# Posterity & music...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Posterity, based on the judgement of future generations, is something that sometimes gets mentioned in relation to the arts, including music.

The importance you attach to posterity will obviously be informed who you are - listener, musician, writer on music, composer, etc. I as a listener and not a composer, for example, am not worried about making money out of music, nor about the more 'long term' issues involved with it, like how posterity will treat my music or what will be my legacy. But thinking of online discussions, often the reason why posterity is mentioned can relate to things like proving a point or arguing a certain agenda.

Some composers like Kurt Weill, composer of _The Threepenny Opera_, did not care much for posterity. He said:

_"Schoenberg has said that he is writing for a time fifty years after his death...[but] for myself, I write for today. I don't give a damn about writing for posterity."_

But whether aiming for it or not, posterity so far has judged Weill in a positive light, he was one of the greatest composers in musical theatre of his time and he was one of the most natural melodists of the 20th century. His songs have been 'covered' by many performers right up until today, and his works continue to be performed. So I'd say his place in music is just as assured as that of Scheonberg's, but of course in different fields.

Some composers do aim for posterity. Beethoven certainly did, with his late works, composed in the silence of deafness and in a kind of spiritual isolation. I did come across a quote by him saying that he wrote the late string quartets for future generations (can't find it now). But then again, with middle period works like the_ Eroica _symphony and his opera _Fidelio_, Beethoven heavily engaged with the revolutionary spirit of his times. In other words, he wrote music relevant to his time as well as for us, future generations well ahead of his time. So posterity and the 'here and now' are not mutually exclusive.

*I'm seeking everyone's thoughts on this, in an open discussion. Give us your own thoughts and examples on these issues.*


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

As a composer I would of course like to think about posterity, but I think that is probably a little on the optimistic side. However, regardless, from an idealistic point of view I think it's best for a composer both to try and engage with the people of his time at the same time as give something to the future.

There is of course, I think, an interesting aspect of this which is the composer as representative of his time. Certainly some of the works of Beethoven (Eroice first and foremost) really capture the spirit of the Napoleonic era, and somehow sound part and parcel with the other arts and philosophies and even the wars themselves. But even composers who have aimed for the future (for example Schoenberg) in some way seem to represent their time, even though they weren't recognised in it. There is an idea that the composer ought to represent the spirit of his time in a kind of purified, distilled, or artistic way. I think Schoenberg does do this because in his works I can easily hear parallels with various modernistic movements in the visual arts certainly, and perhaps even with philosophical trends, although I think those are the ones which pick up more on the arts than anything else...

An interesting aside is that Dostoevsky in his novels always enclosed them within a very small space of time. His idea was to represent the spirits (at least to some extent) of a period of just a year or two.

So in a sense I think that whether or not a composer aims for posterity (and perhaps especially if he does) by representing himself he represents his own time, through his ouvre, to the future as an artistic commentary composed within it. Of course in some cases our (or at least my) feelings of a time are heavily influenced by the music composed therein. Perhaps the biggest exception to this I can think of is late Beethoven, in which he does to some extent transcend his own time to a kind of universality IMO. The 5th and the Erioca seem to me in some way commentaries from the turn of the nineteenth century, tied to specific programmes - whereas the ninth is not about it's time, Schiller or no Schiller, but about ideas which can effect humanity in whatever century. Stravinsky said of the Grosse Fuge that it would sound contemporary in any age.

This whole post is slightly off-topic, so I apologise, but was my first reaction.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2012)

Posterity will have its own reasons for focusing on some works and neglecting others. This may have less to do with intrinsic quality and more to do with maintaining a representative sample of the breadth of musical expression. No doubt passing fads will have their impact as well.

As a listener, I don't worry too much about the judgement of posterity (or contemporary judgement, for that matter). I know that sooner or later everyone will agree with me!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Some composers certainly did. Handel probably did to some extent when he donated proceeds and established an annual tradition of performing _The Messiah_ for The Foundling Hospital (then, an institution for homeless children, not a modern sense of the word "hospital"), which began from 1750 and continued well beyond his death. And why not? A sublime piece of music, worthy charity and of course posterity for the great Mr Handel. There are not many composers in history that could be said for donating proceeds of concerts to charity, let alone establishing a tradition of it. Sure enough, otherwise posterity would not have HarpsichordConcerto even mentioning it here a modern day internet discussion forum.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Richard Wagner and his opera house in the town of Bayreuth, the Bayreuth Festspielhaus for all posterity.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I wonder if legacy-building was a bigger part of things in the 19th century - the Romantic period - than before? For instance, Bach was, I believe, a jobbing musician, an organist, who just happened to create the most sublime music from his remarkable gifts. But what was his incentive for composing?

Mozart composed to fulfil commissions, and wrote voice-parts in his operas for the available singers, and he orchestrated according to what was available. He didn't write according to what singers could perform today, nor is there evidence that he was motivated by the approval of people who didn't even exist yet. Getting the people who _did_ exist to like and pay for his music was enough for him. He was pragmatic and immediate and his work was for committed patrons, and if the commission was removed, the work was left unfinished. This was the historical Mozart, and one I admire much more than the caricature of the very enjoyable movie, _Amadeus_.

Mozart scholar, Neal Zaslaw wrote a very informative essay on this very topic, and it might help us understand not only Wolfgang, but maybe a lot of composers before the Romantic period...


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

If you are truly gifted, you write for the posterity, whether you wish (or aim at) it or not. Even if they forget/neglect you at a certain time, the posterity can always rediscover you.
If you are an average or less gifted composer, even if you are successful at your time, sooner or later they will...abandon you...ruthlessly. See what happens to even the "greatest" names of the other (more popular) genres; even Beatles can hardly be remembered and appreciated as they used to be.

Principe


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2012)

Agree Principe, composers wrote for 'posterity' by virtue of their genius. Certainly Beethoven's later music, say from Opus 106 piano sonata onwards, was beyond the reach of the musical establishment of Vienna at that time - except for the musical cognoscenti. Even the newspaper reviews of his late works were often quite scathing in their criticisms. But musicians like Ignaz Schuppanzich knew the importance and profundity of these works. The musical public of the time had largely turned their attention to trifles like the operas of Rossini, much to Beethoven's chagrin. It never stopped him writing for commission as well as composing much more difficult, esoteric works. He had a foot in both camps, so to say.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks to all.

Re what Ramako said about Schoenberg, I think he also addressed his times in his music. So he did a kind of balancing act between his 'today' and posterity. For example, in _Pierrot Lunaire_, he takes on cabaret, in _A Survivor from Warsaw_, he addresses the history of his time directly. In _Moses und Aron_, there is more than passing reference to the pack mentality and of course the Jews in exile. I think that Schoenberg could have taken the path Weill took, to more popular artforms. Schoenberg worked for a year or two in a cabaret in Berlin in the early 1900's, where he composed his _Cabaret Songs_. They do have elements of sarcasm, irony and references to politics of the day, and are pretty tuneful, so similar in some ways to Weill's aesthetic to come later. Schoenberg went back to Vienna to teach at the university shortly after, but its tantalising to think what would have happened if he'd stayed in Berlin. Would he have maybe done something like Weill's _Threepenny Opera _that came in the 1920's. Who knows.

I think that its interesting how composers with Weill's melodic gift - Gershwin is comparable, as is Bernstein - and mixing 'high' and 'low' arts sometimes get sidelined in people's assessments of 20th century music. Yet they are just as important, I think, as the Schoenbergs, or the Bartoks or the Stravinskys. I think its because in the 20th century, melody has been seen as less important than other things by some listeners and composers. So it gets devalued and labelled as kind of 'lowbrow' or just rehashing the past, which is not necessarily the case. Similar things could be said of composers like Rossini and maybe guys like Offenbach and J. Strauss II.

& I did find that quote regarding Beethoven's thoughts on his late quarets and the issue of posterity. Of course its well known how he called the audience who did not respond to the _Grosse Fuge _well to be "cattle." Its also known how when Schuppanzighe complained to Beethoven of the difficulty of playing the late quartets - and this guy headed the best string quartet in Vienna - the composer said he didn't care what he did with his "f***ing fiddles." But on his death bead, when someone bought him news that one of his late quartets had failed to please the audience at its first performance, he said "It will please them some day."


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

The thought of a composer 'writing for posterity' suggests they'd write differently if they didn't. But then that means they write _more_ or _less_, when they write, which is unbelievable really, isn't it?


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Composers (and most artists) tend to play the posterity card when music they know the worth of doesn't immediately please. (Mahler: "My time will come.") Of course, it also gets played by those who misvalue their own work. Ultimately, posterity is the final arbiter -- but an artist can only speak in the voice he has.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm reminded of this quote by Anton Bruckner: "I am not the type of madman who likes to have everything which I've composed performed on stage right away; I compose for myself and for the rest of humanity in order to build, so that, when God one day would call me forward asking. 'What did you do with the talent that I gave you?' I can show him."

He was not only building for posterity in this world; he was building a case for himself when he stood before God. That kind of thinking will bring your motives into line.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2012)

All composers would have a view about posterity - their own legacy. This applies even in the realm of popular music, otherwise the implication is that a composer wouldn't know the value of his or her own work. The single exception I know of is JS Bach - the greatest composer of all time (next to LvB) in my opinion: Bach was a modest man who never roamed far beyond home but who wrote music which was so divinely inspired that it's quite possible he had one of the greatest minds in human history. His mental processes are quite evident in his music - I'm thinking particularly of the "48", the Art of Fugue and the Goldberg Variations. This isn't 'easy', accessible music and yet we don't have handed down to us any utterances by Bach other than he considered himself a musical servant of God. It's true that the brightest people on the planet are also often the most modest. I love Andras Schiff's definition of Bach: "The old Testament in music". So, he's the single exception I KNOW OF who didn't necessarily have an eye on posterity: he was a journeyman composer and teacher (imagine having lessons with him!!!!) and his idiom was already considered archaic when he was still writing complex counterpoint. The Town Council at Cothen (I think it was) cautioned, when he was composing the "St. John Passion" that it needed to be scrutinized by them to make sure Bach had written "nothing too theatrical". Transposing that idea to, say, the London City Council today...!!

And yet, his passions are some of the most theatrical music I've ever heard and perfectly suited to their biblical texts: juxtapositions in major and minor tonalities (simultaneously), dissonance, falling and rapidly rising notes, melismas - you name it!! And yet he was subtle and dramatic all at the same time.

Almost every day I need to get down on my knees and be thankful for my family, JS Bach, Beethoven, Shakespeare, motion pictures and FM radio!!!


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Good post Countenance! Nice to read it.

Upon what are you basing your opinion that all composers are thinking of posterity? It seems more a Romantic ideal than Classical or Baroque: where in the Romantic period, artists viewed themselves differently and began to think higher of themselves, if you'll forgive the clumsiness of that phrase...


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

It is interesting to see the transition to thinking about posterity. I must confess ignorance on the subject of Mozart however with Haydn you can definitely see it happen. Both The Creation and The Seasons were deliberately written for history, if you see what I mean, and his attitude changed in the symphonies as well. This happened with 102, which is the first one written with at least one eye on posterity. Both 103 and 104 are also written for posterity, however it is thought that it is only really these three which are. Only 102 shows it I think, although there is a certain finality about the latter two; I think he was aware that he was saying 'farewell' to the genre of symphonies, in a way that most other composers weren't when they wrote their last ones.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2012)

Kieran said:


> [C]omposers... thinking of posterity seems more a Romantic ideal than Classical or Baroque.


It is indeed a nineteenth century thing. More nineteenth century even than Romantic with a big R. And maybe more an audience/impresario/critic thing than a composer thing. After all, living composers began to be edged out of concerts in the nineteenth century because of the idealistic notions of greatness and sublimity and canon. You make an exclusive club of dead composers, where does that leave the living ones?

You might be interested in William Weber's _The Great Transformation of Musical Taste: Concert Programming from Haydn to Brahms._ It doesn't get much traction on online forums, largely, I suspect, because it tramples over some of our most prized prejudices about music. Tramples with hard, documentary evidence--but when have prized prejudices ever given way to mere facts!:lol:

Anyway, it's a very revelatory book--one thing it reveals is that many of the things we think about new music and the twentieth century, perhaps all things, are actually nineteenth century ideas and practices.

When did audiences (and hence programs) start abandoning living composers? Nineteenth century. (Early, too, not late.)

When did the ratio in concerts of dead composers to living change from about 1 to 9 to about 9 to 1 (10 to zero in some cases)? Nineteenth century. (These numbers are the extremes. They've changed, in both directions, many times over the past two hundred years. The large trend since 1800, however, has been away from living composers.

When were the first New Music concerts (so-called)? Nineteenth century.

When did music concerts and audiences split into narrow factions: symphony patrons, chamber patrons, opera buffs, pops fans, and so forth? Nineteenth century.

When did the debates on the merits of old music vs. new first start? Nineteenth century.

And so forth.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ramako said:


> It is interesting to see the transition to thinking about posterity. I must confess ignorance on the subject of Mozart however with Haydn you can definitely see it happen. Both The Creation and The Seasons were deliberately written for history, if you see what I mean, and his attitude changed in the symphonies as well. This happened with 102, which is the first one written with at least one eye on posterity. Both 103 and 104 are also written for posterity, however it is thought that it is only really these three which are. Only 102 shows it I think, although there is a certain finality about the latter two; I think he was aware that he was saying 'farewell' to the genre of symphonies, in a way that most other composers weren't when they wrote their last ones.


I think the reason why I like Haydn is linked to these issues. For one thing, he was a humble man and an easy person to get along with, by all accounts. When the audience was applauding his 'Creation' oratorio, he pointed to the ceiling and said that he owed the inspiration for it to God, to divine inspiration. So its similar to what people on this thread said of Bruckner and BAch. In that work, Haydn was also influenced by Handel's 'Messiah,' so looking back as well as forwards. The other thing is how well he images 18th century life in his symphonies, they are like snapshots of London, for example. Also his innovations, a scholar here said that Haydn anticipated most of Beethoven's innovations in embryonic form. He is an example of a composer both of his time and beyond it. He's just amazing on so many levels, and his music influenced composers way ahead of his (Prokofiev's 'Classical' symphony is basically a homage of sorts to old Papa).


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2012)

some guy said:


> It is indeed a nineteenth century thing. More nineteenth century even than Romantic with a big R. And maybe more an audience/impresario/critic thing than a composer thing. After all, living composers began to be edged out of concerts in the nineteenth century because of the idealistic notions of greatness and sublimity and canon. You make an exclusive club of dead composers, where does that leave the living ones?
> 
> You might be interested in William Weber's _The Great Transformation of Musical Taste: Concert Programming from Haydn to Brahms._ It doesn't get much traction on online forums, largely, I suspect, because it tramples over some of our most prized prejudices about music. Tramples with hard, documentary evidence--but when have prized prejudices ever given way to mere facts!:lol:
> 
> ...


I don't think this IS a discussion about the merits of new music versus old, to be frank. Anyway, since you mention this, I suspect composers and critics have discussed the merits of new music versus old as long as people had voices and the means to exchange ideas. And when they saw a gap in musical possibilities they created a 'Florentine Camerata' and instigated new musical ideas themselves! I read this thread as something related to how a composer or composers might perceive their works as part of history and how this might or might not be a conscious act.

We are missing an important point: the definition of 'posterity' itself. A great number of composers pushed the musical frontiers by virtue of HOW they composed - and, for them, 'posterity' might only be 20 years hence and serendipity has propelled that further into the future when other composers have 'taken up the challenge' and moved music forward still further. IMO, posterity isn't necessarily a cultural mind-set - a consequence of romanticism necessarily - but a consequence of ingenuity itself. And many works from the nineteenth century may have been popular up until about 50 years ago and have subsequently vanished, (eg. the piano concertos of John Field - sorry Kieran!) no matter whether or not that composer has the inclination toward a musical legacy. Surely, anyway, a composer or artist is going to THINK his or her music will last into the future. What is relevant as a question is 'what IS the future"? And to what extent, if any, can a composer 'engineer' that outcome?

When I think of the 2nd Viennese School - there was a conscious effort to create a new music for posterity: but it could so easily have been counterproductive. In many ways it has been because audiences have been turned off serialism in droves, despite it having been established in the repertoire by virtue of innovation, extrapolation and creativity. So, a conscious effort can work counter-intuitively for a composer or composers. Don't suggest that Machaut wasn't thinking well ahead when he created Isorhythm and used Hocket in his 14th century contrapuntal works. Or that the Guidonian Hand, a very early form of musical notation, wasn't meant to propel music into the future. The irony here is that theory usually FOLLOWS practice!!

Sid; great idea to start this thread!!:tiphat:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I really don't want this thread to descend into yet another bunfight of the 'old versus new' music dichotomy.

I think programming is what some guy is talking about. & I do plan to do a thread on that some time in the future. I don't envy the job of concert programmers, tbh. Its a balancing act (just like re posterity, the here and now versus 'the future').

But there are classical composers today, whose work has continued to be performed for decades (some are quite popular as well). However, they might not be the types of composers all members of this forum like or think as being important. I see that as a matter of personal taste & ultimately of ideology more than anything. Its similar to the past. By the 1950's, many of Stravinsky's works where being performed regularly and recorded. & he lived until the early 1970's. So this is why I would validate this point about:



some guy said:


> ... idealistic notions of greatness and sublimity and canon. You make an exclusive club of dead composers, where does that leave the living ones?...


That's the type of agenda to do with posterity that I was referring to in my opening post. I see it online quite often. & its a fallacy if you consider the 'contemporary canon' has many composers in it who are living (or recently departed).


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2012)

OK; that's me out of the discussion. I don't know anything about bunfights. Bye.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2012)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Don't suggest that Machaut wasn't thinking well ahead when he created Isorhythm and used Hocket in his 14th century contrapuntal works. Or that the Guidonian Hand, a very early form of musical notation, wasn't meant to propel music into the future. The irony here is that theory usually FOLLOWS practice!!


That is exactly what Kieran and I are saying, though. (If I'm understanding Kieran's comments accurately, that is!) Posterity is an idea. Sure, you can come up with thousands of examples of things people came up with in one era that influenced people in subsequent eras. The question is whether you come up with those things just because or in order to influence the future. Only the latter qualifies as "posterity." That is, posterity is a way of thinking about the world and about time. And, in music anyway, it can be seen as arising in the early nineteenth century as a consequence of romantic idealism, among other things.

Just trying to inject a wee bit history into the conversation. Not to make this thread a discussion about the merits of new music vs. old, as Countenance mis-concluded from my post, but to point out how different ways of thinking about the relative merits of new vs. old have arisen in the past and how the idea of posterity is part of _that_ conversation.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I think the chances that posterity will appreciate a composer's music have been continuously improving. That's because there's not one posterity, one possible future world, but lots.

It's like a tree: out of the stem, different branches grow in all sorts of directions. There are endless posterities all happening in parallel. That's because more and more people are taking part in actively creating these posterities.

I see little reason in purposely writing for posterity. I don't think Mahler and Schoenberg purposely wrote for posterity. I think they wrote what they wanted to write, or what they felt they had to write. Which is the best one can do.

Still, I think artists can draw some kind of solace or even confidence from past examples. The belated appreciation of Bach, of Beethoven's late quartets, of Schubert's symphonies, of Mahler's.

Shostakovich wrote his Fourth, in a way, for posterity. He knew Stalin would not approve of the symphony, so he put it away in a drawer. Posterity, in this case, meant: the time after Stalin's death. Composed in 1936, premiered in 1961.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

i dont think they imagined people would still being listing to their music hundreds of years later.

they write a hit for the church or for people to see and read than it is replaced.

so they would compose for the moment or personal reason.


----------

