# The Importance of the Composer



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Those of you who have been in the "Modern Music: Novelty at Almost Any Cost" thread will see some recycled material here from one my responses, but it's an interesting question. 

So, how important is the composer? Obviously, we need a composer in the first place to compose the music! But, once composed, how important should the composer be in our appreciation of the music? Should we completely divorce the music from the composer? Should we just use the composer for contextual information (political, religious etc.)? Or should we aim to fully understand a piece of music by understanding its creator as much as possible?

When answering these questions, I think a historical perspective is important.

Most artworks (in all media) in the past few centuries are inexorably tied to their creators - when we engage with a piece of art, we invariably also ask, "Who made this? What were they like? What was their upbringing/social class/political background?" It feels like a natural thing to do, but it hasn't always been this way.

If you go a few more centuries back into the past, we still have a rich cultural heritage of artworks, but the vast majority are anonymous. The most intriguing thing about this is that it's not because of a loss of information in the transmission of these works over time that we don't know their creators, but because the very idea of authorship (/composership?) wasn't valued. Artists and their audiences did not see the creation of art as an act of creative genius or as an attempt to make something original. Artists were quite solidly part of a tradition, with a reliance on reworking the old and familiar. Given this, the appreciation of an artwork was not in any way informed by the astounding abilities of the creator (though they were, of course, still astounding), but on the social engagement of the audience.

But with certain technological advances (such as print), a different culture emerged - one where attribution was key. With attribution came competition. With competition came egos. Whereas older works changed in form as they passed through different hands and audiences (a bit like Chinese Whispers!), a modern work is seen as an unchanging account of a single act of artistic creation endorsed by its creator. It is set in stone, to be repeated again and again and again in the same form, just by different audiences in different places.

This is what gives us our modern sense that the composer is important - but should they be so?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I undoubtedly believe the composer ought to be recognized for their work. I consider composition as the highest musical art, above the actual performance of the music. Composers for musicians and musicians for composers, both are applicable. But I've known enough about music theory to realize that the even musicians themselves very rarely understand the work that goes into making a piece of music. The composer sacrifices a lot of themselves to make music _work_, to the point they occasionally sacrifice their simple enjoyment most of us know of music. Furthermore, the composer also has to sacrifice the fact most listeners never will understand or appreciate their compositions fully.

I think this goes the same for painters, sculptors, architects, etc.

Thus, the least we can do for composers is take their persons into account, their personalities, their desires for interpretation, and give them a sense that justice was done to their work. Just as much as composers honor musicians by giving them good music to display their skill, and both composers and musicians honor audiences who wish to be entertained and/or intellectually stimulated, so composers should be honored.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I'd say he's pretty important.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

For me the work is the thing. If I use works on canvas as an example, painting is something I've always appreciated, and I've visited many museums in Europe and the USA, but I know next to nothing of painters lives and have no interest in reading their biographies, auto or otherwise. The movie 'The Girl With Pearl Earring' was a recent and fascinating bit of cinema, and though the movie was to the greatest extent, a fiction, there was significant note taken of how the paints were made, what minerals or vegetal matter was needed to produce a color, a tint, a hue, and also some time taken to show off the 'camera obscura'. Those parts were fascinating to me. 

To sum up: Art is in the process, and I do like to know about the process. I think the society/culture/milleau wherein the art was produced is very important. I think it's fine to be curious and go behind the music to the artist for whatever reason, but I would only be looking to see how they worked.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

Addendum: I read liner notes and Wikipedia and more respectable sources about music like anyone else - so in this way I do know a lot of biographical things about the lives of composers i.e. Bach's blindness, Mozart's genius, Beethoven's deafness, Schubert's syphilis, Schumann's mental deterioration, Wagner's debts and anti-Semitism, but I don't really know if I can say how this information adds to the music, or in Wagner's case...'subtracts'. 'It was the music that got me first' is about the closest I can come to the answer.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Good idea for a thread. Glad you didn't just focus on "atonal" or post-1945 music and started a broader/general discussion. But this thread probably won't go to 30 pages because it doesn't have "atonal" in the title. Sorry, cynical me.



Polednice said:


> ...So, how important is the composer? Obviously, we need a composer in the first place to compose the music! But, once composed, how important should the composer be in our appreciation of the music? Should we completely divorce the music from the composer? Should we just use the composer for contextual information (political, religious etc.)? Or should we aim to fully understand a piece of music by understanding its creator as much as possible?
> 
> ...


To me personally, all these things are important. I was trained in history so I am interested in the lives of the composers, their historical/geographical contexts, their inspirations, influences, etc.

I also like a strong autobiographical element in music. My favourite composers tend to have that in their music, they are inseperable from their music in a way. Eg. Janacek, Berg, Schoenberg, Bernstein, probably Haydn & Beethoven & Brahms as well, Messiaen, Varese, etc. & even living composers. Last night I was just listening to veteran Aussie composer Peter Sculthorpe's _Piano Concerto_, which was written at a difficult time for him, three of his friends had just died and he was also involved in a near-fatal car accident. Understandably, the work is quite dark (but not exactly doom laden).

The composers I don't connect with as deeply are the ones who I see as wearing thick masks and not really showing their own emotions or bits of their lives in their music. Guys who usually tell other people's stories, not their own. Wagner and R. Strauss come strongly to mind here, & Stravinsky & Bartok as well to some degree.

As for your other points about anonymity, I think it's still with us to a degree. Eg. when I think of West African drumming or Japanese drumming or Balinese Gamelan, no personalities come to mind, it's only the tradition of these things that come in my mind. & the sound and vibe of this music. With Indian sitar music, it's different, for me and others it's attached to Ravi Shankar & now his daughter Anoushka. But with much world music, at least to guys like me who do like it but are non expert in this area, the anonymous element is still there, strongly. & it pops up in classical music too, all these non-Western things have been coming into it as far back as the c19th at least, eg. Weber's opera - fragments from his - _Turandot _incorporating pentatonic harmonies...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> I also like a strong autobiographical element in music. My favourite composers tend to have that in their music, they are inseperable from their music in a way. Eg. Janacek, Berg, Schoenberg, Bernstein, probably Haydn & Beethoven & Brahms as well, Messiaen, Varese, etc. & even living composers. Last night I was just listening to veteran Aussie composer Peter Sculthorpe's _Piano Concerto_, which was written at a difficult time for him, three of his friends had just died and he was also involved in a near-fatal car accident. Understandably, the work is quite dark (but not exactly doom laden).


So, would you say that you enjoy the music because already within the music is a feeling of the composer's life, or do you mean to say that you enjoy the music more once you learn of the composer's background?

As an answer to my own question, I think it depends on the way I'm approaching a piece of music: historically or personally.

_Historically_ - i.e. considering the significance of a work in its contemporary context - I think the composer is less important. What I value is how an audience reacted to a work, and the general social reception of a piece. The composer is useful to an extent in determining class/political/religious backgrounds, but otherwise I don't find biographical information to be of any great importance.

_Personally_, I find the composer much more significant in my appreciation of music. I haven't (yet) experienced a case where learning of a composer's influences/intentions has increased my enjoyment of a piece, but I find that biographical information is all part of a wider interest in the human aspect of art and creativity. So, yes, it's interesting, but not of much direct relevance to the music itself.

More generally, I try avoid as much as possible anything which raises a composer (or any artist) to a near-deified status. These were incredibly intelligent people, but I think the label 'genius' detaches them from common humanity, and I think what we share is more interesting than what we don't.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Most artworks (in all media) in the past few centuries are inexorably tied to their creators - when we engage with a piece of art, we invariably also ask, "Who made this? What were they like? What was their upbringing/social class/political background?" It feels like a natural thing to do, but it hasn't always been this way.

If you go a few more centuries back into the past, we still have a rich cultural heritage of artworks, but the vast majority are anonymous. The most intriguing thing about this is that it's not because of a loss of information in the transmission of these works over time that we don't know their creators, but because the very idea of authorship (/composership?) wasn't valued. Artists and their audiences did not see the creation of art as an act of creative genius or as an attempt to make something original. Artists were quite solidly part of a tradition, with a reliance on reworking the old and familiar. Given this, the appreciation of an artwork was not in any way informed by the astounding abilities of the creator (though they were, of course, still astounding), but on the social engagement of the audience.

What you seem to be addressing is the issue of the "cult of personality". During the Medieval period the idea of the "artist" was virtually non-existent in the sense we think of it today. The very idea of the individual "creator" would have seemed blasphemous in that it virtually transgressed upon that which was reserved for God alone: creation. The artist was a master craftsman. Whatever "genius" or "creativity" he brought to his creation was owing to God.

With the Renaissance, the artist begins to assert himself as more than a mere craftsman. Where the medieval patron demanded a "Madonna and Child" or a "Crucifixion" the Renaissance patron wanted a Leonardo or a Raphael. This holds increasingly true of music as well visual art.

The Romantics take the idea even further suggesting at times that the artist is some unique being... a visionary... a prophet... a voice of the people. As "self-expression" becomes the most valued aspect of art, the artist's biography becomes as important (if not more so) than the art.

By the late 20th century, the "cult of personality" has become so pervasive that the artist's name is like a fashion designer's logo. It doesn't even matter whether Andy warhol ever even touched a given painting or whether Jeff Koons or Mark Kostabi even came up with the original concept involved in a work of art. They are the name-brand behind the product: Hallmark, Gucci, Versace... and that name-brand is more important than anything else.

This development repulses me in many ways. Where judgment... and value of medieval art or most non-Western art (where the "artist's" name is unknown) is based solely upon the art work... with the rise of the "cult of personality" the value of a work of art is often based more upon the artist's name. Most museums would rather hang a really "bad" Rembrandt than a great painting by Gerrit Dou. A mediocre Van Gogh or Gauguin holds more value than a truly exceptional Vuillard or Odilon Redon... to say nothing of a Casorati or Maurice Denis.

The same is true of music. Finding recordings of Mozart's early immature work is far easier than finding some of the most exceptional work of Mozart's peers... many of whom are almost wholly ignored. Carl Stamitz, Franz Anton Hoffmeister, Josef Myslivecek, Francois-Joseph Gossec, even the much maligned Antonio Salieri all produced music of great beauty... at times truly exceptional work... and work that at once sets Mozart and Haydn in perspective but also highlights the brilliance of their work.

But the "cult of personality" totally skews this... and we arrive at the point of blind adulation... fan boys... who can make broad statements about the originality of Beethoven or Mozart or Mahler or any composer you can think of without a firm grasp of the achievements of their peers and predecessors.

It is only human nature to wish to learn of the lives and loves... the bios of our favorite artists... but there are times when I wish that I might first see a painting or hear a concerto or aria or symphony without knowing the name of the composer... without approaching the music with a preconceived notion: Oh! It's by Beethoven. It must be good. Franz Anton Hoffmeister? Well its nice and all... but it can't really be as good as Mozart or Haydn now can it?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I can't help but disagree with St. Luke's on this one. I think we can all agree that Beethoven was one of the finest composers who ever lived, yet his music (especially 1803 on) was based on individuality and personal expression... in other words, letting his personal expressive goals dictate the music, rather than having the form more or less determine the content. And every composer will have different musical goals, different favorite means of expression that are unique to that person. I believe letting composers express themselves this way is a good thing. It then follows that if composers are allowed to express themselves this way, then their individual efforts should be recognized as theirs and theirs alone.

Recognizing the composer also helps to organize the vast amount of music out there. If we go into a piece knowing who the composer is, we have a better idea of what to expect. It also helps us trace the development of a composer's style, compare the styles of different composers, and so on. If we did not recognize the individuality of composers we would have to settle for evaluating and comparing individual pieces rather than evaluating and comparing lifetime bodies of work. It would also be much more difficult for listeners to find similar works by composers they really like.

Yes, there are some unfortunate side-effects: the names of a few great composers tend to vastly overshadow even the best efforts of lesser composers. But the music is still _there_ for the curious (like us) to go find and appreciate, even if it takes a little bit of effort.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Polednice said:


> When answering these questions, I think a historical perspective is important.


I would say essential, as the answers to your questions change by era, genre and maybe within the composer's own career. Modern Australian composer Peter Sculthorpe was involved in a personal accident that injured him significantly, and his music that followed arguably showed his edge of pain and sorrow. But Handel, who was involved in a serious coach crash at one stage, continued to write music as if nothing happened. I would broadly suggest that the earlier we go in time, audiences and composers avoided romanticising personal circumstances into the music; in fact, avoidance was perhaps a non-issue. It all makes interesting comparisons.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I can't help but disagree with St. Luke's on this one. I think we can all agree that Beethoven was one of the finest composers who ever lived, yet his music (especially 1803 on) was based on individuality and personal expression... in other words, letting his personal expressive goals dictate the music, rather than having the form more or less determine the content.

The master artistsans/architects/designers who were the creative minds behind this:










or this:










or this:










or this:










or this:










or this:










... were in no way lesser creative geniuses than the many artists whose names we are familiar with: Raphael, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Goya, Picasso, Matisse, Jackson Pollack.

Self expression is a moot point. Every artist must work within certain constraints of the time, the tradition in which he or she works, the media, his or her access to materials, etc... The great artist will always find a way to create what he or she truly believes in. All art, by its very nature, is self expressive to a certain degree.

Recognizing the composer also helps to organize the vast amount of music out there. If we go into a piece knowing who the composer is, we have a better idea of what to expect. It also helps us trace the development of a composer's style, compare the styles of different composers, and so on. If we did not recognize the individuality of composers we would have to settle for evaluating and comparing individual pieces rather than evaluating and comparing lifetime bodies of work. It would also be much more difficult for listeners to find similar works by composers they really like.

In other words... I recognize this name-brand product. I've had good experiences with this product before and so I will continue to buy this name-brand rather than branch out and explore other possibilities? The value of the name-brands is that it makes life easier for us?

If we did not recognize the individuality of composers we would have to settle for evaluating and comparing individual pieces rather than evaluating and comparing lifetime bodies of work.

And is that really so bad? I do it all the time with art. Guess what? Sometimes I discover that a work by this or that little-known or unknown artist is just as good as some of the finest works by the big name artists. Of course I am not advocating the elimination of proper attribution of art. I agree that the personal biography can (at times) reveal further layers of meaning hidden within a work of art. What I am questioning is the manner in which judgment and value is based more upon the attribution... the "name brand" than it is upon the experience of the actual art work.

Yes, there are some unfortunate side-effects: the names of a few great composers tend to vastly overshadow even the best efforts of lesser composers. But the music is still there for the curious (like us) to go find and appreciate, even if it takes a little bit of effort.

A little bit of effort? Do you have any idea how many marvelous works of art... sculpture and paintings... are stored away in museum basements inaccessible to public view because the walls are currently filled with art that is deemed "more important"? Do you have any idea how many of these "more important" works are actually mediocre... or even bad examples of work by major artists. But a bad work by a major artist is quite often valued more highly than the most extraordinary work by a less-well-known artist.

We face the same in music. Bach and Handel are deservedly recognized as the towering figures of the Baroque. Of course Bach was nearly forgotten for generations, and Handel's full oeuvre has only recently come into the spotlight. Vivaldi's operas and vocal compositions are just now being rediscovered. Alessandro Scarlatti, Hasse, Porpora, Pergolesi, Leo, Bononcini, and many other composers of the period of real merit are only now being explored. How many peers of Mozart and Haydn... or Beethoven and Schubert can you name? Surely you recognize that they did not create in a vacuum. I fully recognize that the "big names" are big names for a reason... their achievements are certainly of real merit, but I am suggesting that the sort of hero worship in which judgment is bypassed for the cult of personality... for the worship of the name brand... as opposed to exploring the broader context in which these artists worked does nobody any good. As I have delved deeper and deeper into the Baroque I have not found that my admiration for Bach and Handel were diminished... rather it was enhanced... with a greater grasp of the context or tradition in which they were working. At the same time, I have discovered other artists worthy of greater recognition... and certain works worthy of standing alongside the finest works of the "big name" artists.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> So, would you say that you enjoy the music because already *within the music is a feeling of the composer's life*, or do you mean to say that you enjoy the music more once you learn of the composer's background?
> ...


The first part is what I agree with, what I bolded. But ultimately the second part is also relevant, once I learn more about a composer's life, context, inspiration, etc. it makes me more and more interested. The chicken and egg scenario.

THIS my opening post to a thread about music with a strong autobiographical element explains this in relation to three composers I like - Janacek, Berg, Shostakovich. Also I covered composers I think generally speaking didn't reveal themselves much through their music, R. Strauss, Wagner, Stravinsky.



> ...More generally, I try avoid as much as possible anything which raises a composer (or any artist) to a near-deified status. These were incredibly intelligent people, but I think the label 'genius' detaches them from common humanity, and I think what we share is more interesting than what we don't.


Well I agree I'm not a supporter of making composer cults. It's going too far, imo. I don't mind using the word genius, I see it as giving credit where credit is due. But I'm also interested in the human side of composers, they are not monuments like Mount Rushmore or something like that to me. When I listen to something like Beethoven's late string quartets, or even R. Strauss' _Metamorphosen_, it's like I'm in a conversation with them almost, hearing them "speak" through their music, as if it's a natural conversation type of thing...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I am about the music but it's interesting to know the history behind a work


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

In my view: the composer is god. When it comes to a piece of music, it's the composer who has the last say (unless the composer is dead (and decomposing) of course.) The composer is the one behind the music. The composer is the creator of what the listener is enjoying/hating. If there was no composer, there would be no music.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> In my view: the composer is god. When it comes to a piece of music, it's the composer who has the last say (unless the composer is dead (*and decomposing*) of course.) The composer is the one behind the music. The composer is the creator of what the listener is enjoying/hating. If there was no composer, there would be no music.


it was this necessary?:lol:

(oh, I understand now, haha, decomposing, no-composing,..., because he is dead!, good one)


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> In my view: the composer is god. When it comes to a piece of music, it's the composer who has the last say (unless the composer is dead (and decomposing) of course.) The composer is the one behind the music. The composer is the creator of what the listener is enjoying/hating. If there was no composer, there would be no music.


I can agree with all of that except the 'god' part. Of course the composer should be in control of their works, but I don't think we ought to feel any deference or reverence.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

science said:


> I am about the music but it's interesting to know the history behind a work


Good to see your old avi back up, Science.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

kv466 said:


> Good to see your old avi back up, Science.


Thanks man. I was missing it.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Outside the world of classical enthusiasts, the composer means very little. It's only the music itself that makes an impression.

There are some exceptions when speaking of the very famous household names. But consider someone like Schoenberg who is virtually anonymous to the general public, but whose influence can be experienced through many of the film composers.

It's interesting to consider some contemporary artists like Thelonious Monk, or Frank Zappa who had strong personalities and playing styles inextricably linked to their compositions, yet the music holds up brilliantly when interpreted by others. The personality is written into the music and lives on after the artist is gone.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

aleazk said:


> ...
> (oh, I understand now, haha, decomposing, no-composing,..., because he is dead!, good one)


Yeah, that's as old as the pyramids, that joke. I went to a concert a year or two ago, and it was a program of dead composers. No problem with that, eg. part of it was a couple of things by Tchaikovsky, a favourite of mine. Anyway, as an "encore" the conductor directed a piece composed by none other than himself, and introducing it, he said something like "now here's a piece by a composer who's currently not decomposing, namely myself!" Not exactly bringing the house down funny kind of joke, but it was a nice touch, I thought...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> So, how important is the composer? Obviously, we need a composer in the first place to compose the music! But, once composed, how important should the composer be in our appreciation of the music? Should we completely divorce the music from the composer? Should we just use the composer for contextual information (political, religious etc.)? Or should we aim to fully understand a piece of music by understanding its creator as much as possible?


The last, nuff said.


----------

