# Composer's personal life problems



## JohannesBrahms (Apr 22, 2013)

I was just thinking, most of the great composers had problems in their personal lives. For example, Liszt was full of himself and running around all the time if you know what I mean. Tchaikovsky was homosexual and pretty much made his life miserable because of it. Prokofiev was not a very nice person by any stretch of the imagination. Wagner, well...we all know about him. Even my beloved Rachmaninoff had an affair.

Why is it that they could never seem to get their life straight? You know, marry, settle down, don't have any affairs, manage their money better, basically like Bach. He was not only an amazing composer, but he was also a very good man. Why isn't it that the rest of the composers lived their lives like that?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I suspect composers on average are no better and no worse than the rest of us. Why should they be? As for Bach, how do you know he was such a nice guy? Time has healing properties...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Pretty much the only composer about whom no negative anecdotes can be found (Bach got into a fight with a bassoonist once...) is Messiaen, who it seems was just a nice guy to absolutely everyone. As for personal problems, he did have to spend a brief stint in a Nazi prisoner-of-war camp, but they released him as a musician after the premiere of his Quartet for the End of Time, written while there.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Pierre Boulez was known in his youth for his kindness and capability for understanding others. :lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

JohannesBrahms said:


> ...
> 
> Why is it that they could never seem to get their life straight? You know, marry, settle down, don't have any affairs, manage their money better, basically like Bach. He was not only an amazing composer, but he was also a very good man. Why isn't it that the rest of the composers lived their lives like that?


Composing, or any profession (or art), doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with being stable in terms of relationships, money, jobs, or balanced in terms of politics, or even acting like some sort of decent human being, or whatever. They're just people like us.

In terms of some kind of emotional stability, Haydn comes to mind, maybe Dvorak as well, and my nomination for the kind of composer who was not only great in terms of music but as a human being was Kodaly. I discussed his story in this old thread I made on humanitarians in classical music.

But I admire the likes of Messiaen as well, also instances where composers backed up other composers and put others before themselves. Vaughan Williams comes to mind, defending Tippett before they sent him to Wormwood Scrubs prison as he didn't want to take part in non combatant war duties. Vaughan Williams was not of Tippett's pacifist convictions, but he said he was a man of good character regardless of his political stance.

Then there where composers who where great at their art, their profession, but not the most admirable of human beings. So what? As I said, they're like any person, with potential for good or bad. But most are in between. If given the chance of meeting someone like one of my favourite composers, Beethoven, I would most likely avoid meeting the man. I don't have much time for people who are that difficult to get along with. So too the long list of great musicians who had a tendency to be bullies when working - Mahler, Solti, Heifetz, Szell, Schnabel come readily to mind. Get the pattern? All from Mitteleuropa. These where not very nice societies to live in throughout history. Often I think that the best thing they gave us amidst all that brutality was music, and maybe other artistic things, and that's it. A society that breeds great composers doesn't necessarily breed great people, doesn't it?

But I've railed against this here many times, a tedious obsession, so I'll stop now! Maybe best to try separate one thing from another, if its possible for you as an individual listener?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

All people have personal problems in their lives. Composers are people, so there you go. Also, Tchaikovsky being gay wasn't a problem, its the douchey attitudes of anti-gay bigots that were the problem, that caused suffering in his life.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> All people have personal problems in their lives. Composers are people, so there you go. Also, Tchaikovsky being gay wasn't a problem,...


Well, I don't see it as an issue either. You go back before Tchaikovsky and there where gay composers during Baroque period. Handel was most likely homosexual, Corelli almost definitely, Lully bisexual (again, a definite there). Of course in the more tolerant climate of the 20th century you had many high profile composers, esp. in the USA, eg. Copland and Barber, as well as Lenny who was bi. In the UK you had Britten and Tippett, who funnily enough I mentioned.

The only issue I see as a thing to be sensitive about is homosexual or possibly homosexual composers who don't want to talk about that. Who don't want to 'come out.' & fair enough. Lenny didn't come out publicly until the 1970's. So in terms of that, I suppose just good to respect living composers who want to keep their private live private.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

How come having an affair is a problem? Does that make one an awful person?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

dionisio said:


> How come having an affair is a problem? Does that make one an awful person?


Indicates a failure to keep your promises. Also indicates a failure to properly consider your spouse. If the other party is also married, implies that you are encouraging somebody else to break their word and fail to properly consider their spouse.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

The OP's namesake Brahms also had a fairly stable personal life, I would think. And Bartok, although he divorced his first wife. Mendelssohn seems to have been quite happy until his last year or so.


----------



## JohannesBrahms (Apr 22, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Indicates a failure to keep your promises. Also indicates a failure to properly consider your spouse. If the other party is also married, implies that you are encouraging somebody else to break their word and fail to properly consider their spouse.


Exactly. Plus, cheating on your spouse is just mean.

I know everybody has problems, but it seems like great artists, including composers, seemed to have lots of them compared to everybody else. I just don't see why they couldn't have acted better towards other people.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

JohannesBrahms said:


> I know everybody has problems, but it seems like great artists, including composers, seemed to have lots of them compared to everybody else. I just don't see why they couldn't have acted better towards other people.


Yes, it may _seem_ that way, but isn't it the truth that we wouldn't know anything about these great artists and their problems if there weren't x number of books devoted to the love affairs and the inner turmoil of each one? If "everybody else" had several books written about them, I doubt you would think the woes of the world quite so unfairly distributed.


----------



## JohannesBrahms (Apr 22, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> Yes, it may _seem_ that way, but isn't it the truth that we wouldn't know anything about these great artists and their problems if there weren't x number of books devoted to the love affairs and the inner turmoil of each one? If "everybody else" had several books written about them, I doubt you would think the woes of the world quite so unfairly distributed.


True. But why couldn't they all just get a grip and live right? I guess just because of sin. It really is kind of sad.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

JohannesBrahms said:


> True. But why couldn't they all just get a grip and live right? I guess just because of sin. It really is kind of sad.


Oh, please, with all due respect, but not the moral police again... why some people is obsessed in telling other people how they should live?...
I, sincerely, don't care if Tchaikovsky was gay, if Rachmaninoff cheated his wife, etc. I'm very busy in trying to listening to their music first instead of wondering about those things.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

JohannesBrahms said:


> True. But why couldn't they all just get a grip and live right? I guess just because of sin. It really is kind of sad.


Perhaps for themselves they did have a grip and they were living right. But, your bringing up of "sin" leads me to believe that you already have a steadfast opinion on the matter.


----------



## JohannesBrahms (Apr 22, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> Perhaps for themselves they did have a grip and they were living right. But, your bringing up of "sin" leads me to believe that you already have a steadfast opinion on the matter.


I do most certainly have a steadfast opinion on the matter.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

JohannesBrahms said:


> Exactly. Plus, cheating on your spouse is just mean.
> 
> I know everybody has problems, but it seems like great artists, including composers, seemed to have lots of them compared to everybody else. I just don't see why they couldn't have acted better towards other people.


No. It's just that their lives are under far closer scrtutiny than that of "ordinary" people. Every word, every step and every action of great composers is recorded, analyzed and endlessly discussed on classical forums, while the lives of ordinary people are simply of no interest to anyone else.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2013)

JohannesBrahms said:


> True. But why couldn't they all just get a grip and live right? I guess just because of sin. It really is kind of sad.


Oh, I'm sure they wanted to, but the flesh, you know, was just too weak! Bruckner managed it (more or less), though Beethoven was (w)racked (_sp_?)with angst as we can see from his diaries. But it's all part of the human condition and I wouldn't want it any other way. How dull life would be if it was perfect. I feel a 'Christopher Hitchens' moment is almost upon me.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I don't know if artists necessarily are outliers in the spectrum of human personality types -- we can all name great men in all spheres who were not saints -- but I have long noted that "artistic personalities" seem more often to be difficult people than many others. One can speculate on the psychology of this all we want -- it may have to do with the inner daemons that promote creativity -- but still, it's up to each of us to decide whether the positives outweigh the negatives. I personally would rate someone who produced great works of art but had a bad marriage over someone who made the trains run on time but presided over a police state.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Composers are no better than we are. They're human. They have problems just like anyone else. I will say that sometimes great sacrifices have to made in order to pursue your own dreams and there's not a doubt in mind that many of these composers made sacrifices in one way or another in order to master their craft.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Methinks the examples given in the first post exhibit a very high bar set, that I don't think too many in any walk of life could adhere to.

We all probably should have some moral guidelines. Personally, I set the bar a little lower, for all not guilty of the more horrific and repulsive crimes we sadly read and hear about most every day. :tiphat:


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Funny enough, composers should be judged at the same level as the rest of us: there isn't a higher moral standard for genius. Bizarrely enough, a poll taken by Dr. Prudence F. Hugh revealed that they have as many affairs as plumbers and secretaries, and snort as much drugs and fall over into sin as regularly as any other segment of the demographic. It's strange but true! Genius doesn't imply better behaviour, or even, worse behaviour. Shocking, really.

As for Bach, he wasn't made of porcelain, you know what I'm sayin'...


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Kieran said:


> Funny enough, composers should be judged at the same level as the rest of us: there isn't a higher moral standard for genius. Bizarrely enough, a poll taken by Dr. Prudence F. Hugh revealed that they have as many affairs as plumbers and secretaries, and snort as much drugs and fall over into sin as regularly as any other segment of the demographic. It's strange but true! Genius doesn't imply better behaviour, or even, worse behaviour. Shocking, really.
> 
> As for Bach, he wasn't made of porcelain, you know what I'm sayin'...


What often pisses me off, is the wild policy premium assumptions insurance companies can make about demographics.


----------



## JohannesBrahms (Apr 22, 2013)

I don't hold artists to any higher of a standard than everybody else. It just seems like there is a larger proportion of artists who behave badly than there is of the world at large. It seems like they should be equal, but they aren't.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

JohannesBrahms said:


> I don't hold artists to any higher of a standard than everybody else. It just seems like there is a larger proportion of artists who behave badly than there is of the world at large. It seems like they should be equal, but they aren't.


What research do you base this upon? Could it just be that their lives are better reported?

And do you think highlighting their lives like this achieves anything? Will it make their music better? Or will it make any of us behave better? I'm curious about the point of this, I'm not getting at you!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

JohannesBrahms said:


> I don't hold artists to any higher of a standard than everybody else. It just seems like there is a larger proportion of artists who behave badly than there is of the world at large. It seems like they should be equal, but they aren't.


I don't think this is true. The average person is better able to hide their problems because they aren't under intense scrutiny.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

JohannesBrahms said:


> I don't hold artists to any higher of a standard than everybody else. *It just seems like* there is a larger proportion of artists who behave badly than there is of the world at large. It seems like they should be equal, but they aren't.


Exactly: It just seems like.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

JohannesBrahms said:


> I don't hold artists to any higher of a standard than everybody else. It just seems like there is a larger proportion of artists who behave badly than there is of the world at large. It seems like they should be equal, but they aren't.


Again, because the bad things that most people do are *not reported* in vast amounts of books, scholarly articles, internet forums, documentaries etc.


----------



## JohannesBrahms (Apr 22, 2013)

My question is this. Bach was one of the better ones, and the only bad thing I ever read about him was getting into a fight. Now, why couldn't the rest of them have been like him? Why did they have to do what they did? Did they just have no common sense?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

OK, I'm going to the Wikipedia list of composers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_composers_by_name and I'll scroll around randomly and pick the first 20 names I see and we can discuss their personal lives and see how they compare to Bach and, indeed, to us. Then we can start to develop an evidence-based theory.

Henrico Albicastro
Joseph Holbrooke
Giacomo Antonio Perti
Franz Xaver Hammer
César Franck
Gaetano Pugnani
Christoph Schaffrath
Napoléon Coste
Hans Bottermund
Mart Saar
Jan Václav Voříšek
Adam Drese
Jacob Obrecht
Ralph Shapey
Richard Hageman
Francesco Cellavenia
Evaristo Felice Dall'Abaco
Manuel José de Quirós 
Sergei Yuferov
John Antill


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

JohannesBrahms said:


> My question is this. Bach was one of the better ones, and the only bad thing I ever read about him was getting into a fight. Now, why couldn't the rest of them have been like him? Why did they have to do what they did? Did they just have no common sense?


Why did Bach have to be good? Characters, in addition to their internal composition, are affected by their natural, social, political, emotional etc. environments and climates: Bach may not have been this alleged paragon of goodness had he been born in Leipzig in 1813. Furthermore, it's very easy to look back on someone else's life and pass judgement, it would be quite another matter to live as that person and be able to see all the possible outcomes of an event before it occurs, impossible, in fact.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Bach may not have been this alleged paragon of goodness had he been born in Leipzig in 1813


That is a mean insinuation


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

It is possible that the strains of the creative life & the difficulty of earning a living (or sucking up to patrons) mean more hardship for artists who are more intelligent and/or sensitive than the average and therefore feel things more. Artists (of any sort) who 'go wrong' should not be judged differently from other people on the grounds that they produced great art so are excused. But if we could have a complete view of what they suffered & what their temptations were, we might forgive them more readily.

In short, as the fridge magnet puts it: 
'Before you criticise anyone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. 
That way, WHEN you criticise them, you'll be a mile away; 
AND - you'll have their shoes!'


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I'm not sure the great composers actually experienced more personal crisis than anyone else. We just know more about theirs. True, some of them seem to have lived somewhat tortured lives, or went nuts - Beethoven and Schumann come to mind. But I think the romantic idea of the artist suffering for his art and then pouring all that pent-up emotion into his work is a bit exaggerated.

It is of course true that many people of genius, in whatever field, are often a bit isolated from mainstream society. But it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

We've been having a binge on the Ex Cathedra (they're not infallible, but they're pretty good) discs of South American Baroque. 

Quite a few of the composers there seem quite decent people. Juan Perez Bocanegra was a Franciscan working in Lima who composed church music in Quechua. Zipoli was a Jesuit working with the Guarani in Paraguay - the Jesuits have a great reputation for their work in Paraguay. Similarly Juan de Araujo working in Lima in Peru.

A European example from the same period would be Dieterich Buxtehude who also seems to have lived an exemplary life.

Most of these are either clerics or connected with the church.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

And this differs how, exactly from similar statistics on the general population -- regardless of their work occupation -- at present?


----------



## MarieTregubovich (May 13, 2013)

My friend says Mozart was a really nasty, dirty guy. . . 



 I can't disagree, necessarily, since I never knew him, obviously. But, I think his "Leck mich im Arsch" is awesome- to some degree. Mozart was a really cool guy, most likely. Him and his dirtiness, like all of us kind of have that bit of nastiness in us . . .


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

MarieTregubovich said:


> My friend says Mozart was a really nasty, dirty guy. . .
> 
> 
> 
> I can't disagree, necessarily, since I never knew him, obviously. But, I think his "Leck mich im Arsch" is awesome- to some degree. Mozart was a really cool guy, most likely. Him and his dirtiness, like all of us kind of have that bit of nastiness in us . . .


I find that piece sooo adorable! :lol:


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

These moral judgements are very disturbing to me. There seems to be a lingering subset of people who simply cannot resist meddling in the affairs (interpret that word how you may) of others. It is not for us to judge. Live your own life by your own moral standards and be an example if you must, but the moment you start publicly denouncing others all bets are off and respect is lost.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Most of these are either clerics or connected with the church.


In other words, a case of pent-up sexual frustration finding expression in music. There you have it - they were tortured souls. Thank you, Herr Doktor Professor Freud...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Pretty much the only composer about whom no negative anecdotes can be found (Bach got into a fight with a bassoonist once...) is Messiaen, who it seems was just a nice guy to absolutely everyone. As for personal problems, he did have to spend a brief stint in a Nazi prisoner-of-war camp, but they released him as a musician after the premiere of his Quartet for the End of Time, written while there.


He also ditched his first wife, who was extremely mentally unstable and who went nto an institution... and for a while, still married, lived in sin with his then young pupil, Yvonne Loriod, with whom he had fallen in love and later married. At the time, in very Catholic France, this was a scandal.

Yes, Mr. Nice Guy was -- _gasp_ -- an adulterer. 
Now let's wait for the TC member who is ready to display their extreme moral outrage at all those who have affairs outside of marriage....


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

PetrB said:


> He also ditched his first wife, who was extremely mentally unstable and who went nto an institution... and for a while, still married, lived in sin with his then young pupil, Yvonne Loriod, with whom he had fallen in love and later married. At the time, in very Catholic France, this was a scandal.


I don't think Olivier should be censured for not considering himself married to a woman who no longer knew who he was.

EDIT: which, I see by your edit, you aren't doing.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> I don't think Olivier should be censured for not considering himself married to a woman who no longer knew who he was.
> 
> EDIT: which, I see by your edit, you aren't doing.


Right! But I am winding up to severely censure these seemingly priggish "morality" posts, whether it is this, inches of column space about some composer's infidelity, their voiced politics (so much talk unless it was actually action,) etc. ad nauseum.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Schumann was deeply in love with Clara but her father didn't want her to have anything to do with him. In 1841 he wrote over 100 songs for her to show how much he loved her.
Chopin had his heart broken by George Sand.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

JohannesBrahms said:


> Exactly. Plus, cheating on your spouse is just mean.
> 
> I know everybody has problems, but it seems like great artists, including composers, seemed to have lots of them compared to everybody else. I just don't see why they couldn't have acted better towards other people.


If more of the average joes and janes lives were up for as much scrutiny as the famous, you'd find out that a very high percentage of the population has had at least one extra marital affair...

"Statistics about Affairs
by Peggy Vaughan

According to Annette Lawson, author of "Adultery," first published in 1989 by Basic Books.
"The various researchers arrive at a general consensus…suggesting that *above one-quarter to about one-half of married women have at least one lover after they are married in any given marriage. Married men probably still stray more often than married women-perhaps from 50 percent to 65 percent by the age of forty."*

According to Maggie Scarf, author of "Intimate Partners," first published in 1987 by Random House, re-issued in 1996 by Ballentine.
"Most experts do consider *the 'educated guess' that at the present time some 50 to 65 percent of husbands and 45 to 55 percent of wives become extramaritally involved by the age of 40* to be a relatively sound and reasonable one."

According to Peggy Vaughan, author of "The Monogamy Myth," first published in 1989 by Newmarket Press (third edition published 2003).
*"Conservative estimates are that 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair."*

*What, then, is so extraordinary about these famous composers on the fidelity / infidelity front?*

Here's the link to the complete article...

www.dearpeggy.com/2-affairs/statistics.html

*[[ ADD: if you could get statistics on what percent of the general population are "Not Nice." I bet the percentage would not be so high, and of that percentage the overwhelming majority would not be artists of any sort. ]]*


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> He also ditched his first wife, who was extremely mentally unstable and who went nto an institution... and for a while, still married, lived in sin with his then young pupil, Yvonne Loriod, with whom he had fallen in love and later married. At the time, in very Catholic France, this was a scandal.
> 
> Yes, Mr. Nice Guy was -- _gasp_ -- an adulterer.
> Now let's wait for the TC member who is ready to display their extreme moral outrage at all those who have affairs outside of marriage....


Actually, I've never heard it said specifically that that was true, and interviews with people who knew them have so far indicated that it was not. Do you have a source?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Actually, I've never heard it said specifically that that was true, and interviews with people who knew them have so far indicated that it was not.


Which part do you mean?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Which part do you mean?


That they had a consummated affair while Claire Delbos was still alive. He was certainly attracted to her during that time (wrote countless pieces for her, among other things), and his current wife was debilitated.

I'm not saying that PetrB is wrong, I'm saying that I haven't heard it confirmed myself.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

JohannesBrahms said:


> My question is this. Bach was one of the better ones, and the only bad thing I ever read about him was getting into a fight. Now, why couldn't the rest of them have been like him? Why did they have to do what they did? Did they just have no common sense?


Your naivete, imho, is staggering, and that has your sense of _common sense_ very skewed.

[[ Add: read my post # 45 in this thread. That's right. now, contemplate all the members of your family... parents, aunts, uncles, and moving out from there. You think there are not at least a few secrets there relating to exactly that issue? ]]


----------



## JohannesBrahms (Apr 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Your naivete, imho, is staggering, and that has your sense of _common sense_ very skewed.
> 
> [[ Add: read my post # 45 in this thread. That's right. now, contemplate all the members of your family... parents, aunts, uncles, and moving out from there. You think there are not at least a few secrets there relating to exactly that issue? ]]


I know for a fact neither of my parents nor my aunts and uncles have ever cheated on their spouse.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Not to derail the discussion, but I find this amusing: Among those who question the authorship of Shakespeare, a principal alternative candidate is the Earl of Oxford. At least one of his biographers predicated the work on the supposition that Oxford couldn't have written Shakespeare because he was a demonstrably horrible person. I don't have a horse in this race (at least not one I'd bet my firstborn on), but being a horrible person I would not consider a disqualifying factor for any candidate for any artistic corpus.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

GGluek said:


> Not to derail the discussion, but I find this amusing: Among those who question the authorship of Shakespeare, a principal alternative candidate is the Earl of Oxford. At least one of his biographers predicated the work on the supposition that Oxford couldn't have written Shakespeare because he was a demonstrably horrible person. I don't have a horse in this race (at least not one I'd bet my firstborn on), but being a horrible person I would not consider a disqualifying factor for any candidate for any artistic corpus.


One would think that the fact that he would've had to keep writing plays after his own death would be the larger objection.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I'm not competent to debate the issue, and this isn't the forum for it. 

cheers --


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

JohannesBrahms said:


> I know for a fact neither of my parents nor my aunts and uncles have ever cheated on their spouse.


Actually, you don't, unless you have observed every moment of their lives, which is impossible. In any case, you continue to avoid addressing the counterargument which has been spelled out several times throughout this thread.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

JohannesBrahms said:


> I know for a fact neither of my parents nor my aunts and uncles have ever cheated on their spouse.


Gave me a chuckle. As the old saying goes, "It's a lucky lad that knows his father." You should feel not just lucky but absolutely blessed! :lol:


----------



## dstring (May 14, 2013)

It's always been, and will be, only a fine line between genius and insanity. Of course the most passionate and creative artists will be passionate and creative in their civil lives. It may seem like they have problems in their personal life but in the end it's just their way of life. Problems or not, they live for it and from it.

And this is also nice way to compare artists to each other. My experience is, the more composer manages to express in his/her music, the more likely he/she has "personal problems" in civil life.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

dstring said:


> It's always been, and will be, only a fine line between genius and insanity.


Grumble grumble bunch of Byronic nonsense grumble grumble unfounded stereotypes from the Romantic era grumble grumble.

Lots of composers have managed to write works of genius while being socially competent and well-adjusted. For examples, see this thread.


----------



## dstring (May 14, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Grumble grumble bunch of Byronic nonsense grumble grumble unfounded stereotypes from the Romantic era grumble grumble.
> 
> Lots of composers have managed to write works of genius while being socially competent and well-adjusted. For examples, see this thread.


Meh, I'm not stating socially competent composer or player can't create works of genius. The interesting part is where you compare the brightest top together. Let's say, for example, Strauss to Schönberg.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

dstring said:


> Meh, I'm not stating socially competent composer or player can't create works of genius. The interesting part is where you compare the brightest top together. Let's say, for example, Strauss to Schönberg.


Well, what about them? Schoenberg had quite an ego on him, but he was hardly insane, and Strauss strikes me as quite a well-balanced chap. Most of their personal problems were caused by the Nazis and (in Schoenberg's case) antisemitism in general.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

dstring said:


> And this is also nice way to compare artists to each other. My experience is, the more composer manages to express in his/her music, the more likely he/she has "personal problems" in civil life.


So you disagree with the OP about Bach, who was a virtuous saint who wrote his music with quills made from angels feathers?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

In earnest, beginning to be fascinated to know the age of the creator of the OP. Thinking it quite possible that might be somewhere in the earliest of teens, or otherwise imagining a very insulated upbringing and life. 

Suppose it is not cricket to ask such a question, nor I suppose completely fair to lay credit or blame for the rigidity of thought, or what appears to many as a very naive point of view upon either age or circustance... but it might "explain" a lot.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

PetrB said:


> In earnest, beginning to be fascinated to know the age of the creator of the OP. Thinking it quite possible that might be somewhere in the earliest of teens, or otherwise imagining a very insulated upbringing and life.
> 
> Suppose it is not cricket to ask such a question, nor I suppose completely fair to lay credit or blame for the rigidity of thought, or what appears to many as a very naive point of view upon either age or circustance... but it might "explain" a lot.


I would avoid getting too personal in a debate, as far as this can be called a debate, it might fly in classical Greek oration but I don't think it's a reasonable basis for argument.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Just adding some thoughts here, to everyone (or no one in particular).

I think its fair to say that without some (or many?) composers having interesting or colourful personal lives, or being alive at some exciting time in history, we as listeners might be the poorer for it.

Some famous examples are Janacek's muse, a married woman who was 30 years his junior. He met her in middle age, and this relationship - whether it was consummated or not, we don't know, but he said they did it, she denied it (a smart thing to do?) - led to the man being inspired to produce some of his greatest works.

Other composers whose love lives informed their music in some ways are:

- Tchaikovsky composed _Romeo and Juliet_ while having a tempestuous affair with a student called Eduard Zak, who ended up committing suicide, maybe a case of art imitating life or the other way round. Tchaikovsky has quite a few examples like this in his output.

- Brahms composing his _String Sextet #2 _in homage to a courtship that went nowhere (well, didn't end in marriage), Agathe von Siebold's first name is musically encrypted in the piece.

- Berg did a similar thing with the name of a woman he was having an affair with, her name exists as a musical motto in his _Lyric Suite._

- The famous story behind Berlioz's _Symphonie Fantastique_, his infatuation/obsession with the actress Harriet Smithson going on around that time. The subtitle to the work is 'Episodes in the life of an artist' and the piece reads as a story of obsession, macabre fantasies and things like the guillotine bit at the end of the march so obviously points to events close to the composers life (all those revolutions, etc.).

I can give more but these are some favourites and I think its not hard to get the picture. In these cases, the composers personal lives informed their music. No-one said it was easy and in the cases of Tchaikovsky and Berg these facts did not come out until after their deaths (way after). & in Berlioz's case I think he kind of exaggerated these things, you know the subjective Romantic aesthetic and all that.

So I don't judge, or try hard not to, just look at the relationship between the composer's life and pieces that are strongly related to events in his life. For me it tends to be a plus not a minus.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> I would avoid getting too personal in a debate, as far as this can be called a debate, it might fly in classical Greek oration but I don't think it's a reasonable basis for argument.


I sincerely did not mean any personal address, but it is also a sincere thought which crossed my mind. Stated right there not cricket to actually ask, did not request or expect an answer. It is a more and more active thought as I looked back through the thread.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Just adding some thoughts here, to everyone (or no one in particular).
> 
> I think its fair to say that without some (or many?) composers having interesting or colourful personal lives, or being alive at some exciting time in history, we as listeners might be the poorer for it.
> 
> ...


I agree with the part about knowing some colorful details of a composer's biography, personal life, what the era was, ethos as well as political.

I almost vehemently disagree it is wholesale attached to the music they make, though. There, you and I are worlds apart. 
I recall you have said all those details add so much more meaning to the music for you: they do add a jot of meaning to the music for me, but are interesting ancillary footnotes around, but not about, the music itself.

Vive la difference!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> I agree with the part about knowing some colorful details of a composer's biography, personal life, what the era was, ethos as well as political.
> 
> I almost vehemently disagree it is wholesale attached to the music they make, though. There, you and I are worlds apart.
> I recall you have said all those details add so much more meaning to the music for you: they do add a jot of meaning to the music for me, but are interesting ancillary footnotes around, but not about, the music itself.
> ...


Well exactly - everyone approaches music in different ways.

I would just emphasise that its not in all cases, in all these composers works, where I am interested in these links (or perceived links) between art and life. I don't like to go down the path of this type of 'psychobiography,' an extreme where every note a composer writes has something to do with dramas going on in his personal life. I am exaggerating but I think you can get my drift.

What I'm saying is that in certain works its good to know what's going on in the composers life and history (which we agree on, and I think many classical listeners have this interest in things linked to the music - whether its biographies, history, links between a composer and his contemporaries, links between a composer and people outside of music, and so on).

But I 'd like the maker of this thread to just say, what does he think of works like I mentioned above which have links to composers having affairs (or just to muses).

Some other works of this type:

Wagner Wesendock Lieder

Bartok Violin Concerto #1 (suppressed by the composer, unearthed long after his death)

Mahler Symphony #10 (part of the reason why his widow Alma didn't release it for orchestration until just before she died is Mahler's notes on the original score - giving away hints of their personal life, she was having an affair with architect Walter Gropius, they would marry after Mahler's death).

Britten - its said his homosexuality, his view of life as an outsider, informed some of the subjects he used for his operas (eg. Peter Grimes - a guy who is like an outcast and hounded by the other villagers).

I'd guess there are many examples. I think that things like this, tensions in a composers life, often receive an outlet thru their work. But of course, its up to the listener to interpret and take in these links (or not) as they wish. There are many approaches to enjoying music. AS many as there are listeners, I thinnk.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Burroughs said:


> Chopin had his heart broken by George Sand.


I thought she stayed with him until his death, but then I get my info from Hollywood. I should research this a little, but I've never been a huge Chopin fan.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Grumble grumble bunch of Byronic nonsense grumble grumble unfounded stereotypes from the Romantic era grumble grumble.
> 
> Lots of composers have managed to write works of genius while being socially competent and well-adjusted. For examples, see this thread.


I thought you were extraordinarily polite here. Hats off! I was mid-losing it when I read that post.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well exactly - everyone approaches music in different ways.
> 
> I would just emphasise that its not in all cases, in all these composers works, where I am interested in these links (or perceived links) between art and life. I don't like to go down the path of this type of 'psychobiography,' an extreme where every note a composer writes has something to do with dramas going on in his personal life. I am exaggerating but I think you can get my drift.
> 
> ...


There are very few concrete and confirmed links to life, circumstance, inside the composer's head + music. Very few. They are the tiny minority in a vast majority of other works otherwise specifically "unattributable" to those factors. Certainly there are concrete reasons why Shostakovich's Tenth is what it is, but those sorts of examples are far and few between.

I more than agree with you on that other plank about which you are plain enough - ignore history at your own peril, but I am also more agreeing with the school of "I don't care if he had a toothache when he wrote it." Without any external or literal explanation, is for me, how a piece of music made up of notes must be evaluated. The rest is dressing, from highly interesting to the slightest of forgettable historic footnotes.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

PetrB said:


> He also ditched his first wife, who was extremely mentally unstable and who went nto an institution... and for a while, still married, lived in sin with his then young pupil, Yvonne Loriod, with whom he had fallen in love and later married. At the time, in very Catholic France, this was a scandal.
> 
> Yes, Mr. Nice Guy was -- _gasp_ -- an adulterer.
> Now let's wait for the TC member who is ready to display their extreme moral outrage at all those who have affairs outside of marriage....


I have now some concrete info on this via a colleague who knew them both very well., though there are only discrete and ambiguous inferences....

Mun's the word! Nothing concrete was said outright. The colleague only strongly wishing to point out that Loriod was no longer a student at the time, and whatever else was referred to was oblique and confidential. (My guess is they probably were _not_ living with each other outright until after Messiaen's divorce was finalized... may have even married prior to shared domesticity.)


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

JohannesBrahms said:


> Prokofiev was not a very nice person by any stretch of the imagination.


I actually don't have much defense against that. :lol: But if one thing's for certain, Prokofiev was true to himself, and that is one of his more admirable qualities.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Weston said:


> I thought she stayed with him until his death, but then I get my info from Hollywood. I should research this a little, but I've never been a huge Chopin fan.


Nope, she ditched him.

My impression of the OP is that s/he is a bit disappointed by the behaviour of composers & also genuinely curious as to why they fairly often have 'colourful' lives. I still feel that myself, and its forty plus years since I was in my teens; nothing wrong with being a bit shocked still by bad behaviour, is there, rather than adopting a cynical, worldly-wise approach.

Just so long as one doesn't condemn...

My favourite composer is Lully and he certainly doesn't abide by my moral code but a) I still love his music and b) I'm hoping to meet him in heaven, because only God can measure the moral behaviour of anyone and there is always repentance...

A medieval epitaph for a man who died in a fall from a horse, without time for confession or any of the rites of the church that were then thought so important:

'My friend, judge not me -
Thou seest, I judge not thee.
Between the stirrup and the ground
Mercy I sought - mercy I found.'


----------

