# Can greatness only come from being revolutionary?



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

And why does it seem like composers who were just as talented, but not as original are usually less respected? It must be harder to conform to conventional rules and still make a timeless masterpiece rather than having to break them first...right? Wrong? Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I would not say that only "revolutionary" composers deserve the title of great, but revolutionary composers certainly have the advantage.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

trazom said:


> And why does it seem like composers who were just as talented, but not as original are usually less respected? It must be harder to conform to conventional rules and still make a timeless masterpiece rather than having to break them first...right? Wrong? Any thoughts on this?


I think that greatness comes from having a unique voice. It is what really defines greatness - something in the substance of the music that transcends the ordinary.

It does not, as I think Tapkaara is suggesting, need to be revolutionary - and such is a word mostly for musicologists anyways - to political.

Take for instance a composer who is widely valued as great - Brahms. Did he do anything "revolutionary"? Well, he certainly did use rhythm in quite novel ways, but not revolutionary.

Also, I don't consider Bach to be revolutionary, although he did break new ground - in many ways through synthesis of multiple influences, but, this isn't revolutionary like one finds in Debussy, Monteverdi, or Schoenberg.

Just some thoughts. Perhaps you could share some examples of composers whom you believe are being overlooked.

Scott


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Scott Good said:


> I think that greatness comes from having a unique voice. It is what really defines greatness - something in the substance of the music that transcends the ordinary.
> 
> It does not, as I think Tapkaara is suggesting, need to be revolutionary - and such is a word mostly for musicologists anyways - to political.
> 
> ...


Good post. Just about sums up my thoughts, too.

For me, some of music's revoluntionaries are Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Liszt, Berlioz, Sibelius, Strauss, Debussy, Stravinsky and Schönberg. While I am not a fan of at least one of these listed, I think all can justifiably be labled as "great" because they pushed forward what music is capable of in ways that are so unique and influential that their art deserves to be placed in a very high and mighty place.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> I think that greatness comes from having a unique voice. It is what really defines greatness - something in the substance of the music that transcends the ordinary.


I think this hits the nail half on the head.



Scott Good said:


> Take for instance a composer who is widely valued as great - Brahms. Did he do anything "revolutionary"? Well, he certainly did use rhythm in quite novel ways, but not revolutionary.


Perhaps this is a semantic issue. What do we mean by 'revolutionary'. Brahms is an excellent example. He certainly developed a unique voice. And this involved much more than using rhythm in novel ways. In fact, Schoenberg was strongly influenced by Brahms; a 'harbinger of modernism'; 'the legitimizing model of history for the radical innovations of modernism'. (Whatever that is supposed to mean!)

Having a unique voice may be necessary for greatness, but it is not sufficient. Music must speak to people, which Brahms' music does. Karl-Heinz Stockhausen surely developed a unique voice, but I'm not sure to what extent his music will ever 'speak' to people. We may today have our individual opinions, but only history will determine whether Karl-Heinz' unique voice is that of a great composer.

On another level, it's an interesting, if academic, question how a composer would be regarded if s/he consistently turned out works in the style, say, of Brahms (in the sense that a listener told that this work or that was a hitherto undiscovered work of Brahms would immediately nod, excitedly: 'Yes! it is.')

I think I know the answer to this question, but it's not quite as trivial as it first may appear. Be interested to read how other forum members react to this (academic) question.


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

Because doing something new based on the old tradition (the _classical_ ideology) that actually works and is good, takes a lot more work and intelligence than maintaining that tradition. Also, it takes a lot of courage, which is always admirable.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Yosser said:


> I think this hits the nail half on the head.
> 
> Perhaps this is a semantic issue. What do we mean by 'revolutionary'. Brahms is an excellent example. He certainly developed a unique voice. And this involved much more than using rhythm in novel ways. In fact, Schoenberg was strongly influenced by Brahms; a 'harbinger of modernism'; 'the legitimizing model of history for the radical innovations of modernism'. (Whatever that is supposed to mean!)


Cool, let's dig a little deeper.

Schoenberg was influenced by many composers, and for many, it was "radical" of him to list Brahms.

But influences aside, did Brahms actually revolutionize music? I prefer to use the word "evolution" for him rather than "revolution".

revolution: A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures.

evolution: a gradual development - from simple to more complex

Even if Schoenberg felt that Brahms was the, what he say, 'harbinger of modernism', one could not push aside many of his fore bearers (Beethoven, Mozart etc) and his consequents (Strauss, Mahler etc) and have the point on him - he seems to me, more a part of an evolution, but I could not say that through his works, music went through a revolution.

Revolution is a strong word, and I use it sparingly. Schoenberg WAS revolutionary because his work created an entirely new syntax for which musical pitch could be structured. And although he wanted us to believe it was a natural progression through the likes of Brahms, it was radical, and it's effects drastically altered the projection of musical thought. It also depended on a tuning system that had only been recently established, and was not normal for earlier composers - in fact, quite abnormal.



Yosser said:


> Having a unique voice may be necessary for greatness, but it is not sufficient.


Agreed, and point taken.



Yosser said:


> Music must speak to people, which Brahms' music does. Karl-Heinz Stockhausen surely developed a unique voice, but I'm not sure to what extent his music will ever 'speak' to people. We may today have our individual opinions, but only history will determine whether Karl-Heinz' unique voice is that of a great composer.


Well, opinions aside, Stockhausen has been written into the books. You only mention him because he is famous. Not an easy achievement! There was piles of innovators in the 20th c, but few as influential and renowned as he was.

Also remember that, although I can't possibly sight specific figures, my guess is that there were more composers in the 20th century than in total for all time before! So, to be recognized is a very big deal.

Also, I have trouble with the "speaks to people" part. What people? All people? Some people? How many people? What culture people?

I know people who hate Brahms, but love Stockhausen.



Yosser said:


> On another level, it's an interesting, if academic, question how a composer would be regarded if s/he consistently turned out works in the style, say, of Brahms (in the sense that a listener told that this work or that was a hitherto undiscovered work of Brahms would immediately nod, excitedly: 'Yes! it is.')


They would be regarded as a copy. They would get a tiny bit of recognition because of the effort and the novelty, then, musicians and programmers would return to seeking out the "great" composers of the day, you know, the ones with the "unique voices" - not the photo-copiers - and continue to program Brahms.

That's my guess.

But then maybe a bunch of folks will be celebrating - "finally, we get to hear Brahms 5"!!!


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

For me, there are two types of composers: composers whose music I like and composers whose music I don't like. Whether they're revolutionary is totally irrelevant to me. What is important, however, is the music and what it does for me ---- emotionally and intellectually.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> For me, there are two types of composers: composers whose music I like and composers whose music I don't like. Whether they're revolutionary is totally irrelevant to me. What is important, however, is the music and what it does for me ---- emotionally and intellectually.


Wow, I agree with you on something. 

To answer the original question, NO I don't think greatness can only come from being revolutionary. What is 'revolutionary' anyway? Everybody has been influenced by someone, music perhaps gradually changes in style through many composers. Normally it isn't just one person who looks at a new potential path in music it often a group of people over time. And it's those who bring a style to maturity and fruition who are often considered the greatest. Style itself is at the whim of fashion, at the end of his life Bach's music was considered archaic and out of date. Then when fashion changed he was hip again.

What matters to me is the craft of a composition, whether the ideas are interesting and well developed and structured. These factors are not shaped by whether someone is revolutionary or not but whether they are good composers. And to answer the OP...yes there are many composers whose work has been neglected as they aren't considered revolutionary. This has particularly been the case in more modern times (post 19th century) where innovation has at times been prized more than just good composition. Those who write musical histories can't deal with hundreds of different composers too, it's far easier to just pick out a few and say they are the only ones that matter.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> But influences aside, did Brahms actually revolutionize music? I prefer to use the word "evolution" for him rather than "revolution"....
> Revolution is a strong word, and I use it sparingly.


No quarrel with that. I agree that words describing extremes are too often flung around these days. Perhaps a debating point may be whether a composer can 'revolutionize' a genre, as Mozart did with Opera for example, without him being referred to necessarily as a 'revolutionary'. To say that Mozart 'evolved' Opera' is not false, but is too weak.

At what point does an 'evolution' become a 'revolution'? A matter of degree, perhaps. One might refer to an evolution if thereafter the genre was viewed a bit differently, to a revolution if it is viewed in a significantly different light.



Scott Good said:


> Well, opinions aside, Stockhausen has been written into the books. You only mention him because he is famous.


I mention him in particular because, though he has a circle of admirers and adherents and as you point out has been much written and talked about within this circle, outside this circle his name is either unknown or is symbolic for a style of composition scarcely distinguishable from 'noise'. I've listened through his Klavierstuecke several times over several decades and get nothing from them except feeling I've been wasting my time.

But who knows, maybe in 50 years every pianist will aspire to play them? After all, it took 50 years for any pianists at all to unravel the secrets of the Arietta, which nowadays is played (at least attempted) by 19 year old kids.

So, following the lines of Mirror Image, just because I don't like Stockhausen doesn't mean that in 50 years someone with my level of musical appreciation also will not.



Scott Good said:


> Also, I have trouble with the "speaks to people" part. What people? All people? Some people? How many people? What culture people?


Enough people, outside hallowed halls, music schools, whatever. And over a long period of time. Great compositions have staying power. Mediocre or bad ones don't.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

starry said:


> Wow, I agree with you on something.


It was bound to happen after awhile.  I can say some pretty intelligent things....sometimes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> For me, there are two types of composers: composers whose music I like and composers whose music I don't like. Whether they're revolutionary is totally irrelevant to me. What is important, however, is the music and what it does for me ---- emotionally and intellectually.


But this raises the question, does it not, "who are you?" Along with the related question, "why is it important for us to know what's relevant or not to you?"

Of course for all of us, the music and what it does for us is important. But that's as may be. How do we get beyond "what I like" to "what's good about the music that someone who's NOT me would be interested in"?

(That's the online classical music forum 64 thousand dollar question, idn't it?)


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

some guy said:


> But this raises the question, does it not, "who are you?" Along with the related question, "why is it important for us to know what's relevant or not to you?"
> 
> Of course for all of us, the music and what it does for us is important. But that's as may be. How do we get beyond "what I like" to "what's good about the music that someone who's NOT me would be interested in"?
> 
> (That's the online classical music forum 64 thousand dollar question, idn't it?)


I think you have to judge music by understanding what it aims to do and how much it succeeds in achieving that. So you have to understand the style of the music, the structure of it. I trust the opinion more of people who are open to very different types of music as that would suggest they can make the effort to listen differently to different types of music. Also those who listen to - let's say - just one type of music may be rather uncritical of it compared to someone who listens to other styles. It takes effort and time, music is a huge area which nobody can fully understand in one lifetime.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Yosser said:


> At what point does an 'evolution' become a 'revolution'? A matter of degree, perhaps. One might refer to an evolution if thereafter the genre was viewed a bit differently, to a revolution if it is viewed in a significantly different light.


I think this is exactly the point, or points.

No, there isn't a clear line, but I think certain figures have completely changed the trajectory of the evolution.

Machaut, Monteverdi, Debussy, Schoenberg, and Cage are some of the most poignant examples. Beethoven is borderline for me, but I could see him being argued effectively as revolutionary.

As my knowledge of operatic history is cloudy, could you let me (us) know what it is that Mozart did to revolutionize opera (except by raising the bar very high!!). I am genuinely curious.



Yosser said:


> Enough people, outside hallowed halls, music schools, whatever. And over a long period of time. Great compositions have staying power. Mediocre or bad ones don't.


If only this were true...I have be "forced" to perform quite a few mediocre pieces from the ages past, whist brilliant works of the recent past are collecting dust.

This is a sore point for me. And is why I am trying to be elaborate with answering the posted question.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

some guy said:


> Of course for all of us, the music and what it does for us is important. But that's as may be. How do we get beyond "what I like" to "what's good about the music that someone who's NOT me would be interested in"?


If someone else listens to a piece of music (one that really grabs you) and says at the end 'Well, it was ok', this person is not going to change his or her opinion if one recounts all the musical innovations and etc. contained within the piece. Music is visceral. If it doesn't grab you after you've listened to it a few times, then it probably isn't going to, whatever everyone else thinks.

I think the process works more or less via 'natural selection'. If a piece is 'good' in the wider sense you are looking for, then the community of musicians, music lovers, concert goers will build a consensus that ensures this music is played long after it was composed.

A consensus does not mean that everyone agrees on everything, of course. That really would be boring!


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

some guy said:


> But this raises the question, does it not, "who are you?" Along with the related question, "why is it important for us to know what's relevant or not to you?"
> 
> Of course for all of us, the music and what it does for us is important. But that's as may be. How do we get beyond "what I like" to "what's good about the music that someone who's NOT me would be interested in"?
> 
> (That's the online classical music forum 64 thousand dollar question, idn't it?)


Thank you some guy!

I would like to revise Mirror Image's postulate with one I think worth also considering:

"There are only two kinds of composers: Those composers whose music I like, and those who's music I haven't yet learned to like yet."

And this I learned from one of the most revolutionary composers of all time, John Cage. And boy am I glad I did. He showed that there is beauty to be found in all acts of artistic creativity. You just have to look, and want to find it.

But, ultimately, we do need to draw some lines - not in terms of simply liking and disliking, as I think there needs to be an objective focus as well. As Starry put:

"I think you have to judge music by understanding what it aims to do and how much it succeeds in achieving that. So you have to understand the style of the music, the structure of it. I trust the opinion more of people who are open to very different types of music as that would suggest they can make the effort to listen differently to different types of music."

The purpose of this objectivication is that choices must be made in terms of what we teach, what we pass on, and what we strive for. And just being a passive audience of likers and dislikers will be a disaster for the classical tradition. Liking and disliking is the game of popular music - it is not an immoral game, but I put the classical tradition on a higher pedestal. How many people on this list were taught about the masters, and gained appreciation about them though this teaching - even if perhaps that teaching was simply by attending concerts where the presenters choose to display the greatness of the art form.

Problem is that liking and disliking NOW has taken over as the raison d'etre of concerts. I think there needs to be balance. In some places there is, in others it is way off.

I hope this is making sense. I think it is very important, but I'm not sure it is coming across well.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> As my knowledge of operatic history is cloudy, could you let me (us) know what it is that Mozart did to revolutionize opera (except by raising the bar very high!!). I am genuinely curious


Mozart's operas rely much more on groupe ensembles than other composers, and he is the first, perhaps the only, composer who use the music to put the action in place. In most baroque operas the action happens in the recitative and arias, duettos and so are merely descptions of mood.

Take for example the first act of Handel's Giulio Cesare, the Egiptian officers arrive and in a conversation with Caesar they show the head of Pompaeus Magnus, all this happening in a recitative, and later Caesar busts with rage, now in a Aria, and later order what to do, in a recitative.

Handel is one of the finest opera composers ever, but the music is very limited in what it can say, what it can express: usually happiness, rage, despair, sadness, emotions.

And now go to Mozart's finest achivement, the finale of the second act of Le Nozze di Figaro. At some point in this finale, the count shows a piece of paper from Cherubino and aks what is it, and Figaro and the ladies struggle to get pass it. All that action, which is a main point in all opera, happens with music, through the music. This is a completely new way of using music to highlight a text, the variety of situations Mozart's music can say is incredible: jealousy, surprise, irony and also highlight every single event in a play, and also portrait each character in a way we can clearly know it is Figaro or the COunt, Don Giovanni or Leporello.

The question of evolution or revolution may be a case of semantics, but what Mozart did to opera is something new and extremely exciting, and I'm not sure he was ever rivaled. But Mozart and his librettis Da Ponte were sure they were doing something completely new.


----------



## Clancy (Mar 14, 2009)

Just to drop in my two cents here, I think for a composer (or indeed any artist) to be considered generally "great" that they must have composed some timeless works, and that for a work to be timeless it must work on many levels simultaneously - encompassing both the vulgar and the refined, the gut and the intellect, and of course it must engage our emotions.

Breaking new ground is important in terms of finding new musical "territory" to explore and develop, but I don't think it is enough on its own to justify the label "great".

I think this is why someone like Schoenberg is never going to appear on any top ten "greatest" lists of composers; as creative and revolutionary as he was, his twelve tone music has no visceral appeal.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Clancy said:


> Just to drop in my two cents here, I think for a composer (or indeed any artist) to be considered generally "great" that they must have composed some timeless works, and that for a work to be timeless it must work on many levels simultaneously - encompassing both the vulgar and the refined, the gut and the intellect, and of course it must engage our emotions.
> 
> Breaking new ground is important in terms of finding new musical "territory" to explore and develop, but I don't think it is enough on its own to justify the label "great".
> 
> I think this is why someone like Schoenberg is never going to appear on any top ten "greatest" lists of composers; as creative and revolutionary as he was, his twelve tone music has no visceral appeal.


Pre-twelve tone Schoenberg is quite beautiful. Just listen to "Verklarte Nacht." This has to be one of my favorite pieces for string orchestra.

While I despise serialism, I enjoyed his works before he went in that direction. He was one hell of an orchestrator too.


----------



## Clancy (Mar 14, 2009)

Cheers for the heads up Mirror Image - I remember his earlier works being referenced in the huge debate this forum went through earlier, so I made sure to specify his later twelve tone music.

I should make clear at this point that I like the Schoenberg I have heard, just don't think the twelve tone system lends itself to the engagement on many levels effect I reference in my post above. I am happy to be proved wrong on this score!


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Clancy said:


> I think this is why someone like Schoenberg is never going to appear on any top ten "greatest" lists of composers; as creative and revolutionary as he was, his twelve tone music has no visceral appeal.


I agree that serialism, or whatever you want to call it, was a cul-de-sac in which many 20th century composers wandered about and found no way out. But it isn't quite true that serial music cannot have visceral appeal (if that is what you meant).

The best example I know is Alban Berg's Violin Concerto. This is strictly serial, but the tone row is chosen so that an element of tonality is simulated. This concerto is imho amongst the three finest violin concertos ever written. When played well, it leaves one quite devastated.

I believe Berg's operas, Lulu and Wozzeck, are also examples of twelve-tone compositions with visceral appeal. It's a great shame Berg died young. Who knows what he would have achieved if he'd lived as long as Beethoven.

It's perhaps an interesting point that whereas the musical revolutionary was Schoenberg, the great music that derived from his revolution was written by his student. So if Schoenberg was revolutionary, I guess that would make Berg 'evolutionary' and this would be an example where the great composer is the disciple, not the revolutionary himself.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> If only this were true...I have be "forced" to perform quite a few mediocre pieces from the ages past, whist brilliant works of the recent past are collecting dust.


What does "forced" mean? Why on earth would you want to perform music you believe to be mediocre?


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> But then maybe a bunch of folks will be celebrating - "finally, we get to hear Brahms 5"!!!


I bet you thought you were joking 

"Failing in his efforts to get funding for premieres of Schoenberg's original compositions, Otto Klemperer took pains to ensure that at least Schoenberg's transcriptions of other composers' works were publicly performed. Klemperer led the Kolisch Quartet on 6 and 7 January 1938 in a performance of the Concerto for String Quartet and Orchestra, which Schoenberg had based on Handel's Concerto Grosso. He also invited the composer to make an orchestral transcription of Brahms' Piano Quartet in G minor, Op. 25, for inclusion in an upcoming Brahms cycle.

Schoenberg was delighted with the commission, and set to work transcribing "strictly in the style of Brahms." The work Schoenberg dubbed "Brahms Fifth Symphony" was the result. It premiered under Klemperer's baton on 8 May 1938 with the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra."


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Yosser said:


> I bet you thought you were joking
> 
> "Failing in his efforts to get funding for premieres of Schoenberg's original compositions, Otto Klemperer took pains to ensure that at least Schoenberg's transcriptions of other composers' works were publicly performed. Klemperer led the Kolisch Quartet on 6 and 7 January 1938 in a performance of the Concerto for String Quartet and Orchestra, which Schoenberg had based on Handel's Concerto Grosso. He also invited the composer to make an orchestral transcription of Brahms' Piano Quartet in G minor, Op. 25, for inclusion in an upcoming Brahms cycle.
> 
> Schoenberg was delighted with the commission, and set to work transcribing "strictly in the style of Brahms." The work Schoenberg dubbed "Brahms Fifth Symphony" was the result. It premiered under Klemperer's baton on 8 May 1938 with the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra."


Yes, this is proof that Schoenberg was, indeed, a great orchestrator. I mean taking some thing like Brahms Piano Quartet No. 1 and turning it into a full-blown orchestral score really speaks volumes to me, but it wasn't the fact that he did this, it's how he brilliantly orchestrated it.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Yosser said:


> I agree that serialism, or whatever you want to call it, was a cul-de-sac in which many 20th century composers wandered about and found no way out. But it isn't quite true that serial music cannot have visceral appeal (if that is what you meant).


But which styles continue being fashionable and which become more rarely trodden paths - maybe this is partly just the result of fashion. When a 'new' (nothing is completely original maybe, music evolves) style comes along it seems something fresh and different so people try it. By contrast the older style is disparaged and thought outdated by some. But why should some good music suddenly be outdated, that's against the whole concept of classical music as we look at it now surely?



Yosser said:


> It's perhaps an interesting point that whereas the musical revolutionary was Schoenberg, the great music that derived from his revolution was written by his student. So if Schoenberg was revolutionary, I guess that would make Berg 'evolutionary' and this would be an example where the great composer is the disciple, not the revolutionary himself.


I was about to say that Schoenberg's music was probably bettered by his pupil........Webern.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> Liking and disliking is the game of popular music - it is not an immoral game, but I put the classical tradition on a higher pedestal.


Popular music appreciation can be at a higher level than that but it takes effort and for most people music is about immediate gratification and not about trying different types of music. Many people probably wouldn't even listen to something sung in another language (or watch a film with subtitles, it's the same idea), that's even before venturing into longer forms such as are in jazz or experimental music.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Yosser said:


> What does "forced" mean? Why on earth would you want to perform music you believe to be mediocre?


Well, I have to eat! And when you are just a lowly freelance trombone player, you need to play what's put in front of you, or no gigs. It's simply the job.

And mediocre doesn't mean bad, just not great. And, many times, it's just one work on a program. I'm much more sympathetic to new works, as how can a composer develop their skills if they don't get their music played. But if the composer is long dead, I'm more picky. And, even if someone is famous (for good reason), doesn't mean everything they wrote is a gem. Even great composers had to start somewhere.

At any rate, it's not so bad as a player - I just try to make every note perfect, so any piece of music can be looked at as an opportunity to become a better performer. But as an audience, I'm not thrilled to have to hear mediocre old music.

At any rate, I only play what I want to now because I make my living composing - at least for now,as the future is unknown.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

starry said:


> Popular music appreciation can be at a higher level than that but it takes effort and for most people music is about immediate gratification and not about trying different types of music. Many people probably wouldn't even listen to something sung in another language (or watch a film with subtitles, it's the same idea), that's even before venturing into longer forms such as are in jazz or experimental music.


Good point.

I guess what I meant is that popular music is by definition, popular. But classical is more about tradition and seeking to find measures of greatness. It is more about connectivity to the past. Popular music, in particular since the invention of amplification, is about a cultural consensus on what we will all gather together around - like a modern ritual with a revolving door. And that door is spinning faster and faster.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> Well, I have to eat! And when you are just a lowly freelance trombone player, you need to play what's put in front of you, or no gigs. It's simply the job.


Ah! Well now that would be a valid reason. I can imagine that even in some great works the trombone part involves more counting than playing.



Scott Good said:


> I'm much more sympathetic to new works, as how can a composer develop their skills if they don't get their music played.


As I'm sure you know, this has always been a problem for composers. Virtually nothing J.S. Bach or Franz Schubert wrote was published in their lifetimes. Beethoven, who, one might think, was more successful than most, moaned constantly because Rossini's music was more popular than his own.

To me it seems very simple. A great piece of music can have immediate, broad appeal, in which case program directors will be only too keen to get it on their program. But this is the exception rather than the rule. Great music involves innovation of one kind or another and requires the conductor and musicians to correctly interpret the composer's intentions. Often, in history, they have done a lousy job, but guess who gets the blame? Even if they get it right, the listener still has to make the leap. Program directors everywhere have to balance out the promotion of new compositions with filling the hall.



Scott Good said:


> Even great composers had to start somewhere.


This was rarely as composers. Even Beethoven wrote his first few piano sonatas as display pieces for his talent as a virtuoso. To feed himself, the young Brahms played the piano in Hamburg's brothels ..... etc.

Charles Ives, fully convinced of his talent, nevertheless chose to run the family insurance business because he didn't want to starve in a garret. Maybe he thought he'd make his pile and then pick up his composing career later. If so, it didn't work out so well for him.

On the occasion of his 100th birthday Elliot Carter, on Charlie Rose, said 'There's no money in composing, so I can write what I like.' I guess Carter made a modest living as a teacher and was content with that and enjoyed to the full the freedom it gave him to 'write what he likes' without caring whether anyone would want to listen to it.

Ennio Morricone took a third route. Despairing of ever gaining traction as a composer of 'serious music' -- I believe virtually none of his work was performed -- began writing film music. This made him famous, and probably wealthy, but no Puccini!



Scott Good said:


> I make my living composing - at least for now, as the future is unknown.


Good luck to you, my friend. The odds are not good, but all power to you for pursuing your passion.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

trazom said:


> And why does it seem like composers who were just as talented, but not as original are usually less respected? It must be harder to conform to conventional rules and still make a timeless masterpiece rather than having to break them first...right? Wrong? Any thoughts on this?


Form must complement content.

Sometimes, this requires innovation in form... other times it does not.

Think about it this way: if someone wrote a perfectly beautiful baroque symphony tomorrow, would you dismiss it?


----------

