no sex, they go after power in this big, obsessive way." — Lukas Foss, 1971?

:lol:


----------



## Norse

Rapide said:


> Boulez was pretty arrogant.


Was? Do you mean he has changed?


----------



## Orfeo

Forgot to reply with quote (which I did eventually).


----------



## Orfeo

Falstaft said:


> Well this is obviously going nowhere. Let's return to topic -- humility and arrogance in composers, regardless of how we feel about the quality of their output personally.
> 
> From what I know, Gabriel Fauré was extremely self-effacing (and, in unfortunately many cases, composition-effacing - he destroyed tons of his large scale works). He had no taste for self-promotion. He was constantly seeking colleagues and friends for advice before publishing his music - for some, the constant search for approval is the manifestation of a certain kind of arrogance all its own, but in Faure's case, his interest in the opinions of others was genuine. Apparently, his music criticism was unusually generous, tending to focus on the positive and the unique in the works of his peers, rather than the petty.
> 
> Perhaps this personality is captured in his work, which shies from bold gestures and unnecessary grandoliquence without forsaking sensual power. He was a master of understatement, even in the warhorses of his like the Requiem.


That's true about Faure.
-Myaskovsky was also very self-effacing and an extreme introvert.
-Bax too was very private.
(in fact, like Faure, they did not promote their music that much). 
-Massenet was often self-critical and made a habit of not attending performances of his operas (he would be told of them by his friends/colleagues soon thereafter).
-We know about Bruckner (although he could be fresh from time to time).
-Nielsen was jovial about life, and very perspective.
-Richard Strauss (according to Horenstein) was cold, icy cold.
-Glazunov was a stubborn traditionalist of a gentleman.
-Rimsky-Korsakov was insecure.


----------



## dgee

Faure may have been musically self-effacing but that didn't stop him being a ladies' man throughout his life. It's always the quiet ones - his poor wife!


----------



## starry

Weston said:


> I think arrogance can arise from the presumption of superiority. In Beethoven's case, that was not a presumption. That probably applies to most others on the list as well.


And Mozart wasn't arrogant to Haydn at all. Both him and Beethoven may have had arrogance towards lesser composers but as their achievements were greater it was arguably justified. And they did very much respect some other composers, even those out of fashion like JS Bach.


----------



## Nevum

Most humble: Anton Bruckner

Most arrogant: Richard Wagner and Johannes Brahms

They were all amazing.


----------



## Couac Addict

Rossini always insisted in his rider that all of the brown M&Ms be removed.


----------



## Cosmos

As others have mentioned, Bruckner seems to be the most humble.
I personally find Wagner to be the most arrogant. And Beethoven, I love ya, but you're ego is just as redonk


----------



## tmbrig

What makes you think Chopin was humble?


----------



## Blake

I'm really not sure. I haven't had the chance to meet any of them....


----------



## BillT

Weston said:


> I think that John Cage had a considerable endowment of humility - as well he might considering what he was doing. .


I think so, too, given that, after a talk at the SF Exploratorium, he was kind enough to endure questions from the audience and even responded to a personal one from me and shook my hand.

(My run-in with greatness....)

- Bill


----------



## spradlig

This may be off-topic, but I am pretty sure that the rock group Van Halen actually did this, and the reason they did this is that if there _were_ any brown M&M's in their dressing room or wherever, then they knew that the people who should have read their rider had not actually read it, and had likely not followed more important directions.



Couac Addict said:


> Rossini always insisted in his rider that all of the brown M&Ms be removed.


----------



## PetrB

ar·ro·gant
ˈarəgənt/
adjective
adjective: arrogant

1.
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

If you have a realistic assessment of your own ability, and that level of ability is indeed extraordinarily high, the owner of that extraordinary ability is not being arrogant in telling the truth.

To me, _far more arrogant_, although the appearance is in the obverse side of the coin, _is false humility_ -- that Mickey Mouse style, "Awwww, Gosh shucks I'm really not that good," and all that is offensive. Someone in the right place and not in false proportion admitting they are excellent at something is not arrogant, but the truth.

In my late thirties, in some social situation with 'new' people about me, a fellow I think not much younger than me asked,

"What do you do?"

"I'm a classical pianist. Teach, perform a little, and compose."

"Are you any good at it?"

(without a moment's hesitation....)
"Yeah."

Next I heard a sort of gasping intake of breath, so asked,
"What?"

"You're not supposed to say that!"

(...again, without hesitation I responded,)
"You're not supposed to ask that!"

Seriously, you are visibly well past college age, someone asks what is your _profession_... do they expect of you when asked if you are any good to say you suck at it?


----------



## Sudonim

spradlig said:


> This may be off-topic, but I am pretty sure that the rock group Van Halen actually did this, and the reason they did this is that if there _were_ any brown M&M's in their dressing room or wherever, then they knew that the people who should have read their rider had not actually read it, and had likely not followed more important directions.


Yes - true!

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp


----------



## spradlig

Thanks, it didn't occur to me to confirm it with snopes.



Sudonim said:


> Yes - true!
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp


----------



## spradlig

By the way, I like Robbie Robertson too. I have two solo albums by him. Has he made more? I'm not terribly familiar with The Band.



Sudonim said:


> Yes - true!
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp


----------



## randomnese

Aramis said:


> Why do you think Chopin was humble? It is said that he was very supercilious towards other composers.
> 
> Tchaikovsky was very arrognant. So was Scriabin.
> 
> I have nothing against arrogance, great composer must know his value. Only Brahms is annoying, he makes impression of acrimonious old geezer that hated everything new.


Tchaikovsky? Arrogant?

If you're referring to his refusal to accept Rubinstein's criticism, that was a just dismissal of Rubinstein's out-of-proportion claims.

Tchaikovsky would regularly sink into bouts of depression over his ability to write, and he was easily affected by reception to his pieces. Most of the time, he would grow disillusioned with his own pieces, claiming their artistic immaturity or some minor imperfection. His self-esteem level throughout his level was never quite high, so how can he be called arrogant? 

Wagner, on the other hand... that's a different story altogether. Not going to open that can of worms.


----------



## Celloissimo

I would agree that Richard Strauss was humble. He is quoted as saying about Sibelius: "I have more skill, but he is greater". But Bruckner, on the other hand, I think was just socially awkward and had an inferiority complex, which accounts for his countless revisions rather than humility.


----------



## Celloissimo

I know double-posting is a faux pas in forums, but this really helps identify a lot of the 'arrogant' types: www.classicfm.com/discover/music/composer-insults/


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Celloissimo said:


> I know double-posting is a faux pas in forums, but this really helps identify a lot of the 'arrogant' types: www.classicfm.com/discover/music/composer-insults/


"I like your opera. I think I will set it music." - Beethoven
Hahahaha! Good ol' Beethoven, what a mischievous rascal. His remarks about Rossini are also hilarious.


----------



## KenOC

DiesIraeVIX said:


> "I like your opera. I think I will set it music." - Beethoven


Urban myth. This one should be in Snopes.

But Rossini: "The Bohemians are born musicians. The Italians ought to take them as models. What have they to show for their famous conservatories? Behold! their idol, Rossini! If Dame Fortune had not given him a pretty talent and amiable melodies by the bushel, what he learned at school would have brought him nothing but potatoes for his big belly."


----------



## DiesIraeCX

KenOC said:


> Urban myth. This one should be in Snopes.
> 
> But Rossini: "The Bohemians are born musicians. The Italians ought to take them as models. What have they to show for their famous conservatories? Behold! their idol, Rossini! If Dame Fortune had not given him a pretty talent and amiable melodies by the bushel, what he learned at school would have brought him nothing but potatoes for his big belly."


Haha, perhaps it is, I don't recall that quote in the two Beethoven biographies I've read. However, he absolutely did make snide remarks about Rossini, but it was almost certainly out of his jealousy over Rossini's popularity among the Viennese. 
"Ah, Rossini. So you're the composer of The Barber of Seville. I congratulate you. It will be played as long as Italian opera exists. Never try to write anything else but opera buffa; any other style would do violence to your nature."


----------



## KenOC

DiesIraeVIX said:


> "Ah, Rossini. So you're the composer of The Barber of Seville. I congratulate you. It will be played as long as Italian opera exists. Never try to write anything else but opera buffa; any other style would do violence to your nature."


Yep. A real snark! Another from 1824: "No one has a mind any more for what is good, what is vigorous -- in short, for real music! Yes, yes, that's how it is, you Viennese! Rossini and his pals, they're your heroes. You want nothing more from me! Sometimes Schuppanzigh gets a quartet out of me, but you've no time for the symphonies, and you don't want Fidelio. It's Rossini, Rossini above everything. Perhaps your soulless strumming and singing, your own shoddy stuff that you take for real art -- that's your taste. Oh, you Viennese!"

Rossini quit composing in 1829, not long after Beethoven's death. Maybe he thought it was no fun any more, since he couldn't PO Ludwig any longer.


----------



## Morimur

Humble?... Oh!... Wagner! WAGNER!


----------



## soundoftritones

Oh, goodness. Wagner was so arrogant to the point that it's almost humorous reading about it (don't get me wrong here; I don't have anything against the composer himself though ^^). Lucky that man has quite a way with words when he wants something - he surely would not have gotten away with half of what he said to others if he wasn't so smart with his tongue.


----------



## hpowders

One would have to say Bruckner and Haydn were among the most humble and Mahler, Wagner, Beethoven and Mozart, among the most arrogant.


----------



## Carstenb

It is my opinion that Bach was humble while Beethoven was totally arrogant.


----------



## starthrower

Carstenb said:


> It is my opinion that Bach was humble while Beethoven was totally arrogant.


It is my opinion that you couldn't possibly know this for a fact, since both have been dead for centuries, along with anyone who knew them personally.


----------



## Carstenb

starthrower said:


> It is my opinion that you couldn't possibly know this for a fact, since both have been dead for centuries, along with anyone who knew them personally.


Hence why I said that it was my opinion. While we cannot determine their humbleness or arrogance competently since they are, as you said, dead for centuries, we can somewhat determine their attributes based on what they left in personal letters and eyewitness accounts from people who personally knew them.


----------



## starthrower

Humble better in life. Arrogant more interesting for the history books.


----------



## ahammel

starthrower said:


> It is my opinion that you couldn't possibly know this for a fact, since both have been dead for centuries, along with anyone who knew them personally.


If only there was a wealth of biographical information about both men recorded by their contemporaries.

This seems as good a time as any to mention the nanny-goat bassoonist again.


----------



## Woodduck

soundoftritones said:


> Oh, goodness. Wagner was so arrogant to the point that it's almost humorous reading about it (don't get me wrong here; I don't have anything against the composer himself though ^^). Lucky that man has quite a way with words when he wants something - he surely would not have gotten away with half of what he said to others if he wasn't so smart with his tongue.


It's incredibly arrogant to think that you're the most important composer of the century after Beethoven and that your work will change the course of Western culture. Unless of course you actually are and it actually does.


----------



## DeepR

Scriabin may have been the most arrogant of them all, seeing himself as some kind of messiah who would transfigure mankind with his music. Apparently he tried to walk on water once. He also didn't have a lot of positive things to say about other composers. In the end I think his arrogance was quite harmless and his goals were positive. He was just an extremely eccentric dreamer who believed in his own fantasies (or maybe he just liked to believe in them).


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

I don't judge people for being self-absorbed or arrogant, provided they are actually good or show potential..... Sometimes humility is just a facade of self-importance, and people who have a self-inflated attitude can be the ones who don't take themselves so seriously after all.


----------



## ahammel

DeepR said:


> In the end I think his arrogance was quite harmless and his goals were positive.


Wasn't Mysterium supposed to bring about the end of the world?


----------



## Morimur

People are already egoistic by nature, so imagine the ego of a great artist who can do things most human beings cannot. That being said, if one believes in something much greater than oneself, like J.S. Bach did, one's ego will inevitably lessen its grip.


----------



## Morimur

DeepR said:


> Scriabin may have been the most arrogant of them all, seeing himself as some kind of messiah who would transfigure mankind with his music. Apparently he tried to walk on water once. He also didn't have a lot of positive things to say about other composers. In the end I think his arrogance was quite harmless and his goals were positive. He was just an extremely eccentric dreamer who believed in his own fantasies (or maybe he just liked to believe in them).


Scriabin was a great artist, but a fool otherwise.


----------



## John Kiunke

Haydn was probably the nicest great composer of all time.


----------



## Xenakiboy

ahammel said:


> Wasn't Mysterium supposed to bring about the end of the world?


It should have! 

Seriously though, I'd pay mountains of cash to have the (nonexistent) chance to have seen that!!!


----------



## Xenakiboy

Morimur said:


> People are already egoistic by nature, so imagine the ego of a great artist who can do things most human beings cannot. That being said, if one believes in something much greater than oneself, like J.S. Bach did, one's ego will inevitably lessen its grip.


I actually agree with this, when you look in perspective though, some of the worlds most ambitious works have been created by egotistical people, usually with amazing results!


----------



## Pugg

John Kiunke said:


> Haydn was probably the nicest great composer of all time.


As was Mozart, for me that is.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Pugg said:


> As was Mozart, for me that is.


Except not.

Mozart had a reputation for being arrogant and boastful. Quite far from "nicest" if I say so myself.


----------



## Dim7

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Except not.
> 
> Mozart had a reputation for being arrogant and boastful. Quite far from "nicest" if I say so myself.


Source ?


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Mendelssohn was simultaneously modest and pretentious. It's weird.


----------



## Woodduck

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Mendelssohn was simultaneously modest and pretentious. It's weird.


Not weird. Most people have apparently contradictory qualities. It's natural. The trick is knowing how to use them in ourselves and how to deal with them in others.


----------



## Pugg

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Except not.
> 
> Mozart had a reputation for being arrogant and boastful. Quite far from "nicest" if I say so myself.


What's your source for this ?


----------



## Lenny

Bruckner was overly humble, at least before Wagner, who he truly worshipped, literally.


----------



## helenora

Woodduck said:


> Not weird. Most people have apparently contradictory qualities. It's natural. The trick is knowing how to use them in ourselves and how to deal with them in others.


so true! and the more interesting a person, the more contradictory a character might be.


----------



## Jacred

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Except not.
> 
> Mozart had a reputation for being arrogant and boastful. Quite far from "nicest" if I say so myself.


Well, there's a difference between being boastful and being legitimately talented. Mozart would be the latter.


----------



## hpowders

I'd say that J.S. Bach was the most humble of the great composers. A lot of what he composed seemed to be in a state of grace between him and his God. He didn't seem to care if other folks made arrangements of his music without his permission.

Most arrogant? Wagner has no competition. Enough has been written here already.


----------



## Pugg

Jacred said:


> Well, there's a difference between being boastful and being legitimately talented. Mozart would be the latter.


True words spoken.


----------



## Strange Magic

Stravinsky said that De Falla was as quiet as an oyster. I take that to be an indicator of humility, as I've known few arrogant oysters. Prokofiev was always quick with an opinion on the failings of his contemporaries, and they often struck back. Borodin was a seemingly a humble yet amiable man.


----------



## MissKittysMom

From Wikipedia:

"Prokofiev won the Anton Rubinstein Prize for his pianistic accomplishments in a performance of the work before the Saint Petersburg Conservatory on 18 May 1914.[4] Prokofiev proposed his own concerto for the competition programme, reasoning that though he may not be able to win with a classical concerto, with his own concerto the jury would be "unable to judge whether he was playing it well or not." The rules of the competition, however, required that the piece be published; Prokofiev found a publisher willing to produce twenty copies in time for the competition. The performance went well and the jury, headed by Alexander Glazunov, awarded Prokofiev the prize, albeit rather reluctantly."

His own piano teacher fell ill during preparation for the contest, so he was able to prepare for performing his own concerto rather than a more traditional choice.

That's certainly world-class arrogance, to match a world-class talent.


----------



## EdwardBast

MissKittysMom said:


> Prokofiev found a publisher willing to produce twenty copies in time for the competition. The performance went well and the jury, headed by Alexander Glazunov, awarded Prokofiev the prize, albeit rather reluctantly."
> 
> That's certainly world-class arrogance, to match a world-class talent.


To be fair, Prokofiev didn't have to find some random publisher for his concerto for the sake of the competition. At the time he already had a publisher, Jurgenson, who had previously published several of his piano compositions.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> I'd say that J.S. Bach was the most humble of the great composers. A lot of what he composed seemed to be in a state of grace between him and his God. He didn't seem to care if other folks made arrangements of his music without his permission.
> 
> Most arrogant? Wagner has no competition. Enough has been written here already.


I don't know how you define humility, but I wouldn't say it's typically expressed in a man pulling off his wig, throwing it at a musician, and shouting "You should have been a cobbler!"

"Arrogance" and "humility" are not simple traits. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, and countless other creative geniuses - and other people, including you and me - say and do things we would superficially, and often wrongly, call both arrogant and humble.
Arrogance is considered a vice, but high self-esteem may be accompanied by a keen awareness of one's limits. Humility is considered a virtue, but self-abasement may be self-destructive - or, oddly enough, arrogant!

If Bach or Wagner and the rest thought highly of their talents and achievements, refused to settle for less than the best in themselves or others, asserted their unique artistic visions regardless of criticism, and were called arrogant for it by the humble and clueless, we should now feel nothing but gratitude.

Frank LLoyd Wright once said: ""Early in life I had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility. I chose the former and have seen no reason to change."


----------



## Bettina

Woodduck said:


> ...Arrogance is considered a vice, but high self-esteem may be accompanied by a keen awareness of one's limits...


Well said! Beethoven is a case in point: he thought highly of his compositional skills (and rightly so!) and yet he was aware of his shortcomings in other areas. He wrote in a letter: "Beethoven can compose, thank God, but he can do nothing else in this world."


----------



## laurie

Woodduck said:


> I don't know how you define humility, but I wouldn't say it's typically expressed in a man pulling off his *wig*, throwing it at a musician, and shouting *"You should have been a **cobbler!" * "


Hmm .... if _that's_ how he felt about it, shouldn't he have thrown his *shoe*?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Most humble classical composer: Haydn

Most arrogant classical composer: Wagner

Most humble Talkclassical poster: me


----------



## Jacred

Magnum Miserium said:


> Most humble Talkclassical poster: me


But isn't that non-humility in itself...?


----------



## Chronochromie

Jacred said:


> But isn't that non-humility in itself...?


thatsthejoke.jpg


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Based on what I've read, I would say Dvorak and Bruckner were the most humble. As for arrogant, I'm not sure.


----------



## hpowders

I've read that Brahms was known to be quite sarcastic, so maybe his loneliness was self-induced.

I would add him to the "arrogant" column.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hpowders said:


> I've read that Brahms was known to be quite sarcastic, so maybe his loneliness was self-induced.
> 
> I would add him to the "arrogant" column.


I just read yesterday he rejected Sibelius when he wanted to study under him, even though armed with letters of recommendation.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Phil loves classical said:


> I just read yesterday he rejected Sibelius when he wanted to study under him, even though armed with letters of recommendation.


A near miss for young Janne, maybe?


----------



## hpowders

The most humble composers have to be any composers writing music after Shostakovich. They had better eat lightly.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Tchaikovsky was pretty humble- or rather quite self-critical.


----------



## lextune

I skimmed through this thread, and saw, (unsurprisingly) Wagner's name quite a bit, but only saw Scriabin once. 
I love them both, but Scriabin might be the most arrogant _person_, of all time...let alone composers. :lol:


----------



## Larkenfield

I would describe Alexander Scriabin as more audacious than arrogant. His study of Madame Blavatsky's spiritual philosophy of _Theosophy_ would have been a caution against letting his ego get out of hand.

What he wanted to do is melt the world into a visual and aural sea of bliss... but got stopped, ironically, by an infected carbuncle on his lip... The ending of his life under those tragic and tormenting circumstances must have weighed heavily on his soul, as he was forced to leave this world behind with his most audacious, uncompleted plans left behind...


----------



## Tchaikov6

lextune said:


> I skimmed through this thread, and saw, (unsurprisingly) Wagner's name quite a bit, but only saw Scriabin once.
> I love them both, but Scriabin might be the most arrogant _person_, of all time...let alone composers. :lol:


Agree with Scriabin. 
"I am God! I am nothing, I'm play, I am freedom, I am life. I am the boundary, I am the peak." He was also quoted in a conversation with Arthur Rubenstein. Scriabin asked him who his favorite composer is. The answer was Brahms, and Scriabin's response was "What, what? How can you like this terrible composer and me at the same time?"

He's a good composer, but, no he wasn't God...


----------



## Casebearer

The most humble composers are probably unknown to us.


----------



## chromatic owl

Weston said:


> I think arrogance can arise from the presumption of superiority.


I think it is even more often the opposite: People act as if they feel superior to others to hide their fear of being inferior. Especially for artists who have to establish themselves and defend their works a lack of self-confidence can be fatal. I think almost all of the here mentioned "arrogant" composers were not really arrogant, they just had to be in order to survive. Only artists who are certain of their success have the luxury of being as humble as they want.


----------



## Anankasmo

I get the feeling that Debussy and Tschaikowsky were rather arrogant. I have read their bios and it just seems that they were rather egozentrical and quite dismissive of music which was not their own...... Humble composers imo would be Rossini, Bach, Faure i guess


----------



## Tchaikov6

Anankasmo said:


> I get the feeling that Debussy and Tschaikowsky were rather arrogant. I have read their bios and it just seems that they were rather egozentrical and quite dismissive of music which was not their own...... Humble composers imo would be Rossini, Bach, Faure i guess


Tchaikovsky was dismissive of music that wasn't his own, but he was also very self-critical of his own music. I guess I wouldn't cal him humble, but I wouldn't call him arrogant.


----------



## DeepR

Tchaikov6 said:


> Agree with Scriabin.
> "I am God! I am nothing, I'm play, I am freedom, I am life. I am the boundary, I am the peak." He was also quoted in a conversation with Arthur Rubenstein. Scriabin asked him who his favorite composer is. The answer was Brahms, and Scriabin's response was "What, what? How can you like this terrible composer and me at the same time?"
> 
> He's a good composer, but, no he wasn't God...


I doubt he thought he was actually God. He thought many absurd things, but not that. It's followed directly by "I am nothing". He might have tried to express that composing set him free to be a creator-god in his own mind, or something.
I can't make much sense of what I've read about his philosophies and extra-musical stuff, such as the worded Poem of Ecstasy (I found a translation somewhere). It all seems very over the top and downright silly. The only way he could really express himself was through music. All that other stuff I consider nonsense. It was simply part of his eccentric artistic persona. Maybe he had to believe in those things in order to be creative. Or perhaps deep down inside he knew that he was being silly, with his plans for the Mysterium for example. 
I don't think he was insane either. No insane person could have written the highly intelligent music he composed until the end.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> I would describe Alexander Scriabin as more audacious than arrogant. *His study of Madame Blavatsky's spiritual philosophy of Theosophy would have been a caution against letting his ego get out of hand.*


Well, Wagner studied Buddhism. Maybe its only those with oversized egos who need to study ways of controlling them.


----------



## Larkenfield

Woodduck said:


> Well, Wagner studied Buddhism. Maybe its only those with oversized egos who need to study ways of controlling them.


Wow! Good point.


----------



## Anankasmo

Tchaikov6 said:


> Tchaikovsky was dismissive of music that wasn't his own, but he was also very self-critical of his own music. I guess I wouldn't cal him humble, but I wouldn't call him arrogant.


It was not my intention to dismiss Tschaikowsky but when i read his opinions on other well known composers and demi-gods i do think that he was rather critical. But i have to acknoledge that Tschaikowsky was rather melody akin so he rated Mozart and genius melody creators such as himself higher than the rest. But while melody is certainly important it is just one piece if the cake called music. Form, Harmony etc... are equally important imo. Just because he was not as interested or as skillful in these fields doesnt mean that composers who did not please his perfect melody sense such as Brahms, Bach or Beethoven are lesser compsers than him......


----------



## scratchgolf

You've never heard of the most humble because his or her music was stolen by the most arrogant. This is the person we worship.


----------



## scratchgolf

Anankasmo said:


> It was not my intention to dismiss Tschaikowsky but when i read his opinions on other well known composers and demi-gods i do think that he was rather critical. But i have to acknoledge that Tschaikowsky was rather melody akin so he rated Mozart and genius melody creators such as himself higher than the rest. But while melody is certainly important it is just one piece if the cake called music. Form, Harmony etc... are equally important imo. Just because he was not as interested or as skillful in these fields doesnt mean that composers who did not please his perfect melody sense such as Brahms, Bach or Beethoven are lesser compsers than him......


Tchaikovsky was gay. That is still frowned upon in Russia to this day. Notice I said "frowned upon". It is as popular to dismiss him as it is to pretend Babe Ruth was not half German and half African. If only he were dark enough, he would have broken the color barrier in 1917. But he was light enough to pass as "white" so white he became. His mother was from "Pigtown". Do your homework you educated people. Beethoven was also not "white". Am I the only one who knows this? Dear lord, Woodduck. Help me out here or destroy me with fancy words. I think I'm going crazy again.


----------



## Woodduck

scratchgolf said:


> Tchaikovsky was gay. That is still frowned upon in Russia to this day. Notice I said "frowned upon". It is as popular to dismiss him as it is to pretend Babe Ruth was not half German and half African. If only he were dark enough, he would have broken the color barrier in 1917. But he was light enough to pass as "white" so white he became. His mother was from "Pigtown". Do your homework you educated people. Beethoven was also not "white". Am I the only one who knows this? *Dear lord, Woodduck. Help me out here or destroy me with fancy words.* I think I'm going crazy again.


I wouldn't dream of destroying you, Scratchgolf. There are others much more deserving, and a man only has so much time.

You've aroused my curiosity about Beethoven.


----------



## scratchgolf

Woodduck said:


> I wouldn't dream of destroying you, Scratchgolf. There are others much more deserving, and a man only has so much time.
> 
> You've aroused my curiosity about Beethoven.


Another day and another time my friend. My line is always open to you.


----------



## scratchgolf

But, Beethoven was a "van" and he could never be a "von". His offspring could  . Enough "whitewashing" can hide anything. The British pushed their ******** to Ireland. The famine pushed them to Boston and New York. Man made famine, mind you. The same peoples were the Phoenicians, and the Canaanites. The sons of Esau. The world is changing my friend. Esau is finally realizing his father's promise. He is removing his yoke and the sons of Jacob are trembling. I have climbed Mt. Sinai. I have seen Edom/Petra in person. I have been to Egypt. I have walked the Andes. I have walked the Hindu Kush. I know who is buried in Petra. I know who is buried in the Holy Land. I know what will happen when the third temple is built on earth. My sweet lord, you will all tremble. I have never been to Australia. It is my hell. Do you have any idea what is happening in Australia? Breathe on your hand right now. Does it feel warm? Do you have any idea who you are? Where you come from? Call me crazy, I am. But I have taken exactly two oaths in my life. One to the United States Army and one to the Freemasons. I will honor both because the penalty is death. But if you don't realize that snakes are changing, and rattlers aren't rattling anymore, and pythons are hunting in packs now, and there are things in Australia that don't warm palms. They burn them. And these "animals" have one code. Snakes. Crocodiles. Sharks. Cold blood. Blue blood. Kill or be killed. They do not care if you agree with their code. They do not care if you fear their code. Their code should not be confused with morals. A 6 inch Snakehead fish will kill everything in its environment. I owned one. It is a perfect killing machine. Given the time and the environment, a 6 inch snakehead with grow in its lifetime to the size it can comfortably consume a human child, and it will by nature. And we will cry, and pass laws, and people will break them. But the blood will not stop. The worms that consume us are the serpents that seduce us. Oh my. Didn't I say another time? Let's pause for the cause. I have more to say and time is short.


----------



## Tallisman

Out of the list others provided:

Bruckner - the most modest composer with the least to be modest about

Rossini - the most modest composer with the most to be modest about.


----------



## eljr

Mayerl said:


> Need a while to work out why the name John Cage appears in a list of composers.


LOL, Oh, you are one of those.


----------



## eugeneonagain

scratchgolf said:


> But, Beethoven was a "van" and he could never be a "von".


That's more likely because his name has a Dutch origin than anything to do with being denied aristocratic rights based on his looks.
I'll also relieve you of the burden of being the only one knowing that Beethoven was considered 'Moorish'.


----------



## scratchgolf

eugeneonagain said:


> That's more likely because his name has a Dutch origin than anything to do with being denied aristocratic rights based on his looks.
> I'll also relieve you of the burden of being the only one knowing that Beethoven was considered 'Moorish'.


Thank you for lifting this weight off my shoulders. I never realized it was that easy. But I know what Dutch people are too.


----------



## eugeneonagain

scratchgolf said:


> Thank you for lifting this weight off my shoulders. I never realized it was that easy. *But I know what Dutch people are too*.


In that case the conclusion should have been obvious.

Above all, my liege, I aim to please.


----------



## Eusebius12

He was called swarthy, no doubt because of his Spanish roots. That doesn't mean he looked black or even particularly brown. Anyone who wasn't paled skin in 19th century Vienna might have seemed 'swarthy'.


----------



## KenOC

Nobody ever thought Beethoven had noble roots. In his legal actions regarding his nephew, he himself casually stated that his name had no noble connotations. The Landrechte, the court for nobility, had ignored his background as a commoner to that point, probably as a courtesy. But the issue could no longer be ignored, and the case was transferred to the Magistracy, the venue for cases involving commoners.

Regarding his "Moorish background," I wonder how much if this is misconstrued due to his living at the Schwarzspanierhaus ("House of the Black Spaniards") in his later years. I've seen no evidence of Spanish influence on his family lineage.


----------



## Larkenfield

Sometimes the apparent arrogance of a composer is because of the extreme confidence they have in the results of what they’re creating. The songs of Hugo Wolf, for example. He knew they were good and that the next one would even be better! The tortured, doomed composer was right.


----------

