# To what extend the popularity an artist enjoyed during his lifetime



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

To what extend the popularity an artist enjoyed during his lifetime is the measure of his greatness?

For instance, our wonderful member Kreisler jr, argued on many occasions that the fact that Joseph Haydn was popular and highly-regarded in his time across Europe is proof of his greatness. 


Kreisler jr said:


> Instrumental music was considered secondary until late Mozart and Haydn and with all respect to Mozart, Haydn did more for the emancipation of the large forms of instrumental music to get the "sublime" status that only operas and oratorios had enjoyed before. just read the contemporary reviews if Haydn's late symphonies were described like background divertimenti or as "sublime and heroic". You keep ignoring history
> Handel's concerti were literally fillers for breaks in oratorios. Haydn's symphonies were the main attraction of the Paris and London concerts.


But look at Carl Stamitz, for instance:
"In 1770 he went to Paris, where he went into service with Louis, Duke of Noailles, who made him his court composer. He also appeared in the Concerts Spirituels, sometimes together with his brother Anton, who had probably come to Paris with him. With Paris as his base, he made frequent concert tours to a number of German cities: on 12 April 1773 he appeared in Frankfurt; a year later he was in Augsburg; and in 1775 he ventured as far as the Russian capital, Saint Petersburg. In 1777 he dwelt for a time in Strasbourg where Franz Xaver Richter was music director. During the years 1777 and 1778 he was successful in London, one of many Austro-German musicians, such as Carl Friedrich Abel, J. C. Bach and in his last years Haydn, to be drawn there. His stay in London was possibly facilitated through his contact with Thomas Erskine, Earl of Kellie (1753-1781), who had received lessons from Carl's father Johann during a tour of the continent. Between 1782 and 1783, Stamitz gave concerts in The Hague and in Amsterdam. In 1785 he returned to Germany to appear in concerts in Hamburg, Lübeck, Braunschweig, Magdeburg and Leipzig. In April 1786 he made his way to Berlin, where on 19 May 1786 he participated in the performance of Handel's Messiah, under the baton of Johann Adam Hiller."

From this, what can we say about C. Stamitz's greatness? 
Keep in mind Stamitz was chiefly a composer of secular instrumental music.**
Concerto for French Horn, in E flat major: II. Adagio 




Concerto for Cello in A Major: II. Romanze. Andantino 





I'm not trying to argue Joseph Haydn is not great, with this thread. I just think the question "To what extend the popularity an artist enjoyed during his lifetime is the measure of his greatness?" is worth pondering and discussing.

**
*Symphonies*
50 symphonies (usually in three movements omitting the minuet)

*Concertos*
11 clarinet concertos (at least one jointly composed with Johann Joseph Beer (1744-1811)
3 cello concertos
40 concertos for flute, bassoon, basset horn, violin, viola, viola d'amore and different combinations of some of these instruments
38 symphonies concertantes

*Chamber music*
Duos, trios, quartets for various instruments, with a prevalence of strings; the unaccompanied duos for violin and viola are particularly notable.
6 orchestral quartets, op.1
6 orchestral quartets, op.14

*Operas* (Both are considered lost.)
Der verliebte Vormund (1787)
Dardanus (1780)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"100 years after death, Gustav Mahler is more popular than ever. When the Bohemian composer died on May 18, 1911, he was known - at best - as an untamed musician whose work was generally ill-received. Now, 100 years since, Gustav Mahler is one of the world's most performed composers."


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I don't think it is worth that much. On one hand you have popular composers like Rossini, Verdi, Gershwin, or Williams...

but on the other you have fads like Hugo Montenegro, 1001 Strings, Andre Rieu, Ludovico Einaudi... all of which have been or will be forgotten with just one shift of a generation... There are thousands of light music albums of this sort on Youtube that have been produced over the past 60 years, and the comment sections are typically homogenous in age.

I would say that popularity during a composer's lifetime matters only if it has endured as posthumous popularity. This certainly can be said of Joseph Haydn.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Isn't fame always some combination of talent, skill, and luck? I think most composers whose work continues to be played today have something of value that causes people to continue going back to it, but there are surely hundreds of composers who were extremely talented but who didn't become well-known for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

So by "luck" you mean marketing?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Nearly 70 years ago a highly influential book, The Agony of Modern Music, was written by Henry Pleasants. Among his theses: without exception, every great composer was acknowledged as such during his lifetime. And if you read composer biographies you know that Pleasants was right. Even Mahler: yes, he's more popular than in his day, but even when he was alive there were many, many fans. There were mini Mahler festivals even.

However, being a wildly popular composer doesn't guarantee admission into the hallowed Hall of Greats. Raff, Rubinstein, Reinecke are only three to prove that point.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Also interesting is which pieces were more popular for a composer than they are now:

Example - Beethoven's most popular and/or best selling works during his lifetime were Wellington's Victory and the Op 20 Septet. On the other hand, his 4th piano concerto and the violin concerto were only performed once during his lifetime.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Fabulin said:


> So by "luck" you mean marketing?


No, I mean luck. Knowing the right people, being in the right place at the right time, have talent that fits with the cultural moment, etc.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> No, I mean luck. Knowing the right people, being in the right place at the right time, have talent that fits with the cultural moment, etc.


That's hard if not impossible to prove though. The three now-obscure composers mentioned above were "lucky" in their time. Their work just didn't resonate overall in later years. That really isn't luck as much as...resonance. And all your criteria apply much more to Handel than to Bach.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

dissident said:


> That's hard if not impossible to prove though. The three now-obscure composers mentioned above were "lucky" in their time. Their work just didn't resonate overall in later years. That really isn't luck as much as...resonance. And all your criteria apply much more to Handel than to Bach.


My point isn't that a composer who is popular in his time needs luck in order for his fame to endure. My point is that I'm sure there were many composers who were extremely talented but who never achieved fame, or whose fame and reach was limited, in the first place because they were unlucky.

But I guess you could say that a great composer's work could be forgotten due to bad luck, too - e.g. certain changes in musical taste/culture that make it harder for later audiences to appreciate their work.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> My point isn't that a composer who is popular in his time needs luck in order for his fame to endure. My point is that I'm sure there were many composers who were extremely talented but who never achieved fame, or whose fame and reach was limited, in the first place because they were unlucky.


Any examples?


> But I guess you could say that a great composer's work could be forgotten due to bad luck, too - e.g. certain changes in musical taste/culture that make it harder for later audiences to appreciate their work.


Or maybe they really weren't "great" composers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Popular with whom? We have a category "popular music" for a reason.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

dissident said:


> Any examples?


How could I have examples if they toiled in obscurity and were never discovered? Do you think everyone of talent is inevitably recognized?



> Or maybe they really weren't "great" composers.


I mean, sure, you don't have to agree with me, but past art is always being reevaluated. If you think the current snapshot of who is "great" and who isn't is somehow timeless and perfect, I don't know what to tell you except that we have a different view of how these things work.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> How could I have examples if they toiled in obscurity and were never discovered? Do you think everyone of talent is inevitably recognized?


You use them as examples and you don't even know if they existed or not. What if there was someone who discovered a cure for cancer in the 19th century and that cure fell into oblivion due to bad luck...?



> I mean, sure, you don't have to agree with me, but past art is always being reevaluated. If you think the current snapshot of who is "great" and who isn't is somehow timeless and perfect, I don't know what to tell you except that we have a different view of how these things work.


I think those considered "great" are pretty secure and have stood the test of time. I honestly don't think Anton Rubinstein is going to overtake Beethoven in any foreseeable future. The question is more about which contemporary or near-contemporary composers might eventually be considered "great" as well.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

dissident said:


> You use them as examples and you don't even know if they existed or not. What if there was someone who discovered a cure for cancer in the 19th century and that cure fell into oblivion due to bad luck...?


This is common sense, and your analogy doesn't work - a cure for cancer is nothing like artistic output.



> I think those considered "great" are pretty secure and have stood the test of time. I honestly don't think Anton Rubinstein is going to overtake Beethoven in any foreseeable future. The question is more about which contemporary or near-contemporary composers might eventually be considered "great" as well.


You're just being contrarian, I didn't make any claim like what you're suggesting.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Bizet's Carmen was never successful during his lifetime. It's now one of the most performed operas.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> This is common sense, and your analogy doesn't work - a cure for cancer is nothing like artistic output.


It may be as likely as a great body of symphonic work that we don't know about. You never know. It's counterfactual.



> You're just being contrarian, I didn't make any claim like what you're suggesting.


No, you talked about reevaluation. So in reevaluation Rubinstein could possibly be considered a peer of Beethoven at some point. I don't see it happening. Luck has nothing to do with it, except maybe Rubinstein was unlucky in not having Beethoven's genius.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

dissident said:


> It may be as likely as a great body of symphonic work that we don't know about. You never know. It's counterfactual.


I'm not necessarily talking about a great body of symphonic work, I'm talking about undiscovered talent. That must be where we're talking past each other.



> No, you talked about reevaluation. So in reevaluation Rubinstein could possibly be considered a peer of Beethoven at some point. I don't see it happening. Luck has nothing to do with it, except maybe Rubinstein was unlucky in not having Beethoven's genius.


I said past art is constantly being reevaluated, end of sentence.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I was going to post my answer that I did, but I know it would make more fragile a community gathered around certain ideals on music. Perhaps better would be to post this list of composers most likely to be considered the greatest on this forum, instead of this forum's average favorites. In other words, this list shows the strongest fanbases of composers, removing outliers (which didn't place composers high enough) on the first list. Why this example?

1. Mozart
2. Bach
3. Beethoven
4. Brahms
5. Mahler
6. Wagner
7. Schubert
8. Tchaikovsky
9. Haydn
10. Sibelius
11. Schumann
12. Messiaen
13. Handel
14. Weinberg
15. Shostakovich

*As Woodduck was saying*, popular according to whom? According to this list, seems like both Haydn and Mozart are much more popular with their fans, than they are with the rest of the forum. Perhaps they're better at 'doing what they do' than other composers, is one hypothesis. Bach wrote great fugues, Haydn wrote great symphonies, and Mozart, well, I guess he's the greatest in the eyes of many, because he was the greatest at being Mozart. Such perspective comes with the responsibility of understanding what these fanbases believe are their composers' best works, not their most popular works.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> I'm not necessarily talking about a great body of symphonic work, I'm talking about undiscovered talent. That must be where we're talking past each other. ...


Well to an extent I would agree. I mean, there may have been dozens upon dozens of pianists who were or who potentially were as great as Horowitz and Rubinstein. But maybe there weren't. We don't know.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Generally, artists whose work deserved to survive, did. There aren't a lot of forgotten treasures out there, and things that are revived as curiosities or for re-evaluation generally remain curiosities worthy only of occasional revival. There are enough concert promoters, record company A&R people, and musicians looking for"new" works to supplement the standard repertoire, that little remains hidden.(Not to mention academic musicologists looking for topics for theses and publications.) I remember during the U.S. Bicentennial, a lot of ensembles desperately trying to find forgotten American composers to fill out programs, and not being very successful.

In general, great composers were popular in their lifetimes, but not all popular composers were great.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

progmatist said:


> Bizet's Carmen was never successful _during his lifetime_. It's now one of the most performed operas.


As Bizet died 3 months after the premiere this is not saying very much.  That premiere had a mixed reception and overall not as expected. But nevertheless the piece was given over 30 times in the first season and the Vienna premiere about half a year later in October 1875 was a great success (Bizet was of course dead by then).

Virtually all stories of underrated composers starving during their lifetimes are myths (Mozart's abject poverty being the most notorious myth for some time but completely debunked already decades ago) or at least largely exaggerated. The major composer closest to that myth is Schubert but even in this case there is a lot of exaggeration. (18 year old Schumann far away in Leipzig learned from Schubert's death and supposedly cried the whole night about it, i.e. at least some Schubert's music was distributed well enough at the time of his death.)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> As Bizet died 3 months after the premiere this is not saying very much.  That premiere had a mixed reception and overall not as expected. But nevertheless the piece was given over 30 times in the first season and the Vienna premiere about half a year later in October 1875 was a great success (Bizet was of course dead by then).
> 
> Virtually all stories of underrated composers starving during their lifetimes are myths (Mozart's abject poverty being the most notorious myth for some time but completely debunked already decades ago) or at least largely exaggerated. The major composer closest to that myth is Schubert but even in this case there is a lot of exaggeration. (18 year old Schumann far away in Leipzig learned from Schubert's death and supposedly cried the whole night about it, i.e. at least some Schubert's music was distributed well enough at the time of his death.)


Mozart didn't die penniless, but he wasn't really rich at the time of death either. 1788-1791 was a difficult time for artists in Austria economically, because of the recession caused by the war with Turkey. He and his wife were spending a lot and were always in need of money. There were also cases like Christian Bach, who died penniless cause his steward embezzled all his money. Various composers earned more from their "second jobs" (such as piano lessons) rather than directly off their own compositions. Mahler was a renowned conductor, Clementi was a piano manufacturer, publisher (transcribed other composers' works, such as Mozart K.608, for profit),


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think it's pretty obvious the popularity during his/her lifetime doesn't necessarily suggest the quality of their music. Bach, Bartok, were some who weren't given their due respect during their lifetimes as they are now. On flip side I think Haydn may not be given his due by some now because he was popular and seen as a celebrity only.

https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/haydn-the-poor-man-s-mozart


----------



## EnescuCvartet (Dec 16, 2016)

Yes, Kreisler, Schubert's lifetime obscurity has been greatly exaggerated. People in Vienna at least knew who he was. His relative popularity was predicated on the sale of his songs. They were popular with professional singers and amateurs alike. He even had several hits that caused small sensations in their day, like Der Wanderer and Erlkönig. He could have been better off, financially if he had a better business sense, or a proper manager. He once sold the rights to a bunch of his better known songs for a lump sum, instead of seeking a sale that would get h royalties. And in 1928, just a few shirt months before his death, he had his one and only concert dedicated solely to his own work, some of his instrumental works were among those performed. The concert was a big success, alas, he died shortly thereafter. It is also nearly certain Beethoven knew who he was, as Schubert dropped off a set of variations at his house. I believe his nephew Karl attested that they were well received. The story of Beethoven requesting many of Schubert's music on his deathbed may or may not be apocryphal. Schubert could have fared better, surely, but he was known and very well received I'm Beethoven's own town.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> On flip side I think Haydn may not be given his due by some now because he was popular and seen as a celebrity only. https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/haydn-the-poor-man-s-mozart


[ "By the mid-19th century the image was fixed of Haydn the blithe precursor, who 'invented' the symphony and string quartet for others to build on" ]
It's not as "sickening" as the Greenberg article, but still "bad". Joseph Haydn was a fine, respectable musician alright, but I wish there was less of the unfair "he-invented-all-this-and-that" nonsense and all the propaganda around it to elevate him. It does disservice to his lesser-known contemporaries who were just as influential, if not more, (separately from Joseph Haydn), to Mozart and the others.

[ "Only after the First World War did public perception of Haydn slowly begin to shift, in part because of a wider reaction against the febrile, neurasthenic atmosphere of late Romanticism. Crucial in the English-speaking world was the passionate advocacy of Sir Donald Francis Tovey" ]
Basically corroborates what I said before; "If Joseph really created a "sensation" with Op.20, and sent a "shockwave across Europe" in the late 18th century in an unprecedented scale as those experts claim, -the composers themselves would have talked about it in their letters."- Joseph Haydn wasn't really seen as an "inventor" _by anyone_ for a large part of the 18th century, the period when the "alleged" innovations of his were "said to have" taken place. (I wouldn't question the "innovation" of his work from the final decade of the century and his influence on Beethoven, though.)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EnescuCvartet said:


> Yes, Kreisler, Schubert's lifetime obscurity has been greatly exaggerated. ...


like other composers, he was known for other things besides being a composer:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> [ "By the mid-19th century the image was fixed of Haydn the blithe precursor, who 'invented' the symphony and string quartet for others to build on" ]
> It's not as "sickening" as the Greenberg article, but still "bad". Joseph Haydn was fine, respectable musician alright, but I wish there was less of the unfair "he-invented-all-this-and-that" nonsense and all the propaganda around it to elevate him. It does disservice to his lesser-known contemporaries who were just as influential, if not more, (separately from Joseph Haydn), to Mozart and the others.
> 
> [ "Only after the First World War did public perception of Haydn slowly begin to shift, in part because of a wider reaction against the febrile, neurasthenic atmosphere of late Romanticism. Crucial in the English-speaking world was the passionate advocacy of Sir Donald Francis Tovey" ]
> Basically corroborates what I said before; "If Joseph really created a "sensation" with Op.20, and sent a "shockwave across Europe" in the late 18th century in an unprecedented scale as those experts claim, -the composers themselves would have talked about it in their letters."- Joseph Haydn wasn't really seen as an "inventor" _by anyone_ for a large part of the 18th century, the period when the "alleged" innovations of his were "said to have" taken place. (I wouldn't question the "innovation" of his work from the final decade of the century and his influence on Beethoven, though.)


I think you should look at the context of the public perception, and the fact the author used quotes on the word "invented". Also nobody needs to mention Haydn specifically in their letters, the influence was obvious enough to anyone they were writing to. But the point of the article is, and it doesn't matter whether he invented anything or was popular or not (I don't care myself), that he was a great composer.

I think your arguments against Haydn's greatness are based on the fallacy of the single cause as in the OP. Which goes : " X caused Y; therefore, X was the only cause of Y"


----------

