greatness - is it mainly technical, artistic or spiritual?
David Schreiber
mostly in relation to Beethoven. I think I'm coming close to answering
it well enough for myself, but I'd be interested in hearing other
people's thoughts, if you're moved to comment.
What was GREAT about a composer like Beethoven? Was he great primarily
because
(a) he had a mastery of compositional technique
(b) as a human he had more immediate access to the unconscious and, as a
composer, was able to find musical expression for it
(c) in addition to great skills as an artist and composer, he had a
richer inner life, .i.e he was great as a human
I guess I often have in mind someone like Liszt as a comparison, who
seems to me a composer with great musical gifts but who was
pre-eminently shallow and wanting as a human being. Even if he could
have revealed the innermost depths of his soul, it would have been
revealed as tainted with insincerity and pettiness. I expect Wagner
would be in the same camp, although I don't listen to him often.
Jeremy Cook
>
> Here's a question I've been trying to answer for myself over the years,
> mostly in relation to Beethoven. I think I'm coming close to answering
> it well enough for myself, but I'd be interested in hearing other
> people's thoughts, if you're moved to comment.
>
> What was GREAT about a composer like Beethoven? Was he great primarily
> because
>
> (a) he had a mastery of compositional technique
> (b) as a human he had more immediate access to the unconscious and, as a
> composer, was able to find musical expression for it
> (c) in addition to great skills as an artist and composer, he had a
> richer inner life, .i.e he was great as a human
It was done with carefully-placed mirrors. :-)
MT
pursue something to perfection, and a rich spiritual life. Beethoven had
an unusually high degree of all three qualities - it's palpable in his
music, perhaps the most persuasive ever written. Papa Haydn, the other
greatest composer, was more reserved, even enigmatic. Curiously, it is
Beethoven who is generally credited with writing absolute music (as in
his late sonatas and quartets), a term that applies better to Haydn. One
could even argue that Papa is more of a prototype for the modern
composer than Ludwig. Following Ludwig has always been a minefield.
Regards,
MrT
David Schreiber
like Haydn with Beethoven. For me, Beethoven has a much more powerful
effect, is much more expressive of the inner life. But surely Haydn
wrote in a time when music was not especially aimed at expressing the
inner life? After Haydn, B. turned music in that direction. Does that
mean, then, that the greatness of composers before B. simply shouldn't
be measured in terms of this kind of expressiveness? That must be what
you're getting at when you speak of "pure music". Or is it possible to
say music was not yet fully mature? (We can sometimes make similar
judgments in the history of other arts.)
David Bluestone
(David Schreiber) wrote:
> Here's a question I've been trying to answer for myself over the years,
> mostly in relation to Beethoven. I think I'm coming close to answering
> it well enough for myself, but I'd be interested in hearing other
> people's thoughts, if you're moved to comment.
>
> What was GREAT about a composer like Beethoven? Was he great primarily
> because
>
> (a) he had a mastery of compositional technique
> (b) as a human he had more immediate access to the unconscious
more than what?
> and, as a composer, was able to find musical expression for it
> (c) in addition to great skills as an artist and composer, he had a
> richer inner life, .i.e he was great as a human
None of the above. It's
d) he was a musical genius.
> I guess I often have in mind someone like Liszt as a comparison, who
> seems to me a composer with great musical gifts but who was
> pre-eminently shallow and wanting as a human being. Even if he could
> have revealed the innermost depths of his soul, it would have been
> revealed as tainted with insincerity and pettiness.
Beethoven was insincere and petty on a regular basis.
> I expect Wagner
> would be in the same camp, although I don't listen to him often.
He requires a lot of concentration.
David
Abelard2
>
>Here's a question I've been trying to answer for myself over the years,
>mostly in relation to Beethoven. I think I'm coming close to answering
>it well enough for myself, but I'd be interested in hearing other
>people's thoughts, if you're moved to comment.
>
>What was GREAT about a composer like Beethoven? Was he great primarily
>because
>
>(a) he had a mastery of compositional technique
>(b) as a human he had more immediate access to the unconscious and, as a
>composer, was able to find musical expression for it
>(c) in addition to great skills as an artist and composer, he had a
>richer inner life, .i.e he was great as a human
>
I'll go along with (a) and (c). I would reject (b) in favor of saying that as a
human he was more CONSCIOUS of his own creative processes, having put in the
countless hours of work required. Creativity doesn't come from some mystical
void. And in place of a "rich inner life", I would be more precise: he was a
highly {agapic} individual. Read the "Heiligenstädter Testament", which can be
found at http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/beethoven_heiligenstadt.html
>I guess I often have in mind someone like Liszt as a comparison, who
>seems to me a composer with great musical gifts but who was
>pre-eminently shallow and wanting as a human being. Even if he could
>have revealed the innermost depths of his soul, it would have been
>revealed as tainted with insincerity and pettiness. I expect Wagner
>would be in the same camp, although I don't listen to him often.
>
I certainly agree with you here.
abelard2
the Davidsbündler site
http://members.aol.com/abelard2/buendler.htm
tr...@my-dejanews.com
jarvisciR...@interlog.com wrote:
> Here's a question I've been trying to answer for myself over the years,
> mostly in relation to Beethoven. I think I'm coming close to answering
> it well enough for myself, but I'd be interested in hearing other
> people's thoughts, if you're moved to comment.
>
> What was GREAT about a composer like Beethoven? Was he great primarily
> because
>
> (a) he had a mastery of compositional technique
> (b) as a human he had more immediate access to the unconscious and, as a
> composer, was able to find musical expression for it
> (c) in addition to great skills as an artist and composer, he had a
> richer inner life, .i.e he was great as a human
>
> seems to me a composer with great musical gifts but who was
> pre-eminently shallow and wanting as a human being. Even if he could
> have revealed the innermost depths of his soul, it would have been
> revealed as tainted with insincerity and pettiness. I expect Wagner
> would be in the same camp, although I don't listen to him often.
>
the debate over greatest is because of what you've said......to the
technician it is the technical which makes greatness, to the artist it is the
artistic and to the spiritual it is the spiritual.........that is way so
often in the debate of greatness there is a debate for the works may invoke
that response in only some of us.the truly great are able to speak to all ,at
all levels,at the same time
--
bud
remember no good deed ever goes unpunished
"Nemo me impune lacessit"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
David Schreiber
agape something like love of one's fellow man?
Waranun Bunjongsat
> Here's a question I've been trying to answer for myself over the years,
> mostly in relation to Beethoven. I think I'm coming close to answering
> it well enough for myself, but I'd be interested in hearing other
> people's thoughts, if you're moved to comment.
>
> What was GREAT about a composer like Beethoven? Was he great primarily
> because
>
> (a) he had a mastery of compositional technique
> (b) as a human he had more immediate access to the unconscious and, as a
> composer, was able to find musical expression for it
> (c) in addition to great skills as an artist and composer, he had a
> richer inner life, .i.e he was great as a human
>
> I guess I often have in mind someone like Liszt as a comparison, who
> seems to me a composer with great musical gifts but who was
> pre-eminently shallow and wanting as a human being. Even if he could
> have revealed the innermost depths of his soul, it would have been
> revealed as tainted with insincerity and pettiness. I expect Wagner
> would be in the same camp, although I don't listen to him often.
David,
You nailed at it.
Totally agree. Great arts is a product of great inner soul.
Regards,
Waranun,
Abelard2
>
>I know the H. Testament. What's a highly (agapic) individual. Isn't
>agape something like love of one's fellow man?
>
Yes. Hence Beethoven's affinity for Schiller, as shown in the 9th symphony.
Edward dimitri Kennaway
>David Schreiber wrote:
>>
>> Here's a question I've been trying to answer for myself over the years,
>> mostly in relation to Beethoven. I think I'm coming close to answering
>> it well enough for myself, but I'd be interested in hearing other
>> people's thoughts, if you're moved to comment.
>>
>> What was GREAT about a composer like Beethoven? Was he great primarily
>> because
>>
>> (a) he had a mastery of compositional technique
>> (b) as a human he had more immediate access to the unconscious and, as a
>> composer, was able to find musical expression for it
>> (c) in addition to great skills as an artist and composer, he had a
>> richer inner life, .i.e he was great as a human
>
So you find him a reflective composer?
fri...@my-dejanews.com
HankM219
>mostly in relation to Beethoven. I think I'm coming close to answering
>it well enough for myself, but I'd be interested in hearing other
>people's thoughts, if you're moved to comment.
>
>What was GREAT about a composer like Beethoven? Was he great primarily
>because
>
>(a) he had a mastery of compositional technique
>(b) as a human he had more immediate access to the unconscious and, as a
>composer, was able to find musical expression for it
>(c) in addition to great skills as an artist and composer, he had a
>richer inner life, .i.e he was great as a human
I think the combination of a and b is close to the mark. As an earlier post
has pointed out, this is undoubtedly unfair to Bach, who was certainly "great"
but did not live in a time where music had the emotional content of later
composers.
However, a good contrast would be Saint-Saens, who had superb compositional
skills, was prolific, and had a wonderful melodic gift. Yet, few would
classify him as "great" (certainly not in the same class as Beethoven)
because....well, because his music does not speak to the soul as does
Beethoven's.
>I guess I often have in mind someone like Liszt as a comparison, who
>seems to me a composer with great musical gifts but who was
>pre-eminently shallow and wanting as a human being. Even if he could
>have revealed the innermost depths of his soul, it would have been
>revealed as tainted with insincerity and pettiness.
Now I'm going to disagree with you. Liszt is not in Beethoven's class, but not
for the reasons you express. Can one listen to the B minor sonata and say that
Liszt did not reveal the innermost depths of his soul? Further, I suggest
reading a biography of Liszt. After doing so, I do not think you will find
that Liszt was a shallow human being.
Although admitedly a Liszt fan, I readily concede he was no Beethoven. There
is plenty of mawkish and overly sentimental music among his output, and there
is no comparison with the range and scale of Beethoven's orchestral and chamber
music work.
>I expect Wagner
>would be in the same camp, although I don't listen to him often.
Here's where it all breaks down. Wagner was a despicable human being, but by
any fair standard, a "great" composer. Go figure.
Henry Maurer, Cherry Hill, NJ, USA
hank...@aol.com or hsma...@worldnet.att.net
Samuel Vriezen
[Which is _not_ a relativist position, as I accept the concept of
history)
Samuel
Cathy and Kip
> >It was done with carefully-placed mirrors. :-)
> So you find him a reflective composer?
I have to refer again to Kliban's cartoon of LVB in front of a mirror,
"Beethoven Composing Himself."
--KW
--
[we're fooling the spammers today--delete CAPS from address to reply]
John Gavin
bringing something from the Universal Consciousness. This is where
creative ideas originate. One's access to these inner realms depend on
the height and depth of one's individual consciousness.
The outer behaviour (i.e. Beethoven) of an individual is not necessarily
a key one's inner height. An eastener would say a persons' traits,
abilities, and stage of spiritual evolution did not begin and does not
end in one lifetime.
Wayne Reimer
> Now I'm going to disagree with you. Liszt is not in Beethoven's class, but not
> for the reasons you express. Can one listen to the B minor sonata and say that
> Liszt did not reveal the innermost depths of his soul? Further, I suggest
> reading a biography of Liszt. After doing so, I do not think you will find
> that Liszt was a shallow human being.
Indeed, the arguement could easily be made that Liszt was the better
person, at least in his attitude towards other people. After reading
the Walker bio, it appears that Liszt was one of the great people of his
time, although he made plenty of mistakes, like his relationship with
that slimey toad, Wagner.
> Although admitedly a Liszt fan, I readily concede he was no Beethoven. There
> is plenty of mawkish and overly sentimental music among his output, and there
> is no comparison with the range and scale of Beethoven's orchestral and chamber
> music work.
>
As if Beethoven didn't write junk, too. At any rate, there is little
point to the comparison of Beethoven and Liszt. The ways in which they
were both great masters are completely different. And at this time in
what's left of history, it seems to me that an assessment of Liszt as
shallow is more the result of a shallow assessment than any sort of real
familiarity with the man's work.
Wayne
MT
<<As if Beethoven didn't write junk, too. At any rate, there is little
point to the comparison of Beethoven and Liszt. The ways in which they
were both great masters are completely different. And at this time in
what's left of history, it seems to me that an assessment of Liszt as
shallow is more the result of a shallow assessment than any sort of real
familiarity with the man's work.>>
On the contrary, the more one knows about his work, the more accurate
the assessment seems. He wrote some great pieces, but he produced huge
quantities of junk. Most of Beethoven's lesser pieces would be
masterpieces (comparatively speaking) if they came from Liszt.
Beethoven's plane of achievement is light years above Liszt's --and
above everybody else's with Papa's and possibly Mozart's and Bartok's.
Of course, this should prevent no-one from exploring Liszt or even being
a rabid fan of his music. There are always fascinating discoveries amont
the piles of work he produced, but generally he was a very bad composer.
Regards,
mt
Waranun Bunjongsat
> As if Beethoven didn't write junk, too. At any rate, there is little
> point to the comparison of Beethoven and Liszt. The ways in which they
> were both great masters are completely different. And at this time in
> what's left of history, it seems to me that an assessment of Liszt as
> shallow is more the result of a shallow assessment than any sort of real
> familiarity with the man's work.
What's wrong with being shallow ? Shallow does not mean dishonest
or cheat. I found a lot of people who have everything in their life, plus
whenever they can't get anything, there would be someone to help him out.
Those people tend to be shallow. Because they do not have to find meaning
of life or meaning of everything around them. Ofcourse, characters of
their parents are also very important factors to determine characters of
a person.
However, this does not mean that un-shallow people could be a
better person than the shallow people. Those whose fate always give them
hard lives, have tendency to interprete things wrongly, pessimisticly too
which will result in distorted behaviour. Such as, we know that Beethoven
had mistreated his own nephew.
Anyway, obstacles always make people stronger, so are their souls.
That's why ill-fated Beethoven were full of philosophy, meaning,
abstraction in his mind, and that helped him produced "great music". So,
let's say, it's his fortune that was made out of his great misfortunes.
Waranun,
>
> Wayne
>
>
Waranun Bunjongsat
> Of course, this should prevent no-one from exploring Liszt or even being
> a rabid fan of his music. There are always fascinating discoveries amont
> the piles of work he produced,
> but generally he was a very bad composer.
I think Liszt was a "very talented" composer. His approach and
style in composing piano works was a very innovative. In the 19th century,
it was believed to be the new trend in composing music until emerging of
Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Bruckner who chose to succeed Beethoven's style.
However, composer like Rachmaninoff composed many great works by adopting
and improving Liszt's style as a main character of his music and inject
his own soul inside.
Music has many (perhaps unlimited) facets can be created. I always
admire the one who explores new possibility and/or methodology than the
one who copy or follow other's style, especially without developing it
furthur than what has done before.
Waranun,
>
> Regards,
>
> mt
>
>
>
Opus47
Greatness is quantifiable.
All a composer must do is write ONE great piece. Then he (or she) is a great
composer.
The trick is defining what is great.
All IMHO of course.
Fred
What I did on my birthday:
A. Went to the mall and bought new clothes.
B. Saw a women I knew with her child at mall (SPM..single parent mother)
C. Went to the movies. Got bored with "Practical Magic." Saw a two girls
that used to visit me at the restaurant.
D. Went to the dance club. Got I.D.ed for looking under 21 (just turned 34).
Red head and brunette danced at 12 o'clock in front of me 10 feet away (off of
dance floor). Went to restroom. Came close to dance floor same two girls 3
feet in front of me. Ignored them.
Went on dance floor and did my "moves." Attracted no one. Left.
E. Went to strip club. Manic-depressive stripper lap dances for me. We
both have the same fire in our veins.
F. Went to singles bar. Talked to an aquaintance and he gave advice on having
sex with the waitresses I work with and about the SPM I met at the mall. He
has a SPM and says I shouldn't be afraid of the one I met.
G. Didn't get laid, but you can't say it wasn't a productive day.
David Schreiber
I agree with your interesting comments about the life making the man but
I would add this -- "Fate" made Beethoven the greater human being than
Liszt and this, in combination with musical gifts, made him the greater
composer. I do regard Liszt's "shallowness" to be a kind of cheating. It
is false emotion, stagey, trumped up, bad acting. Yes, he was enormously
talented, he pointed out new directions in music, he was a generous man
to other musicians, he wrote some very interesting music. And, of
course, you can love his music just because you DO love it. ... oops, I
forgot where all this was going :-)
Andy Evans
to one thing that made him great - the capacity to go further than others in
search of what he was trying to reach, and this is in some measure 'heroic'.
To give an example of this, take a photographer after a good landscape
picture. He'll get one when the composition is about right and the light is
nice. The photographer after a great picture will camp out overnight, take
maps to work out the best place to be, go over the camera angle again and
again and wait until the light is perfect, sometimes coming back again and
again. In short there is no compromise. Great composers have to have all of
the technical facility, imagination and originality you'd expect of a
creative artist, but the ultimate pursuit of greatness requires an
absolutely ruthless pursuit of exactly what you hear inside your head and
want to achieve creatively. People like Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner etc. might
differ considerably in their 'sympathy with fellow man' (in my opinion a
cul-de-sac) but they had that intellectual ruthlessness that would not be
satisfied with anything less than what they wanted. Andy
Andy Evans
David Schreiber
almost all the time. That explanation, though, leaves some interesting
questions about someone like Mozart, who apparently wrote music about as
easily as a fish swims. Haydn and Bach may fall into the same camp - I
don't know enough about their lives to be sure. (I heard the reductio ad
absurdum of this view from a friend of mine when he was in his early
twenties and striving to be a great writer. He told me in complete
seriousness that what made the difference between himself and a great
artist like Mozart was that Mozart worked harder than he did :-)
Waranun Bunjongsat
On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, David Schreiber wrote:
> re: Liszt
>
> I agree with your interesting comments about the life making the man but
> I would add this -- "Fate" made Beethoven the greater human being than
> Liszt and this, in combination with musical gifts, made him the greater
> composer. I do regard Liszt's "shallowness" to be a kind of cheating. It
> is false emotion, stagey, trumped up, bad acting. Yes, he was enormously
You may think so. I also see that "generally", shallow people are
more cheating than serious people. They usually use cheap tricks to get
whatever they want. Because they don't have dignity in their minds.
Despite that they have more than others without having to do anything
much. Cheating, lying, acting, slicking are all the nature of those
people, they do it naturally like peeing. However, I just think there are
always exceptions. In Liszt case, I'm not sure.
> talented, he pointed out new directions in music, he was a generous man
> to other musicians, he wrote some very interesting music. And, of
> course, you can love his music just because you DO love it. ... oops, I
> forgot where all this was going :-)
I don't love Liszt's music at all. Because I found no soul inside.
Thanks,
Waranun,
>
>
Margaret Mikulska
>
> I'm sure hard work, perfectionism, is a critical factor in greatness
> almost all the time. That explanation, though, leaves some interesting
> questions about someone like Mozart, who apparently wrote music about as
> easily as a fish swims.
This is again an old myth that won't die, so your explanation is
perfectly valid also with respect to Mozart. He certainly worked hard,
rewrote, started again, worked everything through - lots of hard work.
-Margaret
Waranun Bunjongsat
You are probably right. Constanze ... :)
Waranun,
>
> -Margaret
>
>
>
Roni
>
> Here's a question I've been trying to answer for myself over the years,
> mostly in relation to Beethoven. I think I'm coming close to answering
> it well enough for myself, but I'd be interested in hearing other
> people's thoughts, if you're moved to comment.
>
> What was GREAT about a composer like Beethoven? Was he great primarily
> because
>
> (a) he had a mastery of compositional technique
> (b) as a human he had more immediate access to the unconscious and, as a
> composer, was able to find musical expression for it
> (c) in addition to great skills as an artist and composer, he had a
> richer inner life, .i.e he was great as a human
I think you could say a composer or anyone is/was great by looking at what they have achieved.
Perhaps accomplishing a very difficult task or just managing to do what ever it is that one sets out
to do can lead somewhat to greatness.
"Some are born great, some acquire greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them"
I don't know who said it, what's about and what relevence it has here but it sounded appropriate so
there.
-Roni
run...@my-dejanews.com
In article <364F88...@silvertone.princeton.edu>,
miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu wrote:
> David Schreiber wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure hard work, perfectionism, is a critical factor in greatness
> > almost all the time. That explanation, though, leaves some interesting
> > questions about someone like Mozart, who apparently wrote music about as
> > easily as a fish swims.
>
> This is again an old myth that won't die, so your explanation is
> perfectly valid also with respect to Mozart. He certainly worked hard,
> rewrote, started again, worked everything through - lots of hard work.
>
> -Margaret
>
>
Valid also with respect to even Haydn, who said that no-one will ever know
the enormous effort he had put into his work.
-Runski
Len Fehskens
jarvisciR...@interlog.com wrote
>I guess I often have in mind someone like Liszt as a comparison, who
>seems to me a composer with great musical gifts but who was
>pre-eminently shallow and wanting as a human being.
You might want to read a biography of Liszt to correct this wildly
erroneous impression of Liszt as a human being.
len.
Wayne Reimer
>
> Wayne:
>
> <<As if Beethoven didn't write junk, too. At any rate, there is little
> point to the comparison of Beethoven and Liszt. The ways in which they
> were both great masters are completely different. And at this time in
> what's left of history, it seems to me that an assessment of Liszt as
> shallow is more the result of a shallow assessment than any sort of real
> familiarity with the man's work.>>
>
> the assessment seems. He wrote some great pieces, but he produced huge
> quantities of junk. Most of Beethoven's lesser pieces would be
> masterpieces (comparatively speaking) if they came from Liszt.
Oh, right you are. Beethoven's Variations on God Save the Kind is, of
course, a masterpiece compared to Liszt's Variations on Weinen, Klagen,
Sorgen, Zagen, for example. How could I be so dense not to see that?
Your comments have enlightened me.
> Beethoven's plane of achievement is light years above Liszt's --and
> above everybody else's with Papa's and possibly Mozart's and Bartok's.
>
> Of course, this should prevent no-one from exploring Liszt or even being
> a rabid fan of his music. There are always fascinating discoveries amont
> the piles of work he produced, but generally he was a very bad composer.
>
Of course he was. You will write to Alfred Brendel and clue him in,
won't you? Sad to think how some of the best musical minds (Busoni,
Bartok, et al.) of this century were so misled about Liszt. It really
causes one to rethink received opinion, doesn't it?
Wayne
> Regards,
>
> mt
Cathy and Kip
I don't know why some people have to trivialize Liszt. Maybe Clara
Schumann comes and whispers to them in their sleep. I think she's
probably still a sorehead over him, wherever she is.
If it's any consolation, I like his transcriptions and his compositions,
and I think that personally he was probably way too nice for his own
good. He was an innovator. Wagner got his "Parsifal Chord" from him, and
he invented the solo recital.
Even the pieces of his that are supposed to be really trivial, like his
'Grand Galop Chromatique' are exhilarating and a lot of fun, which I
believe was the intention. (Same with Beethoven's trivialities, too,
except for "Wellington's Victory," which was written to be thrilling...
maybe he just couldn't take the mechanical orchestra it was written for
seriously. Still, as pointed out on the "living presence" recording, it
was a pioneering work in stereo separation, on Beethoven's part.)
--Kip Williams
David Schreiber
he had immense musical gifts, that he was a great innovator, that he was
exceedingly generous to other musicians--and that he was vain and
shallow and false in many, perhaps most, things. His late-life taking of
orders, for example? According to my author, more theatrical than truly
pious ("What a fine , romantic figure I'll cut in a black cassock").
Waranun Bunjongsat
> he had immense musical gifts, that he was a great innovator, that he was
> exceedingly generous to other musicians--and that he was vain and
> shallow and false in many, perhaps most, things. His late-life taking of
> orders, for example? According to my author, more theatrical than truly
> pious ("What a fine , romantic figure I'll cut in a black cassock").
That's probably a common way of normal people who was born to be
rich. But what Liszt did special from others of the same type as him was
that I think what he did to world's music was grand and tremendous.
So, let's praise him. If he had been exactly the same as other
people of the same type, probably he would have done nothing than "fucking
around".
Thanks,
Waranun,
dcle...@longs.com
run...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> In article <364F88...@silvertone.princeton.edu>,
> miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu wrote:
> > David Schreiber wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sure hard work, perfectionism, is a critical factor in greatness
> > > almost all the time. That explanation, though, leaves some interesting
> > > questions about someone like Mozart, who apparently wrote music about as
> > > easily as a fish swims.
> >
> > This is again an old myth that won't die, so your explanation is
> > perfectly valid also with respect to Mozart. He certainly worked hard,
> > rewrote, started again, worked everything through - lots of hard work.
> >
> > -Margaret
> >
> >
> Valid also with respect to even Haydn, who said that no-one will ever know
> the enormous effort he had put into his work.
>
> -Runski
>
It is also true Bach was an extremely hard worker at times. Early in his
career he assidiously studied ALL the musically styles of his day. However,
the speed at which he could crank out great cantatas is amazing.
On a final note, Bach was quoted as basically saying his achievements where
the result of hard work; anyone with a little talent could do as much if
they applied themselves. I think this is a bit of modesty on his part, but
not that far from the truth.
Fred Goldrich
>...
>On a final note, Bach was quoted as basically saying his achievements where
>the result of hard work; anyone with a little talent could do as much if
>they applied themselves. I think this is a bit of modesty on his part, but
>not that far from the truth.
Why do you feel this way?
It reminds me of a common fantasy among sports fans,
in which people believe that they could be great athletes if
only they were willing to make the same sacrifices and train
as hard as the pros. It seems to me that this argument ig-
nores the plight of so many less-than-great athletes who real-
ly *have* put in an incredible effort, but turned out for one
reason or another not to have what it takes to reach the very
top.
I think it's true that the vast majority of great
athletes, just like the vast majority of great composers and
performers, have applied themselves to an extent that many of
us in the audience cannot begin to imagine, much less repli-
cate. But I also believe that many others have worked just as
hard, but didn't get as far because they lacked the natural
gifts that also contribute to world-class achievements.
-- Fred Goldrich
--
Fred Goldrich
gold...@panix.com
David Schreiber
easily. Of course he studied hard. Of course Haydn studied hard. But
still ... Beethoven and Brahms wrote and re-wrote and re-wrote. They
didn't dash off a concerto in an afternoon or two on the way to a
performance as Mozart did, or write over a hunred symphonies as Haydn
did. I still suspect these are two very different types of composers,
and that some write very easily, relativiely speaking. (Doesn't it even
show in the manuscripts, Beethoven's being full of scratching out and
revisions, Mozart's being neat and perfect? Or are the Mozart
manuscripts merely later drafts than the Beethoven manuscripts?) In the
realm of writing, this difference exists: Bertrand Russell write
beautiful, elegant, compelling prose nearly "off the top of his head,"
and his manuscripts show it, with hardly a false start for a sentence or
a correction. Tolstoy was the opposite.
Wayne Reimer
Thanks. I feel better now.
Wayne
Wayne Reimer
>
> Len Fehskens wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:58:17 -0500, David Schreiber at
> > jarvisciR...@interlog.com wrote
> > >I guess I often have in mind someone like Liszt as a comparison, who
> > >seems to me a composer with great musical gifts but who was
> > >pre-eminently shallow and wanting as a human being.
> >
> > You might want to read a biography of Liszt to correct this wildly
> > erroneous impression of Liszt as a human being.
> >
> he had immense musical gifts, that he was a great innovator, that he was
> exceedingly generous to other musicians--and that he was vain and
> shallow and false in many, perhaps most, things. His late-life taking of
> orders, for example? According to my author, more theatrical than truly
> pious ("What a fine , romantic figure I'll cut in a black cassock").
Take a look at the recent Walker biography, it's a fascinating look at
the man, his contemporaries, and the times in which he lived. It also
pretty much blows up the myth that Liszt's religious beliefs were
anything but sincere. If the bio you read was the one by Ernest Newman,
you probably should treat it as fiction in regard to his portrayal of
Liszt as a person.
Wayne
Margaret Mikulska
> I wondered how much myth might be in that idea of Mozart composing so
> easily.
A great lot. It basically started with a forged letter by "Mozart" to a
baron What's-His-Name, and written by Rochlitz. To this day, innocent
people quote this letter as if it were genuine, even though the forgery
was revealed 150 years ago. That's where "Mozart" writes how he has a
total picture of a work in his memory and "just" wites it down, no
scribbling and scratching out, just a clean copy.
> Of course he studied hard. Of course Haydn studied hard. Butwrites it down
> still ... Beethoven and Brahms wrote and re-wrote and re-wrote. They
> didn't dash off a concerto in an afternoon or two on the way to a
> performance as Mozart did,
Neither did Mozart, generally. Sure, there are examples of works he
wrote really fast - the anecdote about the ov. to Don G. is most likely
true -, but for the most part, he worked hard on his compositions
(especially chamber music seems to have been truly a frutta di una longa
e laboriosa fatica). Several works turned out, as the paper and
handwriting analysis showed, started, abandoned, worked on again, and
finally - sometimes after a few years (yes!) finished. And the sketches
and drafts! No other composer left so many sketches and drafts and
fragments and other bits and pieces from his/her music kitchen.
> or write over a hunred symphonies as Haydn
> did. I still suspect these are two very different types of composers,
> and that some write very easily, relativiely speaking. (Doesn't it even
> show in the manuscripts, Beethoven's being full of scratching out and
> revisions, Mozart's being neat and perfect?
What you usually see of Mozart's manuscripts are "clean copies". They
had to be neat, because copyists had to be able to read them with as few
mistakes as possibles. Have a look at Mozart's sketches and drafts (and
fragments). Sketches and drafts are usually thrown away by composers
once the work is finished and the ideas don't seem to be useful for
another work. But we have a great number of sketches and drafts by
Mozart left, so it's extremely likely that much more existed (in fact,
Constanze Mozart admitted to having thrown away many of them). For each
10 works by Mozart, we have sketches that can be associated with one of
them; and there are a great number of sketches that can't be associated
with any existing, completed work. Moreover, for every four or five
works thatt WAM completed, there is one fragment that he started and
abandoned. Even in his clean copies one can see crossing out and false
starts.
All that was not investigated until fairly recently. The Koechel
catalogue - any edition - contains only some extant fragments, and very
few sketches or drafts. Because of the idealized image of Mozart as an
artist writing effortlessly, the existence of all the evidence to the
contrary was, well, swept under the rug. Maybe not exactly consciously,
but since the idea of Mozart sketching, re-writing, correcting, etc.,
was so alien even to distinguished scholars, nobody really examined the
"imperfect" remnants of his compositional process. Unquestionably, the
pioneer in this field is a young (well, still young) German scholar
Ulrich Konrad, whose monograph "Mozarts Schaffensweise" (1992) is one of
the most important works in Mozart research ever. Very recently, he
transcribed and catalogued Mozart's sketches and drafts (but not yet
fragments), and this has been published as one of the volumes in the
supplementary series of the Neue Mozart Ausgabe. He is also assisting
in the work on The New Koechel/Der neue Koechel, working exactly on
everything that Mozart left unfinished and/or in the form of sketches.
So the investigation of this facet of Mozart's work has barely begun.
Of importance is here also Alan Tyson's research on watermarks and paper
types, because it allowed us to date many works more accurately, and,
more to the point here, to show that the work on several compositions
stretched over several weeks, months, and sometimes years.
All this is in the manuscripts, one just has to know where and how to
look. Myths are extremely resistant to corrections: if you have a
preconceived notion of something, you subconsciously ignore evidence to
the contrary. That, I'm afraid, is what happened in Mozart research.
-Margaret
Waranun Bunjongsat
> wrote really fast - the anecdote about the ov. to Don G. is most likely
> true -,
And German Dances.
> but for the most part, he worked hard on his compositions
> (especially chamber music seems to have been truly a frutta di una longa
> e laboriosa fatica). Several works turned out, as the paper and
> handwriting analysis showed, started, abandoned, worked on again, and
> finally - sometimes after a few years (yes!) finished.
Is it possible that he started work on it 5 minutes and abandoned.
Worked on again for 15 minutes and abandoned for a year and worked on
again for 30 minutes and abondoned for 2 years and worked on again for 3
hours and yes !!!! finished.
> What you usually see of Mozart's manuscripts are "clean copies". They
> had to be neat, because copyists had to be able to read them with as few
> mistakes as possibles.
Then, why others' manuscripts are dirty.
> another work. But we have a great number of sketches and drafts by
> Mozart left, so it's extremely likely that much more existed (in fact,
> Constanze Mozart admitted to having thrown away many of them). For each
It's true that Mozart had many scratches and drafts. But I heard
that he only wrote down the structures and ideas of each pieces. By this
way, he was so productive and could work on many pieces at the same time.
Besides, it made him do not let the idea that passed in to his brain waste
away. Is it true that Mozart's scratches and drafts contained relative few
details compared with others.
> Moreover, for every four or five
> works thatt WAM completed, there is one fragment that he started and
> abandoned.
Only one fragment every four or five years ? Please explain more
on this. What does your fragment mean ?
> All that was not investigated until fairly recently. The Koechel
> catalogue - any edition - contains only some extant fragments, and very
> few sketches or drafts. Because of the idealized image of Mozart as an
Is there any composers' opus number that count scratches and
drafts ?
> Of importance is here also Alan Tyson's research on watermarks and paper
> types, because it allowed us to date many works more accurately, and,
> more to the point here, to show that the work on several compositions
> stretched over several weeks, months, and sometimes years.
But this does not mean that Mozart put a lot of efforts on the
work whick took years to finish. He might have not had time to continue,
because all the time, there was urgent pieces to submit to get money.
Waranun,
Opus47
Er duh uh. God made all composers. God don't make no junk. Composers don't
make no junk.
Seriously, why can't everyone just be happy with the variability in composers.
Beethoven was a great composer. His compositions from what I've heard are
high quality. But no matter how hard you argue he didn't write Liszt's
B-minor sonata. Only Lizst wrote Liszt's B-minor sonata.
Keep what you like and ignore the rest. Why continue to attack composers for
the "trash" they wrote. Maybe if it weren't for the "trash" that they worked
through they might of never gotten to the masterpieces.
Fred
Tang Huyen
have expressed rabid opinions on, say, Wagner, Karajan and Schwarzkopf, and all but
imply that because of their anti-Semitism or alleged Nazi affiliation, they could
not possibly do anything great in music. As an Oriental who does not read a single
note, I listen in rapt admiration to European classical music, and the three named
artists are among my objects of admiration (one other object of my admiration is
German chamber music played by Eastern European groups, and I cannot stand the very
same chamber music played by Anglo-Saxon and Teutonic groups). I hear educated
Western adults say that art is for one to transcend one's limitations, whatever
they are. So an artist, say Wagner, can be as terrible in real life as possible,
and transcend himself in art, here his music, and isn't that wonderful, for him and
for us? Why should there be any consistency in that? Clinton is great in politics
and bad in personal life, so what? By the way, I never feel any hatred,
mean-spiritedness, evil or the like when I listen to Wagner, Karajan and
Schwarzkopf, to name just a few names aften castigated in this news group.
Tang Huyen
HankM219 wrote:
> >I expect Wagner
> >would be in the same camp, although I don't listen to him often.
>
> Here's where it all breaks down. Wagner was a despicable human being, but by
> any fair standard, a "great" composer. Go figure.
>
> Henry Maurer, Cherry Hill, NJ, USA
> hank...@aol.com or hsma...@worldnet.att.net
Roni
> It is also true Bach was an extremely hard worker at times. Early in his
> career he assidiously studied ALL the musically styles of his day. However,
> the speed at which he could crank out great cantatas is amazing.
>
> On a final note, Bach was quoted as basically saying his achievements where
> the result of hard work; anyone with a little talent could do as much if
> they applied themselves. I think this is a bit of modesty on his part, but
> not that far from the truth.
It is true that Bach worked hard, this is evident from his enomous output. Comparing
earlier works to later ones, you can see a definite increase in the skill he acquired
through practise. Although he didn't travel as far as someone like handel, he studied
the works of many composers from lots of places which can also be seen in his music -
French & English suites, Italian concertos, the goldberg vars. and 48 contain pieces in
just about every style of the period.
-Roni
Roberto Maria Avanzi
>
>
> In article <364F88...@silvertone.princeton.edu>,
> miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu wrote:
> > David Schreiber wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sure hard work, perfectionism, is a critical factor in greatness
> > > almost all the time. That explanation, though, leaves some interesting
> > > questions about someone like Mozart, who apparently wrote music about as
> > > easily as a fish swims.
> >
> > This is again an old myth that won't die, so your explanation is
> > perfectly valid also with respect to Mozart. He certainly worked hard,
> > rewrote, started again, worked everything through - lots of hard work.
> >
> > -Margaret
> >
> >
> Valid also with respect to even Haydn, who said that no-one will ever know
> the enormous effort he had put into his work.
In contrast to Brahms which often lamented (or simply reported about)
the hard work a composer has to do in order to produce something valuable.
Roberto
dcle...@longs.com
gold...@panix.com (Fred Goldrich) wrote:
> In article <72s80h$uum$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <dcle...@longs.com> wrote:
> >...
> >the result of hard work; anyone with a little talent could do as much if
> >they applied themselves. I think this is a bit of modesty on his part, but
> >not that far from the truth.
>
Two years ago I learned that I have the ability to write music. This was
surprising considering my age(40). Once the basic idea comes to me the rest
is elaborating on this theme, which is more of a learned method.
>
> It reminds me of a common fantasy among sports fans,
> in which people believe that they could be great athletes if
> only they were willing to make the same sacrifices and train
> as hard as the pros.
I wouldn't equate the physical with the mental abilities. I think we can
expand our mental abilities through the proper training. However, this is
just a hypothisis - I have no empirical data to back this up.
It seems to me that this argument ig-
> nores the plight of so many less-than-great athletes who real-
> ly *have* put in an incredible effort, but turned out for one
> reason or another not to have what it takes to reach the very
> top.
>
> I think it's true that the vast majority of great
> athletes, just like the vast majority of great composers and
> performers, have applied themselves to an extent that many of
> us in the audience cannot begin to imagine, much less repli-
> cate. But I also believe that many others have worked just as
> hard, but didn't get as far because they lacked the natural
> gifts that also contribute to world-class achievements.
>
> -- Fred Goldrich
The question is what is the potential of each individual? For athletic
endeavor I think there are definite limits based on genetics. However, for
mental activities humans seem to have more room to for adaptability - in my
opinion.
Darryl Clemmons
Fred Goldrich
>In article <72sbvn$4...@news1.panix.com>,
> gold...@panix.com (Fred Goldrich) wrote:
>> In article <72s80h$uum$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <dcle...@longs.com> wrote:
>> >...
>> >On a final note, Bach was quoted as basically saying his achievements where
>> >the result of hard work; anyone with a little talent could do as much if
>> >they applied themselves. I think this is a bit of modesty on his part, but
>> >not that far from the truth.
>>
>> Why do you feel this way?
>
>Two years ago I learned that I have the ability to write music. This was
>surprising considering my age(40). Once the basic idea comes to me the rest
>is elaborating on this theme, which is more of a learned method.
>
>>
>> It reminds me of a common fantasy among sports fans,
>> in which people believe that they could be great athletes if
>> only they were willing to make the same sacrifices and train
>> as hard as the pros.
>
>I wouldn't equate the physical with the mental abilities. I think we can
>expand our mental abilities through the proper training. However, this is
>just a hypothisis - I have no empirical data to back this up.
Well, don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of
pushing yourself as far as you can go. It's great
that you started composing as an adult, and nothing
should discourage you from trying to be the finest
composer you can possibly be.
Roni
>
> In article <72sbvn$4...@news1.panix.com>,
> gold...@panix.com (Fred Goldrich) wrote:
> > In article <72s80h$uum$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <dcle...@longs.com> wrote:
> > >...
> > >On a final note, Bach was quoted as basically saying his achievements where
> > >the result of hard work; anyone with a little talent could do as much if
> > >they applied themselves. I think this is a bit of modesty on his part, but
> > >not that far from the truth.
> >
> > Why do you feel this way?
>
> Two years ago I learned that I have the ability to write music. This was
> surprising considering my age(40). Once the basic idea comes to me the rest
> is elaborating on this theme, which is more of a learned method.
>
> >
> > It reminds me of a common fantasy among sports fans,
> > in which people believe that they could be great athletes if
> > only they were willing to make the same sacrifices and train
> > as hard as the pros.
>
> I wouldn't equate the physical with the mental abilities. I think we can
> expand our mental abilities through the proper training. However, this is
> just a hypothisis - I have no empirical data to back this up.
There is quite an obvious difference between the physical and the mental but it
is a valid comparison all the same. In the same way as Maths, one can get
better at Music with practise, no matter how much you do it, there'll be
someone else better than you. Grrr!
> It seems to me that this argument ig-
> > nores the plight of so many less-than-great athletes who real-
> > ly *have* put in an incredible effort, but turned out for one
> > reason or another not to have what it takes to reach the very
> > top.
It's true. Some people just ain't got it
> > I think it's true that the vast majority of great
> > athletes, just like the vast majority of great composers and
> > performers, have applied themselves to an extent that many of
> > us in the audience cannot begin to imagine, much less repli-
> > cate. But I also believe that many others have worked just as
> > hard, but didn't get as far because they lacked the natural
> > gifts that also contribute to world-class achievements.
> >
> > -- Fred Goldrich
A-ha.
> The question is what is the potential of each individual? For athletic
> endeavor I think there are definite limits based on genetics. However, for
> mental activities humans seem to have more room to for adaptability - in my
> opinion.
I don't think so. In my Maths class there were some who no matter how hard they
tried, they just couldn't hack it. On the other hand, there were some who could
just see the problem and solve it straight away.
> Darryl Clemmons
-Roni
Waranun Bunjongsat
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Roberto Maria Avanzi wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Waranun Bunjongsat wrote:
>
> Music is a product of human imagination, and is something that evolves.
Agree.
> Therefore it will be driven by the few that are creative and not by the
> "ideas" of "tastes" of the "mass"...
Is this necessary ? What's wrong with ideas of tastes of the mass
?
Thanks,
Waranun,
Waranun Bunjongsat
> > Therefore it will be driven by the few that are creative and not by the
> > "ideas" of "tastes" of the "mass"...
>
> Is this necessary ? What's wrong with ideas of tastes of the mass
> ?
I have correction. I didn't get what "ideas" of "tastes" of the
"mass" meant at that time. I do agree that if a composer follow ideas of
*"tastes"* of the mass. It is called music for business purpose. However,
"mass" or people do have abstraction and imagination in their minds too
.... So, it does not mean that there is only way to compose music which
have interaction, understanding and sharing between composers and the mass
that is, music for business purpose is not the only way to compose music
by taking people's mind into consideration.
I think the great composers in the next century have to be the
ones who discover the way to compose supreme artistical music which mass
people in this modern world can appreciate without compromising the
artistical value. Whoever can find out how to do this, will be one of the
greatest composers in musical history. But, of course, it will not be me.
'cause my musical gift is as little as the ability of a cow to walk with
two legs.
Regards,
Waranun,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Waranun,
>
>
>
Samuel Vriezen
>> Therefore it will be driven by the few that are creative and not by the
>> "ideas" of "tastes" of the "mass"...
>
> Is this necessary ? What's wrong with ideas of tastes of the mass
>?
>
Masses don't initiate. It's not part of their physiology. Otherwise
masses are OK, if you stay critical, I know because I'm in them myself
every now and then.
Samuel
Samuel Vriezen
> I think the great composers in the next century have to be the
>ones who discover the way to compose supreme artistical music which mass
>people in this modern world can appreciate without compromising the
>artistical value. Whoever can find out how to do this, will be one of the
>greatest composers in musical history.
This would be a feat, and it would take someone great at something to
accomplish it. But do not take it as the definition of compositional
greatness in the 21st century lest you rule out some possible
interesting developments.
Samuel
Rafael
>ones who discover the way to compose supreme artistical music which mass
>people in this modern world can appreciate without compromising the
>artistical value. Whoever can find out how to do this, will be one of the
>greatest composers in musical history.
Guillermo Venegas did it.
Hear his music here:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/otsys/gvl.htm
Rafael
Waranun Bunjongsat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > Therefore it will be driven by the few that are creative and not by the
> > > "ideas" of "tastes" of the "mass"...
> >
> > Is this necessary ? What's wrong with ideas of tastes of the mass
> > ?
>
> I have correction. I didn't get what "ideas" of "tastes" of the
> "mass" meant at that time. I do agree that if a composer follow ideas of
> *"tastes"* of the mass. It is called music for business purpose. However,
> "mass" or people do have abstraction and imagination in their minds too
> .... So, it does not mean that there is only way to compose music which
> have interaction, understanding and sharing between composers and the mass
> that is, music for business purpose is not the only way to compose music
> by taking people's mind into consideration.
>
> I think the great composers in the next century have to be the
> ones who discover the way to compose supreme artistical music which mass
> people in this modern world can appreciate without compromising the
> artistical value. Whoever can find out how to do this, will be one of the
Waranun Bunjongsat
> greatness in the 21st century lest you rule out some possible
> interesting developments.
Agree. I could only say "one" of the greatests in the next
century.
Waranun,
>
> Samuel
>
>
Roberto Maria Avanzi
> Hi Roberto,
>
> On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Roberto Maria Avanzi wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Waranun Bunjongsat wrote:
> >
> > Music is a product of human imagination, and is something that evolves.
>
> Agree.
>
> > Therefore it will be driven by the few that are creative and not by the
> > "ideas" of "tastes" of the "mass"...
>
> Is this necessary ? What's wrong with ideas of tastes of the mass ?
Nothing wrong, but this will produce either pop music or copies of the
music of the past.
I was talking about new art music (whatever it means of course), and not
about pop composers or manierism (spelling?).
Yesterday I have been in Cologne, and the "ensemble modern Orchestra"
played a piece of Lachenmann "Schwankungen am Rand", a rather interesting
work, but in my opinion sloppily played (in particular one of the two
percussionists was too weak to hold her instrument, a large steel sheet
with a handle played also with a violin bow on the edge) ...
... and then a Goebbels bestiality called "WALDEN", something which offends
the memory and the works of Thoreau covering them with piles and piles of
shit. Some call it art. I called it a fart.
Roberto
_/_/ Roberto Maria Avanzi
/_/ Institut für Experimentelle Mathematik / Universität GHS Essen
_/ Ellernstraße 29 / 45326 Essen / Germany
/ Phone: ++49-201-183-7637 Fax: ++49-201-183-7668
Roberto Maria Avanzi
> Waranun Bunjongsat <bunj...@grace.CS.ORST.EDU>:
>
> > I think the great composers in the next century have to be the
> >ones who discover the way to compose supreme artistical music which mass
> >people in this modern world can appreciate without compromising the
> >artistical value. Whoever can find out how to do this, will be one of the
> >greatest composers in musical history.
>
> This would be a feat, and it would take someone great at something to
> accomplish it.
I would be rather surprised... but the future has not yet been written,
so even what I think impossible might happen.
Len Fehskens
bunj...@grace.CS.ORST.EDU wrote
> I don't love Liszt's music at all. Because I found no soul inside.
No "soul" in the B minor sonata? In the Benediction du Gott dans la
Solitude? In the Faust Symphony?
No accounting for taste...
len.
Waranun Bunjongsat
> On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:29:23 -0800, Waranun Bunjongsat at
> bunj...@grace.CS.ORST.EDU wrote
>
> > I don't love Liszt's music at all. Because I found no soul inside.
>
> No "soul" in the B minor sonata?
That day, Lizst woke up and thought himself that he was Mozart.
Waranun,
Alexander Damyanovich
Waranun Bunjongsat wrote in message ...
>> > I don't love Liszt's music at all. Because I found no soul inside.
>
>> No "soul" in the B minor sonata?
>
> That day, Lizst woke up and thought himself that he was Mozart.
>
Excuse me, but how about his oratorio "Christus?" It strikes me as having
lots of soul, even if a few of its movements are not as successful as the
rest.