# ¿Do you think a classical-style composer could be famous today? ¿Why?



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

I'm talking about a really classical-style composer, not influenced by modernism or romanticism.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Alma Deutscher is famous, as such things go in the classical music world.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

wolfieperl said:


> I'm talking about *a really classical-style composer, not influenced by modernism or romanticism*.


I don't think that's even possible.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

I should imagine that their public profile would be somewhat like that of the English "radical conservative" architect Quinlan Terry who designs only in the Palladian style which he regards as being "an expression of the Divine order".

He has a small but intensely loyal group of fans, who are mostly very rich and very conservative in their architectural tastes. I first came across him in the early 80s when he was being championed by Prince Charles.

No doubt some of his buildings are popular with the public (though he does have a controversial habit of adding, say, a Palladian wing to an original Gothic revival building) but it seems safe to say that most of the architectural profession is not so keen: "...his work has attracted much criticism even from conservative quarters." (Wikipedia).

No doubt it could be done, with the backing of some influential media, but would it produce anything of merit?


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

Chronochromie said:


> I don't think that's even possible.


Why you think so?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

wolfieperl said:


> Why you think so?


Unless said composer has lived in a cave listening to only Classical era music, they'll be influenced by the music of later eras in a way or another, even unconsciously.


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

Nowadays it's quite a novel idea to care about the listener's ear. (No offense intended to atonalism).



Chronochromie said:


> Unless said composer has lived in a cave listening to only Classical era music, they'll be influenced by the music of later eras in a way or another, even unconsciously.


If the composer doesn't like modernism or romanticism it could be perfectly possible, one is indeed influenced by what oneself likes, but i don't think it's possible to be influenced by what you dislike.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Alma Deutscher is famous, as such things go in the classical music world.


She's famous as a child prodigy. I doubt that fame will travel with her into adulthood unless she evolves as an artist, but we'll see.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

TurnaboutVox said:


> I should imagine that their public profile would be somewhat like that of the English "radical conservative" architect Quinlan Terry who designs only in the Palladian style which he regards as being "an expression of the Divine order".
> 
> He has a small but intensely loyal group of fans, who are mostly very rich and very conservative in their architectural tastes. I first came across him in the early 80s when he was being championed by Prince Charles.
> 
> ...


Nice with an architect that imitate the style that was popular in the twenties instead of the style that was popular in the thirties and forties like all other architects.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

wolfieperl said:


> If the composer doesn't like modernism or romanticism it could be perfectly possible, one is indeed influenced by what oneself likes, but i don't think it's possible to be influenced by what you dislike.


Cue Debussy's _Pelléas et Mélisande_.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

wolfieperl said:


> Nowadays it's quite a novel idea to care about the listener's ear. (No offense intended to atonalism).


Sure, (I don't nessicarily accept this premise the way it's worded, but for the sake of argument...), that's why we have many composers writing in new styles that are considered more accessible.

I don't think any serious artist would want to stick to writing Classical Era pastiches. They would want to put their own artistic stamp on the music that they write.


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

I have to agree in your opinion about living their mark in their art, but its also true that writing Classical Era music style its quite original in its own unoriginality and you could put your own style to that music (though this would contradict my position on "absolutely classical")


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

wolfieperl said:


> I have to agree in your opinion about living their mark in their art, but its also true that writing Classical Era music style its quite original in its own unoriginality and you could put your own style to that music (though this would contradict my position on "absolutely classical")


I think if you were to mark a Classical Era composition with your own style, it would almost certainly have "contemporary inflections" whether or not you intended it to.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Depends on what is meant by famous.
A few thousand YouTube subscribers? Yes.
Played worldwide by established orchestras and ensembles? No.

I can't imagine a creative mind being satisfied with 'playing' at being a classical era composer. Except perhaps as a bit of self indulgent fun or for an excercise.


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

Petwhac said:


> Depends on what is meant by famous.
> A few thousand YouTube subscribers? Yes.
> Played worldwide by established orchestras and ensembles? No.


Why not played worldwide? If contemporary music is not frequently played its because almost every modern compositions bother the listeners (at least this is my opinion on it) or bore them, so its far more profitable to continually repeat the same old compositions again and again.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

wolfieperl said:


> Why not played worldwide? If contemporary music is not frequently played its beacause almost every modern compositions bother the listeners (at least this is my opinion on it) or bore them, so its far more profitable to continually repeat the same old compositions again and again.


Plenty of contemporary compositions get worldwide recognition...

I think the audience response to a carbon copy of a classical composer would be basicallly "hmm sounds nice, now I'll go back to listening to Mozart and Haydn". It it probably won't be incredibly enthusiastic and famous musicians, conductors, and orchestras are likely not to feel compelled to endorse or support it because most of them also care about further exploration of new musical styles, not going back to old ones.


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

violadude said:


> Plenty of contemporary compositions get worldwide recognition...


Indeed, but it seems that only the most ridiculous ones get attention, for example 4' 33''.

Can someone please explain me that obsessive need on making new musical languages? We got more than enough to express us, i never understood why is such a obsession, but i want to.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

Oh this is just too good.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

wolfieperl said:


> If the composer doesn't like modernism or romanticism it could be perfectly possible, one is indeed influenced by what oneself likes, but i don't think it's possible to be influenced by what you dislike.


If they don't like it and they avoid employing it in their own music, clearly they have been influenced by their negative experiences of it. Influence doesn't just mean "what you like," a composer's individual style is just as much shaped by their dislikes as it is their likes. Furthermore ─ assuming this composer is actually a composer and not merely a well-studied and purposeful imitator ─ each new composition they produce will be an experience that will also exert an influence upon their style, and they will inevitably develop away from their stylistic point of origin.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

wolfieperl said:


> Indeed, but it seems that only the most ridiculous ones get attention, for example 4' 33''.
> 
> Can someone please explain me that obsessive need on making new musical languages? We got more than enough to express us, i never understood why is such a obsession, but i want to.


I think you need to do some more research on contemporary composition before trying to talk about the subject seriously. There are lots of contemporary works that have gotten and are getting high levels of recognition other than experimental works like 4'33".

Things like this: 




Or this: 




Or this: 




Besides, I doubt among John Cage fans any of them considers 4'33" their favorite work.

As for the "obsession" with new musical languages. I don't think it's a deliberate thing necessarily. It's just that if you are an artist you want to carve out a unique voice for yourself. That's just how artists are. Why would you want to express yourself by copying the style of someone else? You want to dig into yourself to find YOUR voice. Not dig into Mozart's Piano Concertos and find his voice.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

wolfieperl said:


> Can someone please explain me that obsessive need on making new musical languages?


Because when we repeat what we already heard somebody else say, we're not expressing us, we're expressing them.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> She's famous as a child prodigy. I doubt that fame will travel with her into adulthood unless she evolves as an artist, but we'll see.


Who knows what the future holds? But right now little Alma seems to meet the OP's requirements.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

wolfieperl said:


> Indeed, but it seems that only the most ridiculous ones get attention, for example 4' 33''.
> 
> Can someone please explain me that obsessive need on making new musical languages? We got more than enough to express us, i never understood why is such a obsession, but i want to.


4'33'' was needed to replace the little-known Jacob Obrecht composition "Five Minutes, give or take a minute or so." Cage's work was inevitable as a result of the development and dissemination of superior clocks.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

If someone of the caliber of Mozart or Handel composed today in the original classical style and their works were as high quality, I don't see why not. Brahms was a throwback to the earlier classical period. Of course being famous is relative since classical music is not popular on a mass scale.


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Because when we repeat what we already heard somebody else say, we're not expressing us, we're expressing them.


I'm not talking about some 21st century dude publishing Mozart's works as if they were his own, I'm talking about a style, Mozart is not the owner of classical style, nor haydn, nor C.P.E. Bach. Of course no one needs to hear Mozart Symphony 40 as John Doe Symphony 1, but it wouldn't be a copy if its your idea wich you decide to develop in a certain style


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Styles are ideas.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

violadude said:


> Besides, I doubt among John Cage fans any of them considers 4'33" their favorite work.


"I've written only one masterpiece - 4'33". Unfortunately, there's too much music in it."


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

Richard8655 said:


> If someone of the caliber of Mozart or Handel composed today in the original classical style and their works were as high quality, I don't see why not.


I agree that such a composer would be worthy, but I would disagree if you or anyone implied that such a thing is possible. I have never heard of a person of such high talent in any field being opposed to forward movement and originality. Talent and creativity tend to go hand-in-hand, at least when the talent is on that level...


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Styles are ideas.


So Mozart, Haydn, and every classical era composer is a plagiarist because they copied a style they didn't invented. So why are they woldwide known? As the best plagiarists I guess.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

nathanb said:


> I have never heard of a person of such high talent in any field being opposed to forward movement...


I say thank God for forward movement and the advance of music! Otherwise today's music might be no better than...than...Bach's!


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

wolfieperl said:


> So Mozart, Haydn, and every classical era composer is a plagiarist because they copied a style they didn't invented.


Mozart and Haydn invented the classical style (which they of course didn't call the classical style).


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Mozart and Haydn invented the classical style (which they of course didn't call the classical style).


No, to perfect a style and invent it it's not the same.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

KenOC said:


> I say thank God for forward movement and the advance of music! Otherwise today's music might be no better than...than...Bach's!


Well, no, otherwise today's music might be no better than people who just try to copy Bach today.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

KenOC said:


> I say thank God for forward movement and the advance of music! Otherwise today's music might be no better than...than...Bach's!


Cheap imitations of Bach*

I can't believe I have to tell you this Ken


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

wolfieperl said:


> No, to perfect a style and invent it it's not the same.


So who invented the Classical style, in your opinion?


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

wolfieperl said:


> No, to perfect a style and invent it it's not the same.


Maybe, maybe not, but irrelevant in this case, because there was no classical style for them to perfect, they just invented it, period.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Richard8655 said:


> If someone of the caliber of Mozart or Handel composed today in the original classical style and their works were as high quality, I don't see why not. Brahms was a throwback to the earlier classical period. Of course being famous is relative since classical music is not popular on a mass scale.


Mozart and Handel were of their time. They heard the music around them. The counterpoint in for example Mozart's Jupiter symphony finale may bear the mark of Bach but it is not Bach, it is Mozart. When Stravinsky looked back to Pergolesi for his Pulcinella the result was unmistakeably Stravinsky.
If audiences want more Haydn and Mozart than there is, they could explore Spohr, Hummel, Clementi, Boyce and I'm sure many more who I haven't head of.


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

GreenMamba said:


> So who invented the Classical style, in your opinion?


Telemann could be a transition, Gluck was classical, C.P.E. Bach, J.C. Bach


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

nathanb said:


> Cheap imitations of Bach*
> 
> I can't believe I have to tell you this Ken


Writing in a "new and original style" doesn't, in itself, improve the quality of the music. I'm absolutely sure I don't have to tell you that.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

nathanb said:


> I agree that such a composer would be worthy, but I would disagree if you or anyone implied that such a thing is possible. I have never heard of a person of such high talent in any field being opposed to forward movement and originality. Talent and creativity tend to go hand-in-hand, at least when the talent is on that level...


Not sure I understand your point. Why would such person of that caliber from that era if alive today not be recognized?


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Writing in a "new and original style" doesn't improve the quality of the music. I'm absolutely sure I don't have to tell you that.


If it manages to be a style, it's good. If it's bad, then it's just a manner.


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Maybe, maybe not, but irrelevant in this case, because there was no classical style for them to perfect, they just invented it, period.


No, because there were composers making classical-style music even before they were making their first attempt of music, you cannot say "they are the most famous classical composers so it is obvious they invented it".


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Petwhac said:


> Mozart and Handel were of their time. They heard the music around them. The counterpoint in for example Mozart's Jupiter symphony finale may bear the mark of Bach but it is not Bach, it is Mozart. When Stravinsky looked back to Pergolesi for his Pulcinella the result was unmistakeably Stravinsky.
> If audiences want more Haydn and Mozart than there is, they could explore Spohr, Hummel, Clementi, Boyce and I'm sure many more who I haven't head of.


Yeah, this is getting to be kind of a Twilight Zone thing in theory. Hard to predict but I would still say it's possible.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

wolfieperl said:


> No, because there were composers making classical-style music even before they were making their first attempt of music, you cannot say "they are the most famous classical composers so it is obvious they invented it".


I didn't say they are the most famous classical composers so it is obvious they invented it, I said they invented it, because they did.


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

Harold in Columbia said:


> I didn't say they are the most famous classical composers so it is obvious they invented it, I said they invented it, because they did.


Are you familiar with C.P.E Bach, J.C Bach, Gluck? I don't think so...


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Are you familiar with them?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

This is an interesting question and has been discussed before. Let's say a composer wrote a symphony in a style that could easily be mistaken for Beethoven's, even by people who are authorities in such things. Let's further say that, in terms of cogency, force, and interest, it was fully the equal of Beethoven's better symphonies.

What would be its reception by critics and academics? By the general public?

Granted, this is unlikely. No, impossible...


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Are you familiar with them?


I'm not the one who says "Mozart and Haydn invented classical style", so that question goes to you.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

wolfieperl said:


> I'm not the one who says "Mozart and Haydn invented classical style"


But you should say that, because they did.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> This is an interesting question and has been discussed before. Let's say a composer wrote a symphony in a style that could easily be mistaken for Beethoven's, even by people who are authorities in such things. Let's further say that, in terms of cogency, force, and interest, it was fully the equal of Beethoven's better symphonies.
> 
> What would be its reception by critics and academics? By the general public?


Critics and academics? Probably not very positive. Same with fellow artists.

The public? Might be more favorable, but I'm not sure there'd be a consensus. In pop music, you hear ordinary Joes complaining that a new band is ripping off the style of some older band. They appreciate originality too.


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

Harold in Columbia said:


> But you should say that, because they did.


Dude, they didn't, seriously. They indeed perfected it, but they weren't original (and they didn't intended to be, originality is a romantic era concept), they didn't invented a style, they used something that alredy existed, they copied it and made beautiful things with it, but it wasn't their.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

wolfieperl said:


> I'm not the one who says "Mozart and Haydn invented classical style", so that question goes to you.


Haydn is usually considered the first composer of the classical era. The Bach boys are usually considered of the Galant (or Galante) era. Surely Haydn brought sonata form to full development, which is considered one of the bases of the classical era. Rosen's "The Classical Style" is an excellent read on this subject.


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Haydn is usually considered the first composer of the classical era. The Bach boys are usually considered of the Galant (or Galante) era. Surely Haydn brought sonata form to full development, which is considered one of the bases of the classical era. Rosen's "The Classical Style" is an excellent read on this subject.


Gluck was a classical composer too, and roccoco it's too similar to clasicism to ignore it (talking about lyric melodies and so).


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

KenOC said:


> This is an interesting question and has been discussed before. Let's say a composer wrote a symphony in a style that could easily be mistaken for Beethoven's, even by people who are authorities in such things. Let's further say that, in terms of cogency, force, and interest, it was fully the equal of Beethoven's better symphonies.
> 
> What would be its reception by critics and academics? By the general public?
> 
> Granted, this is unlikely. No, impossible...


This raises an interesting point. Modern audiences revere classical composers because they were of that era (in addition to the quality of the music), as does modern culture. A modern "Beethoven" might be seen as a Johnny-come-lately imitator, no matter how good and original, because he doesn't fit the historical context and storyline.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

If a painter today only produced works in the style of the Dutch masters s/he might sell them in reasonable quantity but I'm sure you wouldn't expect the great galleries of the world to fall over themselves to aquire them.

You cannot turn the clock back how ever much you want to.
By all means write in a strict classical style or become a patron or supporter of someone who does and enjoy it. Isn't that enough? Is it necessary to also seek validation and/or fame?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

wolfieperl said:


> Gluck was a classical composer too, and roccoco it's too similar to clasicism to ignore it (talking about lyric melodies and so).


You seem to have your own definitions, which is fine. But unless they are shared by others, they are not very good bases for discussion.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Richard8655 said:


> If someone of the caliber of Mozart or Handel composed today in the original classical style and their works were as high quality, I don't see why not. Brahms was a throwback to the earlier classical period. Of course being famous is relative since classical music is not popular on a mass scale.


But Brahms was not writing in a "Classical-Style". He was a Romantic composer in nearly every way imaginable as far as the musical language is concerned.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

The problem with this question, of course, is that great composers don't write like themselves. We figure out in retrospect what they wrote like, after they die and stop ruining our schemas by writing new works that invalidate them.


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

KenOC said:


> You seem to have your own definitions, which is fine. But unless they are shared by others, they are not very good bases for discussion.


Gluck is not considered a roccoco composer, it's early classical period.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

violadude said:


> But Brahms was not writing in a "Classical-Style". He was a Romantic composer in nearly every way imaginable as far as the musical language is concerned.


That's not quite true. Although he was a composer of the Romantic period, his compositional structure and form had many elements based on the classical period. His style in this sense was unlike most of his Romantic contemporaries.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

violadude said:


> I think you need to do some more research on contemporary composition before trying to talk about the subject seriously. There are lots of contemporary works that have gotten and are getting high levels of recognition other than experimental works like 4'33".
> 
> Things like this:
> 
> ...


The Gubaidulina viola concerto is a beauty! I don't know how famous she is, but I'd rather see her music championed than entertaining the hypothetical idea of some anachronistic 18th century style composer receiving undue attention.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Richard8655 said:


> That's not quite true. Although he was a composer of the Romantic period, his compositional structure and form had many elements based on the classical period. His style in this sense was unlike most of his Romantic contemporaries.


The language he wrote in (not necessarily the mediums or forms he chose to work with) was Romantic in almost all senses. In this sense, he is not comparable to our hypothetical classical style composer.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> The Gubaidulina viola concerto is a beauty! I don't know how famous she is, but I'd rather see her music championed than entertaining the hypothetical idea of some anachronistic 18th century style composer receiving undue attention.


I don't know how famous that particular piece is, but Gubaidulina is generally well regarded in the contemporary classical world.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

violadude said:


> The language he wrote in (not necessarily the mediums or forms he chose to work with) was Romantic in almost all senses. In this sense, he is not comparable to our hypothetical classical style composer.


We differ. I think you're missing the significant classical period influence his music has and that's acknowledged today. You may want to do a little more research. It's obvious to my ears his music is not nearly as "romantic" in style as his contemporaries.

"Brahms is often considered both a traditionalist and an innovator. His music is firmly rooted in the structures and compositional techniques of the Baroque and Classical masters. He was a master of counterpoint, the complex and highly disciplined art for which Johann Sebastian Bach is famous, and of development, a compositional ethos pioneered by Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, and other composers".


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

wolfieperl said:


> Gluck is not considered a roccoco composer, it's early classical period.


We must forget about categories, classification, labels such as rococo, gallant, classical, etc. The development of musical styles cannot be compartmentalised so neatly. There is a continuous overlap and gradual shift. 
The difference between then and now is that the composer today would have to ignore all the music written all over the world since those folk in late 18th -early 19th century Vienna did their thing. That would be a very strange thing to do for a composer who was serious about their job.


----------



## wolfieperl (Apr 30, 2016)

Yes, but if someone says "Mozart invented classical style" then they're forgeting Gluck, Piccinni, etc. Who are actually the firsts "classical" composers.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Richard8655 said:


> We differ. I think you're missing the significant classical period influence his music has and that's acknowledged today. You may want to do a little more research. It's obvious to my ears his music is not nearly as "romantic" in style as his contemporaries.
> 
> "Brahms is often considered both a traditionalist and an innovator. His music is firmly rooted in the structures and compositional techniques of the Baroque and Classical masters. He was a master of counterpoint, the complex and highly disciplined art for which Johann Sebastian Bach is famous, and of development, a compositional ethos pioneered by Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, and other composers".


Brahms's music could never ever have been written by a contemporary of Haydn and Mozart! 
Structure, compositional technique and counterpoint are not what differentiates eras as much as harmonic language and harmonic organisation. In these things Brahms was of his time.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Richard8655 said:


> We differ. I think you're missing the significant classical period influence his music has and that's acknowledged today. You may want to do a little more research. It's obvious to my ears his music is not nearly as "romantic" in style as his contemporaries.
> 
> "Brahms is often considered both a traditionalist and an innovator. His music is firmly rooted in the structures and compositional techniques of the Baroque and Classical masters. He was a master of counterpoint, the complex and highly disciplined art for which Johann Sebastian Bach is famous, and of development, a compositional ethos pioneered by Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, and other composers".


Yes, yes...however every quality you listed is also true of say, Mahler and no one considers him a "classicist". I mean, sure Sonata Form wasn't as "in vogue" at the time, and neither was abstract music (although Tchaikovsky seemed to use both those mediums rather often, again, no one is bending over backwards to convince people of his overt classical-ness). But really, what composers of the Romantic Era WEREN'T interested in counterpoint? Development? Find me a composer of the Romantic Era that didn't have a "developmental compositional ethos". Borodin maybe. There's one. Any others? Everything about Brahms' melodies, harmonies, rhythms, orchestration, formal deviations all scream Romantic Era. The only thing that's missing is that silly obsession with program music, and we're all the better for that imo.

I think the "Brahms as a conservative" narrative is an unfortunate bit of Romantic Era propaganda that has survived in musical education and textbooks for far too long.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

violadude said:


> Yes, yes...however every quality you listed is also true of say, Mahler and no one considers him a "classicist". I mean, sure Sonata Form wasn't as "in vogue" at the time, and neither was abstract music (although Tchaikovsky seemed to use both those mediums rather often, again, no one is bending over backwards to convince people of his overt classical-ness). But really, what composers of the Romantic Era WEREN'T interested in counterpoint? Development? Find me a composer of the Romantic Era that didn't have a "developmental compositional ethos". Borodin maybe. There's one. Any others? Everything about Brahms' melodies, harmonies, rhythms, orchestration, formal deviations all scream Romantic Era. The only thing that's missing is that silly obsession with program music, and we're all the better for that imo.
> 
> I think the "Brahms as a conservative" narrative is an unfortunate bit of Romantic Era propaganda that has survived in musical education and textbooks for far too long.


No one is claiming Brahms is a "classicist" (at least I'm not). Only that his music exhibits some of that style and form of the earlier classical period. There's no black and white line here to define him purely one way or the other. But he was much more classical in style and influence than most of his contemporaries. The point is that this influence didn't hurt his popularity and that's the original point of the discussion.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Richard8655 said:


> No one is claiming Brahms is a "classicist" (at least I'm not). *Only that his music exhibits some of that style and form of the earlier classical period*. There's no black and white line here to define him purely one way or the other. But he was much more classical in style and influence than most of his contemporaries. The point is that this influence didn't hurt his popularity and that's the original point of the discussion.


Alright, but I don't really see how that's an argument in favor of the OP. Almost every composer you can think of (that is, every composer after the Classical Era) has been influenced in some way by the music of the Classical Era. I thought the OP was talking about copying the Classical Style basically to the letter of the law, and that's certainly not comparable to what Brahms did.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

violadude said:


> I think the "Brahms as a conservative" narrative is an unfortunate bit of Romantic Era propaganda that has survived in musical education and textbooks for far too long.


Schoenberg wrote an essay called 'Brahms the Progressive' so he also thought Brahms is unfairly labelled a conservative.

Besides, the fact is, even if we all agree that Brahms was a classist, in order for us to compare him with the OP's hypothetical composer, Brahms would have to have been writing pastiche Baroque music.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Petwhac said:


> Brahms's music could never ever have been written by a contemporary of Haydn and Mozart!
> Structure, compositional technique and counterpoint are not what differentiates eras as much as harmonic language and harmonic organisation. In these things Brahms was of his time.


Never said Brahms was a classical period composer. Wow, so much misunderstanding of my point. His music was influenced by the classical period with elements of that style. That's all. Of course Brahms would never compose like Haydn and Mozart.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

violadude said:


> Alright, but I don't really see how that's an argument in favor of the OP. Almost every composer you can think of has been influenced in some way by the music Classical Era. I thought the OP was talking about copying the Classical Style basically to the letter of the law, and that's certainly to comparable to what Brahms did.


Fair enough. My point was not to be taken letter for letter, but generally that an earlier period compositional influence survived into a later period without negative impact. Related to whether an earlier period composer would be "famous" today.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Richard8655 said:


> Never said Brahms was a classical period composer. *Wow, so much misunderstanding of my point*. His music was influenced by the classical period with elements of that style. That's all. Of course Brahms would never compose like Haydn and Mozart.


Well, the OP is talking about writing pretty much strictly in a classical style, and you used the example of Brahms to defend that notion. So you can kind of see where the misunderstanding comes from, no?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Richard8655 said:


> Fair enough. My point was not to be taken letter for letter, but generally that an earlier period compositional influence survived into a later period without negative impact. Related to whether an earlier period composer would be "famous" today.


I guess. I'd say that all music that is written today is a build up of influences from earlier periods. So, I don't think the idea lends any credence to the premise of the OP, personally.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Richard8655 said:


> Never said Brahms was a classical period composer. Wow, so much misunderstanding of my point. His music was influenced by the classical period with elements of that style. That's all. Of course Brahms would never compose like Haydn and Mozart.


As violadude has said, who wasn't influenced by the 'first Viennese school'? Anyone who writes a symphony- Shostakovich, Sibelius, Stravinsky- will have looked long and hard at the scores of their predecessors and kept many devices and procedures.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

violadude said:


> Well, the OP is talking about writing pretty much strictly in a classical style, and you used the example of Brahms to defend that notion. So you can kind of see where the misunderstanding comes from, no?


I don't think it was that narrowly defined. The point is if music from an earlier period would make the composer famous today. I see the Brahms classical influence from an earlier period as relevant to that argument. But if you interpret it so strictly, I can see how you could misunderstand.

I think this thesis is much overblown and reminds me of an old SNL skit about what would coach Ditka do. Not worth splitting hairs about on a Saturday night.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Richard8655 said:


> I don't think it was that narrowly defined. The point is if music from an earlier period would make the composer famous today. I see the Brahms classical influence from an earlier period as relevant to that argument. But if you interpret it so strictly, I can see how you could misunderstand.
> 
> I think this thesis is much overblown and reminds me of an old SNL skit about what would coach Ditka do. Not worth splitting hairs about on a Saturday night.


Hm, well the OP says specifically that he's talking about "a really classical composer, not influenced by Romanticism or Modernism"

That seems pretty narrowly defined to me.

But okay. I wont argue about it anymore.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

wolfieperl said:


> Yes, but if someone says "Mozart invented classical style" then they're forgeting Gluck, Piccinni, etc. Who are actually the firsts "classical" composers.


How about calling galant a style and classical an era.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Yes.

One example is the American composer George Rochberg, who passed away in 2005. He taught at the University of Pennsylvania (One of the tyrannical atonal university composers some people hate around here).

He started out as a serial composer but later abandoned it for a more tonal style. Some of his later works sounded like Beethoven or Mozart. For example the final movement of his _Sixth String Quartet_:


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

arpeggio said:


> He started out as a serial composer but later abandoned it for a more tonal style. Some of his later works sounded like Beethoven or Mozart. For example the final movement of his _Sixth String Quartet_:


I'm sorry, it IS extremely conservative but I'm not hearing it to the extent that the OP is referring to. I don't believe I would mistake this for a classical era piece, but then, we must all consider the placebo effect...


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Arvo Part is pretty famous today, of course, Phillip Glass is. John Williams is a classical style composer, and I think the average person isn't so snobby to know the difference between him and what music cognoscenti consider a real composer.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

nathanb said:


> I'm sorry, it IS extremely conservative but I'm not hearing it to the extent that the OP is referring to. I don't believe I would mistake this for a classical era piece, but then, we must all consider the placebo effect...


I think some posters are just reading the title and missing the part where the OP says "without Romantic or Modern influences".


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Also, Stewart Copland and others went into film scoring writing a classical type music.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

regenmusic said:


> Arvo Part is pretty famous today, of course, Phillip Glass is. John Williams is a classical style composer, and I think the average person isn't so snobby to know the difference between him and what music cognoscenti consider a real composer.


John Williams is most certainly not a classical style composer! Almost all the composers he's plagiarized are romantic and early modern 

Arvo Part and Philip Glass, of course, being 100% contemporary in style.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

regenmusic said:


> Arvo Part is pretty famous today, of course, Phillip Glass is. John Williams is a classical style composer, and I think the average person isn't so snobby to know the difference between him and what music cognoscenti consider a real composer.


What?

Arvo Part = Classical-style composer?

Phillip Glass = Classical-style composer?

John Williams = Classical-style composer?

I'm starting to doubt whether or not TCers know what "Classical Style" means or implies.

I'm also fairly certain that the "cognoscenti" regard Glass, Part and Williams as "real composers" .


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I have one more suggestion. Check out the Delian Society: http://deliansociety.org/

Their website has not been updated in a few years but one might find somebody there.

I do not know of any adult composers who compose(d) exclusively in the style of Mozart or Haydn. I know Norman Dello Joio has done some.

Maybe the sample I used is bad but I know Rochberg has composed a few works in that style. Maybe this would work better: 



.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> I have one more suggestion. Check out the Delian Society: http://deliansociety.org/
> 
> There website has not been updated in a few years but one might find somebody there.
> 
> ...


I think this comes the very closest to what the OP is asking about. I'm not sure if it's "pure classical" sounds like it could be. Certainly a better answer than Arvo Part


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A guy from the Delian Society (maybe the head/only guy?) showed up on another forum a few months back. He was promoting the composition of music in the "old" style. People there had some difficulty figuring exactly what he wanted us to do about that. Haven't seen him since.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

arpeggio said:


> I have one more suggestion. Check out the Delian Society: http://deliansociety.org/
> 
> Their website has not been updated in a few years but one might find somebody there.
> 
> ...


Both Rochberg examples you posted are closer to the OP's requirements than the other names mentioned. But both display a fair bit of Romantic and Modern influence. I think the OP was after something that actually sounds like it could have been written by a contemporary of Mozart or Handel. 
The Rochberg Pachelbel variations actually slips into Mahler 9 - and is quite a beautiful and clever piece. The Magic Theatre piece sounds a bit like Haydn or Mozart on L.S.D. I like them both.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

The OP's question has already been answered by recent history, in a way.
Plenty of classical-era composers have been getting their works recorded for the first time. And are they famous as a result? No.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

wolfieperl said:


> but i don't think it's possible to be influenced by what you dislike.


Of course it is. Prokofiev cites the case of his sonata for two violins, which was inspired by a work for the same instruments that he found very bad. He said: "Sometimes hearing bad compositions gives birth to good ideas. One begins to think: that's not how it should be done, what's needed is this or that." And in general one can usually extract some interesting feature or idea from works one dislikes and put them to better use.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> The OP's question has already been answered by recent history, in a way.
> Plenty of classical-era composers have been getting their works recorded for the first time. And are they famous as a result? No.


Though it did work for Vivaldi.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> The OP's question has already been answered by recent history, in a way.
> Plenty of classical-era composers have been getting their works recorded for the first time. And are they famous as a result? No.


It's barking upon the wrong tree dear Nereffid, people take positions and don't wanna move one inch


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

wolfieperl said:


> I'm talking about a really classical-style composer, not influenced by modernism or romanticism.


Yes, Alma Deustcher is such plus she is a child prodigy, sound familiar?


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2016)

Alma Deutscher isn't even famous as a composer. She has more television interviews and _Ellen!_ appearances under her belt than actual orchestral concerts. :lol: Countless contemporary composers have much wider audiences for their music, even if Alma has a wider audience for her innocent face and her jumprope.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

nathanb said:


> Alma Deutscher isn't even famous as a composer. She has more television interviews and _Ellen!_ appearances under her belt than actual orchestral concerts. :lol: Countless contemporary composers have much wider audiences for their music, even if Alma has a wider audience for her innocent face and her jumprope.


In my opinion she is well recognized for her age as a prodigy. Her charity concerts for example are very well received. I look forward to seeing this new direction of contemporary composed music by her.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

wolfieperl said:


> I'm talking about a really classical-style composer, not influenced by modernism or romanticism.


I just found your thread. In answer to your question, of course no one knows with certainty what the future will bring. And public interest is often surprising. Eric Whitacre is a great example of someone whose music is not easily classified, he is living and writing today, and he has become wildly popular with classical audiences.

Who would have predicted the rise and fall of minimalism? Post-minimalism?

So is it possible that the public will suddenly become fascinated with new composers of music in a classical style? Sure it is possible. And if the public will pay to hear it, some talented people will produce that music. I'm sure there are thousands of young composers who would gladly take Eric Whitacre's place.

Is it a valid form of artistic expression? Sure, why not. If you are a composer, as an old dude of 63, I would simply say write what you want to write.

No matter what you write the odds are against you as far as fame is concerned. Of the 500 to 1,000 current University Composition faculty members, how many are famous? Yet they have devoted their careers to writing music, and are earning a living with music. And most composers will never get to the level of earning a University composition faculty appointment.

So take fame out of the equation. Figure out a way to make the money you need to live. Then compose what you want to compose. Be true to yourself. If you can combine the two things, awesome. If you can't, so what. You can still have a happy and fulfilling life.

From another thread, in case you didn't see it, here are 3 composers who might fit your description.

Alma Deutscher,
Kostas Papazafeiropoulos,
Adam Kulju


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

"By composing for a superheroic movie"


----------

