# Most perfectionist composers



## Felix Mendelssohn (Jan 18, 2019)

Which composers set sky-high standards for their output before publishing them?

Edit: Double-posted. The poll is somewhere else.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Chabrier - destroyed almost every thing he wrote save a dozen or so works he deemed worthy.
Brahms too, to a lesser extent.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Mozart. But he didn’t have to destroy his work like others did, such as Dukas, Sibelius, Brahms, and a few others.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

https://www.talkclassical.com/59878-most-perfectionist-composer.html?highlight=


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

There really is no such thing as "perfection" in arts.

Sure, I've used the term myself, generally in application to Bach and Mozart. Still, what I'm judging as "perfection" in those composers' music is simply my own satisfaction with it. Or my awe over the skill involved in creating it. It's helpful that a large portion of society agrees with that satisfaction and awe. But that is no measure of "perfection".

In another sense, _every_ work of art contains perfection -- the perfection of existence as a work of art. In the same way, every rock is a perfect rock, every tree a perfect tree, every man a perfect man. Of course, this argument may not prove helpful, unless one has time to sit round the coffee and donut shop with several other philosophers and muse upon existence.

If a composer destroyed works he or she didn't like, that is probably because he or she didn't like them. Grieg wished his Symphony destroyed. It wasn't. I've heard it on recordings. It's acceptable to me as a symphony. (Though it is not a favorite symphony, while the Grieg Piano Concerto remains a favorite piano concerto.) I suspect that makes it a perfect symphony. So, what was Grieg's fuss all about?

I personally wish we had some of the music/art that lauded artists wished destroyed. Perhaps society should be the judge as to what qualifies as worth knowing as art -- or, what is "perfect". Suppose Sibelius had a bad day and burned his Eighth Symphony simply because he was in a mood of lapsed judgment. I'd rather have an opportunity to hear the work for myself.

Of course, this is unfair to Sibelius, and to artists in general. Just as they should be allowed the freedom to create what they want, they should have the freedom to designate what of their creations survives and what goes missing. Part of being an artist is to have artistic judgment; we trust the artist to give us work based upon that judgment. Sometimes the artist's judgment clashes with societies judgment. Of course, if a work of art is destroyed by its creator, the society never gets a chance to make a judgment. And that's okay, too.

This topic of "perfection" in art and with artists can be no more than philosophical speculations. I've already spent more words than I intended in this post, and yet I intuit that I have merely opened gates to pathways as of yet unexplored. Still, in the end, I'll maintain my position that what we deem as perfect is purely subjective judgment, unless we go with the attitude that everything in creation is perfect in its own essence/existence.

And now I have to get back to listening to some music. And I know just the perfect piece to hear right now!


----------

