# Inventors and summarizers in music history



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

A long time ago, I heard someone mention the different roles that great composers had played in the different phases, genres and styles throughout music history. That Mozart had not been that great an inventor, but more of a genius summarizer of what was already there. Or maybe that was Bach? I'm not sure...

Are there distinct, well-known and agreed-upon "labels" in the field of music history for such "roles"? Is there some "inventor - developer - popularizer - follower - refiner - epitomizer - copycat" vocabulary around?

And which composers played which roles?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I'd say both Bach and Mozart were summarizers. Innovators would be composers like Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy or Schoenberg.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Inventors = Haydn


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Dim7 said:


> I'd say both Bach and Mozart were summarizers. Innovators would be composers like Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy or Schoenberg.


None of which were geniuses, by the way.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Beethoven still built upon what went before him, I wouldn't say he represented a clean break with the past at all. He was a developer as are maybe most of the greatest composers.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

starry said:


> Beethoven still built upon what went before him, I wouldn't say he represented a clean break with the past at all. He was a developer as are maybe most of the greatest composers.


I don't think any artist is capable of a complete break from the past, they all build on the progress of masters before them, even seeming revolutionaries like Schoenberg.

I would say Beethoven, Schoenberg, Stravinsky in ballet, Wagner and Rossini in opera, Gershwin and possibly Bartok and Stockhausen are innovaters. You could even say Mahler or Richard Strauss were innovaters in the orchestra but that would leave the door open for a lot of names.

Bach, Mozart, Dvorak, Verdi and Brahms epitomised a particular style in some way.

You could also say Johann Strauss Jr epitomised the waltz or Sousa the march, as well as saying Sibelius, Rodrigo, Villa-Lobos, Smetana created or epitomised the sound of their respective nations.

To me guys like Schumann and von Weber are most likely to be described as followers, not saying this makes them worse than other composers in any way.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Argus said:


> von Weber are most likely to be described as followers


Nah. I think that in 1821 Der Freischutz was part of new wave and made other composers dig the recently borned romanticism. Berlioz admires von Weber for his original output.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Argus said:


> To me guys like Schumann and von Weber are most likely to be described as followers, not saying this makes them worse than other composers in any way.


Weber was of the very early founders of the Romantic movement, and in previous times was much more famous and revered than he is now. He was highly influential in the development of Romantic opera in Germany, and innovative in the composition of instrumental music.

Schumann too was very influential. He was a major composer in his own right, and by his example and encouragement of others he was a major factor driving forward the Romantic movement; see for example: _Robert Schumann: Herald of a "New Poetic Age" _by John Daverio.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Yes Schumann was pivotal in the development of music with extra-musical meaning. He loved literature and he was a composer, he unsurprisingly had an affinity for setting a story to music.

I dont think it is possible to label any major classical composer as someone who did not innovate. 
Let that be a challenge


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

One word: Cowell! He invented the tone cluster, and wrote a book on composition that was basically the bible to avante gardists thereafter. He invented scores of ideas, really perfected the use of old modes (although Janacek really did that too), and he made contemporary music much more popular than it was previously.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Bach and Mozart immediately come to mind as "summarizers". Beethoven and Wagner are "inventors". Mahler and Shostakovich - somewhere in between. There's obviously nothing wrong with being either of those two types.



Tapkaara said:


> None of which were geniuses, by the way.


Meh... it's a crappy and misused word. Much like talented or intelligent. Over the years, at least the way I see it, these words have lost their meanings (if they even had any, which is my point of view) and now are applied in a very, very broad, even strange way.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Artemis said:


> Weber was of the very early founders of the Romantic movement, and in previous times was much more famous and revered than he is now. He was highly influential in the development of Romantic opera in Germany, and innovative in the composition of instrumental music.
> 
> Schumann too was very influential. He was a major composer in his own right, and by his example and encouragement of others he was a major factor driving forward the Romantic movement; see for example: _Robert Schumann: Herald of a "New Poetic Age" _by John Daverio.


Yeah, I was struggling to think of non-innovative composers who are considered notable and these were two that sprung to mind. I can see what you mean about Weber but I can't hear much innovation in Schumann's works. Maybe I am not thinking about it in the context of the times but as he was firstly a piano composer, I can't hear what he was doing that others like Liszt and Chopin weren't and Berlioz wasn't in the orchestral setting. His main contribution at the time was he was an influential music critic and would promote new composers but I don't believe his own music was innovative. Great and interesting but not especially fresh.
People with better ears than me or who only listen to classical music will be able to hear the subtle innovations that I musn't be able to. I have analysed some of Schumanns piano works like Carnaval, Etudes Symphoniques and Etudes after Paganini's Caprices and couldn't find anything far beyond something like Schubert's or Beethoven's Sonatas. In comparison to Liszt or Wagner a few years later his work, in my opinion, is not as innovative.

And I don't agree with the extra-musical aspect. A piece of music can be inspired by something extra-musical but I don't think it can represent it in any way other than title. Only music accompanied by visuals like opera, ballet, musicals etc can convey, say a poem, novel or play. Music itself, in my opinion, summons nothing but emotion in the listener and to each listener a different emotion will be received. Any other feeling the listener gathers like a picture or place are derived from their own memories and not so much the music itself. Schumann may have read Romantic literature and been inspired by it but I don't believe it possible to turn a story into music.

It is hard, though, to think of great composers who weren't innovative in some way as originality is a lot more objective than quality. For example it's easy to argue Schoenberg was rubbish but far harder to argue he wasn't innovative. So therefore is innovation the true measure of a great artist?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Argus said:


> Yeah, I was struggling to think of non-innovative composers who are considered notable and these were two that sprung to mind.
> 
> It is hard, though, to think of great composers who weren't innovative in some way as originality is a lot more objective than quality. For example it's easy to argue Schoenberg was rubbish but far harder to argue he wasn't innovative. So therefore is innovation the true measure of a great artist?


I think this relates to what I was saying, all great composers are developers. Was there a symphony on the scale of his 41st or an opera like The Marriage of Figaro before Mozart for example? Summarizer doesn't really do justice as a term for the best composers. And how do you define what is development as opposed to what is innovation?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> One word: Cowell! He invented the tone cluster, and wrote a book on composition that was basically the bible to avante gardists thereafter. He invented scores of ideas, really perfected the use of old modes (although Janacek really did that too), and he made contemporary music much more popular than it was previously.


And now he's a judge on the X Factor! A man of many talents indeed.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Argus said:


> ... but I can't hear much innovation in Schumann's works. Maybe I am not thinking about it in the context of the times but as he was firstly a piano composer, I can't hear what he was doing that others like Liszt and Chopin weren't and Berlioz wasn't in the orchestral setting. His main contribution at the time was he was an influential music critic and would promote new composers but I don't believe his own music was innovative. Great and interesting but not especially fresh.
> People with better ears than me or who only listen to classical music will be able to hear the subtle innovations that I musn't be able to. I have analysed some of Schumanns piano works like Carnaval, Etudes Symphoniques and Etudes after Paganini's Caprices and couldn't find anything far beyond something like Schubert's or Beethoven's Sonatas. In comparison to Liszt or Wagner a few years later his work, in my opinion, is not as innovative.


If you are interested in pursuing this may I suggest you look at the book I mentioned previously by musicologist, John Daverio: _Robert Schumann, Herald of a New Poetic Age. _This is a well-researched and well-regarded book which should deal with most of your queries. I am not going to provide a summary here, as the subject matter is far to large to deal with adequately. Suffice to say that Schumann pioneered a number of innovations in romantic music writing, and influenced several notable composers including Brahms and Tchaikovsky. In my estimation, Schumann, as a piano composer, was far better than Liszt, and compared with Chopin there is far more weight. He wrote some very beautiful songs and song cycles, and I love many of his chamber works. Personally I rate each of his four symphonies very highly, and I value very highly many of his other orchestral works. In my estimation he is among the top 10 greatest composers, but one who tends to receive relatively little support on this Forum, unlike some others I can think of.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

None of which were geniuses, by the way.

What!??! If Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven weren't geniuses the who the hell is? (And please... Sibelius doesn't even begin to approach these giants).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I agree with the notion that great composers are innovators... to an extent. But some certainly are more inventors or new vocabularies... and others brilliantly sum up existing artistic ideas or take them to a virtual insurmountable level. Some do both. I would say that Beethoven's efforts with the symphony piano sonata and the string quartet are both incredibly innovative achievements... but also summations that almost scared off other composers. Bach seems like the most masterful example of the great summarizer. His Brandenburg Concertos essentially sum up the concerto grossi. His works for solo violin, solo cello, organ etc... almost stand unrivaled... as do his achievements with fugal composition. His innovation would seem to me, in most instances, not in tearing apart existing musical vocabularies and inventing something entirely new, but rather in taking an existing vocabulary or tradition and then creating something within those boundaries that goes beyond anything previously attempted or even imagined to a level that often remains unrivaled for generations. It is hard to say whether being the great innovator or the great summarizer is more important. Allesandro Stradella and Arcangelo Corelli are commonly credited with having invented the concerti grossi... but their efforts in no way equal the achievements of Bach... or even Vivaldi, Telemann, and Handel in the same form.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Yes Artemis, my point exactly. Schumann was indeed an innovator put perfectly in 'poetic age'.

There are some composer who have completely shifted the Paradigm in which we write music. The entire essence of it and possible the purpose for which it is written. I am talking about composers such as Stravinsky - who brought music into the 20th century, where it became about the sound created instead of the harmonies and melodic lines making sense. Beethoven, with the 9th symphony music became expression and not just entertainment as it was for much of the classical era. It was written for the dances of the rich, but beethoven turned it into a deep, dramatic medium for expression.

THese are the composers usually though of as innovators, but i think all composers were innovators. They may not have changed the Paradigm but they developed and innovated new methods, techniques and objectives within their paradigm. 

Haydn who established the proper form of the string quartet and symphony.
Schumann heralded a new poetic age 
Liszt brought amazing new techniques in piano music and invented the tone poem
Dvorak commenced the american tradition in music.

It goes on.. IM sure every composer has some achievment of this sort.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Yes Artemis, my point exactly. Schumann was indeed an innovator put perfectly in 'poetic age'.
> 
> There are some composer who have completely shifted the Paradigm in which we write music. The entire essence of it and possible the purpose for which it is written. I am talking about composers such as Stravinsky - who brought music into the 20th century, where it became about the sound created instead of the harmonies and melodic lines making sense. Beethoven, with the 9th symphony music became expression and not just entertainment as it was for much of the classical era. It was written for the dances of the rich, but beethoven turned it into a deep, dramatic medium for expression.
> 
> ...


But not all the classical era was just entertainment, just like all of the 'romantic' era wasn't just piano or violin virtuosos. Mozart obviously did achieve very personal expression in many pieces (eg Symphony 40) and maybe others had earlier including JS Bach etc. Many different periods can have both entertainment music and more personal music.


----------



## noestoycierto (Oct 30, 2009)

How about Barber's use of quarter tones? That was pretty innovative! Or was there anyone else before him who did this? Enlighten me.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

I would agree with a comment made earlier that all of the really great composers probably did either introduce their own or develop considerably some other's innovation. However, that's not the primary reason for their greatness. Novelty in compositional technique is only one aspect in judging a composer's worth. I would go further and suggest that novelty is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to establish a composer's claim to overall greatness. The vast majority of modern classical music audiences like their composers not because they invented some new technique but because they consider the results of using that technique are of exceptional quality.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Artemis said:


> I would agree with a comment made earlier that all of the really great composers probably did either introduce their own or develop considerably some other's innovation. However, that's not the primary reason for their greatness. Novelty in compositional technique is only one aspect in judging a composer's worth. I would go further and suggest that novelty is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to establish a composer's claim to overall greatness. The vast majority of modern classical music audiences like their composers not because they invented some new technique but because they consider the results of using that technique are of exceptional quality.


Critics' analysis of modern classical music is often based around novelty and innovation. If someone is considered innovative they are considered important, if not they are considered not important and even hardly worthwhile. This is something I disagree with.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

noestoycierto said:


> How about Barber's use of quarter tones? That was pretty innovative! Or was there anyone else before him who did this? Enlighten me.


He may have brought it into western music but it is a big part of eastern music for centuries.

Mozart may have written music for personal expression, but in the classical era, composers depended on the patronage of nobles and it was required that they write music for formal occasions and for the patrons enjoyment. Beethoven was one of the first composers to break out of this mould and began writing music for himself instead of for a rich man or for the church.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> He may have brought it into western music but it is a big part of eastern music for centuries.
> 
> Mozart may have written music for personal expression, but in the classical era, composers depended on the patronage of nobles and it was required that they write music for formal occasions and for the patrons enjoyment. Beethoven was one of the first composers to break out of this mould and began writing music for himself instead of for a rich man or for the church.


Beethoven was one of the first to go completely freelance, but maybe not the first. Haydn broke away from Esterhazy, Mozart broke away to Vienna. Beethoven wrote to commission as well, he certainly wanted to get paid for his music.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Yes My point exactly.

Haydn went to london on his own only after a lifetime spent in servitude.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Yes My point exactly.
> 
> Haydn went to london on his own only after a lifetime spent in servitude.


But he wasn't in servitude at the end of his life, and it was composers like him who showed the way for Beethoven.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

starry said:


> Beethoven was one of the first to go completely freelance, but maybe not the first. Haydn broke away from Esterhazy, Mozart broke away to Vienna. Beethoven wrote to commission as well, he certainly wanted to get paid for his music.


Mozart resigned from his position in the Archbishop of Salzburg's Court in 1777 and was effectively self-employed after that date, working on commissions of one sort or other. He therefore pre-dated Beethoven as self-employed by many years. The distinguishing feature of Beethoven was that, after his quite long apprenticeship, he was never employed as such, and worked freelance throughout his whole career. The suggestion which is sometimes made that Beethoven could somehow whatever material he liked is not quite true as many if not most of his work resulted from commissions or from other forms of sponsorship by which he had to take at least some account of customers' requirements.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Beethoven was provided with a fortune though, by three different members of the nobility - the only condition being his presence in Vienna. I doubt he would have bent to the musical will of others with that amount of freedom.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I'm not sure if he had loads of money all his life though.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

emiellucifuge said:


> Beethoven was provided with a fortune though, by three different members of the nobility - the only condition being his presence in Vienna. I doubt he would have bent to the musical will of others with that amount of freedom.


Yes but before that time (1808) Beethoven had fallen upon difficult times financially and had threatened to leave Vienna to take up employment at the court of the King of Westphalia. The money from the 3 noblemen - 4000 Florin a year - was a payment to stop this happening. The story goes that only a part of this sum was paid, and then only in fits and starts, because two the noblemen had run into difficulties (one fell off his horse and died), another systematically "forgot" to pay, and the main support, Lobkowitz stopped paying altogether some 3 years later. I gather this episode got sorted amicably in the end, when all or most arrears were settled. It couldn't have been a pleasant time for Beethoven.


----------

