# Types of composers



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Here comes another great idea for a thread for which you must thank me.

Types of composers <hits "applause" button> thank you, thank you!

I'm sure that many of you that listen to classical for long time have noticed that there are couple of types of composers to distinguish. Most artists can't be attributed to none but some are very typical and character of their creations and personalities is similiar to many others of this kind.

Here are some that I distinguished:

*Type No. 1*: Composer-thinker. Often lonely guy that enjoys nature (mountains in most of the cases) and draw his inspiration from it. He writes music which reflects his philosophical ideas and reflections on life, world and some more wierd stuff. Major examples: Mahler, Wagner, to some extent Beethoven. Karłowicz, Langgaard.

*Type No. 2*: Composer-oversensitive wreck. Popular type among romantics, such composers lead life full of tragedies and distress (sometimes imagined and exaggerated in their oversensitive minds). His music is extremely emotional and reflects what he felt. Major examples: Tchaikovsky, perhaps Schoenberg and Scriabin.

*Type No. 3*: Decadent-fantasist. Artistic artist prefering "art for sake of art". His works are original and led by composer's colorful fantasy and imagination - he doesn't want to express himself or make musical moralitets and thus his works often are operas/other program works based on attractive and interesting sources like legends, mythes and magical ****. Major examples: Debussy, Szymanowski, Berlioz. To some extent Richard Strauss.

*Type No. 4*: Composer-poet. Someone often being in the middle between two previous types: oversensitive wreck and decadent-fantasist. His music is emotional but doesn't focus on him and his very personal life/feelings. Major examples: Chopin (of course, king of musical poets!), Sibelius, sometimes Liszt. Wagner.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

I would definitely place Beethoven, Brahms and Shostakovich and Type No. 2. And I'm a little concerned of your description of Type 3 being "art for sake of art." It kind of seems like the opposite. "Art for the sake of art" would be something written just for the sake of expressing yourself- NOT for expressing someone else's story. In which case composers like Brahms, Dvorak and Elgar would fall into that category. Actually, I think composers like those previous three deserve their own category. They would be oversensitive wrecks if their lives were miserable, but they weren't, so they just wrote music because they were good at it. They're music is still full of personality, but tragedy didn't strike often, so the content wasn't quite as overdramatic and close to the heart as others. 

Also I'd put Sibelius in Type 1. His music describes his surroundings, but also his own personal thoughts with works like the 4th symphony.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Nix said:


> I would definitely place Beethoven, Brahms and Shostakovich and Type No. 2.


Shostakovich could fit but I don't think he was OVERsensitive. His sufferings were real and nightmarish, that differs him from the rest - no comparison with, say, Schoenberg who wrote music like horror because wife left him and he had to face very common misfortunes that most of people do face and don't break.



> "Art for the sake of art" would be something written just for the sake of expressing yourself


Nah, I totally don't understand why do you think that AFTSOA dogma has anything to do with expressing yourself. Like Wilde said: "artist can express anything" and for many composers self-expression was less interesting idea than expressing fictional characters and ideas that were much more fascinating and less prosaic than simple human feelings they experienced.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

The most oversensitive of all: Anton Bruckner


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I definitely agree that Sibelius goes with type 1. He just doesn't fit in with Chopin and Liszt anyway.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Shostakovich could fit but I don't think he was OVERsensitive. His sufferings were real and nightmarish, that differs him from the rest - no comparison with, say, Schoenberg who wrote music like horror because wife left him and he had to face very common misfortunes that most of people do face and don't break.


Well that seems rather subjective.

_Like Wilde said: "artist can express anything" and for many composers self-expression was less interesting idea than expressing fictional characters and ideas._

Yes, and many composers were interested in purely interested in self-expressions. 'Art for the sake of art' is the catch phrase for absolute music- of which Brahms and Dvorak championed. I'm not saying Type 3 isn't a type, I just think you're misinterpreting a quote. If a composer is writing a tone poem, he's not writing music simply because he wants to write music (art for the sake of art), he's writing it to tell a story. On the other hand, Dvorak wrote his 7th symphony simply because he wanted to... 'art for the sake of art.'


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

World Violist said:


> He just doesn't fit in with Chopin and Liszt anyway.


And who decided that he's not going to be opera composer because of Liszt's symphonic poems and after hearing them said that "he sees himself as poet"?



> Yes, and many composers were interested in purely interested in self-expressions. 'Art for the sake of art' is the catch phrase for absolute music- of which Brahms and Dvorak championed. I'm not saying Type 3 isn't a type, I just think you're misinterpreting a quote. If a composer is writing a tone poem, he's not writing music simply because he wants to write music (art for the sake of art), he's writing it to tell a story. On the other hand, Dvorak wrote his 7th symphony simply because he wanted to- 'art for the sake of art.'


Well, I guess it's my personal association that composers like Debussy and Szymanowski are closest to this idea.



> Well that seems rather subjective.


Not at all - we know their biographies and it's easy to compare.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Maybe this isnt relevant to the idea of the thread at all, but Dvorak wrote a whole bunch of tone poems, so he wasnt all 'Art for arts sake'.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Here comes another great idea for a thread for which you must thank me.
> 
> Types of composers <hits "applause" button> thank you, thank you!
> 
> ...


I think the title of this thread was meant to be "Types of *Romantic* Composers". To have all eras of composers, especially pre-Romantic ones within these four, is plainly and demonstratively showing lack of knowledge of elementary early music history.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Aramis said:


> And who decided that he's not going to be opera composer because of Liszt's symphonic poems and after hearing them said that "he sees himself as poet"?


True, he was influenced by Liszt in that regard, but I see nature/philosophy as far more relevant to his identity.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Type 2 is OBVIOUSLY Rachmaninoff. That may be why I don't like him so much...

I third that Type 1 is Sibelius.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I think the title of this thread was meant to be "Types of *Romantic* Composers". To have all eras of composers, especially pre-Romantic ones within these four, is plainly and demonstratively showing lack of knowledge of elementary early music history.


Wait, where did I write that thread is about attributing all composers to those four types? These were my own types.

*Other users are expected to write about THEIR OWN types* , not attributing composers to four of mine.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think J.S. Bach would fit into a different category, one that is a little more spiritual in nature, perhaps making music to honor God. To be an expression of one's idea of the divine. Bruckner and Penderecki may also loosely fit this category.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Wait, where did I write that thread is about attributing all composers to those four types? These were my own types.
> 
> *Other users are expected to write about THEIR OWN types* , not attributing composers to four of mine.


I see. I have egg on my face then. Please accept my sincere apologies.

I would like to add a couple that might be able to fit pre-Romantic types.

*Religious Type*. "Music is for the glory of the Lord" / _In nomine Domini_. An obvious type who wrote much music for the church, whose personal life and professional life largely centred around the church. The earlier you delve into it, the more these folks take a share. Giants like J. S. Bach and numerous others.

*Cosmopolitan Type* Travelled and wrote "worldly music", so to speak, in a manner that recognised the entertainment needs (and liturgical needs to a lesser extent) of local audiences, patrons and employers; who essentially sought employment largely outside of the church. Acute to fashionable nuances of styles. Giants like Handel, Mozart.

*Subservient Servant Type*  Spent most of their professional life largely at a limited number of positions that could be considered to be at the disposal of their employers. Giants like Haydn (though he managed to break free later and crowned his career with the London trips). C. P. E Bach spent 28 years in the service of Frederick II.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Id say Britten is closest to number 3. (from Aramis' list)

On a slightly different train of thought, still related to 'types' of composers, ever notice how there are certain composers who seem to be able to just 'channel' good music seemingly automatically? ie- J.S. Bach, Mozart, Schubert etc, almost as though these composers themselves are instruments of a kind for music to flow through?

Where other composers seem to really let things 'stew' and marinate in their brains for a long time- seemingly trying to re-work them to fit some kind of scheme from their imaginations ie - Wagner, Ravel, Beethoven. 

I think its interesting to note, I am fascinated by the creative process, and must say those composers from category 2, give me hope. :lol:


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Now where would Glazunov fit in...

He's moderately decadent, but he's more cerebral than that, yet he's not Type 1 either because he didn't use _so_ much inspiration from nature or philosophy. He was sensitive, but he would only express it with sensibility, and he didn't write operas, only ballets. He's definitely *Cosmopolitan*, he can sound like 5 completely different and opposing composers at the same time...

So, he doesn't fit in anywhere!
*
Type 5* - Composer- Sage (Thinker-Poet combination). Sensible while not inhibiting true emotions. Creates highly structured, yet sincere music, in abstract or programmatic veins. More than just "beauty for beauty's sake," but "sanity for sanity's sake." Romantic that keeps his head. 

I think Brahms, Saint-Saens, maybe Rimsky-Korsakov also would be in that category.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

*Harpsichord Concerto wrote:*



> I see. I have egg on my face then. Please accept my sincere apologies.


I'm not convinced that you do. I think you were getting at something significant. The categories of this thread are based on Romantic conceptions of the artist that are rather arch. They would never have been applied in earlier periods when musicians and composers were viewed as craftsmen. The idea that personality traits are what define a composers music is a very Romantic one and one that it is surely healthy to question.

Here's a few more categories in similar vein to those proposed in the thread -see how you like these:

*Sexual deviant/monster:* Composers with deep seated issues that would see them locked in prison or a psychiatric hospital in this day and age such as Nicholas Gombert or Johann Rosenmuller.
*Drama Queen:* Composers who lived a life (and perhaps suffered a death) that reads like a tawdry melodrama such as Alessandro Stradella, John Bull or Jeremiah Clarke.
*Mostly in it for the Money:* Composers who were willing to write music that was quite clearly contrary to their personal beliefs in furtherance of their careers such as Thomas Tallis or Johann David Heinichen. 
*Religious extremist/bigot:* those whose religious beliefs compelled them to extraordianry behaviour or obsessions such as William Byrd, Tomas Luis Victoria, Peter Philips or John Taverner (who actually gave up composing music due to his beliefs!).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

hocket said:


> *Sexual deviant/monster:* Composers with deep seated issues that would see them locked in prison or a psychiatric hospital in this day and age such as Nicholas Gombert or Johann Rosenmuller.


Prokofiev? :tiphat:


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

hocket said:


> I'm not convinced that you do. I think you were getting at something significant. The categories of this thread are based on Romantic conceptions of the artist that are rather arch. They would never have been applied in earlier periods when musicians and composers were viewed as craftsmen. The idea that personality traits are what define a composers music is a very Romantic one and one that it is surely healthy to question.


Like I said, there is no such thing as "categories of this thread", unless you refer to what has been written already. Noone is limited to base his types on personality of composers, like I wrote in first post:



> character of their creations and personalities


Anyone is free to focus on creations or anything else that he think makes some kind of type.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*I don't agree*

But this is not new for you, is it? I rarely agree with something or somebody in an absolute way...

People change...sometimes they are type 1, sometimes 2, 3..or 4 or N.

Shostakovich was many types in one depending on the day and after his first heart attack (I met him a bit after in 1970) he had changed a lot...he became more afraid, less free, his humor was a bit bitter...

So were Schreker ans Zemlinsky before and after their destitution by the Nazzis...Tchaikovsky also before some events....

Events change a person!!!!!

YOU cannot put ONE person (a person lives long) in *just one type*, classifying is *always *too restrictive. Some people can say Martin is always arguing...Even that is not always true. Sometimes I am cooler....LOL

Martin, uncool.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Agreeing*

I read Aramis a bit too late, I agree with him.

Martin


----------

