# Uneven composers



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I see occasional criticism of composers and devaluation of their entire output because they were "uneven." Shostakovich leaps to mind, and Mozart -- whose output was by no means an uninterrupted series of great masterpieces.

Why value a composer is the less for that? Shostakovich wrote more fine symphonies than Brahms after all, not to mention quartets. Mozart...well, I won't even go there.

So why do we slam composers for writing some mediocre works rather than judging them on their best ones?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

It's part of a more general tendency to slam composers, from which there's no escape. Look at those composers with a relatively small output of remarkably high-quality compositions--Ravel, Walton, and the like. They composed too little! Slackers!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

It's a way of judging them. We all know about one hit wonders - where a composer is famous for one really good piece. The theory is that everybody has at least one masterpiece in them.

OK Some people go beyond that and have several good pieces, but if they are "outweighed" by many duff pieces then we would tend to say that it's still a flash in the pan. It's only when people have a body of outstanding work that we feel that the duff pieces are the exception. 

Not so much musical, but if you look at Shakespeare, there are some very dodgy bits, but they are massively outweighed by all the good stuff so we think \ know that Shakespeare is a Genius. Same thing applies to Bach, Handel and the other musical "greats".


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

'Even great Homer nods' - so they knew about this problem in the ancient world.

I think people like it when someone has an off day. It makes them seem mortal and we can enjoy being superior for that one occasion, anyway. 

Shakespeare certainly had his blunders. As Ben Jonson said, regarding the claim that his tavern-mate wrote so fast that he never blotted a line, 'would he had blotted many'. I for one would not waste time watching Titus Andronicus or Pericles Prince of Tyre. Though I wouldn't be without 'The Comedy of Errors'. 

Wordsworth is another poet who had off-days; of him it was said:
'There are two voices. One is of the deep,
And one is of an old half-witted sheep.
And Wordsworth - both are thine...!'

But I quite agree, it's pointless slamming Mozart, Bach et al for sometimes being a bit pedestrian. Even an angel has to alight sometimes.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I see occasional criticism of composers and devaluation of their entire output because they were "uneven." Shostakovich leaps to mind, and Mozart -- whose output was by no means an uninterrupted series of great masterpieces.
> 
> Why value a composer is the less for that? Shostakovich wrote more fine symphonies than Brahms after all, not to mention quartets. Mozart...well, I won't even go there.
> 
> So why do we slam composers for writing some mediocre works rather than judging them on their best ones?


I would say I honestly love 90% of Mozart's works and consider them masterpieces. I probably love 50% of Brahm's works and I love probably 15% of Shostakovich's entire output. I like all of Brahm's Symphonies more than any of Shostakovich's, but I don't think Shostakovich was a mediocre composer. I like some of his works, but his overall style just doesn't resonate with me personally. I wouldn't slam him for not catering to my ear though although I'm sure others do.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Well, you know, people criticise Mozart occasionally, wondering why he wrote some of his _easier _pieces, why did he write _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_, the beginners sonata, pop musik for the aristocracy etc, but they're not only being unfair, they're being ridiculous. The thing being, he *had *to write fast. It was a issue of working for pay, feeding a family, looking after a sick wife, dying babies.

He was a working man, so he was always hustling for commissions. He got them in many shapes and sizes and I'll challenge anyone to show me where he didn't provide what was asked for. Not for him the luxury of taking 3 years to write a symph, or 27 years to compose 4 operas.

So I agree with the OP, give a guy a break, but also - put things into context and try appreciate what the composer was up to, and you might find even more reasons to enjoy their achievements...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

These generalities, praises and criticisms, seriously need to be laid to rest unless always attached to nitty gritty specific examples -- they've become one of many platitudes buzzed about by the less than thorough critic, amateur, etc. -- having little meaning unless in a specific context.

The "Uneven" criticism is fairly pointless when directed toward Mozart, Bach, etc. These were composers for hire, on salary, required to compose background music for dinner parties, etc. Composing almost all the time, it is more a matter of a minor miracle that any of their works are 'inspired' sounding at all... such was the grind for composers in work of those eras.

It does come in to a more valid realm when discussing certain highly prolific composers who seemed to "just have to write" all the time while not always having had much of something to say -- this regardless of a work being 'well-crafted.' These are later composers who were not on hire for, say, a cantata per week, i.e. not on that sort of older era daily grind full-time job.

In that category, a little infamously, Darius Milhaud and Bohislav Martinu come to mind, each prolific, Martinu, we know, wrote and never revised, looked back, thought perhaps this, vs. that, would make a better middle movement, etc. It is also a little ridiculous to criticize a composer because their well is primed and filled, and they just keep hauling up more water from the source....

To my way of thinking, the output of John Adams, almost everything written a matter of having been commissioned, seems about half "inspired" and the other half dully and duly delivered -- well crafted, but more a composer's exercise without much heart in it. Hey, fifty percent hits, everything commissioned, not bad as far as the composer's life.

Truth told, it would probably pan out that no more than fifty percent of all Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc._ was really the great stuff_, the other works being more workmanlike.

I'm less interested in composers whose entire body of work is too even, i.e. the Hindemiths, the Hovhanesses, (I might be tempted to toss Shostakovich in here, too) where it really feels after hearing one or two works, you've heard 'em all. An up and down sine wave is a sign of life; flatline is absence of life... or the kiss of death.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Why value a composer is the less for that?


Isn't it a bit early to be drinking? :devil:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BPS said:


> Isn't it a bit early to be drinking? :devil:


Merely an idiotic way of speaking. Uh, I mean idiomatic...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

What Mozart is bad? I have the complete Brilliant Classics box and I have yet to find anything that is outright bad. Most of it is excellent.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

IT makes no sense to slam great music others may think they jealous of great works or just hating.Sometimes i wish certain composer wrote more great works.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Do we really slam composers for being uneven? The only time I've ever heard that criticism was in an art show in which some new kids on the block appeared, made a big noise, got a lot of attention, and the old timers (like me) would say their work was "uneven." Well, yeah. You show what you have available. It's an empty criticism. My problem with them was their chest thumping confidence. They got attention but soon disappeared, flashes in the pan. 

I don't recall people on these forums saying composers are uneven. I find Mozart fairly consistent; it's my favorite, Beethoven, who perpetrated Welington's Victory.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I might add that flaws are part of what makes a composer so interesting. Would we still be discussing Wagner's work if he hadn't been so egotistical? Or Tchaikovsky's, if he hadn't been so manic-depressive? Just a little food for thought.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I really don't care if Wagner was a pain in the *** or if Stravinsky had a gay lover. I know there are some here who find things like this to be their primary interest in the subject, but my primary interest is the music.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Bad Music???*

It appears that this thread addresses an issue that had been bothering me concerning these discussions for years.

For 2½ years I played tenor saxophone and bassoon with the 75th Army Band at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. (Note: The 75th Army Band no longer exists. The unit was decommissioned many years ago.) During that time I was exposed to more bad music than many of the members of this forum have heard in their entire lives.

Since then I have over forty years experience playing in various community orchestras and bands. Many of you have no idea of the many clunkers written by composers that none of you have probably ever heard of that I had to play. I have forgotten the names of most of these. (Do not get me started about John William Middendorf. Whenever I played his music I wanted to barf into my bassoon).

As a result of my experiences at actually making music, not just listening to it, for me these types of discussions are rather silly.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

John Cage is the most uneven of them all, from notes (of all types of random sounds) to no sound at all.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> I'm less interested in composers whose entire body of work is too even, i.e. the Hindemiths, the Hovhanesses, (I might be tempted to toss Shostakovich in here, too) where it really feels after hearing one or two works, you've heard 'em all. An up and down sine wave is a sign of life; flatline is absence of life... or the kiss of death.


There could be some truth in this.

Composers who push themselves may well have the biggest journey. Beethoven is well known for his journey. But Mozart went quite a way too, from the beginnings of the classical style through to music that really was classical-romantic and late classical. It's not really just about consistent quality but about the ability to change and develop to such a degree that it actually reflects the change in music through their time, and some might consider this as them leading the way even. The uneveness of the _style_ is what actually what makes their entire oeuvre more dynamic.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Gustav Holst. There are about half a dozen works of his which I think are absolutely wonderful, but when the Muse deserted him....oh, boy... 

Erm...can anyone tell me how I can get my smilies back, please?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I see occasional criticism of composers and devaluation of their entire output because they were "uneven." Shostakovich leaps to mind, and Mozart -- whose output was by no means an uninterrupted series of great masterpieces.
> 
> Why value a composer is the less for that? Shostakovich wrote more fine symphonies than Brahms after all, not to mention quartets. Mozart...well, I won't even go there.
> 
> So why do we slam composers for writing some mediocre works rather than judging them on their best ones?


Speak for yourself I always judge them by their best works.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> John Cage is the most uneven of them all, from notes (of all types of random sounds) to no sound at all.


Which pieces have no sound at all? I can't think of any.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

ArtMusic said:


> John Cage is the most uneven of them all, from notes (of all types of random sounds) to no sound at all.


What Cage works have you listened to?


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> Erm...can anyone tell me how I can get my smilies back, please?


Play some Haydn!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I don't think the instance of uneven output is an invalid criticism as long as it doesn't taint the entire view of the composer and is viewed as just another point of interest among many when evaluating a composer's body of work.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Every composer will be uneven to an extent, after all they are human beings not machines (or Gods as some almost seem to get described as by superfans). I certainly agree with the opinion that you judge someone by how many good works they have composed, not by how many weaker ones. There's not much point giving prominence to weaker works as they aren't discussed much or played much, nobody really cares about them.


----------



## Borodin (Apr 8, 2013)

I never understood why people never focus on phrases and instead include entire pieces in their estimations. The former makes more sense to me. When someone asks my favorite song, I just tell them I only have favorite phrases. Maybe this is the creative selectivity in me as a composer. My theory is, as long as half of the phrases a composer writes are good, they're good enough to keep my attention.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Borodin said:


> I never understood why people never focus on phrases and instead include entire pieces in their estimations. The former makes more sense to me. When someone asks my favorite song, I just tell them I only have favorite phrases. Maybe this is the creative selectivity in me as a composer. My theory is, as long as half of the phrases a composer writes are good, they're good enough to keep my attention.


Hmmm... Does this suggest that we might make new and superior works by combining the best phrases from a composer's various pieces, or even from the phrases of different composers?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Borodin said:


> I never understood why people never focus on phrases and instead include entire pieces in their estimations. The former makes more sense to me. When someone asks my favorite song, I just tell them I only have favorite phrases. Maybe this is the creative selectivity in me as a composer. My theory is, as long as half of the phrases a composer writes are good, they're good enough to keep my attention.


That's kind of like the definition of uneven music, isn't it? A sweet passage followed by a yawn, followed by a perky bit, then a blooper...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Follow-up question: If Brahms had written eight symphonies, the four he actually wrote plus four more real dogs, would we think less of him as a composer?


----------



## ClassicalCumulus (Jul 24, 2013)

Garlic said:


> Which pieces have no sound at all? I can't think of any.


4'33"

Looking that up on YouTube, unless you already knew that!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ClassicalCumulus said:


> 4'33"
> 
> Looking that up on YouTube, unless you already knew that!


Cage was hardly an innovator with 4'33" but may have had a better PR person. From Wiki, predecessors include:

- Alphonse Allais's 1897 "Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man," consisting of nine blank measures.

- Erwin Schulhoff's 1919 "In futurum", a movement from the Fünf Pittoresken for piano. The Czech composer's meticulously notated composition is made up entirely of rests.

Cage himself wrote a later "0'00" (4'33" No. 2)" in 1962, the same as the original 4'33" except for solo performer. Both versions are necessities!


----------



## ClassicalCumulus (Jul 24, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Cage was hardly an innovator with 4'33" but may have had a better PR person. From Wiki, predecessors include:
> 
> - Alphonse Allais's 1897 "Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man," consisting of nine blank measures.
> 
> ...


I'm rather confused as to when I called Cage an innovator with 4'33"? I was simply answering a question, my good sir. I appreciate the additional information but don't appreciate the pomposity. There must have been a kinder route to include your information.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was responding to what you said! I wasn't.


----------



## ClassicalCumulus (Jul 24, 2013)

It's alright! I'm new and feel like I'm in prison: have to stand my ground or people will think I'm weak!


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

ClassicalCumulus said:


> 4'33"
> 
> Looking that up on YouTube, unless you already knew that!


4'33" has sound, or rather, it is a temporal framework in which to experience sound. In that sense it's really no different from any other piece of music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> 4'33" has sound, or rather, it is a temporal framework in which to experience sound. In that sense it's really no different from any other piece of music.


"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other." --Jack Handey

Just thought that was, somehow, apropos.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Nothing is everything.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Mendelssohn.....


http://www.talkclassical.com/26864-composers-who-lived-up.html#post498778


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Skilmarilion said:


> I disagree with the implication that Mendelssohn somehow went 'downhill' after the Octet.


I made no such implication. Your statement that "he composed consistently great works over a substantial period of time" is completely in line with my view. But...were any of his later works "better" than the youthful Octet?

Anyway, I think you meant your post for a different thread...


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Apologies for posting in the wrong thread. I've replied in the correct thread:

http://www.talkclassical.com/26864-composers-who-lived-up.html#post498774


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Uneven composers? It depends on who's listening.


----------

