# The connections between your favorite composers



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

We have all participated in those "favorite composer lists." We know who our favorite composers are. Have you ever noted, though any commonalities or connections between them? If there are commonalities,what do you think this means in terms of the kind of music you like best.

I will attempt to give a top 10 here:

Jean Sibelius
Akira Ifukube
Aram Khachaturian
Fumio Hayasaka
Jon Leifs
Miklos Rozsa
Wojciech Kilar
Manolis Kalomiris
Modest Mussorgsky
Beethoven

That was hard. It's also so tricky to confine composers to a list like that.

Now, what are the commonalities between them?


The first thing that comes to mind is that 8 of them were considered nationalist composers or at least composers who were very heavily influenced by the music of their native lands. (I excluded Beethoven and Kilar from nationalist group.)

There are several "Nordic" composers: Sibelius, Leifs and Ifukube. (Ifukube is Japanese, but from the northern isalnd of Hokkaido and, like Sibelius and Leifs, he was heavily influenced by the nature of the north in his compositions.)

Several composers studied the musics of other ethnic groups outside of their own and incorporated these aesthetics into thier own compositions: Rozsa, Ifukube and Khachaturian. Sibelius may fit in here as he studied the music of the Karelians, or the people of eastern Finland. Though Sibelius was not Karelian, he was a Finn of ethnic Swedish extraction. I have a little reluctance to call the Karelians a seperate ethnic group, but it's probably, in a way, accurate.

Several of these composers worked, at least occasionally, with a minimalist aesthetic, or at least a psuedo-minimalist aesthetic: Sibelius, Ifukube, Kilar and perhaps Leifs when he is at his most austere.

Several of these composers come from countries that border Russia or at least are very near to it: Sibelius (Finland), Ifukube and Hayasaka (Japan), Khachaturian (Armenia), Rozsa (Hungary), Kilar (Poland). Of course, Mussorgsky was from Russia.

Aside from Kilar and Leifs, these composers all wrote in a tonal style. (Hayasaka did experiment with atonality later in his career in a tone poem called Yukara.) 

Five of the composers wrote music for films: Ifukube, Hayasaka, Khachaturian, Kilar and Rozsa.

Several wrote music on themes of ancient myths: Sibelius, Ifukube, Leifs, Kalomiris, Hayasaka and Beethoven. Except for Leifs, the four other composers I mention wrote music based of Greek myth. Three of those composers wrote music based on the origin of fire: Ifukube and Beethoven both wrote music based on the character of Prometheus and Sibelius wrotie his Tulen synty, which is about the creation of fire in the Kalevala.

Those are the most salient commonalities I can think of for now. So, taking all of that into consideration, what does this say about my taste in music? Here is what I figure:

I like fairly conservative music that is flavored with the ethnic sounds of the countries from which the composers hail. A minimalist aesthetic pleases me as does music with a mythic program and/or inspiration. Additionally, music that has a Nordic origin that is concerned with a depiction of Nordic nature is something that connects to me very readily.

What about YOU?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

That'd be like a dissertation for me, will take some time to formulate and ages to write on my iPad... but absolutely a very interesting subject!!

/ptr


----------



## arthro (Mar 12, 2013)

I'd be really interested in a composition-wise version of this thread .. i.e. mentioning pieces of music that have strong connections.

I think composers tend to change a good deal and I'd have a hard time verifying which different pieces may be from the same composer. On the other hand, within individual pieces I often hear striking similarities to other pieces.

In one of two cases, it appears to be similarities between the categories that composers belong to, rather than the composers themselves. However, the list is certainly not a hackneyed one ... several guys I don't know there. Thanks!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Here's the top ten I gave a little while ago.

1. J. S. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mahler
4. Debussy
5. Stravinsky
6. Schoenberg
7. Messiaen
8. Mozart
9. Takemitsu
10. Bruckner

I think perhaps harmonic boldness is a running theme here. Every one of these composers either did something new or different with harmony or took others' recent advancements into their own style (Takemitsu with Messiaen and Bruckner with Wagner, who was #11 on my list). A tendency towards modernism, with a particular focus on the late 19th and early to mid 20th century, is also apparent. I would say dense counterpoint is also a factor, but Mozart, Debussy, and Takemitsu don't fit in there.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

I suppose one always thinks of the class of 1685 - Handel, Scarlatti and Bach. The differences are due to the way they moved around and the influences they were exposed to.

Equally important is the influence of religion with the whole French group - Lully, Rameau Couperin and Charpentier.

But within this range one feels the majesty and the beauty of the music.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mahlerian said:


> Here's the top ten I gave a little while ago.
> 
> 1. J. S. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> ...


It's interesting that your list has that tendancy toward modernism whereas my list, I feel, has a tendancy toward the conservative. Sibelius is an interesting case as he was considered a conservative in the mid-part of the 20th century and a little bit into the latter part of the same century. Many nowadays consider hi a proto-modernist or something like that, certainly based on the characteristics of his later compositions. Kilar started off his career as a modernist in the same vein as Penderecki or Gorecki but became more conservative over the years. For his time, I don't think Beethoven could be considered at all a conservative as he pushed the boundries of music as far as he knew how. Rozsa was an ardent adherent to tonality but did like experimenting with unusual harmony.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

...interesting, I don't think of either Gorecki or Penderecki as "modernist" at all, but rather as moderate post-late-romantics, whereas someone like Lutoslawski is more my kind off modernist. 

/ptr


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

ptr said:


> ...interesting, I don't think of either Gorecki or Penderecki as "modernist" at all, but rather as moderate post-late-romantics, whereas someone like Lutoslawski is more my kind off modernist.
> 
> /ptr


Your quote is equally intriguing to me.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ravel, Ligeti, Takemitsu: tone color, perfectionism, they were inspired sometimes by their mother culture (Basque-Spanish-French, Hungarian, Japanese), favoring of atmospheres and moods instead of traditional musical elements.

Bach, Ligeti: polyphony, counterpoint, structure.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

although most of my musical interest is in the avant-garde, my main composers I recall when asked about my favorites are Dvorak, Bernstein, and Reich. My friend pointed out recently that all of the reasons I admire these composers comes back to honesty, melodic content, and how they handle transforming _traditional/folk/pop music_ into concert music. They all seemed to write with a very self-directed style that lied in connecting humanity with notes. Of course, there's certainly much more than that (they all seem to write from a very direct, honest, perspective as opposed to tedious processes and concepts), but from a surface level that is how they are connected.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I think it's pretty clear what are the connections between all my favorite Russians: they knew each other! Many were friends and colleagues, some rivals, others in teacher/student relation. The Russian composer Tree is vast and intimate.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

An odd one -- listen to the first chord of Haydn's 99th Symphony, and then the first chord of Beethoven's Emperor Concerto. Both in E-flat, but that's not all...a connection, I'd say!


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I don't know if I possibly could come up with a top ten list, but I have always loved the classical period most: Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn. Both to listen to and to play. 

I also like a lot of music from other periods and I think that, especially as things become more contemporary, the music I love the most has a lot of thematic development in it. Whether "neo-classical" or not. Shostakovich, Schubert (arguably classical), Higdon, Berg, Tchaikovsky, Hindemith, Poulenc, Vaughan Williams, Debussy (more often than he gets credit for), Ravel (if you don't count Bolero), Bach and Handel... they all go about it in different ways, but if I can hear a theme or even a rhythmic motive that develops along a journey, I'm interested, I'm emotionally connected to it, and I want to know what happens to it next.

To me the difference between music that has thematic/rhythmic development and music that's more atmospheric is a much larger difference than tonal vs. atonal.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

hreichgott said:


> To me the difference between music that has thematic/rhythmic development and music that's more atmospheric is a much larger difference than tonal vs. atonal.


I absolutely agree, hreichgott; there is a much bigger difference between the sensational and the syntactical. The Second Viennese School still followed traditional voice leading, and retained everything that they could from Western harmony and counterpoint that they could without the tonal system; their music was primarily syntactical. However, Debussy was not fond of that, and used whatever sort of voice leading and harmony that sounded pleasing to the ears; the "great ear" that he was (like Monet, the great eye), this usually worked out very well for him. Classicists usually tned to go towards the syntactical thinking towards music, Romantics usually the sensational. Leonard B Meyer talks about this frequently, especially in his paper "Remarks on the Value and Greatness of Music"

It seems to me that Webern and Schoenberg saw themselves still part of that "syntactical" tradition, while Debussy wanted to break away from that whole tradition together. One composer I also think of wanting to break away is Scriabin, and Wagner too in a certain sense.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> To me the difference between music that has thematic/rhythmic development and music that's more atmospheric is a much larger difference than tonal vs. atonal.


That's an interesting perspective, but it's hard to find music in the Western classical tradition that eschews traditional notions of development entirely. Messiaen perhaps...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> That's an interesting perspective, but it's hard to find music in the Western classical tradition that eschews traditional notions of development entirely. Messiaen perhaps...


I feel like this when listening to Rautavaara's music sometimes.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> That's an interesting perspective, but it's hard to find music in the Western classical tradition that eschews traditional notions of development entirely. Messiaen perhaps...


Satie and co. too (Cage, Feldman to an extent, etc) Interesting fact: Satie's fugues don't even get past their exposition. The voices enter and then the fugue ends. But he was very interested in counterpoint and studied it seriously in his later life.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Many of my favorite composers can be categorized under various 'umbrella' terms. They have connections within each aspect.

French wanderers (lone wolves who did not subscribe to a specific 'school' of music)

Charles Koechlin
Andre Jolivet
Andre Caplet
Jean Prodromides
Pierre Jansen
Edgard Varese 
Henri Dutilleux

Finnish modernists

1920s
Aarre Merikanto 
Vaino Raitio

1960s through 1990s
Erik Bergman

Italian early modernists (post-WW II)

Giacinto Scelsi
Luigi Dallapiccola
Piero Piccioni (a jazz band leader who subsequently wrote film scores)

U.K. serialists (most of whom also wrote film scores)

Roberto Gerhard
Elisabeth Lutyens
Humphrey Searle
Benjamin Frankel
Richard Rodney Bennett

American composers, most worked in the Hollywood studio system

Alex North
Jerry Goldsmith
Meyer Kupferman
Leonard Rosenman
Jerry Fielding

pioneers with magnetic tapes and/or radiophonic workshops

Tristram Cary
Arne Nordheim

For the most part, the music from my faves reflects mid-20th century aesthetics.
As to whatever overall connection(s) these figures have - I can't say for certain (but perhaps other TC members might have more analytical input to contribute ...  )


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Guillaume de Machaut
Claudio Monteverdi
Jean-Philippe Rameau
George Frederick Handel
Wolfgang Mozart
Franz Schubert
Claude Debussy
Igor Stravinsky
Anton Webern
Alban Berg
Francis Poulenc
Darius Milhaud
Luciano Berio
David Lang (admittedly, on the basis of only a few pieces)

After naming just a few -- stopping there, all of them far apart in different ways, if not era as well.

The overriding similarity between them all is one of an operative aesthetic of 'classicism' in the general sense of the word: there is no intent to overtly manipulate or produce a particular sentiment; the writing is all about 'the music itself' and what is needed to convey it, including works in the more overtly 'emotional' areas of song, opera, oratorio or cantata. No matter how large-scale the piece, or the number involved in performing it, there is no 'excess' of import or effects.

Some of the aesthetic of classicism is of course, symmetry, most in evidence in the forms from the classical era, which was an era deeply steeped in a vogue of (and a taste for) formalism, symmetry, balance and ratio of proportions.

Classicism is most about the aesthetic values of being more restrained than obvious, "tension in repose." All together the antithesis of overt emotionalism, 'technical display' or primarily sensate-based work (all anti-sensationalist.) The music usually makes little or no attempt to 'depict' anything or to in any way parallel a verbal construct, illustrate a story, or have any other associative meaning.

"Less is more." what can be done with an economy of means is done, with nothing extra, no extra-musical tricks, no thickening of orchestral density or textures, no super 'special' effects -- this can be present in a work for large forces, Mahler's fourth, Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe, etc.

[I see Debussy mentioned in the above post as set more in the 'dionysian' camp because he did away with both classical format and common practice chord function. Yet, throughout the entire body of Debussy's work, that classicist aesthetic is imbued from start to finish and is still wholly 'classical' / classicism. Chopin, the great romantic, was in that sense, too, 'classical,' though he was not so much a classical formalist.]

This classical aesthetic preference of mine is so strong it has me at odds with almost all the mid to late romantics, when music clearly, 'went elsewhere:' that 'elsewhere' for me is an arena of musical messages which do not say much to me at all. Some -- let's make that, it seems, many, do bemoan that romanticism and that sensibility are no longer in vogue.

Consider that all music before or after the romantic era has had more about it of the classical aesthetic than anything else. and the romantic era begins to look that much more singular, more of an anomaly in the historic context of all music literature (Personally, I think music took a severely wrong turn in the middle and late romantics, only later righted with the return to classical aesthetic -- whatever the contemporary vocabulary -- in the early 1900's.)


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

All my favorite composers wrote music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> We have all participated in those "favorite composer lists." We know who our favorite composers are. Have you ever noted, though any commonalities or connections between them? If there are commonalities,what do you think this means in terms of the kind of music you like best...


I can think of some things but obviously they're not mutually exclusive.

Thematic unity/exploring a number of themes within one work: Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, & in a more atonal &/or modern context - Schoenberg, Berg, Shostakovich, Walton, Carter, Barber, Chavez, Tippett

Oddball/totally different from anyone else - Varese, Janacek, Harry Partch

Exploring texture/sonority (& strong visual element) - Sculthorpe, Messiaen, Xenakis

Theatrical/dramatic/eclectic - Bernstein, Lloyd Webber, Piazzolla

'National monument' type composers - Villa-Lobos, Vaughan Williams, Kodaly (& probably Sculthorpe is in this category too). Bloch with his classic 'Jewish' sound belongs with these as well in some way at least.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

*Sibelius*
Ligeti
Mendelssohn
Brett Dean
Wagner
Bach
Wieniawski
Michael Nyman
Brouwer
Carter

I suppose....the thing that all these composers have in common....is that they all wrote music.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I see a (not always) straight line in how they use melody(/ies) for contrasts:

JS. Bach > F. Schubert > G. Mahler > D. Shostakovich > J. Adams > J. Zorn

..how they use Rhythm as a means of transition:

A. Corelli > W.A. Mozart > R Wagner > A. Schönberg > I. Xenakis > Merzbow

..how they use unexpected twists to make You aware:

J.D. Zelenka > J. Haydn > H. Berlioz > C. Nielsen > HK Gruber > Diamanda Galas

/ptr


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> That's an interesting perspective, but it's hard to find music in the Western classical tradition that eschews traditional notions of development entirely. Messiaen perhaps...


Guess that explains why I like most music 

Some examples of what I mean by "atmospheric" pieces:
Hovhaness - Visionary Landscapes
Ligeti - that piece with all the metronomes
Southam - Rivers
Adams - In the White Silence
Movie and TV soundtrack music in the pattern of growling-strings-followed-by-drums-when-something-happens, wash-of-pleasant-orchestral-color-when-everything-is-happy

I actually like all those pieces. (I just posted about that Hovhaness piece on here the other day.) I maybe don't like the movie and TV music so much, but I probably could still think of exceptions. I just don't like that style as MUCH as thematically driven music.

I also don't think we can classify composers as entirely thematic or entirely atmospheric (or apollonian/dionysian or whatever). There's so much overlap. Even within a single piece. In Debussy's Preludes for Piano, there are pieces with a strong thematic narrative, pieces that are all about producing interesting colors on the piano, and pieces that do both.


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

Difficult question. The composers I've come to like are good with melodies, but their most famous melodies quickly get old. I don't need to hear Eine Kleine Nachtmusik ever again. Yet I can play Mozart's string symphonies unlimited times.

So what do Vivaldi, Handel, Janacek, Stravinsky, Sibelius and Zappa have in common? Almost nothing, except many of them were inept at almost all other work.

Let's see if I can fet Amnerika video here:





I can't think of any other music that gets the same response as that. And Zappa would have responded with a smart *** comment to that. There are no musicians, it's all sampled.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Tero said:


> Difficult question. The composers I've come to like are good with melodies, but their most famous melodies quickly get old. I don't need to hear Eine Kleine Nachtmusik ever again. Yet I can play Mozart's string symphonies unlimited times.
> 
> So what do Vivaldi, Handel, Janacek, Stravinsky, Sibelius and Zappa have in common? Almost nothing, except many of them were inept at almost all other work.
> 
> ...


Sibelius, Stravinsky, Janacek and Zappa were all fiercely original individualists. Based on your list, one could assume that you have a taste for music that pushes boundaries.

Also, Sibelius and Stravinsky were similar in that the constantly reinvented themselves throughout their career.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Edit. deleted post, tried to make a fancy ASCII graphic but it failed. Sorry guys, carry on!


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

TK, also, none on my list had any problems recycling music from one piece to another, except maybe Sibelius and Janacek the least. Janacek was an educator and did not need the income.

When I was still listenin to mostly popular, Zappa's album Burnt Weeny Sandwich showed me music can have all kinds of meaning without lyrics.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

A lot of my favorite composers are Russian. Russian classical music influence from the East and the incorporation of Russian folk ideas and motifs is part of what makes me like that. That said, Tchaikovsky is probably the most non-Russian-sounding of my favorite Russian composers and he is my favorite composer of all time. I appreciate great melodists, ballet composers, complex symphonies, etc. These are all just superficial similarities, but there is some consistency to my favorite composers.


----------

